-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
Magdala As We Now Know It
Of recent and current archaeological excavations, those
atMagdala on theSea of Galilee are among themost important for the
study of Jesus and theGospels. But most New Testament scholars
probably know little aboutthem beyond what they may have seen
reported in the popular media.1
The aim of this article is both to summarize the results of the
past decadeof excavations at the site and also to provide some
interpretation and con-text for understanding them. The title of
the article indicates both that wedo know a great deal more about
Magdala than we did ten years ago, butalso that what we can say
aboutMagdala at this stage has to be provisional.Not only does
excavation continue, but also the results of excavation
needcontinuing study and interpretation.
The present authors agree with the scholarly consensus about the
iden-tification of the site and the various names of ancient
Magdala. Rabbinicliterature refers to this settlement both by the
short Aramaic name Mag-dala and by the fuller Aramaic names Migdal
S
abaayya and (only once)
Migdal Nunayya. These names are clearly used interchangeably for
thesame place, which was known commonly as Magdala (the tower)
butneeded the fuller names (the tower of the dyers or the tower of
thefish) to distinguish it from other settlements that were also
named aftertheir towers. In Greek and Latin literature, including
Josephus, thesame settlement is knownby theGreek nameTaricheae
(variously spelled,but most often Taqiwaiai). The consensus on
these points has been chal-lenged,2 but this is not the place to
defend it.3
1 They were briefly reported in this journal by J.K. Zangenberg,
Archaeological Newsfrom the Galilee: Tiberias, Magdala and Rural
Galilee, EC 1 (2010), 471484, here475477.
2 N. Kokkinos, The Location of Tarichaea: North or South of
Tiberius? PEQ 142 (2010),723; J. Taylor, Missing Magdala and the
Name of Mary Magdalene, PEQ 146 (2014),209223.
3 See S.De Luca andA. Lena, Magdala, inGalilee in the Late
SecondTemple andMishnaicPeriods, 100BCE200CE, vol.
2,TheArchaeological Record ofGalileanCities, Towns, andVillages
(ed. D. Fiensy and J.R. Strange;Minneapolis, forthcoming). Also,
for the rabbin-
Early Christianity 6 (2015), 91118ISSN 1868-7032
DOI 10.1628/186870315X14249562918118 2015 Mohr Siebeck
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
1. History of Excavations
It is important to realise that the excavations in the southern
and thenorthern parts of the site ofMagdala have been conducted
independently,at different times and under different institutional
auspices (see fig. 2). Asa result much of what has so far been
published aboutMagdala focuses ononly one or other of the areas of
excavation. But now that preliminary re-ports of all the major
excavations are available, the time is ripe to begin tobring the
results together and to attempt to envisage ancientMagdala as
awhole.
The southern part of the site is owned by the Franciscan Custody
of theHoly Land (Custodia Terrae Sanctae). Extensive excavations in
this areahave been conducted on behalf of the Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum(SBF) of Jerusalem, first in the 1970s by Virgilio
Corbo and Stanislao Lof-freda, then in the period 2006 to 2012 by
StefanoDe Luca, who is Directorof theMagdala Project. The northern
part of the site was purchased in sev-eral stages in the period
2004 to 2009 by the Legionaries of Christ, with theintention of
establishing a pilgrimage centre to be known as the MagdalaCenter.
As was widely reported at the time, in 2009 work on the
construc-tion of the hotel for the Center brought to light a
first-century synagogue.This led to the excavation of the synagogue
and adjacent areas byDinaAv-shalom-Gorni andArfanNajjar on behalf
of the Israel AntiquitiesAuthor-ity (IAA). The IAA is now working
in conjunction with the Proyecto Ar-queolgico Magdala of the
Mexican university Universidad AnhuacMxico (UNAM). This project is
led by Marcela Zapata-Meza, who hasexcavated several areas in the
period since 2010. The IAA/Mexican exca-vations are ongoing.4
In addition to these major excavations of Magdala, there have
been afew small trial and salvage excavations in various other
places on the site.
More technical detail about the archaeological information in
this ar-ticle can be found in the various excavation reports listed
in the Bibliog-raphy below.
ic literature, see R. Bauckham, Magdala in Rabbinic Literaure,
and for Taricheae, seeM.H. Jensen, Magdala/Taricheae and the
JewishRevolt, both inMagdala, JewishCity ofFish (ed. M. Aviam, R.
Bauckham, and S. De Luca; Waco, Tex. , forthcoming, 2016).
4 Since the opening of the Magdala Center in May 2014, the
excavations in the northernpart ofMagdala have been open to the
public in the form of an Archaeological Park. Theexcavations in the
Franciscan area are currently inaccessible, though there are plans
toopen them to the public.
92 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
Fig. 1 Aerial view of the landscape of Magdala, lookingwest to
the Arbel cliff and the passof Wadi Hamam, with the major
excavations. On the left side, within the fenced areabelonging to
the Custody of the Holy Land, are the excavations carried out in
the 70s andby the Magdala Project on behalf of the Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum (SBF). In thecenter, in the background, are the Areas
A and B excavated by the Universidad AnhuacMxico Sur (UNAM). On the
right side, behind the white fence, the Area C with thesynagogue
excavated by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) (by courtesy of
S. De Luca, Magdala Project, photo SkyView, 2010).
Magdala As We Now Know It 93
stefanocopyright
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
Fig. 2 Archaeological plan from joined maps of the main
excavations at Magdala. It in-cludes the IAAs Areas AD uncovered by
D. Avshalom-Gorni and A. Najjar (by courtesy ofIAA Map and Survey
Dept. , 2012); Areas AE exposed by the University Anhuac MxicoSur
(UNAM) led byM. Zapata-Meza (by coutesy ofM. Zapata-Meza, 2012);
and theMagdalaProject updated plan of the excavations directed by
S. De Luca, in which the buildingexcavated in the 70s on behalf of
the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (SBF) are also in-cluded (by
courtesy of S. De Luca and A. Ricci, Magdala Project, 2013). The
placing of themaps into a geo-referred grid (New Israel Grid) was
done by S. De Luca and A. Ricci( Magdala Project, 2014).
94 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
stefanocopyright
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
2. Outline History of Magdala/Taricheae
There was some kind of settlement on the site from as early as
the thirdcentury BCE, but nothing is known about it. The foundation
of the cityof Magdala/Taricheae must be related to the Hasmonean
conquest ofthe area in the second century BCE. From the literary
sources we knowthat it was a large and significant settlement in
the middle of the first cen-tury BCE, when it supported the
Hasmonean Aristobulus in alliance withthe Parthians against Rome
and was taken by the Roman army. The ar-chaeology shows that
Magdala flourished in the Early Roman period,from which much of the
expansion of the city to the north probablydates. It was capital of
a toparchy in eastern Galilee and remained soeven after the
creation of the new city of Tiberias nearby (ca. 19 CE).
Itseconomicprosperitymust have beenbased on its dominance of the
fishingindustry on the lake of Galilee and its key position on
trading routes.
