CHAPTER VII.

_THE RESULTS OF EXPLORATION._

I propose to conclude this volume by a slight sketch of the results

which have been gathered by exploration in Palestine. In journals or

memoirs the importance of these results is hardly to be appreciated in

their scattered form, and I find that they have certainly not yet been

grasped even by learned writers who have penned accounts of the country

quite recently in England. These results are geological, geographical,

physical, antiquarian, ethnical, and biblical, or, more widely speaking,

historical, and under these six headings they may successively be

considered.

Geological research was not one of our principal objects, but a

knowledge of the geology of a country is indispensable, if the explorer

would rightly estimate, not only its geographical character, but the

possibilities of ancient cultivation and natural history. I was taught

the elements of geology by more than one specialist well known by name

in England, and though the studies of Lartet and others left no great

discoveries to be made, I always felt the necessity of studying the

structure and the mineralogy of every district which we visited.

The great geological problem of Palestine had long been solved when we

entered the country. It was interesting to trace the smaller faults in

the Jordan Valley, and to discover volcanic outbreaks on Carmel which

were previously unknown; but the fact that the Dead Sea and the valley

were formed by a mighty fault 200 miles long, leaving the sandstone of

the lower beds bare on the east side, and producing violent dips in the

limestone on the west, had already been explained. Professor Hull has

since given scientific accounts of the formations south of the Dead Sea,

but Canon Tristram described the sea-beaches in the valley in 1876,

before I mentioned the existence of a very remarkable example north of

Jericho.

What chiefly interests us from a general point of view is the relation

which geology bears to the question of the ancient fertility of the

country. Porous strata must have been porous in all historical periods,

and impervious strata impervious. The last convulsions had long given

place to the slow processes of denudation on the Palestine hills before

man existed, and though the Jordan Valley was formed after the chalk

age, the great lakes had dried up, leaving only the Sea of Galilee,

Merom, and the Dead Sea in existence when history opened.

It seems clear, then, that the well-watered parts of Palestine now

existing are those which were so when the Old Testament was penned; that

where wells and cisterns are now used, they were then also in use; that

what is now trackless and waterless desert was so in the time of David.

The snow of Hermon is mentioned in the Bible as well as the saltness of

the Bitter Sea. Palestine is still a land of corn, wine, and oil, as of

yore, and sheep are still fed in the same pastoral regions, the same

vineyards are still famous, the corn of its plains still yields an

hundredfold. I am unable to see that in any respect, either in climate

or in natural productions, can the land have changed, excepting always

that a decrease in population has led to decreased cultivation, and that

goats and peasants have often wrought havoc among the trees. Palestine

can hardly have been more healthy in Bible times than it now is.

Plagues, famines, fever, and leprosy are mentioned in the history of the

Hebrews, and in the New Testament we find the poor stricken with

eyesore, fever, and palsy quite as much as they now are. There are still

“former and latter rains,” and the rose of Sharon has not withered: the

purple iris is still royally robed: the imagery of the Song of Songs is

still easy to apply. Except in the disappearance of the lion and the

wild bull--which are also represented on Assyrian bas-reliefs, yet no

longer found in Assyria--there is no change in the fauna: the deer, the

antelope, the fox, the wolf, the hyena, and the jackal, the ostrich, and

the crocodile still survive in the wilder parts of the land, with the

great boars which delight in the marshes; the leopard lurks in the

jungles and the coney in the rocks; the wild goat leaps on the

precipices, and the wild ass in the distant eastern deserts is not

unknown.

Considering how complete was the examination of the fauna by Canon

Tristram, it was certainly an unexpected stroke of good fortune to

discover an unknown quadruped in Palestine; but the bones of the Yahmur

deer, which we sent home from Carmel, were pronounced to belong to the

same species with the English roebuck; and we thus recover in existence

one of the species mentioned in the Pentateuch, and which furnished

venison to King Solomon’s table.

The seasons, not less than the fauna and flora of Palestine, are

unchanged. Indeed, the names of the old Aramaic months, as now

translated by aid of Assyrian, show us this uniformity, while the spoils

taken by Thothmes III. (as already noted) carry back the agricultural

prosperity of the country to a time earlier than the Exodus. The spring

brings grass and flowers; the corn ripens even in April in the Jordan

Valley, and in May on the hills; the olive harvest and the vintage

follow in the early autumn, when the threshing-floors are full of grain,

over which the old threshing-sledge of Hebrew times is still driven.

With the first rains the ploughing begins, and with January comes the

snow, with ice and hail. In one year, at Jerusalem, we had seven falls

of snow. The top of Mount Salmon was white for days, recalling the words

of the psalm; and the occasional occurrence of a sudden storm in

harvest-time also agrees with a passage in the Books of Samuel. There is

no exaggeration in the statement that Palestine is unchanged, and the

best comment on the physical incidents mentioned in the Bible is found

in the meteorological observations of Palestine explorers.

The geographical results of the Survey are, of course, among its most

important scientific claims. The best previous maps depended on a few

observations of latitude and longitude, and on the calculation of

distances by time. Many of these distances were better known in the

fourth century than they were in 1872; for the Romans placed milestones

along their great routes, which will be found marked on the Survey maps;

and these were known to Eusebius, to Jerome, and to other travellers,

and are mentioned in the Onomasticon. On the maps sent out for my use I

not only found many omissions, but large villages were placed on the

wrong sides of valleys, and the courses of many important watercourses

were wrongly laid down. The level of the Sea of Galilee was uncertain

within three hundred feet, the fords of Jordan were unknown, and the

affluents of Jordan had not been traced. The number of important ruins

was, of course, large in districts hardly approached by former

travellers, and even on the hills near the Sharon plain villagers told

me that I was the first Frank they had ever seen, which was no doubt

true, as they rarely travel more than ten miles from home.

Ancient geography has equally benefited by the work. The names of the

old towns and villages mentioned in the Bible remain for the most part

almost unchanged. I believe that I was able to add to future maps about

150 of these old sites west of the river and some thirty east of Jordan.

Among these may be reckoned some places of great importance for the

understanding of the Bible, such as Bethabara, Bezek, Debir, Etam,

Gilgal, Jeshanah, Kadesh, Kirjath-jearim, Luz, Megiddo, Nephtoah,

Rakkon, Sorek, the Valley of Zephathah, the important border-towns of

Dabbasheth and Ataroth Adar, with Bamoth Baal, Peor, and Nehaliel,

Minnith, Luhith, and other places beyond Jordan. These discoveries have

already found their place on the Bible Society’s maps published in 1887;

and by such recovery of ancient sites it became possible to lay down the

boundaries of the tribes, and of the later divisions of Judea, Samaria,

and Galilee, with an amount of certitude before unattainable. Very

considerable changes have thus been made on the new Bible maps, which

will be seen when they are compared with the old; and the acceptation of

these results in standard works shows that the arguments by which they

were enforced were clear enough to overcome the most conservative

geographers. The fact that each name was carefully recorded in Arabic

letters made it possible to compare with the Hebrew in a scientific and

scholarly manner. The wild shots which have been made by those who

compare the English of the Bible with the English of the Palestine maps

might serve to discredit such comparisons; but when the Hebrew and the

Arabic are shown to contain the same radicals, the same gutturals, and

often the same meanings, we have a truly reliable comparison. The

scholar knows that Hazor and Hadirah are the same words, and he at once

sees the fallacy of comparing Jiphtah-el with Jefât. In the one case the

words are identical in lettering and in meaning; in the other, the

actual Arabic of Jiphthah-el is Fath Allah--a name which still survives

in the Jordan Valley.

There are still points disputed in Palestine geography, which is for the

most part due to the meagre information which we possess. Some of these

questions of opinion may remain always unsettled, but we have now

recovered more than three-quarters of the Bible names, and are thus able

to say with confidence that the Bible topography is a genuine and actual

topography, the work of Hebrews familiar with the country, and free from

contradictions such as are presented, for instance, in the Book of Tobit

by a writer ignorant of the places of which he speaks.

It is not only the Bible geography which has thus been explained. The

topography of Josephus, of the Talmud, of the Byzantine pilgrim writers,

of the Crusading chronicles, are equally illustrated by our maps. The

Memoirs, which give a detailed account of every hill range, stream,

spring, village, town, ruin, and large building in Palestine, also

contain notes of every statement as to topography which I was able to

gather from Jewish, Samaritan, Greek, Latin, and Norman French notices

of Palestine. Not only Josephus and the Bible, but Pliny, Strabo, the

Rabbinical writers, the Samaritan chroniclers, the Onomasticon, the

early Christian pilgrims, the Crusading and Arab chronicles, have been

put under contribution, and we can now prepare not only a map of

Canaanite Syria as known to the Egyptians or one of the Twelve Tribes or

of the Roman provinces, but a Byzantine map of fifth-century bishoprics,

or a yet fuller map of the Crusading kingdom, with its Norman and

Normanised Arab names, some of the former even of which are now

preserved.

The Memoirs to which I refer fill three quarto volumes, full of plans

and pictures, special surveys of important places, and detailed

accounts. A volume on Jerusalem and another on special subjects are

added, and the set includes, in other volumes, Dr. Hull’s geological

account, Canon Tristram’s natural history, and Professor Palmer’s

editing of the name lists. Yet another volume of natural history is

promised from the observations of Mr. Chichester Hart, and the volume of

my Moabite Survey has just appeared, making the ninth. It must not be

forgotten that the Survey was no mere compass sketch. It is based on a

triangulation with three carefully measured bases. All important

mountain tops are laid down within a circle having a diameter of ten

yards. All important heights are determined within five feet. The levels

of the Sea of Galilee and of the Dead Sea are known within a few inches.

The hill features are represented not by conventionalised lines, but by

actual tracing of every spur and by actual survey of every top. Whatever

disputes may arise as to the meaning of an Arabic or Hebrew word, or as

to the identification of some obscure site, there can be no dispute as

to the geographical position or the elevation of any spot shown on the

Palestine Survey, for the principles of the work are the same on which

our original Ordnance Survey in England was carried out; and although

the appliances at our command would of course not allow of the same

minute accuracy of instrumental measurement, still, on the scale of one

inch to a mile such minutiæ are invisible to the eye.

I had occasion very often to test work done some time before by my

surveyors: it always stood the test; and when we were informed from home

that a “village had been left out,” I was not alarmed, for I had checked

the map by the Turkish Government list of villages under taxation, and

we found to our amusement, when the actual prismatic compass came into

our hands, with which our critic took angles at the so-called village

(which was a ruin actually shown on the map), that the instrument had no

needle, which explained why no three angles of those given to us could

be made to intersect in a single point. The survey of Jordan and the

position of points east of Jordan were subjected to severe tests by an

independent authority, with the result that our work was pronounced to

be the only accurate representation of the ground. I always felt sure

that my companions recognised their responsibility to the public, and

that the work was done in earnest by men who took pride in its being

good. Such criticisms were therefore welcome, as opportunities of

demonstrating that, as far as in us lay, our work was thorough and

conscientious. I have often been amused at the “mares’ nests” which have

arisen from misunderstanding the accounts of other travellers, and then

attempting to apply to the map. Those who quote these earlier maps must

remember that we had them before us, and that if we omitted names

thereon shown, we did so after due inquiry, either because they are

wrong, or because they are at least doubtful.

Turning to antiquarian questions, some disappointment has been expressed

that we found nothing very sensational, to compare with the Moabite

Stone for instance, or with the cuneiform tablets. It is true that we

did not bring home the ark, or the calves of Dan, or Ahab’s ivory house,

or Joseph’s mummy, but I doubt if this detracts from the scientific

value of our work. I was offered Samson’s coffin, and a contemporary

account of the Crucifixion. I was often presented with ancient MSS. and

early pottery, but no record will be found of these wonders in the work

of the Survey. The dolmens of Moab, the true copy of the Siloam

inscription, the shekels sent home by Mr. Drake, the plan of the Hebron

Haram, are the most ancient antiquarian results we have been able to

place before the public. We have not offered Shapira Pentateuchs, or

seals of David in square Hebrew, but the drier records of decipherment

and measurement.

As regards epigraphy, it is true that our Memoirs contain only one

Hebrew text of great antiquity, with three Hebrew tomb-inscriptions; but

these form a very substantial addition to previous materials. The number

of Greek texts scattered over the whole country and previously uncopied

is large, including the interesting text from the door of a ruined

basilica, reading, “This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall

enter in;” and, as mentioned previously, the twelfth-century frescoes in

the Jordan Valley, which are reproduced in their colours, have since

been completely destroyed.

Since the finding of the Moabite Stone no discovery has been as

important as that of the Siloam inscription. The exact forms of the

letters, and the question whether these forms were exactly repeated,

were points of the greatest interest. The first copies were most

misleading in these respects, and the difficulty of copying was very

great; the earliest correct representation published in Europe was taken

from our squeezes; and it may be compared with the cast which was made

for us, and which is now in England. The text opened out a new chapter

in the history of the alphabet, and gave the first monumental evidence

of the civilisation of the Hebrews in the days of their kings.

As regards antiquarian questions which depend on accurate survey and

levelling, the most important are those which concern Jerusalem. It is

disappointing to find that the cogency of such evidence is not always

understood, especially by scholars who have not travelled or studied

survey. Quite recently allusion has been made by one writer to

“imaginary contours” as the work of Palestine explorers; as though there

existed some kind of contours which were not imaginary. I have never

been in a country where actual contours could be found, but the accuracy

of contours depends on the accuracy and number of the levelled points

which they represent. For general purposes, sections of ground may be

recommended as better understood by laymen. In the present instance, the

accuracy of the levelling by which the lie of the rock in Jerusalem is

determined is happily beyond dispute; and the observations of the rock

surface exposed in tanks, wells, and excavations are fortunately most

numerous in just the places where they are most wanted. From these

results there is no escape for those who wish to found their theories on

facts.

It is curious, however, to note that not even a scaled survey will

appeal in all cases to the antiquary. Plans of Jerusalem have been put

forward which reduce the size of the city to that of a gentleman’s

garden--not exceeding five acres for the older town, and fifteen acres

in all. This is gravely propounded in face of the surveys of Tyre,

Cæsarea, and other cities, which, though placed on restricted sites,

have an area of 100 to 200 acres each. Jerusalem, in Hebrew times,

really occupied some 200 acres, with a population of more than 10,000

souls, even in Nehemiah’s time. A modern village of 500 souls in

Palestine is larger than the “Pre-Exilic” Jerusalem of writers who put

no scale to their plans. It is not, I fear, unnecessary to point out the

importance of mastering the results of scientific survey, especially in

the case of scholars who have not been in Palestine. No amount of

literary ingenuity can destroy the actual results of measurement and

excavation, and as these become more familiar the theories which ignore

them must become obsolete.

After surveying and planning a very large number of ruins, it became

possible to form some opinion as to comparative dates, and, from

instances where history or inscriptions furnished a clue, to obtain

starting-points of comparison in other cases. In this work I found most

assistance from the writings of De Vogüé and Rey, and from Fergusson’s

“Handbook of Architecture.” Many fallacies thus came to be exposed, and

the discovery of pointed arches often transferred a building from the

Phœnicians to the Crusaders. The number of really ancient remains

naturally proved to be small, for we must remember that the antiquary in

Palestine ends nearly where he begins in England. A Saxon church is a

very great rarity at home. In Palestine, where we go back some three

thousand years earlier, many important ruins are six or seven centuries

older than our Saxon chapels (such as that of Bradford). In England we

point with pride to Norman Winchester. In Palestine we regard the

Crusading Cathedral of the Holy Sepulchre as quite modern. The Dome of

the Rock was the model of our Temple chapels, and so old was it when the

Temple Order was instituted, that it was confounded by the Knights with

Herod’s Temple, still seven centuries older. Yet even Herod’s work does

not content us in the East, where we look to find the walls built by

Solomon. Some antiquaries have failed to remember the many great

builders--Hadrian, Constantine, Justinian, the Khalifs, the Crusaders,

the later Moslems--who followed Herod and Solomon. Palestine has an

ancient history of eight centuries between the date of the Crucifixion

and the time when England became a state. This is a truism, yet it is

one which is not unfrequently forgotten.

