Kings striving to make a strong presence in their subjects' daily life were a characteristic feature of the Hellenistic period. Such presence had impact on how the king was perceived by his subjects and assured him a more or less permanent place in social awareness and memory. Therefore, every ruler tried as best he could to publicize and perpetuate the memory of his name and acts, and especially his image. Its use on a wide scale and in a variety of forms became common practice. Portraits of rulers were omnipresent: on coins, in public places, temples, and homes. Multiplied in innumerable copies, such portraits made the ruler almost physically present wherever they were found. The phenomenon was characteristic of all rulers and even usurpers.

Nor were the Hasmoneans averse to the idea of promoting their name, even though their nation's cultural and religious traditions posed some obstacles in this respect that hindered no other contemporary monarch. Clearly the greatest difficulty stemmed from the rigorously observed Jewish prohibition to make or display images of people and animals. The prohibition robbed the Hasmoneans of a chance to use their own images as a propaganda tool. Out of respect for tradition, they made no attempt to circumvent the ban; instead they were compelled to seek other means to present themselves to subjects. Available historical evidence allows the conclusion that their activity in this field was not without certain achievements and took on various forms.

During Hasmonean rule, their state's borders frequently changed. The first alteration was made already during the rule of Jonathan. Rather than through conquest, it was by administrative decision of king Demetrius I of Syria, who added to Judea three districts he removed from Samaria: Aphairema, Lydda, and Ramathain (cf. 1 Macc 10:30. 38; 11:34; Jos. AJ 13.50. 127) The first to enlarge Judea by force of arms was Simon. Although his gains were little, embracing Joppa with the area connecting it to the rest of Judea and Gezer (1 Macc 13:43–48; 14:5), their capture marked the beginning of gradual Judean expansion. The process gained momentum under John Hyrcanus, who conquered Idumea and Samaria, and small parts of Galilee with the city of Scythopolis (Beth-Shean). During the reign of Aristobulus I, Hasmonean rule was extended to more lands in Galilee and a part of southern Lebanon. Judea reached its greatest territorial expansion under Alexander Jannaeus. At the end of his reign, he controlled, in addition to lands mentioned above, a coastal strip from Gaza as far as Strato's Tower (except for Askelon), the Golan Heights, and large areas across Jordan in what had been biblical Gilead and Moab.

Efficient government of a steadily growing state required organization of territorial administration and appropriately staffing it. Neither element of the Hasmonean state is clearly confirmed in sources. It should be expected that the groundwork for this administration began to be laid with the first successes in fighting the Seleucids, and that its creator could be Jonathan.

The army was one of those few institutions of the Hasmonean state of which relatively much is known. We owe this knowledge not so much to ample written sources as to the wealth of archaeological data. Their detailed interpretation was performed by I. Shatzman (1991), therefore here we confine ourselves to a brief outline of the Hasmonean military institutions.

John Hyrcanus' ascension to power in Judea may be considered the beginning of a new phase in the Hasmonean military because his reign saw events which led to significant changes in this field. John Hyrcanus, as the first among the Hasmoneans, introduced foreign mercenary troops to the Judean army. As we mentioned earlier, this came about most probably in connection with his participation in Antiochus VII's Parthian campaign and was necessitated by a need to safeguard his own interests in Judea while he was away. That decision, even if prompted by momentary circumstances, had a lasting effect. From then on, mercenaries became part of the Hasmoneans' armed forces, even though their presence in Judea aroused much vexation, for a number of reasons. The Judean ruler's part in the Parthian campaign afforded him insight into the working of the Seleucid army and an opportunity to gain experience in conducting a campaign away from native country and in adverse conditions.