During the First Revolt, Josephus, as governor of Galilee, made
Mag-dala/Taricheae his headquarters. In 67 Tituss army took the
city and de-featedmany of the rebels who had gathered in the city
in a bloody battle onthe lake nearby. The city does not seem to
have suffered much physicaldamage at this time, though the
population was reduced. Whether itwas involved in the SecondRevolt
is debatable, but in any case there is con-tinuity of habitation
over much of the site down to the fourth century,when the
earthquake of 363 ruinedMagdala along with other settlementsacross
the region. Later a Byzantinemonastery and a shrine
ofMaryMag-dalene were established and a new harbor and fishing
facilities are evi-dence of renewed use of the site.5
3. Urban Plan
Magdalawas a planned city, built to a plan that goes back to
itsHasmoneanfoundation. The excavations in the southern part of the
site have revealedthat the city streets were laid out on an
orthogonal pattern, consisting ofnorth-south andwest-east roads
intersecting at right angles. This is the so-called Hippodamian
grid, characteristic of Hellenistic and Roman cities,but not of
cities in the Near East prior to the influence of Hellenism.
The
5 For an excellent account of Magdala based on the literary
sources and the earlier exca-vations, see U. Leibner, Settlement
andHistory in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Gal-ilee (TSAJ 127;
Tbingen, 2009), 214237.
Magdala As We Now Know It 95
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
orthogonal plan of Magdala appears to go back to the foundation
of thecity in the Hasmonean period, making it one of the earliest
examples ofHellenistic-style urban planning in Jewish Galilee. It
shows that Magdala
Fig. 3 Excavation areas of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum
(SBF) (detail of fig. 2).
96 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
stefanocopyright
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
was intended from the beginning to be a city in theHellenistic
style, a Jew-ish counterpart to the Gentile cities of the Decapolis
to the south-east andthe Huleh valley to the north.
In the harbor area, within the Franciscan compound (see fig. 3),
there isa broad, paved road running north-south (the Cardo Maximus)
(V1V2)and a narrower, paved street running east-west (a Decumanus)
(V3). Theorthogonal pattern is also found in the residential area
that was partiallyexcavated at some distance to the west of the
Franciscan compound (SBFAreaH2, V5).Moreover, the streets in the
northern area (see fig. 4), datingfrom the Early Roman period, also
conform to a roughly orthogonal pat-tern (IAA Area C; UNAM Areas A,
B, C, E).
4. Harbors and Anchorages
Already in the Hasmonean period Magdala had an impressive quay.
Ad-joining the quay therewas also amassive tower,with
casematewalls,whichstooduntil the renovationof theport in themiddle
of the first century CE. Itmay be the feature that gave the city
its Aramaic name (Magdala, thetower), though another possibility is
that the tower in this case wasthe towering cliff of Mount Arbel
immediately behind the city. The con-tinuing importance of the port
is apparent from the fact that the quay wasreplaced and extended in
the early Roman period.
According to Josephus, in 67 CE the households ofMagdala were
able tosupply himwith a fleet of 230 boats (B.J. 2.635; cf.Vita
163),most of whichwould have been small boats of the kind that were
standard on the lake,requiring a crew of five (four rowers and a
steersman). Although Josephushabitually exaggerates numbers, in the
context of this story it would nothave been in his interests to
exaggerate, and so we should probably takethe number seriously. He
describes the boats as all the boats that hecould find on the lake
(B.J. 2.635), but this cannot mean that he collectedthem from
places at any great distance from Magdala. Not only was hecarefully
keeping his plans secret, but he also had to assemble the fleetand
sail it to Magdala within a single day (B.J. 2.634). The number
mayseem very large, but it indicates the exceptional extent to
which the peopleofMagdalawere dependent on the lake.Nodoubt
themajority of the boatswere fishing boats, but others will have
been used for transport and trade.Boats that were used only
seasonally for fishing could be put to other usesat other
times.What is clear is that Magdala dominated the fishing indus-try
on the lake.
Magdala As We Now Know It 97
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
However, we do not have to suppose that all these boatsmade use
of theharbor we have just described. At least by the time of
Josephus, the Mag-dalene fishing industry seems to have been
locatedmainly in the northernarea,where a road running beside the
lake has beenuncovered in twoplac-es (IAA Area A, UNAMArea D, see
fig. 5). In the more northerly of theseplaces (IAA Area A) a wide
stone wall that probably served as a quay wasfoundbeside a large
building thatmayhave served as a storeroom, perhapsin connection
with the fish products for which Magdala was famous (seebelow). We
should probably imagine the long lakeside front of Magdalalooking
something like amodernmarina, with boats tethered or anchoredall
along the shore. Even the lakeside north of the urban area,
extendingtowards modern Ginnosar, may have supplied mooring places.
The fa-mous Ginnosar boat or Kinneret boat (also popularly known as
theJesus boat) was discovered just off shore in this area. Since
this mererump of a boat seems to be what was left when anything
that could be re-used had been stripped from it, it has been
plausibly argued that there was
Fig. 4 Excavation areas of the Universidad Anhuac Mxico (UNAM)
and the IsraelAntiquities Authority (IAA) (detail of fig. 2).
98 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
stefanocopyright
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
a boatyard on the shore, where boats were made and repaired.6
Josephusimplies there was such a boatyard in the vicinity (B.J.
3.505).
Turning our attention once again to the splendidly built harbor
in thesouth, in both its Hasmonean andHerodian phases it is closely
connectedwith the public buildings: the quadriporticus (a square
courtyardwith col-onnades) (SBFArea F, see fig. 3) and the baths. A
flight of steps leads fromthe quay to the quadriporticus. In cities
of theHellenistic world there wereoften public baths situated near
harbors, where travellers could take ad-vantage of them along with
residents. The complex of harbor, quadripor-ticus and baths in
Magdala seems designed as the most public face of thecity,more for
the benefit ofmerchants and distinguished travellers, as wellas the
wealthier citizens, rather than for local fishermen. Magdala
wouldbe a place to stop on the branch of theViaMaris that ran
beside the lake atthis point and also the port of embarkation for
travelling across the lake toKursi (whence a major road ran to the
east) and the Decapolis cities ofHippos and Gadara (both of which
had harbors on the lake). Some ofMagdalas importance in these
respects was doubtless stolen by Tiberiasfrom the 20s onwards,
which may account for the unfriendly rivalry be-tween the two
cities that is reflected in Josephus narratives of his time inthat
area during the Jewish War.
6 J.R. Steffy, The Boat: A Preliminary Study of Its
Construction, in The Sea of GalileeBoat: A 2000 Year Old Discovery
from the Sea of Legends (ed. S. Waschmann; 2nd ed.;Cambridge,
Mass., 2000), 2948, here 47.
Fig. 5 Excavation areas of the Universidad Anhuac Mxico (UNAM)
and the IsraelAntiquities Authority (IAA) (detail of fig. 2).
Magdala As We Now Know It 99
stefanocopyright
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
An important result of the excavation of the port and the
discovery ofthe mooring stones is that we now know the water level
of the lake of Gal-ilee in the Hasmonean and early Roman periods.
The level has fluctuatedgreatly over the centuries, but at this
time, apparently owing to high rain-fall, the level was around
209meters below sea level, the highest level in thehistory of the
lake. This has implications for dating other harbors aroundthe
lake.MendelNun identified a considerable number of ancient
harborsaround the lake and it has been generally assumed that they
were used inthe first century CE.7Hismap of the lake showing these
anchorages iswide-ly known.However, it nowappears thatmost of these
harbor structures areat too low a level to have been built and used
in the early Roman period.8
They must be ascribed to the Byzantine period when the level of
the lakewas lower. The only exception to this is the harbor at
Kursi, which by thiscriterion appears contemporarywith
theHasmonean/earlyRomanport atMagdala. Of course, the discovery
that most of the harbors discovered byNun aremuch later than this
period does notmean that therewere no har-bors at these places in
the early Romanperiod, only thatwe donot have theevidence. It is
possible that, as the water level dropped, boulders that hadformed
harbors in the early Roman period were moved further down theshore
to their present position.