Among the most important results was the classification of various kinds

of rock-sepulchre in Palestine. To convince us that an ancient site has

really been discovered, it is not enough to find a ruin with the

required name. When neither inscription nor architecture gives a date,

and when no measured distances along Roman roads point to the spot, we

must often rely on the evidence of rock-cut tombs. It is not enough to

find even these, unless they are really Hebrew tombs. It was our

practice not only to record their existence, but to measure and describe

them. They fall thus into categories--Hebrew, Greek, Roman, Early

Christian, and Crusading--all rock-cut, but all presenting differences.

Some were inscribed, and served to date the class to which they

belonged. In some cases tombs of the earlier class had been enlarged

later, the inner chambers presenting different arrangements to the outer

or older. In some cases Jewish tombs were half destroyed by more recent

excavators of caves, which were thus proved not to be as old as formerly

thought. It was finally clear that tombs with _kokim_, that is, with

tunnels in the walls of the chamber running in lengthways, so that the

corpse was placed with its feet towards the chamber, were the oldest;

and that this style of sepulture was Hebrew and preceded the Greek age.

In Phœnicia similar tombs occur; but the tombs at the bottom of a

deep shaft, as in Egypt, which occur at Tyre, are unknown in Palestine,

where the entrance is in the face of a rock.

When _kokim_ tombs occur at a ruined site, they may now be considered

good evidence of the antiquity of the place. They are found at most of

the sites which have been otherwise proved to be Hebrew towns, but their

antiquity is demonstrated by independent means.

There are in Palestine eight great periods of building, beginning with

the rude stone or pre-historic age, and including Hebrew, Greek, Roman,

Byzantine, Arab, Crusading, and Saracenic.

The rude stone monuments have been already noticed, and are probably the

earliest remains in the country. Hebrew remains are chiefly represented

by rock-cut tombs, rock scarps, tunnels, and pools (as at Siloam), the

great Tells or mounds beside springs and streams, and a very few

inscriptions. The wall on Ophel, found by Sir C. Warren, is probably as

old as Nehemiah, and in the extreme north we have Phœnician

sculptures, tombs, and sarcophagi of equal antiquity. The Greek age

presents several examples of native art under Greek influence, such as

the palace of Hyrcanus, and some of the Jerusalem tombs. To the earliest

Roman period belong the walls of the Jerusalem and Hebron harams, with

the temple at Siah, the colonnade at Samaria, the earliest remains at

Masada and Cæsarea. Advancing to the second century of our era, we find

Syria to have been suddenly covered with Roman cities, Roman roads,

Roman temples and inscriptions, funerary and official; and this period,

to which the synagogues also belong, is one of the greatest building

ages in Palestine. The Roman work gradually gives place to the Christian

architecture of the Byzantines. Chrysostom’s description of Syrian

civilisation fully agrees with the discovery of countless Greek chapels

and churches of this age, with cities, castles, and other buildings. At

Bethlehem we have one of the oldest churches in the world, the

fourth-century pillars still standing in place. The church was five

hundred years old when England became a kingdom.

The early Arabs have left us very few buildings beyond the Dome of the

Rock at Jerusalem, the great Damascus mosque, and perhaps the buildings

beyond Jordan mentioned in the fifth chapter. They employed Persian and

Greek architects, and brought no original style of their own from the

deserts of Arabia. The Crusaders, who followed, were great builders,

civil and ecclesiastical; the country is full of their castles and of

their churches. The Italian-Gothic style was slowly modified during the

two centuries of Norman supremacy; the latest buildings being those

along the western coast, which was latest held. The nearest approach to

their architecture that I have seen is found in Palermo and in Messina;

and it was to Norman success against Islam in Sicily that the

establishment of the Latin kingdom in Syria was due. The Normans were

succeeded by the Egyptians, to whom Syria owes many of its finest

architectural monuments, dating from the fifteenth century. The Turks

have added very little of any interest to the architectural remains of

the country.

These various epochs and styles are distinguishable by the student who

has studied dated monuments of each age. The forms of the arches, the

dressing of the masonry, the mortar even and the plaster, tell their

tale to the practised eye. Crusading work is distinguished by its

mason’s marks, of which we made a large collection, and which are often

the same used about the same time in England and in Scotland. They are

neither marks of individuals, nor do they show the position intended for

the stone, but clearly they were put only on the best finished stones,

and often they are luck-marks, which, from a remote antiquity, have been

widely used in Asia and in Europe. Neither the earlier Arabs nor the

later Saracens seem to have used such marks, and they form the most

distinctive peculiarity of Crusading work in the East.

Next in order we must consider one of the most interesting subjects

studied by the explorers, namely, that of ethnology. Very little was

really known as to the peculiarities of the natives of Syria. I find

that it is still thought in England that they are Turks, though the

number of Turks in the country south of Damascus might perhaps be

counted only by tens. For six years I carefully studied every class of

the population, and collected facts concerning race, religion, and

language, which form the most important considerations in such study,

and on which manners and customs must chiefly depend.

The population of Palestine, though very sparse, is also very mixed. In

addition to the Moslem peasantry, who are mainly of an Aramaic stock,

and the Arabs, who are more or less of pure southern extraction, we have

to deal with native Greek Christians; with the Lebanon Maronites; with

the Druzes, Metâwileh, Ismailiyeh, Anseiriyeh; with Greeks, Jews,

Samaritans, and with yet later colonies of Germans; with Italian monks

and French priests; with the annual hordes of pilgrims, Russian,

Armenian, or Georgian, and the annual inroad of European tourists. Some

European stocks, such as the Italian and German, have left their mark on

the racial types of the country. We cannot study the question of

ethnology practically on the assumption that the population is of pure

stock, and represents without mixture that existing three thousand years

ago. Not only has there been some admixture of late years, but there

have been from the dawn of history various races in Syria. The Crusaders

who married Maronite and Armenian wives originated the _Poulains_, who

remained in the land. The soldiers of Rome or of Alexander, whose

colonies were found even as far east as Gerasa, no doubt intermarried

with natives; as the Palmyrene archer of York wedded a wife of the

Catuvellauni. In the time of Christ Greek was spoken in Palestine, and

the inhabitants of Decapolis were probably in many cases of Greek

descent. The Arabs from the south were then pushing northwards to meet

the descending Aramaic stream from Palmyra. When we go back to

Nehemiah’s time, we find the Jews as strangers, surrounded by a

peasantry of mixed race. Yet earlier, the Assyrians brought colonists

from the east and planted them in Samaria. When we go back to the time

of Rameses II., we already find, side by side with the Semitic

inhabitants, a race which was akin to the Medes and other ancient

Mongolic peoples of Western Asia. The “Canaanite was then in the land”

when Abraham began his migrations from the north.

These two great stocks, Semitic and Turanian, have contended ever since

in Syria, with varying fortunes; and from the third century B.C.

downwards the Aryans also have been always present. We have seen already

how far south the Turkoman hordes pushed in Palestine, still surviving

in the plain of Sharon; and, as in all other countries, there are

gypsies in Syria, representing another element of Aryan origin from

India; while among the Druzes I believe a Persian stock is also present.

If, therefore, ethnology is to be studied in Palestine, it must be with

these facts kept steadily before us. If peasants are to be asked to have

their heads measured, we must know something of their genealogies also.

If skulls are to be collected, we must find out what skulls they are. I

have known the skulls of peasants recently murdered to be sent home as

types of the ancient population of the country. I have read of blue eyes

attributed to the Amorites, when probably a much more recent admixture

of Aryan blood might account for this most abnormal occurrence.[63]

Even the studies of religion or of language present less difficulty than

that of race. We are constantly reminded that race and language are not

synonymous. It is no doubt true, since a conquered people often learns

the language, and sometimes adopts the creed, of the conquerers. In

Palestine, gypsies and Turkomans talk Arabic, for it is a necessity that

the minority should speak the tongue of the majority; yet, as regards

the more important stocks in Syria, there has been no great change. The

peasantry speak almost as they spoke in Jerome’s days, almost as the

Galileans spoke in the time of our Lord. The Arab tongue as spoken by

the wild Bedu of Moab was admired for its classic expressions by my

educated scribe, and was hardly understood by my Maronite servants. The

speech of townsmen differs from that of the peasantry in its sounds as

well as in its words, and the Lebanon muleteer’s jargon would certainly

not be understood by an university professor of Arabic.

As regards the Moslem religion in Syria something has already been said.

To study only one phase of Islam, as represented by educated Turks or

Circassians in a city like Cairo, which has so long been open to

European influence, will give only a partial and misleading picture of

the creed, even when the good faith of such latitudinarians is

undoubted. In Damascus, in Homs, in Hamah, in the remote villages, in

the sanctuaries of Hebron and Jerusalem, another and a very different

tone prevails. Let the student of Islam run the gauntlet of the

fanatical guards of these sanctuaries, let him be stoned for a dog and

denied a drink of water as a Kâfir, and then acknowledge that the stern

prejudices of the Middle Ages are not extinct. Guarded by an English

garrison, in a country where subservience to England is a necessity, how

can he judge the real temper of Moslems? Rather should he reflect on the

ruins of Alexandria, on the dervishes who surrounded Arabi at

Tell-el-Kebir, on the curses which will meet him in Hebron or in Acre.

It is not by their words, but by their actions that Orientals, like

Westerns, must be judged; and it is not by the opinions of the most

advanced and civilised that the strength of prejudice among the many is

to be gauged.

The ethnological study to which I devoted most of my time was that of

the Moslem peasantry and of the nomadic Arabs. “We recorded their

customs, their beliefs, their superstitious practices. We described

their dress and food, and studied the peculiarities of their dialect. We

found among them good, bad, and indifferent, honest and upright men, and

scoundrels or hypocrites. Some were intelligent and able, others were

stupid. We cannot generalise concerning them, any more than we can

generalise at home. The average standard is very low as regards

morality, truth, and intellect. Education they have none, and their

courage, though generally remarkable, is not always to be relied on. The

Arab is superior in many respects to the Fellah, but he is quite as

untruthful and as greedy.

The feeling that is left on the mind by constant and lengthy communion

with such a peasantry is not easy to describe; they are “as sheep having

no shepherd,” even as in the ancient days. What heart could fail to

pity them in their weakness and ignorance, tortured by want, by debt,

and by disease; cruelly ground down by robbers and taskmasters; torn

from their homes to fight in Balkan snows, and left to find their way

back without money or aid? I believe that in the minds of the present

Sultan and of the present Khedive a real compassion for these poor

creatures exists, though neither is able much to help them. The

gratitude expressed for very little kindness, and the good feeling

excited by common acts of justice among them, I shall not forget. There

is but one state more miserable than that in which they usually live,

and that is their condition in time of war. Whoever wins, whoever is

covered with decorations, the poor at least are certain to suffer. I

have seen them so suffer in Egypt in a campaign carried out by civilised

and merciful Englishmen, but I have only heard from them what they

underwent in the horrors of the great struggle with Russia in 1877. At

Gibeon I found a young Sheikh who alone had made his way back out of all

the conscripts taken from the village; and the peasantry in 1881 were

forced to sell themselves and their families into practical slavery to

foreign merchants, so ruined were they by the war. The horrible revenge

that they took in a village, and on a European whom I well knew, cannot

here be told. It is one of the many things beneath the surface which one

learns by living long in a country, and which cannot be appreciated by

the visitor of a season.

As regards race and language, enough has been said; and as regards

religion, I have striven to show that the faith of mosques and Mollahs

is hardly more in sympathy with peasant superstition than it is with

the scepticism of Moslem philosophers. It was not, however, only with

the peasantry that our work brought us in contact. I have conversed with

men who traced their lineage from the companions of Omar, and with

respectable merchants and learned doctors, as well as with Fellahin. The

first step to a genuine understanding with such men is that there shall

be no pretence on your part. The Oriental sees through such things more

quickly than the European. He despises an affectation of consent on your

part, and pays you in your own coin. Even as the home-made vest of an

unhappy European disguised as a Syrian Christian was seen beneath his

_jubbeh_, and as his blue eyes betrayed him while his speech did not, so

the would-be Oriental Englishman deceives himself when he thinks he is

gaining ground with Moslems. In his own colours he is accepted on his

merits, and may claim such acquaintance as may exist between Moslem and

Christian; but the Korân forbids the making of a Christian intimacy (v.

56). “Take not Jew or Christian,” says the Prophet, “for a friend.”

Few men could be more respected or more worthy of respect than the

famous Abd-el-Kader, whose acquaintance I was honoured by making. Strict

and stern as was his creed, countless Christians owed their lives to his

influence in the massacres of 1860. With him I would contrast my

so-called friend the Sheikh of the Jerusalem Haram. He belonged to the

new school, which prophesies smooth things, and cries peace where there

is no peace. A milder-mannered man I never met. He went out of his way

to propose that he should start excavations for us near the mosque, and

that he should let us see down into the Well of Souls. He never meant a

word he said. I never believed him; and I knew his object was merely to

get money on promises never to be fulfilled. Finding exactly where I

wanted to excavate, he used to see no difficulty in the way. The next

time I went to the Haram, a huge mound of earth had arisen before the

walled-up archway which he promised to open. It was the stupidity of the

Pasha, he explained (a Christian and an educated man), and he was still

anxious to do something else. He could smatter a little English, and

could ask for a copy of the Gospels. From such a man I could fancy the

words to come easily that “Moslems and Christians were just the same;”

but among all Muhammadans of Syria I despised no one else so heartily.

It is not the Moslem only who takes the measure of your foot in the

East. I have heard the dragoman, who is so obsequious and respectful,

describe the peculiarities of his convoy in their absence with

considerable humour. There have been well-known prelates of Oriental

Churches whose “printing-press funds” have not been visibly devoted to

the benefit of their flocks. As long as the Turk is thought to be stupid

and the Eastern believed to be eager for our teaching, he possesses the

great advantage of being undervalued. The Turks have not allowed

railways to be made, but they have adopted the electric telegraph; they

have stopped explorations, but they are careful to collect antiquities

having a saleable value. The Syrians have not adopted hard hats or

French bonnets, but they buy lucifer-matches, and they use guns and

gunpowder. They, like the Caffres, have keenly observed the manners of

Europe, and have adopted only what seemed to them practical

improvements. It is difficult to convey the results of experience in

words. We go out to other countries supposing that we can carry all

before us. We come home after a time to doubt whether in all respects

our civilisation is superior to that of peoples who in Asia were the

heirs of an ancient culture when we were painted with woad. If we are

ignorant at first of the manners and beliefs of Eastern lands, the shock

to our prejudices must be very great; but I cannot believe that long

acquaintance with Moslem life can fail to dispel the charm of our first

contact with the dignity and courtesy of the East.

There is another important question bound up with Palestine exploration

on which a few words may be here permitted, namely, the relation which

it bears to the study of the Bible. There is hardly a historic chapter

which I was not able to read with the scene of the events recorded

before my eyes; there is not a poetic line in the Old Testament which is

not more vividly brought home by a memory of Eastern scenery and life.

The conditions under which we study the Bible at home are most peculiar.

We read it in translation, and in a country which has little or nothing

in common with the home of Hebrew prophets or of Galilean disciples. We

learn, as a rule, hardly a word of the original language, and while we

never feel that Dante or Goethe are known to those who read translations

and who have never been in Italy or in Germany, we regard the Bible as

intelligible to every reader. Not that the translation is other than the

most wonderful in existence--except Luther’s--and not that Englishmen

were ignorant of the Holy Land in the days when it was first rendered

from the original. Queen Elizabeth had her fleet on the Euphrates and

her consuls in the Levant; Maundrell was chaplain at Aleppo in 1697, and

addressed the record of his travels to the Bishop of Rochester. Not,

again, that such familiar names as those of the roebuck and the

fallow-deer are misnomers, or that “green pastures” are unknown in

Palestine, but because the average reader who has not seen the East

cannot but colour that which he reads with the colouring of familiar

scenes.