Preservation and transfer of power within the ruling family is of fundamental importance to any monarchy. Clearly specified principles of royal succession are a condition on which depends the stability of this authority and the stability of the state in which it is exercised. Constitutional monarchies have the question of succession regulated by a number of legal clauses preventing any dynastic disputes from becoming an open conflict that would divide society into opposing camps. The case was very different in Hellenistic monarchies because the practically limitless power their kings enjoyed left only to them the decision to name the successor, a decision often taken amid pressures and intrigues. The striking testimony of the disastrous consequences of struggles for power within the ruling family are the dynastic contentions in the states of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. In Hellenistic monarchies, the generally accepted and applied principle was for the reigning king to name his son as successor. A customary practice, it very often saw departures from it, which is why in effect the transit of power was not always smooth and free from conflict. The monarchy's person-centered nature meant that the king could just as well transfer authority according to his choosing, as if it was part of his personal property. Various rulers took decisions about succession, sometimes leading to dramatic events that affected the future of respective ruling houses. How portentous such decisions could be is confirmed by the history of the Hasmonean family.

Although Simon's capture of the Acra gave inhabitants of Jerusalem a full sense of security, he himself faced serious difficulty when, after a brief use of the former Seleucid fortress, he was compelled to demolish it. The difficulty lay in Jerusalem not having a convenient place in which to garrison the native troops so far stationed in the Acra. Their presence in the capital was indispensable to guarantee the ruler's personal safety and to ensure order in the city. This situation forced Simon to build an appropriate facility. Apart from a new citadel, Simon also needed a residence worthy of a ruler. The importance he is known to have attached to symbols emphasizing his own political standing suggests that he would not have forgone having an official residence that would manifest his personal power, but also testify to Judea's political independence. We can assume as fairly certain that Simon indeed managed to complete some of his plans in this respect. The account of 1 Macc suggests that some functions previously served by the Syrian Acra were taken over by the new citadel he built adjoining the Temple Hill to the north, known from a later tradition as baris. It became not just a quarter in which to station the garrison, but also the center of government as it also served as the Hasmoneans' residence until a specially designed palace could be built.

The restoration of Jewish statehood in the late 2nd century BCE was an event of great historical significance. The Jewish state had ceased to exist over 400 years previously due to expansion into Palestine by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, who first subjugated the kingdom of Judah, the last remnant of David and Solomon's monarchy, and captured and destroyed Jerusalem (587/586). The credit for restoring Jewish statehood is due to the Hasmoneans, who led an armed revolt they had started against a Hellenistic religious reform in Judea during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Not only did they win broad support for their actions among their people, but they also displayed great political skill in dealing with the Seleucids. They shrewdly took advantage of all favorable circumstances, domestic and international alike, first to carve out considerable autonomy within the Seleucid state, and then in the late 2nd century BCE, during John Hyrcanus' reign, to win full independence from Syrian kings.

The history of the Hasmoneans has long caused disputes among scholars, who are far from agreement about the chronology of events, their importance, and the identities of all their actors. There are no indications that such doubts will be resolved anytime soon. The aim of this study, therefore, is not to present a new reconstruction of Hasmonean history, but to describe the institutions of the state they created.

Our knowledge about Judean society under the Hasmoneans is very limited. Little is known about its structure, relations between respective social groups, or their political and religious attitudes. Authors of sources did not devote too much attention to social issues, unless they felt it necessary to provide a brief outline as a backdrop of events they were describing. This being so, a generalized description of Judean society in the Hasmonean period must be based on the few mentions in sources and on conclusions drawn from interpreting archaeological evidence. Any attempts to use for this purpose information dating from a later period must be considered doomed to fail since such information applies to different political and social realities.

Social realities in Judea and Jerusalem after 63, especially during Herod's reign, had changed since Hasmonean times, largely due to the political and social structure of the Hasmonean state having been upset by Pompey and Gabinius, to constant Roman presence in Judea, and to political changes introduced by Herod. Those transformations went side by side with entirely new occurrences in religious life. With all those elements of the new reality, our knowledge about Judean society at the time is of little help in answering questions about the preceding period.

It should be stressed that Judeans' social attitudes in the Hasmonean period were formed by an awareness of having their own nation state which was governed by a native dynasty. Even if satisfaction with the Hasmonean governance was not always widespread, the memory of their ancestors' struggle for Judea's political and religious freedom was not without effect on attitudes in at least some groups of society. Another factor affecting popular attitudes was the outcomes of the policies the dynasty implemented.