5. Baths and Palaestra
Close to the port is a large thermal complex (SBFAreas C, D, E,
see fig. 3),the earliest stage of which goes back, like the port
itself, to theHasmoneanperiod. Public bathswere a universal feature
ofHellenistic cities and so it isnot surprising that Magdala, if it
were founded as a Jewish city in Hellen-istic style, should have
had public baths. However, it is notable that, al-though
theHasmonean rulers hadHellenistic-style baths within their
pal-aces at Jericho,9 Magdalas are the only known public baths in
Jewish Pal-estine in the Hasmonean period apart from one such
facility built withinthe palace gardensbut outside thepalaces in
Jericho in the lateHasmonean
7 M. Nun, Sea of Galilee: Newly Discovered Harbours From New
Testament Days (3rd ed.;Kibbutz Ein Gev, 1992).
8 This includes the harbor at Magdala that was identified by
Nun. This harbor which islocated further to the east than the newly
discovered structures was contemporarywiththe Byzantine monastery
at Magdala.
9 E.Regev,TheHasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity (JAJSup
10;Gttingen, 2013),251253.
100 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
period.10 If the baths in the royal palaces attest only a
private adoption oftheHellenistic culture of bathing for pleasure
and health on the part of theHasmonean rulers, the baths ofMagdala
represent amore public accultur-ation of Jewish city culture to
Hellenistic ways, for baths brought withthem the culture of
communal relaxation and recreational exercise forwhich they existed
in the Hellenistic world. The Hasmoneans did not in-troduce them
in, for example, Jerusalem, where cultural conservatismmight still
have made them unwelcome, but in the new city they foundedthey were
probably able to exercise a free hand. As far as Hellenistic
andRoman baths within Jewish society are concerned, this was a
pioneeringmove that was later followed by the widespread acceptance
of baths as anormal feature of Jewish urban life in Palestine, as
it evidently was inthe rabbinic period.11
Unlike Roman baths, Greek baths (balaneia) did not have warm
poolswith underfloor heating, though the heating of rooms and
bathtubs withfurnaces had become common by this period.12 The
Hasmonean baths atMagdala had both oval bathtubs and stepped pools
(as did theHasmoneanpalaces). The square building D1 (SBFArea D,
see fig. 3) that, when firstexcavated in the 1970s, was said to
have been a synagogue, at least in onephase of its use, has nowbeen
shown to be a fountain house of a type foundelsewhere in the
Hellenistic world.13
What theRomans gave to ancient bath culturewas the roomheatedby
ahypocaust (the caldarium) and the organization of rooms and pools
into aclear circuit that visitors to the baths would follow. Both
these develop-ments are to be seen in the baths at Magdala as they
were remodelledin the earlyRomanperiod. The rathermeagre remains of
frescoes andmo-saics suggest that the whole complex was lavishly
decorated. Of course,there were elaborate water works. The baths
continued in use into thelate Roman period, when they were again
renovated and enlarged. A no-table feature of this later
development is a communal latrine, something
10 Regev, Hasmoneans (see n. 9), 252.11 Y.Z. Eliav, Bathhouses
as Places of Social and Cultural Interaction, in The Oxford
Handbook of Jewish Daily Life in Roman Palestine (ed. C. Hezser;
Oxford, 2010),605622. For other public bathhouses in Jewish
settlements in the early Roman period,seeY.Z.Eliav, TheRomanBaths
as a Jewish Institution:AnotherLook at theEncounterBetween Judaism
and the Greco-Roman Culture, JSJ 31 (2000), 416454, here
452453.
12 F. Yegl, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity (New York,
1992), 21, 23.13 R. Bonnie and J. Richard, Building D1 at Magdala
Revisited in the Light of Public-
Fountain Architecture in the Late-Hellenistic East, IEJ 62
(2012), 7188.
Magdala As We Now Know It 101
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
characteristic of Roman usage that was generally not adopted in
the NearEast.14
Adjoining the baths is a quadriporticus (SBFArea F, see fig. 3)
a largesquare courtyard with colonnaded porticos along all four
sides. This wasnot, as Corbo, who excavated it in the 1970s,
thought, a market. Its designand its connection with the baths (one
of the main entrances to the bathswas from the quadriporticus)
leave little doubt that it was a palaestra anarea for recreational
exercise. The Greek baths had evolved from the con-junction of the
palaestra of the classical Greek gymnasium, where youngmen engaged
in strenuous competitive athletics, with the hot bath (un-known to
the gymnasia of an earlier period). So a palaestra becamepart of
the standard design of bathing complexes across the Greco-Roman
world.15 Exercise was to precede bathing. Exercise in the
palaestrawas integral to the benefits of the baths as medical
opinion in the Greco-Roman world understood them. Exercise was no
less part of the ritual of avisit to Roman baths than it was in the
case of Hellenistic baths. However,this does not mean that most
people engaged in the strenuous athletics ofthe classical Greek
gymnasium. The baths were far too popular with peo-ple of all ages
and ranks of society for that to be the case, and in
factmedicalauthorities generally recommended gentle, rather than
strenuous exer-cise.16 In Roman bathing establishments, recreations
such as ball gameswere a common activity in the palaestra.17
The Greek tradition of nudity while exercising was continued in
theHellenistic East, but the Romans themselves were less happy with
nudityand donned light costumes for exercise.18 Some even wore some
kind ofbathing costume,19 although most ancient peoples, whatever
they feltabout nudity in other contexts, thought it was necessary
and appropriatein or near water. In the rabbinic period the rabbis
seem to have had noproblem about that.20 But whether the Jewish
citizens of Magdala exer-cised naked in the palaestra we do not
know. It is certainly possible
14 According to W. Ball, Rome in the East: The Transformation of
an Empire (London,2000), 304, baths in the Roman East never
included communal public lavatories.This probably just reflected a
difference in attitude, rather than cleanliness: in theEast the
actwas a very private one, but in theWest it seems to havebeen
farmore social.
15 There are many examples in Yegl, Baths (see n. 12).16 Yegl,
Baths (see n. 12), 35, 37.17 Yegl, Baths (see n. 12), 3537.18 Yegl,
Baths (see n. 12), 3435.19 Yegl, Baths (see n. 12), 35. For
possible Jewish equivalents in rabbinic literature, Eliav,
Roman Baths (see n. 11), 446.20 Eliav, Bathhouses (see n. 11),
616617.
102 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
that Jewish sensibilities led people to do as theRomans did.Nor
is it easy totell whether men and women exercised and bathed
together. A commonpractice was for baths to have different times
for men and for women,something that the archaeological record is
not likely to reveal. Butthere is a section of the baths where the
objects collected are mainlythose used by women, perhaps indicating
a separate section for women.
One of the best known discoveries at Magdala is the floor mosaic
thatdepicts a boat, a kantharos, a fish andother objectswhose
identity has beendisputed (see fig. 6)21 It dates from the first
century CE and was found in aroom (C6) originally thought to belong
to an urban villa. Consequentlysome attempts to interpret the
mosaic have assumed that it graced thehouse of a wealthyMagdalene
and was intended to symbolize key charac-teristics of the city,
especially its fishing industry. So far as can be gatheredfrom the
remains of the Kinneret boat it bore some resemblance to theboat in
the mosaic, and those who reconstructed the Kinneret boat reliedto
some extent on the assumption that the boat in themosaic
intentionallydepicts the kind of boat that was in use on the
lake.
