Werner Eck, who is professor emeritus at the university of Cologne, gave a talk yesterday at Stanford on the use of epigraphy in assessing the importance of the Bar Kochba war: “Rewriting history from inscriptions: new perspectives on Hadrian and the Bar Kokhba revolt.” He and other scholars in Germany and Israel (Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University) are working on an important epigraphic corpus, the *Corpus inscriptionum Iudaeae/Palaestinae*, which has a broad historical, geographic and linguistic scope. It collects inscriptions from the area limited by the southern Negev, northern Golan, the Jordan river, and the sea, in several languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Thamudic, Nabataean, Latin, Greek, Armenian, and probably one or two more that I forget), and spans the period from Alexander to the rise of Islam. The first volume appeared last summer, gathering 704 inscriptions from Jerusalem.

Before I go on about the talk on the particular question at hand and the on-going discussions on the causes of the revolt, its extent, length, intensity, and consequences both for Jews and Rome, let me draw the reader’s attention to the book edited by Peter Schäfer, *The Bar Kokhba War reconsidered: new perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome*, volume 100, Texts and studies in ancient Judaism (Tübingen: Mohr, 2003). In it, there is a chapter by Werner Eck, “Hadrian, the Bar Kokhba revolt, and the epigraphic transmission”, pp. 153–70, which gives the detail of the arguments presented yesterday at the Stanford talk. See also W. Eck, “The bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman Point of View”, *The Journal of Roman Studies* 89 (1999): 76–89. In the same book edited by Schäfer, however, there is also an interesting article by Glen W. Bowersock dowsing Eck’s fire: “The Tel Shalem arch and P. Naḥal Ḥever/Seiyal 8”, pages 171–80. Bowersock focuses mainly on the arch and monumental inscription Eck argues were set up in Tel Shalem or near after the war of Bar Kokhba (see below).

Yesterday’s presentation went something like this. Nothing monumental, architecturally or literarily, is left regarding the second revolt. No Arch of Titus (under Domitian), and no Flavius Josephus. The lone literary evidence from the victor’s side comes from Dio Cassius (2d-3d c.), via the 11th c. abridgment done by Xiphilinus:
> In Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war that was not slight nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites be planted there. While Hadrian was close by in Egypt and again in Syria, they remained quiet, save in so far as they purposely made the weapons they were called upon to furnish of poorer quality, to the end that the Romans might reject them and they have the use of them. But when he went farther away, they openly revolted. To be sure, they did not dare try conclusions with the Romans in the open field, but they occupied advantageous positions in the country and strengthened them with mines and walls, in order that they might have places of refuge whenever they should be hard pressed, and meet together unobserved under ground; and in these subterranean passages they sunk shafts from above to let in air and light. [13] At first the Romans made no account of them. Soon, however, all Judaea had been up-heaved, and the Jews all over the world were showing signs of disturbance, were gathering together, and giving evidence of great hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly by open acts; many other outside nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, almost, was becoming convulsed over the matter. Then, indeed, did Hadrian send against them his best generals, of who Julius Severus was the first to be despatched, from Britain, of which he was governor, against the Jews. He did not venture to attack his opponents at any one point, seeing their numbers and their desperation, but by taking them in separate groups by means of the number of his soldiers and his under-officers and by depriving them of food and shutting them up he was able, rather slowly, to be sure, but with comparatively little danger, to crush and exhaust and exterminate them. Very few of them survived. [14] Fifty of their most important garrisons and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most renowned towns were blotted out. Fifty-eight myriads of men were slaughtered in the course of the invasions and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine and disease and fire was past all investigating. Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate, an event of which the people had had indications even before the war. The tomb of Solomon, which these men regarded as one of their sacred objects, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed and many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities.

> Many Romans, moreover, perished in the war. Wherefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors: “If you and your children are in health, it shall be well: I and the armies are in health.” (Dio Cassius 69.12–14; translation from project Gutenberg.)

The quality of Dio Cassius’ report and judgment are often questioned by modern scholars, however, who think he exaggerated numbers and was poorly informed (without access to the senate archives?) on the conduct of the war and its relative importance. Other literary evidence, Christian or Talmudic, is relatively late and influenced by traditions and opinions which took shape after the events, over a long period (two to three centuries).

The main point of Professor Eck, yesterday and in his publications, is that inscriptions and archaeology, if interpreted *à nouveaux frais* in a systematic, cohesive, and careful fashion, paint a drastic picture which does support the views found in the abridgement of Dio Cassius.