Simon's work to build his state's structures was violently interrupted by his death in an assassination instigated by his son-in-law Ptolemy, the son of Abubus. The latter had formed a conspiracy to murder all members of the Hasmonean family and take over rule of Judea (cf. 1 Macc 16:13–20). His will to power was so great that he went so far as to ask the Syrian king for help and was even willing to become his vassal (1 Macc 16:13.18). The plan failed because John, the son of Simon, then at Gezer, was warned of the danger and took steps to stop Ptolemy. The first, decisive step was to take control of the capital. With Jerusalem in his hands, John could officially claim the role of high priest and political leader after his father. Although such power landed in his lap quite unexpectedly, he was nonetheless quite well prepared to exercise it. He owed his knowledge of managing people and making decisions to his father, who had in due time entrusted to him command of the army (1 Macc 13:53). He had gained valuable experience in victorious campaign against a Syrian army under Cendebeus (1 Macc 16:2–3). It is not known whether Ptolemy's attempt met with any wider response in Judea's society. His imminent defeat and flight from the country seem to corroborate John's considerable popularity and the support he enjoyed among his subjects. Nonetheless, Ptolemy's plot must be seen as a clear sign of tensions existing in the ruling elites.

It is not without a reason that the first part of the present study shows the history of the rise, flowering, and decline of the Hasmonean monarchy against a backdrop of events in neighboring states. Only in such context is it possible to assess properly the rule by that family and dynasty, and to discern their inspirations in creating institutions for their own statehood. Such a historical perspective is also necessary to trace the development of those institutions.

First attempts to create public institutions were made already by Judah Maccabee. He recognized the need to organize the insurrectionist movement in structures to permit more efficient leadership. Such institutions included those geared to providing sustenance to insurrectionists, and to ensuring them a chance to share in some decision-making or to make their opinions heard. Judah Maccabee's death put an end to what he had achieved in this respect. After several years, the task of creating Judea's political institutions was undertaken by Jonathan. His diplomatic skill and success in combat enabled him to be recognized as no longer an enemy but an ally to the Seleucids. This status allowed him to begin laying foundations for his own governance in Judea, a task in which he was greatly helped by winning a leadership position on being named the high priest of the Temple. His close relations with Syrian kings involved Jonathan and his brother Simon in the world of Hellenistic politics. His active role in it enabled him not only to secure a large extent of independence from the Seleucids, but also to study closely the various aspects of Hellenistic monarchies in action.

To a ruler, his family is not only his natural entourage, but also an assurance of continuing future power of the ruling house. Sources concerning Hasmonean rulers contain a number of references to relatives of each of them. Yet actual information on respective family members is very scant and in most cases incidental. As a result, our knowledge of the Hasmoneans' family life is so fragmentary that we cannot even reconstruct their full genealogical tree. The wives of the Hasmoneans remain almost entirely obscure. No source hints at whether any of the kings had more than one wife. This scarcity of information is made more adverse by preventing our understanding of family relations among the Hasmoneans. Such an understanding would enable us to learn more about the dynasty's links with the outside world. Marriages of members of the ruling house were usually made to win the support of influential families among their nation's elite or to build closer ties with other ruling houses. We are denied the knowledge of who were the wives of Hasmonean rulers and their sons and from what families the husbands of their daughters originated. Sometimes all we know are only their names.

From among the consorts of all those Hasmoneans who reigned in Judea, we only know one name – that of Alexandra Salome, the wife of Aristobulus I and Alexander Jannaeus. Best known though she is among the Hasmonean women, sources have nothing to say about her background, or her parents or siblings.

Information provided by sources leaves no doubt that the structure of the state created by the Hasmoneans was thoroughly subordinated to the needs of their rule and purposes of their policy. In building a system of government, the Hasmoneans could draw from their neighbors' experience in this respect, and even make use for their own purposes of some elements of government established in Judea by Syrian kings. Yet an analysis of the state's structures and institutions they created suggests that the Hasmonean rulers applied solutions that were their original invention rather than copies of models existing in neighboring countries or known in a broadly understood Hellenistic world. The originality stemmed from the Jewish religious and cultural difference which largely limited possibilities of imitating foreign patterns. Even if the Hasmoneans occasionally emulated such patterns, they would transform them to such an extent as to give them an altogether different shape and content. Any attempt to describe the institutions of the Hasmonean state must be prefaced by a reservation: the effort cannot always guarantee fully satisfactory results. The main reason is the limited number of our sources, their often incidental character, and the fact that some of them have survived to our time only in fragments.