However, further excavation has made it clear that the mosaic
adorneda floor in the baths, and this was the clue to a
reevaluation of themosaic ascomposed ofmotifs appropriate to such a
setting. The fish is not a speciesof fish to be found in the lake
of Galilee, but a dolphin. Mosaics in bathsoften evoked a maritime
setting, to which both the dolphin and the boatbelong. (This
doesnot exclude thepossibility that the craftsmenwhomadethe mosaic
picked from their pattern-book the type of boat that most
re-sembled the boats familiar in Magdala.) The objects displayed
along theupper section of the design are all objects used in
exercise and bathing:two strigils (the tools used to scrape oil,
dirt and perspiration from thebody), suspended in a holder along
with an aryballos (a vessel containingoil) ; a discus; and a pair
of halteres (weights used for the long jump or forweight training).
The kantharosmay allude to the drinking of wine in thebaths.
Finally, the twowordGreek inscription (JAI SU) is a known
formula(found, for example, in severalmosaics atAntioch)
thatmayhave either an
21 For earlier interpretations of the iconography, see A. Raban,
The Boat from MigdalNunia and the Anchorages of the Sea of Galilee
from the Time of Jesus, InternationalJournal of Nautical
Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 17 (1988), 311329; R.Reich,
A Note on the Roman Mosaic at Magdala on the Sea of Galilee, LASBF
41(1991), 455458.
Magdala As We Now Know It 103
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
apotropaic function (perhaps against the demons thought to lurk
in baths)or a welcoming function (or both).22
The various motifs can mostly be paralleled elsewhere, but the
partic-ular combination is unique to this mosaic. They combine to
evoke thepleasures of the palaestra and the baths, expressed in a
way that strongly
Fig. 6 The central panel (emblema) of themosaic floor in C6
(SBFArea C), after restoration,featuring in the lower part a
Mediterranean vessel, a dolphin, a kantharos, and, in theupper
part, a pair of tied-up strigils with an aryballos, a disk for
throwing, and a couple ofhalteres for long-jump (by courtesy of S.
De Luca, Magdala Project, 2009).
22 This is a brief summary of the discussion in S. De Luca and
A. Lena, TheMosaic of theThermal Bath Complex of Magdala
Reconsidered: Archaeological Context, Epigraphyand Iconography, in
Knowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological and Historical Essay inHonour
of Leah Di Segni (ed G.C. Bottini, L.D. Chrupcaa and J. Patrich;
SBF CollectioMaior 54; Milan, 2014), 133.
104 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
stefanocopyright
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
associates those pleasures with Hellenistic culture. Regardless
of howmany people who used these baths actually threw a discus or
competedin the long jump, the depiction of these objects suggests
the athletic idealsof the Greeks.
However, these baths are by no means indistinguishable from
bathsthroughout theHellenistic East. There are specially
Palestinian and Jewishfeatures, such as the stepped pools (which
either imitate the standard de-sign of miqvaot or conform to a
local design that was adopted both forbathing pools and for ritual
pools). Stepped pools are not unique tobaths in Palestine, but they
aremuchmore common there than elsewhere.This could be considered an
instance of Warwick Balls thesis about theNear East generally: that
local traditions remained very strong, even in ar-chitecture,
beneath a veneer of Romanization.23
Baths throughout the Greco-Roman world were abundantly
furnishedwith statues, but there is no trace of statues at
Magdala.24 Moreover, themosaics are limited to abstract designs and
inanimate objects withthe exception of the dolphin whereas bath
mosaics elsewhere typicallyfeature people and gods in connection
with such objects. Jewish interpre-tation of the prohibition of
images could be more or less strict, but in thelate Second Temple
period Palestinian Jews seem to have been agreed thatboth
three-dimensional statues and any representations of the
humanform25 were too close to idolatry and unacceptable.26 For
those who com-missioned the mosaic, no doubt the dolphin did not
seem a plausible ob-ject of worship.27 On the spectrum of Jewish
interpretation of the prohi-bition of images it represents a rather
minor concession.28 Even in the
23 Ball, Rome in the East (see n. 14), esp. ch. 7. For parallel
observations about Romaniza-tion in first-century Galilee, see B.W.
Root, First Century Galilee: A Fresh Examinationof the Sources
(WUNT2/387; Tbingen, 2014), 131, and the literature towhich he
refersin n. 89.
24 Eliav, Roman Baths (see n. 11), 430438, argues that in the
rabbinic period too therewere Jewish bathhouseswithout statues,
though even some rabbis did not see the statuesas a reason for not
using baths.
25 There is one instance fromMagdala of the representation of a
human face. It occurs ononeof four fragments of a basalt
frieze,whichwere reused in theByzantineperiod.Theiroriginal
position is unknown. Within a swastika is the head of a man wearing
a pileus.See S. De Luca, La Citt-Ellenistico-Romano di
Magdala/Tarichaeae: Gli Scavi delMagdala Project 2007 e 2008:
Relazione Preliminare e Prospettive di Indagine,LASBF 49 (2009),
343562, here 452 and fig. 136.
26 This was evidently less of a consensus after the Second
Temple period. Galilean syna-gogue mosaics of later periods portray
humans and animals without restraint.
27 Human figures and dolphins appear on some discus oil lamps
found in the baths.28 The situation is similar in the (better
preserved) baths of theHasmonean andHerodian
palaces, whereD.B. Small, Late Hellenistic Baths in Palestine,
BASOR 265 (1987), 59
Magdala As We Now Know It 105
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
houses of the priestly aristocracy in Jerusalem there were
decorative rep-resentations of birds and fish.29
The baths are important as an instance of Hellenization and
Romani-zation that goes beyond Greek language or Roman architecture
in that itentails the adoption of a whole dimension of everyday
life that had noprecedent in traditional Jewish culture but was
universal in the urban cul-tures of the Greco-Roman world. At the
same time it was adapted.30 ForPalestinian Jews the life of
theGreco-Roman cities had acceptable and un-acceptable faces. This
is reflected more generally at Magdala, which hadbaths, a palaestra
and a hippodrome, but no theatre or odeon (so far aswe know), and
nonymphaeum (the fountain-house performs the functionof a public
fountain, but presumably without representations of pagangods).
6. Synagogue
Most recent publicity about excavations at Magdala has been
connectedwith the discovery of the synagogue on the property of
theMagdalaCenterin 2009 (IAA Area C, see fig. 4). It is very
significant since it is the onlysynagogue of the pre-70 period
within Galilee that has been discoveredand excavated so far. From
the design of the building there can be nodoubt that it was a
synagogue.31 It resembles the synagogue at Gamla(also pre-70),
though the latter is considerably larger. The Magdala syna-gogue
has a large, narrow vestibule, which may have been used as a
studyroom (bet midrash), amain hall, and a small room, probably
used for stor-ing the Torah scrolls. The main hall has a raised
corridor around all foursides, aroundwhich there is a continuous
stone bench. The corridor is de-limited on its inner side by a
stone framework that might also have been
74, here 65, notes only one representation of an animal: an
aquatic bird in a wall dec-oration.