It is not only the uncritical reader to whom this applies: the literary

critic is no better off. I have studied much that has been written by

Colenso, by Ewald, by Kuenen, and by Wellhausen; but there is perhaps

only one critic of eminence to whom the East is familiar, and in whose

eyes the antiquarian discoveries of explorers seem to have primary

value, namely, Renan; and the tone of those authors who write without

practical and long experience of the East at once betrays their

deficiency. Their criticism smells of the lamp, not of the desert; and

the arguments which seem so strong in their eyes have often little force

in those of an Oriental traveller.

It has always been the fate of genius to be criticised by narrower

minds. The Book of Job, for instance, is a work which cannot be truly

appreciated anywhere but in the desert. It breathes the desert air, it

tells of desert beasts and plants, of the pastoral patriarch with his

flocks and herds, of the Chaldean raiders from the east, of the

whirlwind, the frost, and the stars. Here you read of the broom still

burned for charcoal--“sharp arrows of the mighty with coals of juniper.”

In Job you hear the poet speak of the “eyelids of the dawn.” “The ghosts

tremble beneath the waters, even the inhabitants thereof.” The stork and

the ostrich, the wild ass and the ibex on the cliffs, are familiar to

his memory. Of his critics he asks a question which may puzzle them

yet: “Knowest thou the time when the wild goats of the rock bring forth?

or canst thou mark when the hinds do calve? Canst thou number the months

that they fulfil? or knowest thou the time when they bring forth?” Even

after criticising the language and dividing out the “documents,” I fear

it is to the Arab hunter that the most learned Hebraist in England must

go for the answer.

The Song of Solomon is another Hebrew book which is equally full of

Eastern colour. The vineyards of Lebanon, the secret places in the

“stairs” of the rocks where the wild dove hides, the roes on the

mountains, are among its images. Over the Moab plateau you may see the

dawn stretching her wings as Joel beheld her, and from the mountains of

Judah you may see her sinking in the “uttermost parts of the sea,” as

the Psalmist describes. Surely in the days of a “modern theory of the

Pentateuch,” it is not amiss that we should at times be reminded that

the Hebrews knew better their own land, and even their own history, than

strangers in a remote and very different clime, in the midst of a very

different civilisation and theory of life, and at a time separated by

some twenty-five centuries from that which is studied.

Every fact that is collected in the East serves better to explain the

Bible and more and more to control critical views. Surely those who

write of “peasant proprietors” in Solomon’s days cannot be aware that

individual property in agricultural land has never been an Eastern

tenure. As in India, in Russia, or among Bechuana tribes, so also in

Palestine to the present day, the lands are held on “village tenure.”

If Isaiah’s writings were ever circulated as “broad-sheets,” I would ask

who read them in a country where only a few scribes here and there had

acquired the great art of writing?

The tenth chapter of Genesis has been put on one side, as though

unworthy of scientific notice, by those who have assumed that there was

only one stock and only one language in Syria and Chaldea. Now that the

monuments tell us of other races and other languages, its distinctions

become valuable, and serve to guide scientific research; while the full

elucidation of its geography has only been attained by the painful

travels of explorers. In this way, also, we are now able to restore, bit

by bit, the topography of Palestine as described in the Bible. It is

found easy to recognise the most important towns, to trace the borders

of the tribes, and to explain the scene of David’s wanderings or of

Gideon’s pursuit. In the peasant’s mouth you may still hear the old

language almost unchanged, with its terse idiom, its vigorous wording,

and its naturally religious tone. It is not the language of the

grammatical pedant that comes from his lips, but the mother-tongue of

earlier days.

In all things founded on actual knowledge of the land, the labours of

the explorers have added materially to the knowledge of the Bible. The

seasons, the climate, the fauna and flora, the crops, the native customs

and speech, the remains of Hebrew architecture, art, engineering, and

monumental writing, have been described. Even as regards the question of

transmission of ancient documents and the method of their preservation,

some new hints have been collected.

It seems to me impossible for any one familiar with Oriental ideas to

accept the ordinary theory of edited “documents,” which German

scholarship has taken as its datum, since Astruc’s discovery of parallel

passages in Genesis. Nor is it correct for critics to speak of the

modern “theory of the Pentateuch.” There is more than one such theory,

and their respective upholders are not in accord. If we take such a work

as the Book of Kings, it seems to me that light is thrown on the method

of its construction by the practice of the Samaritan high priests, who,

as already explained, have continued their very sober chronicle from

1149 A.D. to 1859 A.D. by successive additions, and a knowledge of the

documentary history of the Talmud or of the Zendavesta shows us that in

Asia it is with the “commentator,” and not with the “editor,” that we

have to deal--with sacred books preserved by loving care and reverence,

not with a modern literature to be compared with our daily press.

I have been led to make these remarks, not through any want of respect

for English scholarship and erudition, but because we are now entering

on a new epoch of scientific study, and because the great importance of

the change wrought by the increase of our actual knowledge is at times

not recognised. We no longer depend on literature alone. We have actual

monuments before our eyes. We have inscriptions, coins, seals, statues,

chased metal-work, and pottery; we have collected measurements of tombs,

walls, synagogues, and reliable photographs of every famous place. We

have accounts of race, language, custom, and tradition, not hastily

gathered, but the results of sifting and repeated inquiry. From such

materials facts totally unexpected have been brought to light. Fifteen

years ago no one knew that in Syria there was a system of hieroglyphics

quite distinct from any other.[64] Forty years ago no scholar suspected

the early civilisation of a forgotten Turanian race in Chaldea, whose

language was recovered by the genius of Sir Henry Rawlinson. Now it is

generally admitted by the few who have turned their attention to the

matter that an old Mongolic people ruled over the Semitic dwellers in

Palestine before the time of the Exodus. But this discovery has as yet

found its way into no critical work on the Bible, save one hasty

attempt to show that it contradicts Genesis. It is evident that in the

future, when the subject is more fully understood, it must modify many

conclusions previously supposed final. The Hebrew language itself was

not perfectly understood until the knowledge of Assyrian had been

sufficiently advanced to permit of comparison. Even now further steps

are possible, and are being cautiously taken, by scholars familiar with

the Akkadian, which show beyond dispute how words foreign to the Hebrew

language, but proper to the Turanian speech of Western Asia, have found

a place even in the earliest books of the Old Testament. This fact, only

dimly suspected by Gesenius, has been brought to light entirely by

monumental research.

Even in the nineteenth century, then, we are only beginning to

understand the Bible from its historical and natural point of view. New

maps, new dictionaries, new handbooks have already been found requisite

to keep pace with the advance of knowledge due to exploration; and even

these cannot pretend to be final or complete presentments of all that it

is possible to know.

I may conclude, then, by a few words concerning the work which still

remains to be done, which should be in two directions--excavation and

the study of native life.

As regards excavation, there is very much to be done. At Cæsarea, at

Herodium, at Jerusalem itself, at Samaria probably, at Gerasa, and

Baalbek, there are secrets hidden still beneath the soil. The great

Hittite Tells near Homs ought all to be examined by digging. The ruins

of Carchemish have only been scratched over. Lebanon and Amanus are as

yet but little known. New hieroglyphic texts may be expected from

Northern Syria, and the Siloam inscription cannot be unique.

Unfortunately the state of the East is very unfavourable to the

antiquarian; but it must not be supposed that exploration is complete

while fields as yet hardly worked exist all along the eastern shores of

the Mediterranean.

As regards ethnological study, there is also much yet to be done. This

can only properly be undertaken by residents. The observations of a

stranger are not reliable. The inquirer must know the personal

characters of those with whom he deals, and must be able to select those

whose statements are worth recording. The peasantry especially should be

studied, and their confidence will not be given to any save those with

whom they are intimate.

The best ethnological information that I collected in Syria came from a

respected German resident among the Samaritans, who was known to all the

townsmen of Shechem as “the Father of Peace.” The object of those

interested in such study should be to organise inquiries from

sympathetic residents. The linguistic studies of Mr. C. Landberg at

Sidon have been the most important of recent additions to our knowledge

of the language, proverbs, and customs of the Syrian peasantry.[65]

A complete Fellah vocabulary should be collected in Syria. The vulgar

pronunciation should be preserved, the vulgar idiom and grammatical

blunders. A great many archaic words which are not in lexicons would

thus be unearthed, just as we find valuable survivals in the dialects of

our own provinces. To this vocabulary every legend, song, proverb, or

mythical tale that can be gathered should be added, and every custom

noted. The charms and amulets worn, the burial, birth, and marriage

rites, the common oaths and salutations, the peasant ideas of etiquette

and ceremony, every one of these has an unknown scientific value. Some

attempt has already been made by the Palestine Exploration Fund to start

such an inquiry; and until peace reigns and confidence is restored on

the Sultan’s dominions, no more useful method of increasing our

knowledge can be devised.

I will take leave, then, of my readers in the words of the old knight

whose work in Palestine has not yet been proved to be other than an

account of his own travels:--

“And forasmuch as it is long time past that there was no general passage

or voyage over the sea, and many men desiring to hear speak of the Holy

Land and have thereof great solace and comfort, ... I shall devise you

some part of things that are there, when time shall be as it shall best

come to my mind; ... for I have oftentimes passed and ridden the way

with good company of many gentles. God be thanked!”

APPENDICES.

I.

NOTE ON THE RESULTS OF EXCAVATION.

The most celebrated of the controversies connected with Palestine refer

to the site of the Temple of Herod and to that of the Holy Sepulchre. I

have given an estimate of the results of exploration as affecting both

subjects in various works, but since their publication other writers

(not the majority) have in some cases reverted to the views which were

held before exploration commenced, and which were deduced from literary

researches.

The latest work on the subject (Professor Hayter Lewis’ “The Holy Places

of Jerusalem,” Murray, 1888), very fully supports the views which I have

advocated for the last ten years.

As regards these questions, it is clear that we are now in a position to

study them from monumental evidence, which is safer and more convincing

than any argument drawn from literary studies. The views now more

generally adopted depend almost entirely on the consideration of such

monumental evidence, and on study of the rock rather than on the vague

and brief accounts of ancient writers.

As regards the Temple, the excavations have proved to us that a great

building exists on the site having masonry of the same general

character on its east, west, and south walls. The difference in finish

of the ancient stones in some parts may most probably be supposed not to

indicate any difference of date, but to be due to the work being in some

places intended to be seen and in other cases hidden under earth. There

is no evidence that any of this masonry is as old as Solomon. It

resembles the work at Arak el Emir (second century B.C.), and the Greek

style of the Acropolis (sixth century B.C.), and the Roman masonry of

Baalbek (second century A.D.). The masons’ marks found by Sir C. Warren,

and resembling Phœnician or Aramean letters, do not necessitate the

idea that these stones are of Solomon’s age. The old alphabet was still

but little changed in Herod’s days.

Various scholars have taken Josephus’ statement, that the Temple was a

stadium square--a statement made, writing in Rome, by an author whose

measurements are often self-contradictory[66]--and have thus sought to

confine Herod’s Temple to an area 600 feet square in the south-west

angle of the Haram. To this theory, which originated with the late Mr.

Fergusson, several objections seem to me fatal.

(1.) Josephus, whom they quote, also says that the town-wall of

Jerusalem on Ophel, south of the Temple, joined the _eastern_ cloister

of the Temple (Wars, V. iv. 2). This wall Sir Charles Warren discovered

joining the east wall of the Haram. Thus, according to Josephus himself,

the south-east angle of the present Haram was the south-east angle of

Herod’s Temple.

(2.) No walls such as are required by these theorists are known inside

the Haram, nor is there any break in the south wall at the point where

they suppose the S.E. angle to have been.

(3.) There is also the statement by Josephus that the Temple was on the

top of the hill, and I have shown by sections published in the _Builder_

(January 25, 1879), that according to their theory foundations of

between thirty and ninety feet are inevitably necessary to carry down to

the known levels of the rock the heavy base of the great central fane.

Writers who treat only of the plan without taking this practical

builder’s objection into consideration may not admit the strength of

this argument, but to those who have themselves built it should have

force, and no ingenuity can escape from the necessity of such

foundations. In the same paper I have shown that a plan, placing the

Holy House on the present Sakhrah rock, necessitates only three or four

feet of foundation in all parts of the Temple area. (See further

Conder’s “Handbook to the Bible,” pp. 359-385, and “Tent Work in

Palestine,” vol. i. chap, xii., for full details as to the levels).

(4.) The site of Antonia, as described by Josephus, most plainly agrees

with the present rock at the north-west corner of the Haram. Such a site

for Antonia cannot be reconciled with the theory confining the Temple to

a small portion of the Haram.

(5.) These scholars also ignore the very important and detailed account

in the Talmud, which cannot be reconciled with the small area in

question. This account dates from only about half a century after the

time of Josephus, a time when the ruins of the Temple might still be

traceable and known to the author. The account gives us every

measurement, enabling us to make a plan, and by aid of the number of

steps stated--in agreement with Josephus--to calculate the levels of the

various courts. My plan, based on these measurements, occurs in the

books above quoted and in the Jerusalem volume of the “Memoirs of

Western Palestine.” By this restoration we are able to account for the

great passages north of the Dome of the Rock, and can identify the gates

mentioned in the Talmud with existing gateways.

The theory in question seems to me, therefore, to strain the meaning of

one particular statement and to ignore several others equally important

by the same author. It declines to accept the outcome of exploration in

the recovery of the Ophel wall; and it supposes walls and a rock scarp

to exist where no traces are found of such walls and where such a scarp

is impossible. It must, therefore, be regarded as the survival of

earlier opinion, which will in time give place to the facts clearly

indicated by excavation.

As regards the site of the Holy Sepulchre, Mr. Fergusson’s theory may be

considered defunct. Professor Hayter Lewis has taken up the argument

which I attempted in 1878, and has added further details of

architectural criticism. He agrees with others in accepting the historic

accounts contained in inscriptions and in Arab chronicles which

attribute the Dome of the Rock to Abd el Melek, and he accepts my three

propositions:--1st, That older material was re-used in the structure;

2nd, That the outer walls are attributable to the restoration of the

building in the ninth century; 3rd, That the Dome of the Chain was the

model of the Dome of the Rock. These three propositions were argued in

1878 (“Tent Work in Palestine”).

It is now generally agreed that Constantine’s basilica of the Holy

Sepulchre stood on the present site of the church, and there are, of

course, many who regard Constantine’s site as of necessity the true one,

while other writers have adopted the theory to which I drew attention in

1878, placing Calvary at the present Jeremiah’s Grotto. The main

argument against the traditional site is that it must have been within

the “second wall,” which was then the outer wall on the north, whereas

we learn from the Epistle that “Christ suffered without the gate” (Heb.

xiii. 12). It is certain that the position is suspiciously central. Some

have tried to draw the second wall so as to exclude the church. The

recovery of the rock sections shows how impossible is the line they

propose, which is drawn in a valley commanded from outside. The west end

of the second wall was discovered in 1886 within a few feet of the point

shown as probable on my plan of 1878, and I believe this discovery to be

the death-blow to the claims of the traditional site.

II.

INDEX OF OLD TESTAMENT SITES IDENTIFIED IN PALESTINE.

_Abana_ (River), Nahr Barada, flows past Damascus, 33° 32´ N., 36° 20´ E.

_Abdon_, ’Abdeh, north of Akka, 33° 3´ N., 35° 9´ E.

_Abel Beth Maachah_, Abl, west of Banias, 33° 15´ N., 35° 34´ E.

_Abel Maim_, same as preceding.

†_Abel Meholah_, ’Ain Helweh, 32° 20´ N., 35° 30´ E.

_Abel Shittim_, Ghor es Seisebân, 31° 50´ N., 35° 35´ E.

†_Abez_, El Beidah, 32° 43´ N., 35° 9´ E.

_Accho_, ’Akka, 32° 45´ N., 35° 4´ E.

†_Achshaph_, Kefr Yasîf, 32° 57´ N., 35° 10´ E.

†_Achzib_, ’Ain Kezbeh, 31° 41½´ N., 35° E.