Describing and interpreting selected events outside their broader context always carries a risk of oversimplification or incomplete analysis, as well as of omission of interrelations that may exist between them.

As the rebellion against the Hellenistic religious reform was progressing, with Judah Maccabee and Jonathan scoring successes, the Hasmoneans won great prestige and strengthened their position. Their prerogatives included military command, political leadership, and the judiciary. Yet the actual positioning of each of Mattathias' sons was conditional primarily on their practical enforcement capacities, and not only within the circle of their followers but also within other groups of Judean society more or less willing to consent to Hasmonean supremacy. Immensely important, too, was the size of the area they were controlling and over which they exercised authority.

Considering in these terms the standing of the first Hasmoneans, we may be certain that their rule did not exceed merely local boundaries until Jonathan's reign. The process was helped not only by his victories, but also by a propitious turn of affairs caused by events taking place in the Seleucid state. These combined to make Jonathan no longer recognized as a hunted warlord, but rather as a tolerated local leader who, at the height of the struggle between pretenders to the Syrian throne, won the status of a valuable ally of one of them. This role brought him tangible benefits, augmented by political concessions accompanying each of the string of honors that came his way, the most precious of which proved to be his appointment to the high priesthood at the Jerusalem temple. In this way, Jonathan was elevated to being almost a sovereign leader of Judea.

When John Hyrcanus was dying after 31 years of rule, his state was larger and more powerful than that he had inherited from his father. He was succeeded, against his will, by Aristobulus, one of his five sons. When their father was still alive, he and his brother Antigonus had made a name for themselves as good field commanders. They were largely responsible for the success of John's expansionist operations in Idumea and Samaria and the capture of the city of Samaria. Still, John favored his widow to succeed him as the head of state after his death (Jos. BJ 1.71; AJ 13.302). It is not clear why John should have made such a surprising decision. There is little conviction in Josephus' explanation claiming that John had been influenced by a prophecy which said that both eldest sons would never exercise power in the state (Jos. BJ 1.69; AJ 13.300. 322). More probably, John was anticipating rivalries between his sons and wished to prevent a possible civil war. If his widow rose to power such danger could be averted as she would be exercising political leadership, while one of the sons would attain high priesthood. However, John Hyrcanus could not foresee that his decision might cause a bitter confrontation for power between the mother and the eldest son (Jos. BJ 1.71; AJ 13. 302). Aristobulus ignored his father's testament and went on to claim full power. In the process, he imprisoned his mother and younger brothers (except Antigonus).

As to the first Hasmoneans' financial resources, we know that they were large enough to support an army, build and expand necessary military installations, reward members of their close circle, and implement a limited social policy. Their income was so vast that despite all Simon's expenditure, late in his reign he possessed a fortune which, even though difficult to estimate, truly astonished Antiochus VII Sidetes' envoy as he visited the Judean ruler in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Macc 15:32. 36).

Probably much of the treasury inherited from Simon was spent by John Hyrcanus in his first years on the throne to cover costs incurred in a defeat at the hands of Antiochus VII Sidetes and to finance his forced participation in the Parthian expedition of this king. Sources suggest, however, that within more than a decade he had not only recovered those losses, but had taken advantage of favorable political circumstances to greatly multiply his resources. From John Hyrcanus until the loss of Judean independence in 63, the Hasmoneans never had to face serious financial problems. This brings us to the sources of their wealth. We know that during the intense fighting by the first Hasmoneans against Syrian rulers, much of their revenue came from plundering the areas where their army operated, seizure of property belonging to Hellenists, and taxes payable by Judeans to the Seleucids but intercepted in part or in whole by the Hasmoneans to finance their own needs.