29 Note also the piece of a stone vessel with the inscription
C5LK (sacrifice) and two birdsroughly sketched on it (M. Ben-Dov,
In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of An-cient Jerusalem
[trans. I. Friedman; New York, 1985], 159160; Corpus
inscriptionumIudaeae/Palestinae no. 8). It must have been part of
the system for offering sacrifices inthe Temple.
30 Y. Eliav calls this filtered absorption or controlled
incorporation (Bathhouses [seen. 11], 609; cf. id., Roman Baths
[see n. 11], 426427).
31 D.B. Binder, TheMystery of theMagdala Stone, inACity Set on
aHill : Essays inHonorof James F. Strange (ed.
D.A.Warner;MountainHome, Ark., 2014), 1748, here 2022,argues that
it fulfils several criteria for identification as a synagogue.
106 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
used as a bench. It is suggested that therewere six columns in
themainhall,supporting the roof, though only some fragments of
columns were found.The walls and the columns were covered with
brightly colored frescoes.There are sections of a floor mosaic
(consisting of rosettes and a swastikameander pattern) in the
corridor, as well as, elsewhere in the corridor, thefoundation for
a mosaic, composed of small stones. There is also a floormosaic in
the small room, whose walls were also decorated with
colorfulfrescoes.
The excavators, Dina Avshalom-Gorni and ArfanNajjar, identify
threeconstruction phases of the building. In the earliest phase,
dated to themid-dle of the first century BCE, it was probably not
used as a synagogue. Theydo not date the second phase, even though
this would be crucial for thosewho confidently claim that Jesus
must have preached in this synagogue.The third phase was the
renovation work in which the floor mosaic inthe corridor of themain
hall was begun. A terminus post quem for this ren-ovation is
provided by a coin of the year 43 that came to light in the
foun-dation layer of the mosaic. Also relevant is the fact that a
coin from year 2of the Revolt (67 CE) was found in the street
outside the synagogue.
The excavators argue that the renovation of the building was
aban-doned, since the mosaic appears to be incomplete not because
it hasbeen damaged but because it was never completed. They suggest
thatthe renovation was interrupted by the outbreak of the Revolt in
Galileeand that the synagogue was abandoned and destroyed around
the timeof the Roman conquest of Magdala in 67 CE. Since signs of
deliberate de-struction by the Roman army are lacking, what might
have happened isthat, in order to make the northern area ofMagdala
defensible, the peopleabandoned the synagogue as indefensible and
took materials from thebuilding to use in fortifying a line of
defense further south. Possible evi-dence of this is the fact that
the road leading out of the city to the west, justsouth of the
synagogue, has been blocked with sections of columns appar-ently
taken from the building. A coin of the year 80 was found on the
syn-agogues ceiling collapse,which is consistentwith the proposed
associationof the synagogues destruction with the First Revolt, but
could also, ofcourse, allow for a date some years after 80, such as
around the time ofthe Second Revolt (132135 CE).
One of the present authors (De Luca) has raised important
questionsabout this reconstruction of the synagogues history,
suggesting that,after the abandonment of work on the mosaic and
serious damage tothe synagogue, there was a major reconstruction
and renewed use ofthe synagogue, perhaps in the period between the
two Revolts. Its present
Magdala As We Now Know It 107
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
state might then be due to another Roman conquest of the city in
the timeof Bar Kokhba. (There is no direct evidence that Magdala
participated inthe Second Revolt and evidence that this Revolt
affected Galilee at all ishard to find, but at the nearby
settlement at Khirbet Hamam, in theArbel valley, one phase shows a
layer of destruction and abandonmentat the time of the Second
Revolt.32) Another possibility is that the syna-gogue and the area
around it suffered disastrous flooding,33 caused bythe water that
always flows abundantly frommount Arbel. (Several chan-nels in the
northern area testify to the need to avert flooding by
conveyingwater to the lake.) In that case, the blocking of the
street just south of thesynagogue could have been an attempt at
defense against the flood.
The excavators reconstructionof the history of the synagogue is
relatedto their claim that thewhole area of the city in the
vicinity of the synagogue(IAAAreaC)was also abandoned in the late
first century CE. So farwe onlyhave the excavators Preliminary
Report, which is relatively brief, and wemust await the full
presentation of the results of the IAAs excavations inthe northern
area of Magdala. From other parts of the northern area (theUNAM
excavations, see fig. 4) it would seem that parts of the area
wereabandoned around the end of the century (UNAM Area A,
buildingsE1 and E3), but other parts were inhabited until at least
the third century(this is shown by the pottery finds inAreaC,
building E7). The overall pat-tern of habitation may only become
clear with further excavation of thenorthern area. If the literary
evidence is brought into the picture, Josephusaccount of the fall
ofMagdala to the Romans in 67 CE does not suggest thatthe city
suffered significant destruction but it does indicate significant
lossof life among the native inhabitants of the city, which can
certainly be ex-pected to have led to the abandonment of parts of
the urban area.
The opulence of the synagogues decorations suggests that it
benefitedfromone ormore wealthy donors. It need not suggest that
the communityit served was wealthy. It is worth pointing out that
the swastika meandermosaic on the synagogue floor is identical to a
floor mosaic uncovered byCorbo in what we now know to be a room in
the baths (SBFArea C, roomC1, see fig. 3). Both must be the work of
the same local mosaic workshop,which was probably also responsible
for the mosaic in the House of the
32 U. Leibner, Excavations at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (Lower
Galilee): the Synagogue andthe Settlement, Journal of Roman
Archaeology 23 (2010), 221237, here 224226. Onthe question whether
the Second Revolt affected Galilee, see also W. Horbury, JewishWar
under Trajan and Hadrian (Cambridge, 2014), 349352.
33 E.M. Meyers andM.A. Chancey,Archaeology of the Land of the
Bible, vol. 3, Alexanderto Constantine (New Haven, 2012), 211.
108 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
Dice (UNAM Area A, building E1, see fig. 4). This is one
indication thatthe northern area was not, as has been suggested,
culturally quite distinctfrom the southern area of public buildings
around the port.
The synagogue is small. The main hall has an area of about 120
squaremeters.34The excavators say that it had a seating capacity of
about 120 peo-ple. They do not explain how the calculationwasmade,
but now that ChadSpigel has developed a sophisticated methodology,
involving a number ofdifferent coefficients, for estimating the
seating capacities of ancient syn-agogues,35 a re-calculation using
hismethodologymight be illuminating.36
But, in any case, the synagogue is small, and the excavators
have been re-ported in themedia suggesting that it belonged to a
specific anddistinctivecommunity of worshippers, a suggestion
supported also by the surprisinglocation of the synagogue at the
northern limit of the city. Accordingly,they speculate that it may
have been a synagogue belonging to a groupof Jewish Christians.37
This is quite a dubious argument. Spigel hasshown that the seating
capacities of most synagogues were much smallerthan the population
of the settlements in which they were located
mightsuggest.Amongpossible reasons for this, it seemswehave to
conclude thatmany Jews did not regularly attend synagogue.38
Moreover, it is not at allclear that the synagogue marks the
northern limit of the urban area. Trialand salvage excavations to
the north of the synagogue have uncovered ev-idence of buildings
spanning the period from the first to the fourth cen-turies CE,
though it is quite uncertain how extensive such habitation was.But
it seems there is no need to associate the synagogue with some
specialgroup. It is quite possible, of course, that another
synagogue was locatedsomewhere in the southern parts of the city
that have not been excavated.
34 Israel Antiquities Authority, One of the Oldest Synagogues in
theWorld was Exposedat Migdal (9/13),
http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1601&module_id=#as
(accessed January 10, 2015).