_Achzib_, ez Zîb, 33° 3´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Adadah_, ’Ad’adah, 31° 13´ N., 39° 13´ E.

_Adam_, ed Dâmieh, 32° 6´ N., 35° 32´ E.

_Adamah_, ed Dâmieh, 32° 45´ N., 35° 27´ E.

†_Adami_, Admah, 32° 38´ N., 33° 32´ E.

_Adasa_, ’Adasah, 31° 51´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Adida_, Hadîtheh, 31° 58´ N., 34° 57´ E.

_Adoraim_, Dûra, 31° 31´ N., 35° 1´ E.

_Adullam_, ’Aid-el-Mâ, 31° 40´ N., 35° E.

_Adummim_, Tal’at ed Dumm, 31° 49´ N., 35° 21´ E.

_Ahlab_, El Jish, 33° 1´ N., 35° 26´ E.

†_Ai_, Haiyân, 31° 55´ N., 35° 16´ E.

_Ajalon_, Yâlo, 31° 51´ N., 35° 1´ E.

_Alemeth_, ’Almît, 31° 50´ N., 35° 16´ E.

_Almon_, same as preceding.

†_Amad_, El ’Amûd, 33° 2´ N., 35° 8´ E.

_Anab_, ’Anâb, 31° 24´ N., 34° 56´ E.

_Anaharath_, En N’aûrah, 32° 37´ N., 35° 23´ E.

_Ananiah_, Beit Hannîna, 31° 50´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Anathoth_, ’Anâta, 31° 49´ N., 35° 15´ E.

†_Anem_, ’Anîn, 32° 20´ N., 35° 10´ E.

†_Aner_, perhaps Ellâr, 32° 22´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Anim_, El Ghuwein, 31° 21´ N., 35° 4´ E.

_Aphek_, Fîk, 32° 47´ N., 35° 42´ E.

_Ar of Moab_, Rabba, 31° 57´ N., 35° 56´ E.

†_Arab_, Er Rabîyeh, 31° 26´ N., 35° 1´ E.

_Arad_, Tell ’Arâd, 31° 17´ N., 35° 7´ E.

_Arbela_, Irbid, 32° 49´ N., 35° 28´ E.

†_Archi_, ’Ain ’Arik, 31° 55´ N., 35° 8´ E.

_Argob_ (district), El Lejja, 33° N., 36° 20´ E.

_Arnon_ (River), Wâdy Môjib, 31° 28´ N., 35° 34´ E.

_Aroer_, ’Ar’aîr, 31° 27´ N., 35° 51´ E.

_Aroer_, ’Ar’arah, 31° 8´ N., 35° E.

_Ascalon_, ’Askalân, 31° 40´ N., 34° 33´ E.

_Ashdod_, Esdûd, 31° 45´ N., 34° 39´ E.

_Ashdoth Pisgah_, ’Ayûn Mûsa, 31° 45´ N., 35° 45´ E.

_Ashteroth Karnaim_, Tell ’Ashterah, 32° 49´ N., 36° E.

_Ataroth_, ’Attârus, 31° 35´ N., 35° 42´ E.

†_Ataroth Adar_, Ed Dârieh, 31° 54´ N., 35° 4´ E.

_Azmaveth_, Hizmeh, 31° 50´ N., 35° 16´ E.

†_Baalath_, Bel’aîn, 31° 56´ N., 35° 4´ E.

_Baal Hazor_, Tell ’Asûr, 31° 59´ N., 35° 16´ E.

_Baal Meon_, Tell M’aîn, 31° 40´ N., 35° 44´ E.

†_Baal Shalisha_, Kefr Thilth, 32° 24´ N., 35° 2´ E.

_Bahurim_, probably ’Almît, _see_ Alemeth, 31° 50´ N., 35° 16´ E.

†_Bamoth Baal_, probably el Maslûbîyeh, 31° 43´ N., 35° 42´ E.

_Bath Zacharias_, Beit Skâria, 31° 40´ N., 35° 7´ E.

_Beeroth_, Bîreh, 31° 54´ N., 35° 13´ E.

_Beersheba_, Bîr es Seb’a, 31° 14´ N., 34° 47´ E.

_Bene Berak_, Ibn Ibrâk, 32° 2´ N., 34° 49´ E.

_Berachah_ (valley), Wâdy ’Arrûb, 31° 39´ N., 35° 8´ E.

_Beten_, El B’aneh, 32° 56´ N., 35° 16´ E.

_Beth Eked_, Beit Kâd, 32° 28´ N., 35° 21´ E.

_Beth Anath_, ’Ainîtha, 33° 8´ N., 35° 26´ E.

_Beth Anoth_, Beit ’Ainûn, 31° 34´ N., 35° 7´ E.

_Beth Aram_, Tell Râmeh, 31° 49´ N., 35° 38´ E.

_Beth Dagon_, Beit Dejan, 32° N., 34° 50´ E.

†_Beth Dagon_, Tell D’aûk, 32° 42´ N., 35° 7´ E.

_Bethel_, Beitîn, 31° 56´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Beth Emek_, ’Amka, 32° 58´ N., 35° 10´ E.

†_Beth Gamul_, Jemaîl, 31° 30´ N., 35° 55´ E.

†_Beth Haccerem_, ’Ain Kârim, 31° 46´ N., 35° 10´ E.

_Beth Hoglah_, ’Ain Hajlah, 31° 49´ N., 35° 30´ E.

_Beth Horon_, Upper, Beit ’Ur el Fôka, 31° 54´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Beth Horon_, Nether, Beit ’Ur et Tahta, 31° 54´ N., 35° 5´ E.

_Beth Jeshimoth_, ’Ain Suweimeh, 31° 46´ N., 35° 36´ E.

_Bethlehem of Judah_, Beit Lahm, 31° 41´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Bethlehem_, Beit Lahm, 32° 44´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Beth Meon_ and _Beth Baal Meon_ (_see_ Baal Meon), 31° 40´ N., 35° 44´ E.

_Beth Nimrah_, Tell Nimrîn, 31° 54´ N., 35° 37´ E.

†_Beth Peor_, el Mareighât, 31° 39´ N., 35° 42´ E.

_Bethshean_, Beisân, 32° 30´ N., 35° 30´ E.

_Beth Shemesh_, ’Ain Shems, 31° 45´ N., 34° 58´ E.

†_Beth Shemesh_, ’Ain esh Shemstyeh, 32° 23´ N., 35° 31´ E.

†_Beth Shemesh_, Shemsîn, 32° 58´ N., 35° 26´ E.

_Beth Shitta_, Shutta, 32° 33´ N., 35° 25´ E.

_Beth Tappuah_, Tuffûh, 31° 33´ N., 35° 2´ E.

_Beth Zur_, Beit Sûr, 31° 35´ N., 35° 6´ E.

†_Bethulia_, Mithilia, 32° 23´ N., 35° 17´ E.

†_Bezek_, Ibzik, 32° 22´ N., 35° 24´ E.

_Bozrah_ or _Bezer_, el Buseirah, 30° 50´ N., 35° 37´ E.

_Cabul_, Kâbûl, 32° 52´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Cain_, Yukîn, 31° 30´ N., 35° 9´ E.

_Carmel of Judah_, Kurmul, 31° 26´ N., 35° 8´ E.

_Carmel_ (Mount), Jebel Kurmul, 32° 45´ N., 35° E.

_Cedron_, Katrah, 31° 49´ N., 34° 46´ E.

†_Charashim_ (Valley), valley near Hirshah, 31° 50´ N., 35° 2´ E.

_Chephar Haammonai_, Kefr’Aua, 31° 58´ N., 35° 15´ E.

_Chephirah_, Kefîreh, 31° 50´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Chesalon_, Kesla, 31° 47´ N., 35° 3´ E.

_Chesulloth_, Iksâl, 32° 41´ N., 35° 19´ E.

†_Chezib_ (_see_ Achzib), ’Ain Kezbeh, 31° 41´ N., 35° E.

_Chisloth Tabor_, _see_ Chesulloth.

†_Choba_, El Mekhubby, 32° 21´ N., 31° 25´ E.

†_Chozeba_, Kûeizîba, 31° 36´ N., 35° 8´ E.

†_Chusi_, Kûzah, 32° 8´ N., 35° 15´ E.

†_Dabbasheth_, Dabsheh, 33° N., 35° 16´ E.

_Daberath_, Debûrieh, 32° 42´ N., 35° 22´ E.

_Dan_, Tell el Kâdy, 33° 15´ N., 35° 39´ E.

_Danjaan_, Dâniân, 33° 6´ N., 35° 8´ E.

†_Dannah_, probably Idhna, 31° 34´ N., 34° 58´ E.

†_Debir_, Edh Dhâheriyeh, 31° 25´ N., 34° 58´ E.

†_Debir_, probably Thoghret ed Debr, 31° 49´ N., 35° 21´ E.

_Dibon_, Dhibân, 31° 29´ N., 35° 48´ E.

†_Dimon_ (Waters of), probably Umm Deineh, 31° 30´ N., 35° 50´ E.

_Docus_, ’Ain Dûk, 31° 54´ N., 35° 25´ E.

_Dor_, usually placed at Tantûra, 32° 36´ N., 34° 55´ E.

_Dothan_, Tell Dôthân, 32° 25´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Dumah_, Ed Dômeh, 31° 26´ N., 34° 59´ E.

_Ebal_ (Mount), Jebel Eslâmîyeh, 32° 15´ N., 35° 16´ E.

_Edrei_, Ed Dr’ah, 32° 40´ N., 36° 5´ E.

†_Edrei_, Y’ater, 33° 9´ N., 33° 20´ E.

_Eglon_, ’Ajlân, 31° 34´ N., 34° 43´ E.

_Ekrebel_, ’Akrabeh, 32° 8´ N., 35° 20´ E.

_Ekron_, ’Aker, 31° 51´ N., 34° 48´ E.

_Elah_ (Valley), Wâdy es Sunt, 31° 42´ N., 34° 55´ E.

_Elealah_, El ’Al, 31° 49´ N., 35° 49´ E.

†_Eleasa_, Il’asa, 31° 54´ N., 35° 6´ E.

†_Eleph_, Lifta, 31° 48´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Elon Beth Hanan_, Beit ’Anân, 31° 51´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Eltekeh_, probably Beit Likia, 31° 52´ N., 35° 4´ E.

_Emmaus Nicopolis_, ’Amwâs, 31° 51´ N., 34° 59´ E.

_Endor_, Endôr, 32° 38´ N., 35° 23´ E.

_Engannim_, Jenîn, 32° 28´ N., 35° 18´ E.

_Engannim_, Umm Jina, 31° 45´ N., 34° 57´ E.

_En-Gedi_, ’Ain Jidy, 31° 28´ N., 35° 23´ E.

†_En-Haddah_, Kefr ’Adân, 32° 29´ N., 35° 15´ E.

_En-Hazor_, Hazîreh, 33° 7´ N., 35° 21´ E.

_En Rimmon_, Umm er Rumâmîn, 31° 22´ N., 34° 51´ E.

_En Rogel_, ’Ain Umm ed Deraj, 31° 46½´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_En Shemesh_, ’Ain Haud, 31° 47´ N., 35° 16´ E.

†_En Tappuah_, probably Yâsûf, 32° 7´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Ephraim_, probably Taiyibeh, 31° 57´ N., 35° 18´ E.

_Ephrata_, _see_ Bethlehem.

†_Eshean_, probably Es Sîmia, 31° 26´ N., 35° 2´ E.

_Eshtaol_, Eshû’a, 31° 47´ N., 35° E.

_Eshtemoa_, Es Semû’a, 31° 24´ N., 35° 4´ E.

†_Etam_, ’Aitûn, 31° 29´ N., 34° 55´ E.

†_Etam_, ’Ain ’Atân, 31° 41´ N., 35° 10´ E.

†_Etam_ (Rock), Beit ’Atâb, 31° 44´ N., 35° 3´ E.

†_Ether_, probably El ’Atr, 31° 37´ N., 34° 52´ E.

†_Gallim_, perhaps Beit Jâla, 31° 43´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Gath_, probably Tell es Sâfi, 31° 42´ N., 34° 50´ E.

_Gaza_, Ghuzzeh, 31° 30´ N., 34° 27´ E.

_Geba_ (_Gibeah of Saul_), Jeb’a, 31° 52´ N., 35° 15´ E.

_Geba_, Jeb’a, 32° 20´ N., 35° 13´ E.

†_Gederah_ (of Judah), Jedîreh, 31° 50´ N., 34° 57´ E.

†_Gederah_ (of Benjamin), Jedîreh, 31° 52´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Gederoth_, probably Katrah, 31° 49´ N., 34° 46´ E.

_Gedor_, Jedûr, 31° 38´ N., 35° 5´ E.

_Gerar_, Umm el Jerrâr, 31° 24´ N., 34° 26´ E.

_Gerizim_ (Mount), Jebel et Tôr, 32° 12´ N., 35° 16´ E.

_Gezer_, Tell Jezer, 31° 51´ N., 34° 55´ E.

†_Gibbethon_, Kibbieh, 31° 59´ N., 35° E.

†_Gibeah_ (of Judah), Jeb’a, 31° 51´ N., 35° 4´ E.

_Gibeah_ (of Benjamin), Jebî’a, 31° 48´ N., 35° 5´ E.

†_Gibeah Phinehas_, Awertah, 32° 10´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Gibeon_, El Jîb, 31° 51´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Gihon_ (Upper), same as En Rogel, which see.

_Gilboa_ (Mount), Jelbôn, 32° 28´ N., 35° 25´ E.

_Gilgal_, Jiljûlieh, 31° 51´ N., 35° 29´ E.

_Gilgal_, Jiljilia, 32° 2´ N., 35° 13´ E.

_Gilgal of the Goim_, Jiljûlieh, 32° 10´ N., 34° 56´ E.

†_Giloh_, probably Jâla, 31° 37´ N., 35° 4´ E.

_Gimzo_, Jimzû, 31° 56´ N., 34° 56´ E.

_Gittah Hepher_, El Mesh-hed, 32° 44´ N., 35° 19´ E.

†_Hachilah_ (Hill), Dhahret el Kôlah, 31° 28´ N., 35° 13´ E.

_Hammath_, El Hammâm, 32° 46´ N., 35° 33´ E.

_Hammon_, ’Ain Hamûl, 33° 7´ N., 35° 10´ E.

_Hammon_ or _Hamoth Dor_, same as Hammath.

†_Hannathon_, Kefr ’Anân, 32° 55´ N., 35° 25´ E.

†_Haphraim_, Farrîyeh, 32° 37´ N., 35° 7´ E.

†_Hareth_, Kharâs, 31° 37´ N., 35° 2´ E.

_Harod_ (Well), generally placed at ’Ain Jâlûd, 32° 33´ N., 35° 21´ E.

_Harosheth_, El Harathîyeh, 32° 43´ N., 35° 6´ E.

†_Haruph_, probably Kharûf, 31° 38´ N., 35° E.

†_Hazar Susah_, perhaps Susîn, 31° 23´ N., 34° 20´ E.

_Hazezon Tamar_, the same as Engedi.

_Hazor_, near _Jebel Hadîreh_, 33° 4´ N., 35° 29´ E.

_Hazor_ (of Benjamin), Hazzûr, 31° 50´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Hebron_, El Khulîl, 31° 32´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Heleph_, probably Beit Lîf, 33° 8´ N., 35° 20´ E.

_Helkath_, Yerka, 32° 57´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Helkath Huzzurim_, probably Wâdy el ’Askar, 31° 52´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Hermon_, Jebel esh Sheikh, 33° 24´ N., 35° 47´ E.

_Heshbon_, Hesbân, 31° 48´ N., 35° 48´ E.

†_Hezron_, probably Jebel Hadîreh, 30° 51´ N., 34° 50´ E.

_Hinnom_ (Valley), Wâdy Rabâbeh, 31° 46½´ N., 35° 13¼´ E.

†_Holon_, perhaps Beit ’Alâm, 31° 35´ N., 34° 47´ E.

