106 Anna C. F. Collar
collectively formed a new “national” identity. Malkin points out that the directional flow
forming this virtual network could and did change over time. Initially, the interactions of
the mother city and colony were “symbolically cast in ‘kinship’ terms,” but this changed,
and “in reality the multidirectional, accumulating links are more significant than the true
origins” (Malkin 2003: 67). This is the key point in this example of ethnogenesis—the
dynamic interactions of this dispersed social network built—and dissolved—the identity
of the nodes themselves.
The Roman Jewish Diaspora
A social network framework has also been used to investigate the re-affirmation of Jew-
ish ethnic identity in the Imperial Roman period (Collar 2013a; 2013b). By this time,
Jews lived in cities and towns across the Roman Empire—and notions of Jewish ethnic-
ity and the attendant aspects of what it meant to be a part of the Jewish nation were
fairly solidified—including monotheism, Sabbath observance, and abstinence from cer-
tain foods. Jews possessed all that Smoak suggests an ethnic group should: a proper
name (whether Judeans or Hebrews), a mythic common ancestry and origin story, shared
mythic and historical memory, a link to the Judean homeland, a shared religion, and a
clear kinship system.
However, Diaspora Jews lived in close proximity to other people, with different
languages, gods, and customs. It appears from the epigraphic evidence and the literature
that there were varying degrees of interaction and assimilation with the Hellenized
environment—with most Diaspora Jews speaking (or at least writing) in Greek, some
taking part in Greco-Roman institutions such as the gymnasium, some being given
Greek names, and some intermarrying with Gentiles (see Schürer 1986). This suggests
that notions of Jewish ethnic identity in the Hellenistic–early Imperial Roman period
were somewhat contingent, and flexible enough to incorporate behaviors different from
conventionally understood Jewish practice. In the epigraphy, those who chose to define
themselves as Jewish are understood to be part of the Jewishethnos, and indicators
of Jewishness are understood to have been used for the purpose of self-definition:
mention of synagogue, use of Hebrew, Jewish names, and so on. However, the epi-
graphic evidence pertaining to the Jewish Diaspora at this time is limited: although
the Hellenistic–Roman Diaspora was considerable, there is little evidence for Jews
self-identifying, and where there is, it is limited to particular contexts such as manumis-
sion, or the collective dedications of Egyptian prayer houses. It seems that Jews at this
stage were comfortable with their integration with the societies they lived in—they did
not need to separate themselves explicitly.
This changed after the Jewish Wars, the destruction of the Temple by the Romans inAD
70, and the subsequent rebellions, which left Judaism in tatters. From this time onward,
the epigraphic evidence for the Jewish Diaspora increases enormously, and becomes a
largely funerary phenomenon. It shows the widespread dissemination and adoption of
explicitly Jewish names, symbols, and language across the western Diaspora. Jews were
powerfully expressing their ethnic identity in a way they had not done before.