35 C.S. Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities:
Methodology, Analysis and Limits(TSAJ 149; Tbingen, 2012). Though
he applies the methodology to many Palestiniansynagogues, he makes
no mention of the synagogue at Magdala, doubtless because
theinformation he would have needed was not available.
36 As an example of Spigels results, themain hall of the
synagogue at Gamla, which has anarea of 320 m2, he calculates could
have seated between 454 and 536 persons, while theestimated
population of Gamla is 3,0004,000 (Ancient Synagogue Seating
Capacities[see n. 35], 7584, 327).
37 Note that this claim, based on the location of the synagogue,
is inconsistent with theclaim that Mary Magdalene and/or Jesus
visited this synagogue (also made by atleast one of the excavators,
as reported in the media), for in that case there wouldhave been a
synagogue (presumably phase 2) in this location before there could
havebeen a group of Jewish Christians in the city.
38 Spigel, Ancient Synagogue Seating Capacities (see n. 35), ch.
7.
Magdala As We Now Know It 109
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
7. Synagogue Stone
The most remarkable object found in the synagogue is the
decoratedstone. This is a rectangular limestone block, with four
short, unevenfeet that were probably meant to be sunk into the
floor. The four sidesand the top face are engraved with a variety
of objects and motifs. Thestone was found within the central part
of the main hall of the synagogue,towards the south-east (not in
the center of the hall, as some reports erro-neously stated,
perhaps misled by the fact that a replica of the stone hasnow been
placed in the center). Whether this was where it was meantto stand
when the synagogue was in use is uncertain. The object isquite
unique apart from the somewhat similar stone (of uncertain
date)that was subsequently found at Horvat Kur.39
The initial publicity given to the stone naturally focused on
the depic-tion of the Menorah (seven-branched candlestick in the
Temple) that ap-pears on one of the short sides and is the most
obviously identifiable of theobjects depicted. But the stone is
important for much more than providinga rare example of a depiction
of the Menorah from the period when theSecond Temple was still
standing (which is when the excavators datethe stone). With the
Menorah as the starting-point it is possible to inter-pret all the
iconography of the stone as plausibly referring to the Temple
inJerusalem, even though some images can be more certainly
identified thanothers. The stone has so far been the subject of
three major articles byMordechai Aviam,40 Richard Bauckham41 and
Donald Binder42 whichagree in understanding the whole of the stones
iconography as relatedto the Temple. Bauckham and Binder, who
worked independently ofeach other, both depend on and take further
Aviams work, agreeingwith him in important respects but differing
from him in others. It istherefore of interest to note both that
there is both a substantial degreeof agreement among all three
scholars and also some further agreementbetween Bauckham and Binder
at points where they differ from Aviam.
39 J.K. Zangenberg, Ein Dorf auf dem Hgel: Neue Entdeckungen des
Kinneret RegionalProject in der Synagoge von Horvat Kur, in Bauern,
Fischer und Propheten: Galila zurZeit Jesu (ed. J.K. Zangenberg and
J. Schrter; Darmstadt, 2012), 131144, here 140143.
40 M. Aviam, The Decorated Stone from the Synagogue at Migdal: A
Holistic Interpre-tation and a Glimpse into the Life of Galilean
Jews at the Time of Jesus, NovT 55 (2013),205220.
41 R. Bauckham, Further Thoughts on the Migdal Synagogue Stone,
NovT 57 (2015),113135.
42 Binder, The Mystery of the Magdala Stone (see n. 31).
110 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
We cannot enter into the details of the iconography here. Some
aspectsare clear, others remain uncertain and debatable. However,
what can nowbe said with confidence is that the images on the stone
represent the Tem-ple, especially the sanctuary building and its
contents: the Holy of Holies,whereGod himself resided, and theHoly
Place, with itsMenorah, incensealtar, libation vessels and
showbread table.
As to the function of the stone, there have been a number of
proposals,43
ofwhichAviams is themost developed.He argues that it served as
the basefor a lectern on which the Torah was read.44 Others have
suggested that itwas a table on which offerings were placed before
being taken to the Tem-ple. However, given that the stones
iconography shows that it representsthe Temple and wasmeticulously
designed for this purpose, it can be que-ried whether it need have
had any function additional to this.45 What thestone would have
done was make constantly visible to the people assem-bled in the
synagogue the connection of what they were doing with theTemple in
Jerusalem. For this reason it makes a hugely important
newcontribution to discussion of early synagogues in Palestine.
8. Fishing Industry
Magdala was superbly situated for exploiting the abundant
fisheries of thelake of Galilee. No doubt this was a major reason
for its foundation in theHasmonean period and its growth and
prosperity in the Early Roman pe-riod. But a fishing industry
cannot flourish simply by selling fresh fish,which does not stay
fresh for very long. Somemeans of preservation is re-quired. The
simplest method of preserving fish was simply to dry it in thesun,
something any householder or any small group of fishermen could
dofor themselves. But for better quality the preferred method in
the ancientworld was salting. Salting fish was a huge industry
right across the Romanworld, practised both in huge installations
on the coasts of the westernMediterranean and the Atlantic coast of
the Iberian peninsula, but alsoin relatively small workshops in
towns and cities. Typically the saltingprocess produced not only
salted fish but also fish sauce (of which the
43 Binder, The Mystery of the Magdala Stone (see n. 31), 4143,
lists and discusses var-ious proposals.
44 Meyers and Chancey, Alexander (see n. 33), 212, agree with
Aviam, though withoutnaming him.
45 Across-cultural parallel is provided by the EthiopianOrthodox
Church. The Ark of theCovenant (as they believe) is in Axum, but
every church has a miniature replica of it.
Magdala As We Now Know It 111
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
best known kind was garum) and fish paste (allec). These
multiple prod-ucts of the same process ensured that no part of the
fishwent towaste. Fishsaucewas hugely popular throughout
theGreco-Romanworld in all strataof society.
From the literary sources it is clear thatMagdala was well known
for itsfish processing industry, which gave it its Greek
nameTaricheae (fish fac-tories), first attested in 43 BCE.46 It now
seems likely that some ofMagdalasfish factories have been found. If
so, they are probably the first fish facto-ries to have been found
and excavated in the eastern provinces of theRoman empire.
They are situated on the street that runs from east to west just
south ofthe synagogue (IAA Area C, see fig. 4). It leads out of the
city to the westand to the east very probably goes to the quay
alongside the lake. From thewestern end of this street another runs
south (IAA Area C, UNAM AreaE). These streets compose an
industrial-mercantile area, consisting ofworkshops where various
products were both produced and sold.Along the east-west street is
a series of five or six workshops built to abroadly common design.
Common features include four or five vats (ofvarying dimensions)
towards the back of each shop, a stepped shaft lead-ing underground
at the back of the shop, and a paved area at the front ofthe shop
(not preserved in all cases). The sets of vats resemble those
foundin small fish-processing workshops elsewhere, such as at
Sabratha inNorth Africa.47No residues of fish have been found in
the vats atMagdala,but premises used for dealingwith fish need to
be kept clean.No doubt thefloors were sluiced at the end of every
day and the vats cleaned after eachuse.