†_Horem_, Hârah, 33° 10´ N., 35° 41´ N.

_Hormah_, _see_ Zephath.

†_Horonaim_ (ascent), probably Wâdy el Ghueir, 31° 46´ N., 35° 38´ E.

†_Hosah_, El ’Ezîlyah, 33° 11´ N., 35° 15´ E.

_Hukkok_, Yakûk, 32° 53´ N., 35° 28´ E.

_Ibleam_, Yebla, 32° 34´ N., 35° 28´ E.

†_Ijon_, El Khiâm, 33° 19´ N., 35° 36´ E.

_Ir Nahash_, possibly Deir Nakhkhâs, 31° 37´ N., 34° 55´ E.

_Iron_, Yarûn, 33° 5´ N., 35° 25´ E.

†_Irpeel_, Râ-fât, 31° 53´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Ir-Shemesh_, same as Beth Shemesh (’Ain Shems).

_Jabbok_ (River), Wâdy Zerka, 32° N., 35° 32´ E.

_Jabneel_, Yebnah, 31° 51´ N., 34° 44´ E.

†_Jabneel_, Yemma, 32° 42´ N., 35° 30´ E.

_Jamnia_, same as Jabneel (Yebnah).

_Janoah_, Yanûh, 31° 16´ N., 35° 18´ E.

_Janohah_, Yanûn, 32° 10´ N., 35° 21´ E.

†_Janum_, Beni Naim, 31° 31´ N., 35° 9´ E.

_Japhia_, Yâfa, 32° 41´ N., 35° 16´ E.

_Japho_, Yâfa, 32° 3´ N., 34° 45´ E.

_Jarmuth_, El Yermûk, 31° 43´ N.

†_Jarmuth_, Râmeh, 32° 21´ N., 35° 10´ E.

_Jattir_, ’Attîr, 31° 22´ N., 35° E.

†_Jazer_, Beit Zer’ah, 31° 50´ N., 35° 51´ E.

†_Jearim_ (Mount), see Kirjath Jearim.

_Jebus_, see Jerusalem.

_Jehosaphat_ (Valley), Wâdy Sitti Miriam, 31° 46¾´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Jehud_, El Yehudîyeh, 32° 2´ N., 34° 53´ E.

_Jericho_, ’Ain es Sultân, near Erîha, 31° 51´ N., 35° 27´ E.

_Jerusalem_, El Kuds esh Sherif, 31° 47´ N., 35° 14´ E.

†_Jeshanah_, ’Ain Sinia, 31° 58´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Jeshimon_, the desert west of Dead Sea.

†_Jeshua_, S’aweh, 31° 22´ N., 34° 59´ E.

†_Jethlah_, perhaps Beit Tûl, 31° 49´ N., 35° 4´ E.

_Jezreel_, Zer’in, 32° 33´ N., 35° 19´ E.

_Jogbehah_, El Jubeihah, 32° 1´ N., 35° 52´ E.

_Jokneam_, Tell Keimûn, 32° 40´ N., 35° 6´ E.

†_Joktheel_ (of Judah), perhaps Kutlâneh, 31° 50´ N., 34° 53´ E.

_Joppa_, _see_ Japho.

_Jordan_ (River), Esh Sherî’ah, 31° 46´ N., 35° 32´ E.

_Juttah_, Yuttah, 31° 27´ N., 35° 5´ E.

_Kanah_, Kâna, 33° 12´ N., 35° 18´ E.

_Kanah_ (River), Wâdy Kânah, 32° 8´ N., 35° E.

†_Kedesh_ (of Issachar), Tell Abu Kadeis, 32° 33´ N., 35° 13´ E.

†_Kedesh_ (Judges iv. II), Kadîsh, 32° 44´ N., 35° 32´ E.

_Kedesh Naphtali_, Kades, 33° 7´ N., 35° 31´ E.

_Keilah_, Kîla, 31° 37´ N., 35° E.

_Kenath Nobah_, Kanawat, 32° 45´ N., 36° 33´ E.

_Kerioth Hezron_, perhaps El Kureitein, 31° 21´ N., 35° 7´ E.

_Kidron_ (Valley), Wâdy en Nâr, 31° 46´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Kir_ (of Moab), Kerak, 31° 10´ N., 35° 45´ E.

_Kiriathaim_, El Kureiyât, 31° 32´ N., 35° 43´ E.

†_Kirjath_, Kuriet el ’Anab, 31° 49´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Kirjath Arba_, _see_ Hebron.

_Kirjath Baal_ or _Kirjath Jearim_, ’Erma, 31° 46´ N., 35° 2´ E.

_Kishon_ (River), Nahr el Mukutt’a, 32° 49´ N., 35° 2´ E.

_Ladder of Tyrus_, Râs en Nakûrah, 33° 7´ N., 35° 6´ E.

†_Lachish_, perhaps Tell el Hesy, 31° 32´ N., 34° 43´ E.

†_Lahmam_, probably El Lahm, 31° 34´ N., 34° 53´ E.

_Laish_, same as Dan.

†_Lasharon_, Sarôna, 32° 43´ N., 35° 28´ E.

_Lebonah_, El Lubban, 32° 4´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Lod_, Ludd, 31° 57´ N., 34° 54´ E.

†_Luhith_ (ascent), Tal’at el Heith, 31° 45´ N., 35° 44´ E.

_Luz_, the same as Bethel.

†_Luz_, El Luweizîyeh, 33° 17´ N., 35° 37´ E.

_Maaleh Acrabbim_, the slope west of south end of Dead Sea, 31° N.,

35° 23´ E.

†_Maarath_, Beit Ummar, 31° 37´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Machpelah_ (Cave), the cave under the Hebron Haram.

†_Madmannah_, Umm Deimneh, 31° 22´ N., 34° 56´ E.

†_Madmen_, perhaps Umm Deineh, 31° 36´ N., 35° 56´ E.

†_Madon_, Madîn, 32° 48´ N., 35° 27´ E.

†_Mahaneh Dan_, Wâdy el Mutluk, 31° 47´ N., 34° 59´ E.

_Makkedah_, probably El Mughar, 31° 55´ N., 34° 55´ E.

_Mamre_, near Hebron, 31° 32´ N., 35° 6´ E.

†_Manahath_, Mâlhah, 31° 46´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Maon_, M’aîn, 31° 25´ N., 35° 8´ E.

†_Maralah_, M’alûl, 32° 42´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Mareshah_, Mer’ash, 31° 45´ N., 34° 55´ E.

†_Mearah_, El Mogheirîyeh, 33° 37´ N., 35° 27´ E.

_Medeba_, Mâdeba, 31° 42´ N., 35° 48´ E.

†_Megiddo_, Mujedd’a, 32° 28´ N., 35° 28´ E.

_Mejarkon_ (“yellow water”), probably Nahr el ’Aujah, 32° 6´ N.,

34° 46´ E.

†_Mekonah_, probably Mekenna, 31° 46´ N., 34° 51´ E.

_Merom_ (Waters of), Baheiret el Hûleh, 33° 4´ N., 35° 37´ E.

†_Meronoth_, Marrîna, 31° 38´ N., 35° 7´ E.

_Michmash_, Mukhmâs, 31° 53´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Michmethah_, probably Sahel el Mukhnah, 32° 21´ N., 35° 16´ E.

_Migdal-El_, Mujeidel, 33° 14´ N., 35° 21´ E.

_Migdal Gad_, perhaps Mejdel, 31° 40´ N., 34° 35´ E.

†_Minnith_, perhaps Minyeh, 31° 40´ N., 35° 39´ E.

†_Mishal_, probably in Wâdy M’aîsleh.

_Misrephoth Maim_, Surafend, 33° 27´ N., 35° 16´ E.

†_Mizpah_ (or Galeed), probably Sûf, 32° 19´ N., 35° 52´ E.

†_Mizpeh_, perhaps Sh’afat, 31° 49´ N., 35° 13´ E.

†_Mochmur_ (Brook), Wâdy el Ahmar, 32° 8´ N., 35° 20´ E.

_Modin_, El Medyeh, 31° 56´ N., 34° 59´ E.

†_Mozah_, Beit Mizzeh, 31° 49´ N., 35° 9´ E.

_Naamah_, Naaneh, 31° 52´ N., 34° 52´ E.

†_Naarath_, probably El ’Aujah et Tahtâni, 31° 57´ N., 35° 28´ E.

†_Nahallal_, ’Ain Mahil, 32° 43´ N., 35° 21´ E.

†_Nehaliel_ (Valley), probably Wâdy Zerka M’aîn, 31° 36´ N., 35° 34´ E.

†_Nasor_ (Plain), Merj el Ha[d.]îreh, 33° 6´ N., 35° 35´ E.

_Neballat_, Beit Nebâla, 31° 59´ N., 34° 57´ E.

_Nebo_ (Mount), Jebel Neba, 31° 46´ N., 35° 45´ E.

†_Nebo_ (Ezra xi. 29; Neh. vii. 33), perhaps Nûba, 31° 37´ N., 35° 2´ E.

†_Neiel_, probably Y’anîn, 32° 54´ N., 35° 12´ E.

†_Nekeb_, probably Seiyâdeh, 32° 44´ N., 35° 31´ E.

_Nephtoah_ (Waters of), ’Ain ’Atân, 31° 41´ N., 35° 10´ E.

_Netophah_, Umm Tôba, 31° 44´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Nezib_, Beit Nusîb, 31° 36´ N., 34° 59´ E.

_Nimrah_, Nimrim, Tell Nimrîn, 31° 54´ N., 35° 37´ E.

_Nobah_, same as Kenath.

_Olivet_ (Mount), Jebel ez Zeit, 31° 47´ N., 35° 14½´ E.

_Oho_, Kefr ’Ana, 32° 1´ N., 34° 47´ E.

_Ophel_, the spur south of the Haram at Jerusalem, 31° 46½´ N.,

35° 13¾´ E.

_Ophni_, probably Jufna, 51° 58´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Ophrah_ (of Benjamin), same as Ephraim.

†_Ophrah_ (of Manasseh), probably Fer’ata, 32° 11´ N., 35° 10´ E.

_Parah_, Fârah, 31° 50´ N., 35° 18´ E.

†_Penuel_, probably Jebel Osh’a, 32° 5´ N., 35° 42´ E.

†_Peor_ (Cliff of), probably the peak above ’Ain Minyeh, 31° 40´ N.,

35° 40´ E.

†_Pirathon_, probably Fer’on, 32° 17´ N., 35° 1´ E.

_Pisgah_ (Mount), Râs Siâghah, 31° 46´ N., 35° 43´ E.

_Ptolemais_, same as Accho.

†_Rabbah_ (of Judah), Rubba, 31° 40´ N., 34° 58´ E.

_Rabbath Ammon_, ’Ammân, 31° 57´ N., 35° 56´ E.

†_Rabbith_, Râba, 32° 23´ N., 35° 23´ E.

_Rakkath_, the same as Tiberias.

†_Rakkon_, Tell er Rakkeit, 32° 8´ N., 34° 47´ E.

_Ramah_ (of Benjamin), Er Râm, 31° 51´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Ramah_ (of Naphtali), Er Râmeh, 32° 57´ N., 35° 22´ E.

†_Ramah_ (of Asher), Râmia, 33° 7´ N, 35° 18´ E.

†_Ramath Mizpeh_, perhaps Remtheh, 32° 37´ N., 35° 59´ E.

†_Ramoth_, Er Râmeh, 32° 21´ N., 35° 10´ E.

_Ramoth Gilead_, Reimûn, 32° 16´ N., 35° 50´ E.

_Raphon_, Râfeh, 32° 36´ N., 1´ E.

_Rehoboth_, Er Ruheibeh, 31° N., 34° 34´ E.

†_Remeth_, the same as Ramoth.

_Remmon_ (of Zebulon), Rummâneh, 32° 47´ N., 35° 18´ E.

_Rephaim_ (Valley), El Bukei’a, south of Jerusalem, 31° 46´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Rimmon_ (of Simeon), Umm er Rumâmîn, 31° 22´ N., 34° 51´ E.

_Rimmon_ (Rock), Rummôn, 31° 56´ N., 35° 18´ E.

_River of Egypt_, Wâdy el ’Arish, 31° 8´ N., 33° 50´ E.

_Salchah_, Salkhâd, 32° 31´ N., 36° 39´ E.

_Salem_ (1), same as Jerusalem.

_Salem_ (2) (Gen. xiv. 18), Sâlim, 32° 13´ N., 35° 19´ E.

†_Salt_ (City of), Tell el Milh (“salt hill”), 31° 13´ N., 35° 1´ E.

_Salt Sea_, the Dead Sea, 31° 30´ N., 35° 30´ E.

_Samaria_, Sebustieh, 32° 17´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Saphir_, Es Sûâfir, 31° 42´ N., 34° 42´ E.

†_Sarid_, probably Tell Shadûd, 32° 40´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Seythopolis_, the same as Bethshean.

†_Secacah_, perhaps the ruin called Sikkeh (or Dikkeh),

31° 44´ N., 35° 15´ E.

†_Sechu_, Shuweikeh, 31° 53´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Seir_ (Mount), the mountains of Petra, 30° 15´ N., 35° 22´ E.

_Sela_, Petra, now Wâdy Mûsa, 30° 18´ N., 35° 27´ E.

†_Sela-ham-Mahlekoth_, Wâdy Malâky, 31° 25´ N., 35° 8´ E.

†_Seneh_ (Rock), south bank of Wâdy Suweinît.

_Senir_, same as Hermon.

_Sephelah_, the low hills east of Philistia, 31° 45´ N., 34° 55´ E.

_Shaalabbin_, Selbît, 31° 52´ N., 34° 59´ E.

†_Shaaraim_, perhaps S’aîreh, 31° 44´ N., 35° 1´ E.

_Shalem_ (Gen. xxxiii. 18), same as Salem (2).

†_Shamir_, probably Sômerah, 31° 25´ N., 34° 56´ E.

_Sharon_ (Plain), north of Joppa, 32° 30´ N., 35° E.

†_Sharuhen_, Tell esh Sheri’ah, 31° 23´ N., 34° 41´ E.

_Sheba_, perhaps Tell es Seb’a, 31° 14´ N., 34° 50´ E.

_Shechem_, Nâblus, 32° 13´ N., 35° 15´ E.

†_Shihon_, ’Ayûn esh Sh’aîn, 32° 43´ N., 35° 20´ E.

_Shihor Libnath_, Nahr Namein, 32° 40´ N., 35° 5´ E.

_Shiloh_, Seilûn, 32° 3´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Shimron_, Semûnieh, 32° 42´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Shittim_, _see_ Abel Shittim.

_Shunem_, Solam, 32° 36´ N., 35° 20´ E.

†_Sibmah_, Sûmia, 31° 49´ N., 35° 40´ E.

_Sidon_, Saida, 33° 34´ N., 35° 22´ E.

_Siloah_, Birket Silwân, 31° 46¼´ N., 35° 13¾´ E.

_Sion_, the south-west hill of Jerusalem, used in poetry

for Jerusalem, or for the Temple Hill, 31° 46½´ N., 35° 13½´ E.

_Sirah_ (Well), ’Ain Sârah, 31° 33´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Sirion_, same as Hermon.

_Socoh_ (in the valley), Shûweikeh, 31° 11´ N., 34° 58´ E.

_Socoh_ (in the mountains), Shûweikeh, 31° 24´ N., 35° E.

_Sorek_ (Valley), Wâdy Surâr, 31° 56´ N., 34° 42´ E.

_Succoth_, Tell Der’ala, 32° 5´ N., 35° 34´ E.

_Taanach_, T’annuk, 32° 31´ N., 35° 13´ E.

_Taanath Shiloh_, T’ana, 32° 11´ N., 35° 22´ E.

_Tabor_ (Mount), Jebel et Tôr, 32° 41´ N., 35° 23´ E.

_Tappuah_ (of Judah), Tuffûh, 31° 32´ N., 35° 2½´ E.

