Two thousand years ago, (22-10 BC) on the windswept coast of the eastern Mediterranean, with Roman engineering and largesse, Herod the Great accomplished a remarkable feat by constructing a whole metropolis known as Caesarea, complete with palace, temple, hippodrome, theatre, paved streets, sewer, and water system.[1] But just as remarkable--using formed pozzolana hydraulic concrete[2]--Herod built at the foot of the city a colossal harbor, which would make Caesarea the maritime trading oasis of its day. In discussing archaeological evidence for the economic success Caesarea enjoyed in its day, Risser and Winter mention that "during the early years of the Roman Empire, it was one of the largest and most important ports on the Mediterranean,"[3] and in fact may have been built to compete and trade with the great port at Alexandria not far south in Egypt.
In the study of this facility, this work will try to consistently discern and clarify between what is known, what is probable, what is likely and what is possible. Beginning with essential confirmation of archaeological discovery compared with historical record, a number of correlations and considerations will be brought into play to give a more accurate and complete reconstruction of the structure's overall appearance and function. Further as the title of this inquiry suggests, though Herod built the city and harbor, it was not without Rome's facilitation and Roman expertise. And though Herod promoted Caesarea's commercial concerns and therefore his own, Rome's interest in its own promotion in the eastern Mediterranean preceded Caesarea whose existence was mainly for the furthering of that purpose.
Starting with geographical and weather conditions lending themselves to overall shape, the basic dimensions and appearance given by Josephus about the harbor is confirmed and expanded on archaeologically. The towers he mentions is also evidentially confirmed. Considering Rome was militarily driven it makes sense the harbor was built in military fashion where towers would play an essential role and would have been a prominent skyline feature. The number and size of towers at the harbor can be approximated by comparing known Roman tower and wall widths and heights with the missile range of the day and correlating that with other known dimensions of similar structures, especially those built by Herod in Jerusalem. Probable battlement configurations can also be deduced from dimensions of the same at Jerusalem. Secondly, discussion will be made concerning perhaps the most affective factor on the harbor's construction, the meteorological/hydrodynamic complex pre-existent to the harbor's building, which was made more complex after construction, making necessary one of the most unusual features at the harbor, the multi-functional free standing edifices at the entrance. Thirdly, discussion will be entered on what has been called the inner harbor divide and the practicality of a causeway to commercial and military activity at the port. Fourthly, a complete picture could not be made without considering the significant size and purpose of what Josephus referred to as Procumatia, or "the breaker of waves". Its morphology, purpose and defensive possibilities is better known by comparing historical record to archaeological find and modern understanding of hydrodynamic engineering. Finally, after having discussed the practical functioning of this facility it will be important to note the significance the port brought to the city of Caesarea as a center of commerce and the possible part it played in relation to regional trading patterns and beyond.
Two thousand years ago, (22-10 BC) on the windswept coast of the eastern Mediterranean, with Roman engineering and largesse, Herod the Great accomplished a remarkable feat by constructing a whole metropolis known as Caesarea, complete with palace, temple, hippodrome, theatre, paved streets, sewer, and water system.[1] But just as remarkable--using formed pozzolana hydraulic concrete[2]--Herod built at the foot of the city a colossal harbor, which would make Caesarea the maritime trading oasis of its day. In discussing archaeological evidence for the economic success Caesarea enjoyed in its day, Risser and Winter mention that "during the early years of the Roman Empire, it was one of the largest and most important ports on the Mediterranean,"[3] and in fact may have been built to compete and trade with the great port at Alexandria not far south in Egypt.
In the study of this facility, this work will try to consistently discern and clarify between what is known, what is probable, what is likely and what is possible. Beginning with essential confirmation of archaeological discovery compared with historical record, a number of correlations and considerations will be brought into play to give a more accurate and complete reconstruction of the structure's overall appearance and function. Further as the title of this inquiry suggests, though Herod built the city and harbor, it was not without Rome's facilitation and Roman expertise. And though Herod promoted Caesarea's commercial concerns and therefore his own, Rome's interest in its own promotion in the eastern Mediterranean preceded Caesarea whose existence was mainly for the furthering of that purpose.
Starting with geographical and weather conditions lending themselves to overall shape, the basic dimensions and appearance given by Josephus about the harbor is confirmed and expanded on archaeologically. The towers he mentions is also evidentially confirmed. Considering Rome was militarily driven it makes sense the harbor was built in military fashion where towers would play an essential role and would have been a prominent skyline feature. The number and size of towers at the harbor can be approximated by comparing known Roman tower and wall widths and heights with the missile range of the day and correlating that with other known dimensions of similar structures, especially those built by Herod in Jerusalem. Probable battlement configurations can also be deduced from dimensions of the same at Jerusalem. Secondly, discussion will be made concerning perhaps the most affective factor on the harbor's construction, the meteorological/hydrodynamic complex pre-existent to the harbor's building, which was made more complex after construction, making necessary one of the most unusual features at the harbor, the multi-functional free standing edifices at the entrance. Thirdly, discussion will be entered on what has been called the inner harbor divide and the practicality of a causeway to commercial and military activity at the port. Fourthly, a complete picture could not be made without considering the significant size and purpose of what Josephus referred to as Procumatia, or "the breaker of waves". Its morphology, purpose and defensive possibilities is better known by comparing historical record to archaeological find and modern understanding of hydrodynamic engineering. Finally, after having discussed the practical functioning of this facility it will be important to note the significance the port brought to the city of Caesarea as a center of commerce and the possible part it played in relation to regional trading patterns and beyond.
YOU ARE READING
The Roman Harbor Built by Herod the Great: A More Complete Reconstruction
Non-FictionTwo thousand years ago, (22-10 BC) on the windswept coast of the eastern Mediterranean, with Roman engineering and largesse, Herod the Great accomplished a remarkable feat by constructing a whole metropolis known as Caesarea, complete with palace, t...