The stepped shafts could have been used for collecting water
from anunderground source (fish processing required a lot of
water), but theyprobably (also?) functioned as miqvaot for the
workers to use (they arelarge enough for just one person to
immerse). Because fish processing en-tails bringing dead fish into
contact with water, impurity can be conveyedfrom the workers to the
product. Bathing immediately before work wouldensure that the
salted fish and the garum were kosher, giving them a con-siderable
advantage,within JewishPalestine, over fish products fromGen-tile
sources. (From a halakhic perspective the issue is the same as in
the
46 Cicero, Fam. 12.11 (letter from Cassius to Cicero).47
A.Wilson, Commerce and Industry inRomanSabratha,Libyan Studies 30
(1999), 29
52, here 2942.
112 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
cases of oil and wine presses, near which, in Galilee, miqvaot
have beenfound.)
The shops are also ideally situated: the fish could be brought
along thestreet from the lake and the fish products transported
along the samestreet, either to the west for destinations inland or
to the east for transportacross the lake. The excavators report was
very cautious: It is possiblethat the buildings in this quarter
were used in conjunction with the fishindustry, although at this
stage, this hypothesis can not be substantiated.48
We think it a very probable hypothesis that theywere used for
fish process-ing.
9. Residential Areas
Aswemight expect, the evidence of houses inMagdala indicates a
range ofeconomic status. The excavations to thewest of the
Franciscan compound(SBFAreaH, see fig. 3) uncovered parts of houses
belonging to thewealthyelite, including a peristyle courtyard. Two
other wealthy houses have beenfairly fully excavated in the
northern area (UNAM Area A, buildings E1and E3, see fig. 4). The
more sumptuous of these (E1) is now labelledthe House of theDice
because dicewere found in a room that also featuresa floor mosaic
(E1C13). This house has fifteen rooms, two stepped poolsand a
courtyard, while the house across the street (E3) has a courtyard,
atleast ten rooms, and at least one stepped pool (it has not been
fully exca-vated). The three stepped pools have been identified as
miqvaot of aunique kind (though a kind for which the rules in the
Mishnah allow)in that they were filled from groundwater.49 However,
the function ofthese pools is not entirely clear, since they
closely resemble the steppedpools in the baths.
One house a good deal further down the spectrum of quality has
beenfully excavated (UNAM Area C, building E7, see fig. 4). It has
ten roomsand a courtyard (and possibly one or twomore rooms in a
second storey).Since many fishing implements were found in one room
and the buildingis not far from the shore of the lake, itmaywell
have been the residence of a
48 D.Avshalom-Gorni andA.Najjar, Migdal:
PreliminaryReport,HadashotArkheologi-yot: Excavations andSurveys in
Israel 125 (2013),
http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120
(accessed January 10, 2015).
49 R. Reich and M. Zapata-Meza, A Preliminary Report on
theMiqwaot of Migdal, IEJ64 (2014), 6371; id., TheMiqvaot of
Magdala, on the Shore of the Sea of Galilee, inAviam, Bauckham and
De Luca, Magdala, Jewish City of Fish (see n. 3).
Magdala As We Now Know It 113
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
fishing family. The courtyard and the three rooms adjoining it
show ev-idence of storing, processing and cooking food, suggesting
that this part ofthe house (somewhatmore than a third of the total
area),which also had itsown external entrance, was devoted to such
uses. It seems large for theneeds of the inhabitants of the rest of
the house. Since no less thanseven grinding stones were found in
the courtyard it is possible thatthis part of the house was a small
bakery. Fishing was not a profitable oc-cupation and a fishing
family might well make up its income from a bak-ery.
10. Conclusion
Magdala as we now know it deserves to feature significantly in
our under-standing of theGalilean context of Jesus.We nowknow that
it was amajorurban center, the third most important settlement in
Lower Galilee afterSepphoris and Tiberias, while its location just
a few miles south of Caper-naum makes it more relevant to Jesus
Galilean ministry than either ofthose cities. The road from
Nazareth or Cana to Capernaum, throughtheWadiHamamvalley,must have
run right beside the northern entranceto Magdala or even actually
through the city. The lack of reference to it inthe Gospels (other
than as implied in Mary Magdalenes identifying epi-thet)50 requires
reflection, but it would be hard to believe that Jesusnever entered
the city. Even if he deliberately avoided it most of thetime, the
people of Magdala must have been prominent among thosewho flocked
to be healed by him and to hear his preaching. It may wellhave been
the wealthy elite of Magdala, some of whose houses we nowknow, that
Jesus had in mind when he denounced the rich.
The importance of Magdala does not lie only in itself. We can
nowbegin to build up a much clearer picture of the area around the
northwestshore of the lake of Galilee, fromMagdala to Capernaum,
including boththe Wadi Hamam valley and the plain of Gennesaret. If
we take into ac-count, not onlyMagdala itself, but the settlements
at Arbel, KhirbetWadiHamam, Abu Shusheh and Horvat Kur, as well as
the indications of hab-itation suggested in Ken Darks survey of the
area north of Magdala,51 it is
50 Whether the nameLacadam in Matt 15:39 is a corruption of
Magdala we cannot dis-cuss here.
51 K.R.Dark, Archaeological Evidence for
aPreviouslyUnrecognizedRomanTownNearthe Sea of Galilee, PEQ 145
(2013), 185202. The claims in this essay need to be treatedwith
caution pending the full publication of the results of the
survey.
114 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
clear that thiswhole areawas heavily populated in the time of
Jesus, doubt-less owing to the famous fertility of the plain of
Gennesaret and to theflourishing fishing industry of which Magdala
was the center and Caper-naum a part. The high population of the
area may be one of the reasonsJesus chose to make Capernaum his
base.
Many of the small settlements in this area can be considered
satellites orsuburbs of Magdala, which would have been the main
market for theirproduce and which clearly dominated the fishing
industry on the lake.Just how Capernaum, at the eastern extreme of
the area, would have re-lated to Magdala, economically and
socially, is an important issue to bepursued, but we cannot doubt
that it was related and we must revisethe impression sometimes
given that Capernaumwas a rather isolated vil-lage. Instead of
situating Jesus andCapernaum very broadly within LowerGalilee, we
can now explore the more particular dynamics and character-istics
of this more specific area, which, as well as its links with the
rest ofGalilee, also belonged to the world around the lake that
constituted a dis-tinctive region in itself. As a key point of
transit for trade and travellersMagdala was doubtless also a center
for the diffusion of ideas and fashionsfrom near and far.
Studies of the Galilee of Jesus have debated the relationship of
urban torural Galilee and the extent of Hellenization and
Romanization. Magdalaas we nowknow it provides ample evidence
bearing on these issues. Alongwith Greco-Roman architecture and
urban and domestic design, Mag-dalas more leisured citizens, at
least, adopted the culture of the baths.But there is no reason to
think they found this inconsistent with Jewishreligious observance.
Whether by bathing in the lake or in miqvaot intheir homes, they
doubtless followed purity rules, which were evidentlyalso
scrupulously observed in the manufacture of the citys famous
fishproducts. The synagogue, the first excavated example of the
many inwhich Jesus taught, was not merely a place for discussing
civic affairs,but, as its remarkable decorated stone reveals, a
context intentionally re-lated to the Jerusalem Temple. All this
confirms the picture of GalileanJudaism as observant of Torah and
oriented to the Temple, which mostrecent study has tended to
endorse, while at the same time it shows thatthe adoption of
aspects of Greek and Roman culture that were not per-ceived as
entailing idolatry was also an unproblematic part of the life ofthe
urban elite.