_Tekoa_, Tekû’a, 31° 36´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Thebez_, Tubâs, 32° 19´ N., 35° 22´ E.

†_Thimnathah_, probably Tibneh, 32° N., 35° 6´ E.

_Timnah_, Tibneh, 31° 44´ N., 34° 56´ E.

†_Timnah_ (of Judah), Tibna, 31° 42´ N., 35° 3´ E.

†_Timnath Heres_, Kefr Hâris, 32° 7´ N., 35° 9´ E.

†_Tiphsah_ (2 Kings xv. 16), probably Tafsah, 32° 10´ N., 35° 10´ E.

†_Tirzah_, Teiâsîr, 32° 20´ N., 35° 23´ E.

†_Tob_ (Land), near Taiyibeh, 32° 35´ N., 35° 42´ E.

_Tyre_, Es Sûr, 33° 16´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Umma_, probably ’Alma, 33° 6´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Uzzen Sherah_, Beit Sira, 31° 53´ N., 35° 2´ E.

†_Zaanaim_ (Plain), Bessûm, 32° 44´ N., 35° 29´ E.

†_Zalmon_ (Mount), perhaps Jebel Eslamîyeh (Ebal), 32° 10´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Zanoah_ (1), Zanû’a, 31° 43´ N., 35° E.

_Zanoah_ (2), Zanûta, 31° 22´ N., 34° 59´ E.

_Zaphon_ (_Amathi_), probably El Hammeh, 32° 41´ N., 35° 40´ E.

_Zared_ or _Zered_ (Valley), Wâdy el Hesy, 31° 5´ N., 35° 28´ E.

_Zarephath_, Surafend, 33° 27´ N., 35° 19´ E.

†_Zareth Shahar_, perhaps Zâra, 31° 36´ N., 35° 35´ E.

†_Zebulun_ (Josh. xix. 27), probably Neby Sebelân, 33° 1´ N., 35° 20´ E.

_Zemaraim_, Es Sumrah, 31° 54´ N., 35° 29´ E.

_Zephath_, probably the pass Es Sufa, 30° 55´ N., 35° 5´ E.

†_Zephathath_ (Valley), Wâdy Safieh, 31° 37´ N., 34° 55´ E.

†_Zereda_, Surdah, 31° 57´ N., 35° 12´ E.

_Ziddim_, Hattîn, 32° 48´ N., 35° 27´ E.

_Ziklag_, probably ’Asluj, 31° 3´ N., 34° 45´ E.

†_Zior_, Si’aîr, 31° 35´ N., 35° 8´ E.

_Ziph_, Tell ez Zîf, 31° 29´ N., 35° 8´ E.

_Ziz_ (Cliff of), Wâdy Hasâsah, 31° 28´ N., 35° 23´ E.

†_Zoar_, Tell esh Shaghûr, 31° 49´ N., 35° 40´ E.

_Zoheleth_ (stone), Zahweileh, 31° 46½´ N., 35° 14´ E.

†_Zophim_ (Field of), Tal’at es Safa, 31° 45´ N., 35° 46´ E.

_Zorah_, Sur’ah, 31° 47´ N., 34° 59´ E.

Out of these 422 names of towns, valleys, mountains, streams, and

springs in Palestine mentioned in the Old Testament, and now identified

on the ground, those marked †, which amount to 144 in all, were

discovered by the present author. The more important are described in

the text, with the reasons for their identification.

III.

INDEX OF NEW TESTAMENT SITES IDENTIFIED IN PALESTINE.

_Abilene_, region near Abila, 33° 38´ N., 36° 5´ E.

_Aceldama_, supposed to be Hakk ed Dumm, 30° 46´ N., 35° 13½´ E.

_Ænon_, Ainûn, 32° 11´ N., 35° 21´ E.

_Antipatris_, Râs el ’Ain, 32° 7´ N., 34° 55´ E.

_Azotus_, Esdûd (Ashdod), 31° 45´ N., 34° 39´ E.

†_Bethabara_, Makhadet ’Abârah, 32° 32´ N., 35° 33´ E.

_Bethany_, El ’Azirîyeh, 31° 46´ N., 35° 15´ E.

_Bethesda_ (Pool), probably ’Ain Umm ed Deraj (En Rogel).

_Bethlehem_, Beit Lahm, 32° 42´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Bethphage_, perhaps Kefr et Tôr on Olivet, 31° 47´ N., 35° 15´ E.

_Bethsaida_, probably Ed Dikkeh, 32° 55´ N., 35° 47´ E.

_Cæsarea_, Kaisârieh, 32° 30´ N., 34° 53´ E.

_Cæsarea Philippi_, Bâniâs, 32° 18´ N., 35° 41´ E.

_Calvary_, _see_ Golgotha.

_Cana of Galilee_, Kefr Kenna, 33° 45´ N., 35° 20´ E.

_Capernaum_, probably Khurbet Minyeh, 32° 52´ N., 35° 32´ E.

_Cedron_ (Brook), Wâdy en Nar (Kidron), 31° 46´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Chorazin_, Kerâzeh, 32° 55´ N., 35° 34´ E.

_Damascus_, Dimeshk esh Shâm, 33° 32´ N., 36° 18´ E.

_Decapolis_, a region south-east of Sea of Galilee.

†_Emmaus_, probably Khamasah, 31° 43´ N., 35° 6´ E.

_Ephraim_, probably Taiyibeh, 31° 57´ N., 35° 18´ E.

_Gaza_, Ghuzzeh, 31° 30´ N., 34° 27´ E.

_Gennesaret_ (Lake), Bahr Tubarîya, 32° 45´ N., 35° 35´ E.

†_Golgotha_, Hill of Jeremiah’s Grotto, 31° 47¼´ N., 35° 13½´ E.

_Jacob’s Well_, Bîr Y’akûb, 32° 13´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Jericho_, near Tullûl Abu el ’Aleik, 31° 52´ N., 35° 25´ E.

_Jerusalem_, El Kuds, 31° 47´ N., 35° 13½´ E.

_Joppa_, Yâfa, 32° 3´ N., 34° 45´ E.

_Jordan_, Esh Sherî’ah, 31° 46´ N., 35° 33´ E.

_Lydda_, Ludd, 31° 57´ N., 34° 54´ E.

_Magdala_, Mejdel, 32° 50´ N., 35° 31´ E.

_Nain_, Nein, 32° 38´ N., 35° 20´ E.

_Nazareth_, En Nâsrah, 32° 42´ N., 35° 18´ E.

_Olivet_ (Mount), Jebel ez Zeit, 31° 47´ N., 35° 14½´ E.

_Ptolemais_, ’Akka, 32° 45´ N., 35° 4´ E.

_Salim_, Sâlim, 32° 13´ N., 35° 19´ E.

_Samaria_, Sebustieh, 32° 17´ N., 35° 11´ E.

_Sarepta_, Surafend, 33° 27´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Saron_, plain north of Jaffa, 32° 30´ N., 35° E.

_Sidon_, Saida, 33° 34´ N., 35° 22´ E.

_Siloam_, Silwân, 31° 46½´ N., 35° 14´ E.

_Siloam_ (Pool), Birket Silwân, west of Siloam village.

_Sychar_, ’Askar, 32° 13´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Sychem_, Nâblus, 32° 13´ N., 35° 17´ E.

_Tiberias_, Tubarîya, 32° 47´ N., 35° 32´ E.

_Tyre_, Es Sûr, 33° 16´ N., 35° 11´ E.

The more important of these 47 sites are noticed in the text.

INDEX.

The Roman numerals refer to the Maps upon which the localities mentioned

will be found.

Latitudes and Longitudes are merely approximate.

Abana, river (33° 32´ N. 36° 20´ E.), 78, 193. I.

Abarah, ford (32° 32´ N. 35° 33´ E.), 74. I.

Abd el Kader, 234.

Abila (Abilene) (32° 32´ N. 35° 33´ E.), 130, 187. I.

Abu Muin Nasir, 8.

Abu Zeid, dish of, 154.

Acre (32° 55´ N. 38° 5´ E.), 92. I.

Adonis, river (34° 5´ N. 35° 40´ E.), 205. V.

Adullam, cave of (31° 40´ N. 35° E.), 49. I.

Adwan Arabs (32° N. 35° 40´ E.), 161, 162, 165.

Afka (34° 8´ N. 35° 52´ E.), 206.

Agriculture in Palestine, 217.

Ahamant, Crus. castle, 107.

Ai (31° 5´ N. 35° 17´ E.)., I.

Aid el Mia (anc. Adullam) (31° 40´ N. 35° E.), 50. I.

Ain el Asy (Aasi) (34° 2´ N. 36° 5´ E.), 192. VII.

Ajlun (32´ 20 N. 35° 45´ E.), 179.

Aleppo (36° 10´ N. 37° 10´ E.), 13.

Alexandretta (36° 33´ N. 36° 10´ E.), 190, 195.

Alphabets, ancient, 173, 203.

Aly Agha, Emir, 104.

Amman. _See_ Rabbath Ammon.

Anderson, Major, 19.

Anazeh Arabs (32° 30´ N. 36° 30´ E.), 141. VII.

Anseiriyeh, mounts of the (35° N. 36° 20´ E.), 191.

Anti-Lebanon, 192. I.

Antioch (36° 11´ N. 36° 10´ E.), 191, 203.

Antoninus Martyr, 5, 94.

Arabs, mode of life, 55;

legends, 162;

customs, 163;

religion, 164;

blood-feuds, 167.

Arculphus, bishop, 6.

Architecture, epochs of, 226.

Armageddon (Megiddo) (32° 28´ N. 35° 27´ E.), 85.

Armstrong, Mr. George, 29, 106.

Ascalon (31° 39´ N. 34° 33´ E.), 47, 48, 50, 51. I.

Ashdod (31° 45´ N. 34° 39´ E.), 50, 202. I.

Assassins, sect of the, 209.

Azotus, same as Ashdod.

Baalbek (34° N. 36° 10´ E.), 135, 192, 203. I.

Baal Hazor (31° 59´ N. 35° 16´ E.), 160. I.

Bamoth Baal (31° 43´ N. 35° 42´ E.), 156.

Banias (31° 15´ N. 35° 41´ E.), 13, 97, 107, 116, 127. I., VI.

Bar Simson, Rabbi, 10.

Bartlett, Mr., 16.

Bashan (32° 45´ N. 36° 15´ E.), 77, 131, 187. I., IV.

Beaufort. _See_ Belfort.

Beauvoir (Belvoir) (32° 33´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 76, 108. VI.

Bedu, plural of bedawi = Arab (nomad).

Beersheba (31° 14´ N. 34° 47´ E.), 32, 36, 52, 53. I.

Beirut (33° 55´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 135, 195. I.

Belfort (Beaufort) (33° 20´ N. 35° 31´ E.), 107. VI.

Belka, El (31° 45´ N. 35° 45´ E.), 137. VII.

Belvoir (Beauvoir) (32° 35´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 107, 108. VI.

Beni Sakhr Arabs (31° 30´ N. 35° 45´ E.), 139. VII.

Benjamin, country of (31° 50´ N. 35° 15´ E.), 31. IV.

Benjamin of Tudela, 10, 33.

Bernard the Wise’s visit to Palestine, 7.

Beth Abarah (32° 32´ N. 35° 33´ E.), 74. I.

Beth Diblathaim (in Southern Moab), 154.

Bethel (31° 56´ N. 35° 14´ E.), 32. I.

Bethesda, pool of, east of Jerusalem, 25, 26.

Bethlehem (31° 41´ N. 35° 12´ E.), 42, 57. I.

Bethsaida (or Julias) (32° 55´ N. 35° 37´ E.), 100

Bethshean (32° 30´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 74. I.

Biblical critics, 237.

Birim, Kefr (33° 3´ N. 34° 56´ E.), 90.

Black, Serjeant, 31.

Blancheward (Blanchegarde) (31° 42´ N. 34° 50´ E.), 107. VI.

Bongars, 9.

Bordeaux pilgrim, 3.

Bosrah (32° 33´ N. 36° 27´ E.), 188. I.

Bozez, cliff of (31° 52´ N. 35° 17´ E.), 32.

Brocquière, Sir B. de la, 13.

Buckingham, 15.

Bukáa (El Bekaa) (33° 45´ N. 35° 50´ E.), 191. I.

Burckhardt, 15.

Buttauf, plain of (32° 50´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 96. I.

Byblos (34° 5´ N. 35° 40´ E.), 191, 195, 199.

Cæsarea (32° 30´ N. 34° 53´ E.), 70. I.

Callirhoe (31° 36´ N. 35° 40´ E.), 143, 161. I.

Calvary, its site, 30. I., inset.

Cana of Galilee (33° 45´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 74, 95. I.

Capernaum (32° 52´ N. 35° 32´ E.), 101. I.

Carchemish (36° 50´ N. 38° E.), 84, 135, 206.

Carmel, Mount (32° 45´ N. 35° E.), 35, 86, 87. I.

Cartulary of Holy Sep. Ch., 10.

Cedron, _See_ Kedron.

Chaplin, Dr., 30.

Chastel Blanc, 107.

Château du Roi (32° 54´ N. 35° 10´ E.), 107.

Château neuf (33° 11´ N. 35° 32´ E.), 107. VI.

Château Pelerin (32° 42´ N. 34° 56´ E.), 108.

Château rouge, 108.

Cherith, brook of (31° 50´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 42. I.

Chorazin (32° 55´ N. 35° 34´ E.), 100. I.

Chosroes, palace of, at Mashita (31° 45´ N. 36° 5´ E.), 177. I.

Churchill, Colonel, 211.

Crocodile River (32° 33´ N. 34° 54´ E.), 70. I.

Cromlechs near Heshbon, 144.

Crusaders’ castles, 106.

Damascus (33° 32´ N. 36° 18´ E.), 131. I.

Dan (33° 15´ N. 35° 39´ E.), 128. I.

Daniel, Abbot, 9.

Darum (31° 23´ N. 34° 20´ E.), 47, 107. VI.

Dead Sea (31° 60´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 43. I.

Debir (31° 25´ N. 34° 58´ E.), 53. I.

Deer (“Yahmur”), 216.

Dervish orders, 125.

Dog River (Nahr el Kelb), (33° 58´ N. 35° 35´ E.), 193. I.

Dolmens, 128, 150.

Dothan (32° 24´ N. 35° 17´ E.), 54. I.

Drake, C. F. Tyrwhitt, 31, 32, 73, 81, 88.

Druzes, 116.

Ebal, mount (32° 15´ N. 35° 16´ E.), 63. I.

Ecdippa (33° 5´ N. 35° 6´ E.), 110. V.

Ekron (31° 51´ N. 34° 48´ E.), I.

Elah, valley of (31° 42´ N. 34° 55´ E.), 49. I.

Eleutheropolis (31° 37´ N. 34° 54´ E.), 50. V.

Eleutherus river (34° 38´ N. 35° 58´ E.), 71, 135, 191. V.

Elisha’s Fountain near Jericho (31° 52´ N. 35° 26´ E.), 42.

Elusa (31° 3´ N. 34° 40´ E.), 57. I.

Emesa or Hemesa, mod. Homs (34° 43´ N. 36° 40´ E.), 13,

135, 136, 204, 212. V.

Engedi (31° 28´ N. 35° 23´ E.), 38. I.

En Rogel (Virgin’s Fountain), (31° 46´ N. 35° 14´ E.), 26.

Ernuald, château (31° 22´ N. 35° 5´ E.), 107.

Ernoul, chronicle, 11.

Esdraelon or Jezreel, plain (32° 33´ N. 35° 19´ E.), 71, 86. I.

Eshtaol (31° 47´ N. 35° E.), 49.

Etam, rock (31° 44´ N. 35° 3´ E.), 49.

Esh el Ghurab, in Jordan valley, 73.

Ethnology of Palestine, 228.

Eusebius, Onomasticon, 3.

Fabri, Felix, 14.

Fellahin of Palestine, 61.

Fergusson, Mr., 177.

Fusail, Wady (Phasaelis), (32° 5´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 79.