First of all, extra troop levies occurred, and the manner in which they were done indicate the urgency and intensity of the need. Against the custom not to levy troops in Italy, it is clear that there were levies in two of its areas. The only explanation for this highly unusual act must be an emergency situation. So, we have CPL 117: writings by soldiers in the fleet (staffed with peregrines) in 150 reveal that they were originally peregrines who were granted Roman citizenship, presumably because they were transferred from the fleet to other forces (legions). Roman military diplomas are more specific. We know that citizenship was granted after twenty-five years of service in the legions and this was signified by a diploma. Thirty diplomas of this kind, dated circa 160, i.e. twenty-five years after the second Jewish revolt, have been found so far, which is a considerable number if matched to the known survivability rate of diplomas. It is estimated that from 0.5 to 1% of such diplomas have survived from the Roman period. One concludes that approximately 1,300 to 2,600 diplomas were issued. Add to this estimation that not all soldiers lived long enough to obtain the diploma: many more than the estimated number (average: 1,950) must have fought in this war. In conclusion to this kind of evidence regarding the diplomas issued to peregrines serving in the fleet: there must have been a very large gap in the fleet, leading to a large recruitment of *delecti* from one area (Italy). Furthermore, we know that diplomas were also issued for auxiliary troops from Lycia and Pamphilia.

What of command? Tineius Rufus (see Caesarea Maritima) was recalled. Was this because he failed to squelch the revolt? Regarding the recall or use of other officers, Dio Cassius uses the expression “his best generals”, which should be taken seriously, meaning that the plural is significant, though only one is named. Severus indeed was called back from Britain. After the war, *ornamenta triumphalia* were granted to several generals / governors. Scholars failed to relate this known fact, however, to the Bar Kokhba war. In reality, three generals received the triumphal ornaments from a Hadrian who was normally disinclined to give them. Another sign is that Hadrian himself didn’t accept imperatorial acclamations for many years (other emperors had many, Domitian for example). Hadrian eventually accepted an imperatorial acclamation, Eck argues, because he needed this to give in turn the *ornamenta triumphalia*.

Other evidence comes from the caves of Naḥal Ḥever and the coins of Bar Kokhba found in the area he controlled. There is also the question regarding the participation of neighboring peoples in the revolt: an inscription in Thamudic may indicate this, as do the texts found in the Judaean desert. So for instance there is a letter of Bar Kokhba addressed to Soumaios, a Nabataean (almost certainly), who was part of his army. Further evidence of the intensity of the war comes from the numerous hiding places revealed by recent archaeological surveys.

When did the war end? The usual answer is July or August 135, with the siege and fall of Bethar. The common opinion is that Hadrian became *imperator iterum* in the second half of 135 (see article by Eck, mentioned above). But an inscription from Lanuvium (CIL XIV 2088) shows that at the time of its engraving, in 136, the *imperator iterum* or *imp. II* mention is missing. So the war was not over at the end of 135. Eck is of the opinion that it was concluded at the beginning of 136. So, it lasted longer than previously thought.

There is also the matter of the change of name to Syria Palaestina, another sign of the importance of this war. But when did it happen, and at whose request or suggestion? The idea must have come from Greek cities, especially Scythopolis, Eck argues. In 1976, remains of a monumental inscription were found at Tel Shalem. The inscription, in Latin, is written in very large letters, whereas all inscriptions from Scythopolis are in Greek. The letters are 41 cm high and imply a total length of 11 m and height of 2 m. This is very unusual in the Roman world. This massive inscription must have been on an arch near Tel Shalem, 12 km south of Scythopolis. Was it near an army camp? Why there, and erected by whom? Eck proposes that it must have been by Leg X or SPQR, short in any case. According to Eck, this monumental inscription was part of a necessary demonstration by Rome that the disastrous and costly war was over. That it was found near Galilee perhaps means that the fight was even more intense in this area (hiding tunnels found in that area are another piece of evidence).

The demographic impact of the war was very significant (again going with Dio Cassius), and mostly affected the central area of Judaea. There would be a return of Jews eventually, especially to southern Judaea, by the end of the 2d c. but not massive. Jews would settle in other areas such as the coast and Galilee (as we know also from the Mishnah and the Yerushalmi). The economic loss, from the point of view of the Roman empire, must have been considerable also (Evidence??).