Magdala As We Now Know It 115
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
A Select Bibliography of Magdala
Excavation reports: Southern area
Abu-Uqsa, H. Migdal: Final Report. Hadashot Arkheologiyot:
Excavations and Sur-veys in Israel 117 (2005):
http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=238&mag_id=110.
Avshalom-Gorni, D. Migdal: Preliminary Report (11 Nov 2009).
Hadashot Ark-heologiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 121
(2009):
http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1236&mag_id=115.
Corbo, V. Scavi Archeologici a Magdala (19711973). LASBF 24
(1974), 537.Corbo, V. La Citt Romana di Magdala: Rapporto
Preliminare dopo la Quarta Cam-
pagna di Scavo: 1Ottobre8Dicembre 1975. Pages 355378 in
StudiaHierosolymi-tana inOnore di P. Bellarmino Bagatti, vol. 1,
StudiArcheologici.Edited byE. Testa, I.Mancini and M. Piccirillo.
SBF Collectio Maior 22. Jerusalem, 1976.
Corbo, V. La Piazza e Villa Urbana a Magdala. LASBF 28 (1978),
232240.De Luca, S. Magdala Project 2007: Preliminary Report.
Notizario: Studium Biblicum
Franciscanum Jerusalem (20062007), 1217.De Luca, S. La
Citt-Ellenistico-Romano diMagdala/Tarichaeae: Gli Scavi
delMagdala
Project 2007 e 2008: Relazione Preliminare e Prospettive di
Indagine. LASBF 49(2009), 343562.
De Luca, S. Magdala Project (20092011).Notizario:
StudiumBiblicumFranciscanumJerusalem (20102011), 2223.
Lena,A. Magdala 2007: Preliminary Report.HadashotArkheologiyot:
Excavations andSurveys in Israel 125 (2013):
http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=4342&mag_id=120.
Lena,A. Magdala 2008: PreliminaryReport.HadashotArkheologiyot:
Excavations andSurveys in Israel 125 (2013):
http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=5433&mag_id=120.
Excavation reports: Northern area
Avshalom-Gorni, D., and A. Najjar, Migdal: Preliminary Report.
Hadashot Arkheo-logiyot: Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125
(2013):
http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2304&mag_id=120.
Cinamon, G. Migdal: Final Report (16 Sep 2014). Hadashot
Arkheologiyot: Excava-tions and Surveys in Israel 126 (2014):
http://hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=11620&mag_id=121.
Zapata-Meza, M. Magdala Archaeological Project (20102012):
Preliminary Report.Forthcoming in Atiqot.
Other literature on Magdala
Aviam, M. The Decorated Stone from the Synagogue at Migdal: A
Holistic Interpre-tation and a Glimpse into the Life of Galilean
Jews at the Time of Jesus. NovT 55(2013), 205220.
116 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
Aviam, M., R. Bauckham, and S. De Luca, eds. Magdala, Jewish
City of Fish. Waco, Tex. ,forthcoming, 2016.
Bauckham, R. Further Thoughts on the Migdal Synagogue Stone.
NovT 57 (2015),113135.
Binder, D.B. The Mystery of the Magdala Stone. Pages 1748 in A
City Set on a Hill :Essays in Honor of James F. Strange. Edited by
D.A. Warner. Mountain Home, Ark.,2014.
Bonnie, R., and J. Richard. Building D1 at Magdala Revisited in
the Light of Public-Fountain Architecture in the Late-Hellenistic
East. IEJ 62 (2012), 7188.
Dark, K.R. Archaeological Evidence for a Previously Unrecognized
RomanTown Nearthe Sea of Galilee. PEQ 145 (2013), 185202.
De Luca, S. Scoperte Archeologiche Recenti attorno al Lago di
Galilea: Contributo alloStudio dellAmbiente del Nuovo Testamento e
del Ges Storico. Pages 18111(here7889) in TerraSancta: Archeologia
ed Esegesi : Atti dei Convegni 2008 2010. Editedby G. Paximadi and
M. Fidanzio. ISCAB Serie Archeologica 1. Lugano, 2013.
De Luca, S. , and A. Lena. Magdala. In Galilee in the Late
Second Temple and MishnaicPeriods 100 BCE 200 CE, vol. 2, The
Archaeological Record of Galilean Cities, Towns,and Villages.
Edited by D. Fiensy and J.R. Strange. Minneapolis, forthcoming.
De Luca, S. , and A. Lena. The Harbor of the City of
Magdala/Tarichaeae on the Shoresof the Sea of Galilee, from the
Hellenistic to the Byzantine Times: New Discoveriesand Preliminary
Results. In Harbors and Harbor Cities in the Eastern
Mediterraneanfrom Antiquity to Byzantium. Recent Discoveries &
New Approaches (Istanbul 30/05 01/06/2011). Istanbul,
forthcoming.
De Luca, S. , and A. Lena. The Mosaic of the Thermal Bath
Complex of Magdala Recon-sidered: Archaeological Context, Epigraphy
and Iconography. Pages 133 inKnowledge and Wisdom: Archaeological
and Historical Essays in Honour of LeahDi Segni. Edited by G.C.
Bottini, L.D. Chrupcaa and J. Patrich. SBF CollectioMaior 54.
Milan, 2014.
Kokkinos, N. The Location of Tarichaea: North or South of
Tiberius? PEQ 142 (2010),723.
Leibner, U. Settlement and History in Hellenistic, Roman, and
Byzantine Galilee. TSAJ127. Tbingen, 2009 (here pp. 214 237).
Manns, F. Magdala dans les Sources Littraires. Pages 307337 in
Studia Hierosolymi-tana in Onore di P. Bellarmino Bagatti, vol. 1,
Studi Archeologici. Edited by E. Testa, I.Mancini and M.
Piccirillo. SBF Collectio Maior 22. Jerusalem, 1976.
Notley, R.S. Genesis Rabbah 98,17 And Why Is It Called Gennosar?
Recent Discov-eries at Magdala and Jewish Life on the Plain of
Gennosar in the Early Roman Pe-riod. Pages 140157 in Talmuda
de-Eretz Israel: Archaeology and the Rabbis in LateAntique
Palestine. Edited by S. Fine and A. Koller. SJ 73. Berlin,
2014.
Reich, R., and M. Zapata-Meza. A Preliminary Report on the
Miqwaot of Migdal. IEJ64 (2014), 6371.
Taylor, J. Missing Magdala and the Name of Mary Magdalene. PEQ
146 (2014), 209223.
Zangenberg, J. Magdala: Reich an Fisch und Reich durch Fisch.
Pages 9398 in Lebenam See Gennesaret: kulturgeschichtliche
Entdeckungen in einer biblischen Region. Ed-ited by G. Fassbeck, S.
Fortner, A. Rottloff and J. Zangenberg. Mainz, 2003.
Magdala As We Now Know It 117
-
Del
iver
ed b
y Pu
blish
ing
Tech
nolo
gySt
efan
o De
Luc
a 87
.19.
60.1
0 Sa
t, 02
May
201
5 08
:22:
41Co
pyrig
ht M
ohr S
iebe
ck
Zapata-Meza, M., ed. El Proyecto Arqueolgico Magdala. El
Pensador Monogrficos 5,2013. (A collection of 13 articles related
to the excavations in the northern area.)
Richard Bauckham11 Archway CourtCambridge, CB3
[email protected]
Stefano De LucaMagdala Project directorvia della Resistenza,
3970013 Castellana Grotte (Bari)[email protected]
118 Richard Bauckham and Stefano De Luca