Gadara (32° 41´ N. 35° 42´ E.), 77. I.

Galilee, Sea of (32° 50´ N. 35° 35´ E.), 98. I.

Gamala (32° 45´ N. 35° 33´ E.), 100.

Ganneau, Clermont, 49.

Gath (31° 42´ N. 34° 50´ E.), 50. I.

Gaza (31° 30´ N. 34° 27´ E.), 50, 51, 115. I.

Gebal or Byblos, 199.

Genesis, Book of, 239.

Geological notes, 77, 214.

Gerar (31° 24´ N. 34° 26´ E.), 52. I.

Gerasa (32° 17´ N. 35° 55´ E.), 179. I.

Gerizim, Mount (32° 12´ N. 35° 16´ E.), 63, 70, 173. I.

Gezer (31° 51´ N. 34° 55´ E.), 115.

Gibeon (31° 51´ N. 35° 11´ E.), 233. I.

Gibilin, castle (31° 37´ N. 34° 55´ E.), 107, 108.

Gilboa (32° 28´ N. 35° 25´ E.), 85. I.

Gilead (32° 15´ N. 35° 45´ E.), 171. IV.

Gilgal (51° 51´ N. 35° 29´ E.), 43. I.

Girdlestone, Rev. R. B., 180.

Goblan en Nimr, Sheikh, 138, 141, 165.

Golgotha. _See_ Calvary.

Gordon, General, 30, 37.

Gotapata (32° 50´ N. 35° 17´ E.), 102. V.

Graham, Cyril, 188.

Greeks in Palestine, 8, 174.

Guthe, Dr., 27.

Hadanieh (31° 45´ N. 35° 45´ S.), 153.

Hamam, Wady (32° 50´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 99.

Hamath (35° 8´ N. 36° 42´ E.), 137, 200.

Hammath (32° 46´ N. 35° 33´ E.), 77, 100. I.

Hammon (33° 7´ N. 35° 10´ E.), 110.

Haris, Kefr (32° 7´ N. 35° 9´ E.), 70.

Hasbany, river, Upper Jordan (33° 20´ N. 35° 35´ E.), 116. I.

Hasbeya (33° 25´ N. 35° 40´ E.), 127. I.

Hatta (32° 7´ N. 34° 57´ E.), 51.

Hattin (32° 48´ N. 35° 25´ E.), 92, 96. VI.

Hauran (32° 45´ N. 35° 25´ E.), 188. I.

Hebron (31° 32´ N. 35° 6´ E.), 32, 41. I.

Heitat, 211.

Heliopolis. _See_ Baalbek.

Hermon (33° 24´ N. 35° 47´ E.), 73, 116, 127, 129. I.

Heshbon (31° 48´ N. 35° 48´ E.), 141, 157.

Hezekiah’s “waterworks” at Jerusalem, 26, 28. I., inset.

Hieroglyphics, Hittite, 240.

Hieromax. _See_ Jabbok.

Hippos, mod. Susieh (32° 43´ N. 35° 37´ E.), 20, 100, 187. I.

Hittites, 51, 54, 115, 135, 197, 198 (portraits), 241.

Hivites of Shechem, 54.

Homs, anc. Emesa (34° 43´ N. 36° 40´ E.), 13, 135, 136, 204, 212. VI.

Hospitallers, their castles, 108.

Huleh, lake (33° 4´ N. 35° 37´ E.), 107, 129. I.

Hull, Prof., 20, 215, 220.

Ibelin, castle (31° 52´ N. 34° 44´ E.), 107. VI.

Inscriptions, early, 173, 180, 186, 188, 199, 202.

_See_ also Moabite stone, Siloam.

Irby and Mangles, 15.

Islam in Palestine, 122, 231.

Ismailiyeh, sect of the, 119.

Jabbok or Hieromax (32° N. 35° 32´ E.), 72. I.

Jacob’s ford (33° 1´ N. 35° 37´ E.), 107. VI.

Jacob’s Well (32° 13´ N. 35° 17´ E.), 63.

Jaffa (32° 3´ N. 34° 45´ E.), 22. I.

Jahalin Arabs (31° 10´ N. 35° 15´ E.), 38. VII.

Jamnia (31° 51´ N. 34° 44´ E.), 90, I.

Jaulan (32° 55´ N. 35° 45´ E.), 99, 186. I.

Jeba (31° 51´ N. 35° 45´ E.), 155.

Jenin (32° 28´ N. 35° 18´ E.), 15. I.

Jericho (31° 52´ N. 35° 27´ E.), 35, 42. I.

Jerusalem (31° 47´ N. 35° 14´ E.), 21;

Temple of Herod, 24, 246;

Antonia citadel, 25;

Holy Sepulchre, 243;

Bethesda, 25. I., inset.

Jeshanah (31° 58´ N. 35° 17´ E.), 88.

Jeshimon or desert of Judah (q.v.).

Jezreel or Esdraelon (32° 33´ N. 35° 19´ E.), 71, 74, 86, 88, 92. I.

Jideid, Wady (31° 45´ N. 35° 45´ E.), 142.

Job, Book of, 237.

Johnson, J. A., 200.

Joinville, 12.

Jordan (source, 33° 27´ N. 35° 42´ E.), 71, 116.

Jordan valley canal, 77.

Josephus, the historian, 2, 102, 193, 246.

Joshua’s tomb, (32° 7´ N. 35° 9´ E.), 70.

Judah, desert of, or Jeshimon (31° 30´ N. 35° 18´ E.), 35, 41, 160. I.

Judas Maccabæus, 46.

Julias. _See_ Bethsaida.

Kadesh (34° 28´ N. 36° 30´ E.), 71, 135, 198. IV.

Kanah village (33° 12´ N. 35° 18´ E.), 110. I.

Kedron. _See_ Kidron.

Kefr (Arabic) = village. _See_ Kefr Haris, &c.

Kelt or Cherith, brook (31° 50´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 42, 45. I.

Kerak, anc. Tarichæa (32° 43´ N. 35° 34´ E.)., 99. V.

Kerak, anc. Kir Moab (31° 10´ N. 35° 45´ E.).[, 41. I.

Kheta. _See_ Hittites.

Kidron, brook (31° 46´ N. 35° 14´ E.), 26. I., inset.

Kir Moab. _See_ Kerak.

Kishon, river, (32° 49´ N. 35° 2´ E.), 92. I.

Kitchener, Lieut., 83, 105.

Kokaba (33° 26´ N. 36° 10´ E.), 20, 187. I.

Kom Yajuz (32° 2´ N. 35° 56´ E.), 154.

Krak des Chevaliers, mod. Kala’t el Hosn (34° 45´ N.

36° 17´ E.), 107, 108, 109, 193, 212. VI.

Kud, Kefr (32° 35´ N. 35° 10´ E.), 15.

Kuleib or Kleb, Jebel (32° 36´ N. 36° 37´ E.), 188. I.

Kurn Sartaba. _See_ Sartaba.

Kusr Hajlah (31° 48´ N. 35° 28´ E.), 44.

Landberg, Mr. C., 243.

Languages of Palestine, 60.

Latakia (35° 30´ N. 35° 48´ E.)

Litani, river (33° 20´ N. 35° 15´ E.), 131, 191. I.

Lebanon, 131, 191. I.;

cedars of, 208.

Legends, Arab, 162.

Legio (32° 35´ N. 35° 10´ E.), 84. V.

Lejah (33° 5´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 186. I.

Lewis, Prof. Hayter, 245, 247.

Lynch, 16.

Magdala (32° 50´ N. 35° 31´ E.), 91, 100. I.

Maimonides, 96.

Majuma (31° 31´ N. 34° 25´ E.), 50. V.

Maleh, Wady (32° 22´ N. 35° 33´ E.), 76, 78.

Mandeville, Sir John, 13.

Mantell, Lieut., 27, 111, 135, 138, 154.

Mareighat, el (31° 39´ N. 35° 42´ E.), 147.

Margat, castle (35° 9´ N. 35° 58´ E.), 108.

Mar Marrina, near Tripolis, on coast, 45.

Maronites, 120.

Marsaba monastery (St. Saba), (31° 42´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 37. VI.

Masada (mod. Sebbeh), (31° 19´ N. 35° 22´ E.), (siege by the Romans), 39. I.

Mashita (palace of Chosroes), (31° 45´ N. 36° 5´ E.), 177. I.

Maundrell, 15.

Medeba (31° 42´ N. 35° 48´ E.), 157. I.

Megiddo (mod. Mujedda), (32° 28´ N. 35° 28´ E.), 83, 85. I.

Meirun (in Galilee), (33° N. 35° 27´ E.), 106.

Mejr ed Din, 14.

Merash (N. Syria), (37° 33´ N. 36° 53´ E.), 110.

Michmash (31° 53´ N. 35° 17´ E.), 32. I.

Mirabel, castle (32° 7´ N. 34° 55´ E.), 107. VI.

Moab (31° 20´ N. 35° 43´ E.), 134. I.

Moabite stone, 145, 157.

Modin (mod. Medyeh), (31° 56´ N. 34° 59´ E.), 47.

Mont Ferrand (34° 53´ N. 36° 25´ E.), 107.

Montfort (mod. el Kurein), (33° 3´ N. 35° 12´ E.), 107. VI.

Montreal (30° 27´ N. 35° 37´ E.), 107.

Moreh, plain of (E. of Shechem), 63.

Nablus (anc. Shechem), (32° 13´ N. 35° 15´ E.), 59. I.

Nain, view of (32° 38´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 93. I.

Naphtali, mts. of (33° N. 35° 30´ E.), 83. IV.

Nazareth (32° 42´ N. 35° 18´ E.), 94. I.

Nebi Dhahy (32° 37´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 86.

Nebi Samwil (31° 50´ N. 35° 10´ E.), 160. I.

Nebo, Mount (31° 46´ N. 35° 45´ E.), 154, 157. I.

Negeb, plain (31° N. 34° 45´ E.), 52. I.

Nehaliel (mod Zerka Main), (31° 36´ N. 35° 34´ E.), 161. I.

Neubauer, 100.

Nuseir Arabs (32° N. 35° 30´ E.), 42. VII.

Orontes, river (mouth 36° 3´ N. 36° E.), 191.

Ortelius, map of, 14.

Osha, Jebel (32° 5´ N. 35° 42´ E.), 160. I.

Palestine Exploration Fund, 19, 23.

Palmer, Prof., 220.

Palmyra (34° 40´ N. 38° 5´ E.), 205.

Paula’s Travels, 4.

Pelerin, Mont (near Tripolis), 107.

Pella (32° 29´ N. 35° 37´ E.), 76. I.

Peretié, M., 191.

Petra (30° 16´ N. 35° 33´ E.), 146.

Peutinger’s Table, 4.

Phasaelis (mod. Fusail), (32° 5´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 79. I.

Philadelphia (mod. Amman), 171. I.

Philistia (31° 30´ N. 34° 30´ E.), 35, 36, 50. IV.

Phœnicia, 109.

Phœnician Antiquities, 118.

Phocas, John, 9.

Pisgah (31° 46´ N. 35° 43´ E.), 154. I.

Poloner, John, 14.

Porter, 16.

“Poulains,” 229.

Procopius (in Palestine), 5.

Ptolemy’s map of Palestine, 2.

Quarantania (31° 52´ N. 35° 22´ E.),

160. VII.

Rabbath Ammon (mod. Amman), (31° 57´ N. 35° 56´ E.), 143, 154, 171, 175. I.

Rakkath (32° 47´ N. 35° 32´ E.), 100.

Ramadan, fast, 56.

Ramoth Gilead (32° 16´ N. 35° 50´ E.), 185. I.

Rawlinson, Sir Henry, 241.

Raymond of Tripolis, 97.

Rehoboth (30° 59´ N. 34° 34´ E.), 52. I.

Reimun (32° 16´ N. 35° 50´ E.), 185. I.

Rénan, M., 110, 191.

Renaud of Chatillon, 98.

Rey, M. E., 107, 109.

Richard Lion-heart, 11, 47.

Robinson, Dr. (portrait), 16, 27, 30, 95, 101.

Rubud (32° 22´ N. 35° 38´ E.), 185. VI.

Russian monastery at Kusr Hajleh (31° 48´ N. 35° 28´ E.), 44.

Sabbatic river (34° 40´ N. 36° 20´ E.), 192, 193.

Sæwulf’s pilgrimage, 9.

Safed (32° 58´ N. 35° 30´ E.), 77, 92, 104. I.

St. John of Chozeboth (31° 50´ N. 35° 32´ E.), 45. V.

Salt, es (32° 2´ N. 35° 44´ E.), 185. I.

Samaria (32° 17´ N. 35° 11´ E.), 59, 67. I.

Samaritans, sect of, 64.

Sambation. _See_ Sabbatic.

Samson’s exploits, 49.

Sannin, Jebel (33° 58´ N. 35° 50´ E.), 132. I.

Sanuto, Marino, 12.

Saone (castle in N. Syria), 107.

Sartaba, Kurn (or Surtubeh), (32° 7´ N. 35° 26´ E.), 43, 68, 69. I.

Sardenay (33° 42´ N. 36° 20´ E.), 210. VI.

Saron. _See_ Sharon.

Saulcy, M. de, 16.

Sayce, Professor, 27.

Schick, Konrad, 20.

Schumacher, G., 20, 100, 187.

Seetzen, 15.

Seffurieh (32° 45´ N. 35° 16´ E.), 92. I.

Seleucia (36° 9´ N. 35° 57´ E.), 191, 196.

Sepphoris (mod. Seffurieh), 92, 97. V.

Sepulchres and tombs, 176, 225.

Shabatuna, Hittite city near Sabbatic river, 198.

Sharon, plain of (32° 30´ N. 34° 55´ E.), 35, 48, 70. I.

Shechem (mod. Nablus), (32° 13´ N. 35° 15´ E.), 31, 59, 63, 64. I.

Shems-ed-din el Mukkadasi, 7.

Shephelah (31° 40´ N. 34° 55´ E.), 35, 36, 46. I.

Shittim, plain of (31° 50´ N. 35° 35´ E.), 141. I.

Shunem (32° 36´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 93. I.

Sidon (33° 34´ N. 35° 22´ E.), 113. I.

Siloam (31° 46´ N. 35° 14´ E.), pool, 27;

inscription, 26, 28. I., inset.

Simon the Stylite, 207.

Sinnabris (32° 44´ N. 35° 33´ E.), 100. V.

Sipylus, Mount, North of Homs, 198.

Solomon, Song of, 238.

Sorek, Valley of (31° 56´ N. 34° 42´ E.), 49. I.

Stewart, Capt., 31.

Stone monuments, 106, 128, 143, 150, 175;

comp. Dolmen, Cromlech.

Survey work, 59, 80.

Susieh. _See_ Hippos.

Sychar (mod. Askar), 32° 13´ N. 35° 17´ E.), 63. I.

Taamireh tribe (31° 35´ N. 35° 15´ E.), 38. VII.

Taanach (32° 31´ N. 35° 13´ E.), 84. IV.

Tabor, Mount (32° 41´ N. 35° 23´ E.), 85, 86, 87.

Tadmor (Palmyra), (34° 40´ N. 38° 5´ E.), 205.

Taphilah (Tophel), (30° 50´ N. 35° 37´ E.), 107. I.

Taricheœ, mod. Kerak (32° 43´ N. 35° 34´ E.), 100. V.

Taiyibeh (31° 57´ N. 35° 18´ E.).

Templars, Knight, 97;

their castles, 107.

Theodorus on Palestine, 5.

Thomson, 16.

Tiberias or Rakkath (32° 47´ N. 35° 32´ E.), 90, 97, 100. I.

Tibneh (32° 30´ N. 35° 45´ E.), 185. I.

Töbler, 15.

Tombs, ancient, 176, 225.

Toron, now Tibnin (33° 10´ N. 35° 20´ E.), 106. VI.

Tortosa (34° 54´ N. 35° 53´ E.), 210;

castle 108.

Tripoli (34° 27´ N. 35° 40´ E.), 194. V., VI., VII.

Tristram, Dr., 162, 177, 216, 220.

Tunep, mod. Tennib, 197.

Turkomans in Palestine, 71, 136.

Tyre (33° 16´ N. 35° 12´ E.), 111. I.

Tyrus, mod. Arak el Emir (31° 52´ N. 35° 43´ E.), 171. V.

Umm el Amed (33° 8´ N. 35° 9´ E.), 110.

Umm ez Zeinat (32° 39´ N. 35° 4´ E.), 89.

Velde, Van de, 16.

Vinsauf, Geoffrey de, 11, 47.

Vogüé, M. de, 9, 16 172, 180, 187, 190.

Volcanic action, 77.

Volcanic outbreaks on Carmel, 215.

Waddington, 17.

Warren, Sir C., 18, 23, 24, 27, 138, 180.

William of Tyre, 8.

Willibald, St., 6.

Wilson, Sir C. W., 17, 23, 27, 33, 72, 100, 102.

Yermuk, river (32° 38´ N. 35° 34´ E.), 189. I.

Yukin of the Kenites (31° 30´ N. 35° 9´ E.), 160.

Zerka Main (anc. Callirhoe), 160.

Zophim, field of (31° 45´ N. 35° 46´ E.), 159.

Zoreah, Zareah or Zorah (31° 47´ N. 34° 59´ E.), 49.

[Illustration: PALESTINE.

PHYSICAL.]

[Illustration: PALESTINE.

GEOLOGICAL.]

[Illustration: PALESTINE as divided among the TWELVE TRIBES.]

[Illustration: PALESTINE in the Beginning of the CHRISTIAN ERA.]

[Illustration: The Kingdom of JERUSALEM Shewing the Fiefs. About 1187

A.D.]

[Illustration: MODERN PALESTINE Shewing TURKISH PROVINCES.]

* * * * *

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The latitudes and longitudes given by Ptolemy (see Reland’s

_Palestina Illustrata_, p. 456-466) are not reliable. Those nearest the

coast are the most correct; those farther east are very wild. The little

sketch given above sufficiently illustrates this.

[2] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. V., translated by Aubrey

Stewart, M.A., annotated by Sir C. W. Wilson.

[3] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. II., translated by Aubrey

Stewart, M.A., 1887.

[4] See the Latin edition of Töbler. These are not yet published in

English translation.

[5] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. III., annotated by Professor

Hayter Lewis.

[6] Ibid., No. I., translated by Aubrey Stewart, M.A., annotated by Sir

C. W. Wilson.

[7] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. X., translated and annotated

by Rev. J. R. Macpherson, B.D.

[8] See Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn’s Series.

[9] See Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn’s Series.

[10] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. IV., “El Mukaddasi,”

translated by Mr. Guy Le Strange, 1886; No. IX., “Nâsir i Khusrau,” by

the same translator, 1888.

[11] These works, with Jaques de Vitray (1220 A.D.) and Marino Sanuto

(1321 A.D.), I studied in the great collection of Latin Chronicles, also

containing William of Tyre, by Bongars, called _Gesta Dei per Francos_,

Hanover, 1611.

[12] See Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn’s Series.

[13] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. VI., annotated by Sir C. W.

Wilson.

[14] Fetellus in Latin is given by De Vogüé, _Églises de la Terre

Sainte_, p. 410. This account was republished by Leo Allatius, under the

name of Eugesippus, in the thirteenth century. He dates it 1040, but the

true date appears to be 1151-57 A.D.

[15] See the Latin version, Töbler’s edition. Neither are yet published

in English.

[16] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. XI., translated by Aubrey

Stewart, M.A. This, like Fetellus, was recovered in MS. by Leo Allatius.

[17] _Cartulaire de l’Église du S.S. de Jerusalem_, E. de Rosière,

Paris, 1849.

[18] See E. Rey’s _Colonies Franques de Syrie_, Paris, 1883. The work,

however, remains to be further perfected by aid of the Survey map. I

find some 700 places mentioned in all in Western Palestine.

[19] Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn’s Series.

[20] E. Carmoly, _Itinéraires de La Terre Sainte_, Paris, 1847.

[21] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. VIII., translated from the

old French (edition of Société de l’Orient Latin), by Major Conder, and

annotated by him with map of Jerusalem in 1187 A.D.

[22] See Chronicles of the Crusades, Bohn’s Series, for both these

works. Other accounts of the thirteenth century, which, however, are

less valuable, are those by Willibrand of Oldenburgh, Tetmar, Epiphanius

of Hagiopolis, and Brocardus.

[23] Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, No. VII.

[24] For these two, see Early Travels in Palestine, Bonn’s Series.

[25] See the Latin text, Tobler’s edition.

[26] The best and most recent translations are by Mr. Guy Le Strange.

[27] Early Travels in Palestine, Bonn’s Series.

[28] Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem volume. Tent

Work in Palestine, vol. i. chaps. xi., xii. See also Conder’s Handbook

to the Bible, Part II. chaps. vii., viii. Palestine Pilgrims’ Text

Society’s publications; and Picturesque Palestine (edited by Sir C. W.

Wilson.)

[29] For those who are unfamiliar with the methods of professional

surveyors, it is perhaps well here to state distinctly that the

professional opinion as to the level of the rock throughout the city and

the Temple area does not depend on “imaginary contours,” but on a large

number of observations of level. The rock base of the mountains is fixed

in seventy-five places throughout the Temple area, and in more than 120

other places in the city by excavations, where it is not seen on the

surface. In some of the most important parts long sections were visible

in the great reservoirs recently excavated. On the little Ophel spur

alone fifty such measurements were taken by Sir Charles Warren, besides

the 200 above mentioned. There is thus no doubt in the mind of any one

who knows these facts as to the position of the hills and depth and

width of the ancient valleys; and the imaginary gully which some

theorists have drawn on their maps to suit the requirements of their

version of Josephus’ account has decidedly no existence.

The south-east corner of the Temple was the most important to fix, in

view of conflicting theories. It was at this corner that the Ophel wall

joined the “eastern cloister of the Temple” (Josephus, V. Wars, iv. 2).

Sir Charles Warren found this wall joining the east wall of the Haram at

the present south-east angle of the Haram, and thus appears to have set

the question at rest, if Josephus’ account is to be received. This

question is fully treated in Conder’s Handbook to the Bible, pp.

366-368, third edition.

[30] The Jewish tradition was first published in “Tent Work in

Palestine” in 1878. The account of this question, given by Mr. L.

Oliphant in “Haifa,” is abstracted from my later paper in the Jerusalem

volume of the Survey Memoirs, published in 1881, and again in 1883,

where I have given the Talmudic passages in full. Many other writers

have also copied my account since.

[31] See Early Travels in Palestine, Bohn’s Series, p. 86.

[32] See the full account in the Memoirs of the Survey, vol. iii.

[33] Something of the kind, but better drawn, exists on the walls of the

Lady Chapel at Winchester, the work, I believe, of Flemish artists of

the fifteenth century, representing the miracles of the Virgin. Those at

Mar Marrina are probably not later than the thirteenth century.

[34] Judas Maccabæus. Marcus Ward, 1879.

[35] This is usually written Nablous, but the accent is on the first

syllable.

[36] I have published a paper on this subject in the Palestine

Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement for July 1889.

[37] See Memoirs of Palestine Survey, Vol. Special Papers. This

chronicle was edited and published by Dr. Neubauer in 1869. The

Samaritan Book of Joshua was published by Juynboll in 1848.

[38] The following are the Kings said in the Book of Kings to have been

buried at Samaria:--Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah (probably), Jehu, Jehoahaz,

Joash, Jeroboam II., Menahem (probably).

[39] Conder’s Handbook to the Bible (3rd edit.), p. 310.

[40] The fallacy of this scheme I pointed out in a well known magazine

in 1883. My arguments are also reproduced by Mr. L. Oliphant in “Haifa.”

[41] The details of this discovery are recorded in the “Memoirs of the

Survey,” vol. ii. pp. 90-99.

[42] The question is worked out in detail in the Survey Memoirs. See my

note, vol. i. p. 367, and cf. p. 392. The Crusaders called Kefr Kenna

the Casale Robert, from its owner.

[43] Sinnabris I recovered, in 1872, from a list of ruins kindly

prepared by a resident. It was afterwards fixed by the surveyors. The

identity of Hippos and Susieh was suggested by Dr. Neubauer in 1868, and

the site has been recently discovered by Herr Schumacher.

[44] The Druzes took from the older Ismailiyeh sect the words _Natek_

and _Asas_, which are not Semitic words. They represent the two powers

in Nature. The first might be connected with the Mongol word _Natagai_

for the chief deity, and the latter with the word _Asa_ for “god” in the

same language.

[45] The immorality of the Palestine peasantry, though hidden by their

decent manners, is, I have been assured by respectable residents, very

great. Their vengeance on women who have gone astray is often very

savage. I have visited a cavern in the Judean hills with a deep pit in

it, down which such unfortunate women used to be thrown, and I believe

there is another in the Lebanon.

[46] This theory I put forward in 1883. The late Dr. Birch held the same

view. Dr. Isaac Taylor in 1887 published his belief that the Hittites

were Mongolians. Mr. G. Bertin, the Akkadian scholar, favours the same

conclusion. At the British Association, 1888, Professor Sayce admitted

that the general opinion favoured this view.

[47] See “Heth and Moab,” chaps, vii., viii.

[48] An antiquary familiar with Indian and British stone monuments,

writing from Edinburgh, tells me that “cups and smoothed sloping hollows

are common enough in Keltic standing-stones. The best I have seen,” he

adds, “are the two on the _menhirs_ east and west of the Frodart parish

church, Strathpeffer. I think they were swearing-holes, in which the

vower placed his fingers, for they are worn as smooth as glass.”

[49] See a detailed note, Pal. Expl. Quarterly Statement, January 1885.

[50] This curious connection between churches and rude stone monuments,

also remarked in Britain and in France, is no doubt explained by Pope

Gregory’s letter (Greg. Pap. Epist., xi. 71), advising the early

missionaries not to suppress the rites and sanctuaries of the Saxons,

but to reconsecrate them to Christian use.

[51] The practice has also been noted at Kerlescant in Brittany, at

Rollrich, and at Ardmore. There is a similar rite in China of “passing

the door” to cure sickness. In Cornwall, the Men-an-tol, or

“holed-stone,” near Morvah, is a stone ring two feet in diameter,

flanked by two _menhirs_ in a line which passes through the

hole.--Dymond, Journal, Brit. Arch. Assoc, June 30, 1877.

[52] The following are the principal groups which I drew and measured:--

El Maslubiyeh, south of Nebo 150 examples.

El Mareighat, farther south 150 ”

El Kurmiyeh, west of Heshbon 50 ”

Tell Mataba’ and neighbourhood 300 ”

Ammân, in Mount Gilead 20 ”

In some cases rows of these monuments exist almost touching each other

on the hillsides.

[53] The Rev. E. B. Savage, writing to me from the Isle of Man, says,

“These cup-hollows are used to the present day in remote parts of Norway

for making offerings to the spirits of the departed, such as lard,

honey, butter, &c.”

[54] One of these places visited by Balaam was called Bamoth Baal, and

appears to be a hill now covered with dolmens. The word _Bamah_ (plural

_Bamoth_) is rendered “high place,” and is sometimes connected with

sepulture (Ezek. xliii. 7; Isaiah liii. 9). Gesenius compares the Greek

_Bōmos_, a sepulchral mound or an altar. On the Moabite Stone the word

occurs as meaning the stone itself. It seems probable, therefore, that

the Bamoth were rude stone monuments.

[55] The height of Mount Nebo is 2643.8 feet above the Mediterranean.

The western watershed is from 3000 to 2500 feet above the same level.

[56] Sir C. Wilson, however, places these in the Jordan Valley.

[57] Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, September 1870,

October 1882, April 1883. I find that my copy supplies a few words not

in the earlier copies, and is deficient in some letters previously

visible.

[58] The letters are Greek capitals, written on the stylobate of the

southern temple. Pertinax was a Piedmontese. He was prefect of a cohort

in Syria during the Parthian war, when he may very well have visited

Gerasa. He was afterwards consular legate of Syria, and Emperor from 1st

January to 29th March 193 A.D.

[59] See Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and Old Testament, pp. 25 and

50. Pinches’ Proc. Bib. Arch. Soc, November 1885.

[60] See George Smith’s Account. Quarterly Statement Pal. Expl. Fund,

October 1872.

[61] The confusion of chronology, due to the hasty identification of

this prince with Ahab of Israel, has led scholars of late to replace

Sirlai in the Lebanon.

[62] The Turkic princes used armorial bearings before they came into use

in Europe.

[63] Native Syrians state that the Metâwileh (who are of Persian origin)

are usually blue-eyed. They inhabit Upper Galilee and the hills east of

Sidon.

[64] The so-called “Hittite” system. The monuments in this character as

yet found _in situ_ occur in Armenia, Asia Minor, and Northern Syria.

The most southerly sculpture of the kind yet known was discovered in a

mound near Damascus excavated by Sir C. W. Wilson. The earliest found

examples were five stones at Hamath, one of which Buckhardt saw. Other

examples were discovered at Aleppo, and by George Smith at Carchemish.

The system as at present known includes about 130 signs, some fifty of

which are very frequently repeated. There is no doubt that these read

(like the early Akkadian texts) in lines with syllables arranged in

columns. Some of the emblems resemble those found in the earliest

examples of other Asiatic systems (Egyptian, Akkadian, and Old Chinese),

and by analogy it is probable that each emblem represents a word--noun,

verb, or other grammatical form. My reasons for supposing the language

to be a Turkic or Mongolic dialect are simple. 1st, The names of

Hittites and Hittite cities known to us appear to be in such a dialect;

2nd, the short bilingual agrees with this view; and 3rd, the commonest

signs (of which we know the sound through later hieratic forms) can be

shown to represent common Mongolic words, such as pronouns and

case-endings, &c. Many other suggestions have been made for comparing

with Hebrew, Georgian, Armenian, and Egyptian, but in no case has it

been shown that these languages supply a key to the sounds or to the

bilingual. Take, for instance, the Hittite royal title _Tarku_. It

exists only in the Turanian languages--Turkic _Tarkan_, Mongol _Dargo_,

Cossack _Turughna_, Etruscan _Tarchu_ and _Tarquin_, all meaning “a

chief.” The number of words which I have so compared now amounts to a

hundred in all, and I believe it places the character of the language on

a sound and scientific basis.--See Journal Anthropological Institute,

August 1889.

[65] Proverbes et Dictons du Peuple Arabe, vol. i. Saida. Carlo

Landberg. Leyden, 1883.

[66] As an example of the inexactitude of Josephus’ measurements, I may

instance the length which he gives for the Samaria colonnade (Ant., XV.

viii. 5). He gives 20 furlongs or 12,000 feet, the real length being

5500 feet. Again, he says that the harbour at Cæsarea equalled the

Piræus (Ant., XV. ix. 6). The Piræus was twenty times as large as the

Cæsarea harbour. He makes the third wall of Jerusalem 8000 yards long,

yet he gives the total circuit of the city as 6600 yards long in the

same account (Wars, V. iv. 3). He places Gabaoth Saule four miles from

Jerusalem in one passage (Wars, V. ii. 1), and nearly double that

distance in another (Wars, II. xix. 1), the real distance being 5½

miles. It has long been known that the chronological calculations of

Josephus do not agree together, either through his own inaccuracy or

through the corruptions of copyists (see the foundation of the Temple in

the eighteenth year of Herod, Ant., XV. xi. 1; or in the fifteenth,

Wars, I. xxi. 1), and the comparisons which Josephus gives between

Jewish and Greek weights in eight different passages do not agree in any

one instance. The historian wrote in Rome in 75 and 93 A.D. Such is the

accuracy of the author whom a critic like Dr. Robertson Smith is

disposed to quote against the results of actual measurements of walls

and rock, which are exact within the decimal of a foot. The general

statements of Josephus are very valuable, but his measurements are quite

unreliable.