1846.] Bâniâs and Lake Phiala. 209 Tò Ilávɛlov,) nevertheless refers it to the more distant lake Phiala."The open stream of the Jordan," he goes on to say, "issues from the cavern Panium; flows through the marshes of the lake Semechonitis; then, after a further course of a hundred and twenty stadia, enters the lake of Gennesareth near the city Julias; and at last, after passing through a long descent, terminates in the Dead Sea." From all these passages, I can draw no other inference, than that Josephus and the Jews were accustomed to speak of the sources of the river Jordan, as being situated at Bâniâs or the lake Phiala. Josephus mentions, indeed, another less important source, to which we shall revert below; but that, too, has no connection with the Hasbâny. This latter stream, therefore, although longer and larger, is left wholly out of the account. Such anomalies in popular nomenclature arise, sometimes perhaps from ignorance of the country and of the relative length of streams, as in the case of our own great rivers, the Missouri and Mississippi. In other cases the reason is less obvious. Even in the Jordan itself, if mere length of course is to determine the appellation, this name ought to be borne by the Hieromax, which comes in below the lake of Tiberias; since this stream is very considerably longer even than the Hasbâny. Yet here, no doubt, the direction determined the name, and properly. As to the two streams in question, the one from Bâniâs and the Hasbâny, may not the natural prejudice of the Jews have had some influence ? The Jordan was their only river, the national and sacred stream. May they not therefore have felt an interest in making it wholly their own; and have thus chosen to find its sources at Bâniâs, within their own borders, rather than in the Hasbâny, which came from without their territory? Whatever reason we may assign for the anomaly, the language of Josephus leaves us no room to doubt of the fact itself. Phiala. That the Birket er-Râm visited by Mr. Thomson is the same Birket er-Râm of which Seetzen heard, and also that it is the same lake seen by Irby and Mangles, there can be no doubt. The direction and distance from Bâniâs, as laid down on Kiepert's maps, are precisely in accordance with the preceding specifications of Mr. Thomson; and further, the information gathered by him goes to show, that no other lake exists in that vicinity. As little can we doubt, that this is the ancient Phiala. Burckhardt, in passing from Damascus to the bridge over the Jordan, saw a reservoir called Birket er-Râm five hours before reaching the bridge. This of course is in a wholly different region, and, being a reservoir, is a wholly different thing, from the Birket er Râm east of Bâniâs. 1 See above, p. 192. Nor did Burkhardt or any one else regard it as Phiala. But at three and a half hours from the bridge, he saw a large pond called Birket Nefah or Tefah; and this he lightly conjectured to be Phiala.1 The Lesser Jordan. Although Josephus describes, as above, the source of the Jordan in general, yet he also, in the following passages, speaks of another less celebrated source and stream as forming part of the same river. Antiq. I. 10. 1. Abraham overtakes the Assyrians, (who had carried away Lot,) at Dan; for so the other fountain of Jordan is called: nɛgì sáνον· οὕτως γὰρ ἡ ἑτέρα τοῦ Ἰορδάνου προσαγορεύεται πηγή. Antiq. V. 3. 1. The spies sent out by the Danites advance a day's journey into the great plain belonging to the city Sidon, not far from Mount Lebanon and the fountains of the Lesser Jordan: οὐ πόρξω τοῦ Διβάνου ὄρους καὶ ἐλάσσονος Ἰορδάνου τῶν πηγών. Thither the Danites afterwards go with an army, and build there a city Dan; xtišovoiv avtóde nóλιν Δάνα. Antiq. VIII. 8. 4. Jeroboam sets up the golden calves; one in the city Bethel, the other at Dan, which is at the fountains of the little Jordan; tov ἕτερον δὲ ἐν Δάνῃ, ἥδε ἐστὶ πρὸς ταῖς πηγαῖς τοῦ μικροῦ Ἰορδάνου. Bell. Jud. IV. 1. 1. This passage has been already quoted above, p. 199. "Seleucia was on the lake Semechonitis, which is thirty stadia broad and sixty long. Its marshes extend up to the place Daphne (μέxçı Ságvns zwoiov). This place abounding in other things, has also founΔάφνης χωρίου). tains, which nursing the little Jordan, so called, under the fane of the golden calf, send it forth to the great Jordan ; πηγὰς ἔχοντος, αἳ, τρέφουσαι τὸν μικ τὸν καλούμενον Ιορδάνην ὑπὸ τὸν τῆς χρυσῆς βοὸς νεών, προσπέμπουσι τῷ μεγάλῳ. In respect to this last passage, it will be seen, that the place here called Aάovn, is obviously the saine spoken of in the other three passages under the name of Δάνον, Δάνα or Δάνη. The situation in all is the same, viz., at the other fountain of Jordan, or the fountains of the lesser Jordan; and in two passages it is mentioned as the place of the golden calf. In view of these circumstances, it is much easier and better, with Reland and Havercamp, to suppose that the word úgyns is here a corrupt reading for urns, the ancient and usual name, than to infer a subsequent change of name, of which there is elsewhere no intimation. At any rate, there can be no question, but that all four of the above passages express a plain distinction between the "lesser Jordan," so called, and the Jordan before described as having its source at Bàniâs. Admitting this distinction, as we must, then these passages all point directly and plainly to the fountains and river of Tell el-Kâdy as uniting with 1 Travels in Syria, etc. 4to. p. 314 sq. 1846.] Situation of Dan. 211 that from Bâniâs to form the Jordan. The size and renown of the city Paneas, and the splendid decorations of its fountain, may perhaps have been enough to lead popular usage to regard that stream as the most important; as it is likewise the longer of the two. Dan. There is perhaps scarcely a fact in ancient topography, which seems to stand out more clearly and prominently, than the distinction both in name and position between the places Dan and Paneas. Josephus in the four passages last quoted, affirms the distinction with all possible definiteness, as compared with three of the passages quoted first above. Eusebius also, who had himself visited Paneas, speaks in one place of Dan as near to Paneas (Δὰν, τὴν πλησίον Πανεάδος); and in another describes it as four Roman miles from Paneas, on the way towards Tyre: Δάν . . . Πανεάδος ἀπὸ σημείων δ ̓ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἐπὶ Τύραν. Here too, he says, the Jordan breaks forth.2 Jerome, translating and paraphrasing this account of Eusebins, writes thus: DAN viculus est quarto a Paneade miliario euntibus Tyram, qui usque hodie sic vocatur.-De quo et Jordanis flumen erumpens a loco sortitus est nomen.3 In like manner the Targum of Jerusalem, in Gen. 14: 14, for Dan, writes correctly 10, Dan of Cesarea, that is, near Cesarea Philippi or Paneas.—All this testimony confirms that of Josephus, and points very definitely to Tell el-Kady as the site of Dan; and these specifications of distance, and those respecting fountains of the Jordan, accord fully with the statements given in the preceding Article. It is objected to this spot as the site of Dan, that there are in the vicinity no visible traces of any ancient city or temple; that the spot is so near the marsh as to be entirely exposed to its poisonous miasmata, so that even the Arabs do not pitch their tents there; and that it does not correspond to the description given by the spies of that famous Laish which the Danites conquered. To the first of these objections it may be replied, that according to Burckhardt the hill over the fountains seems to have been built upon, though nothing now is visible; and that "at a quarter of an hour [say half a mile] north of the springs, are ruins of ancient habitations, built of the black tufwacke, the principal rock found in the plain." These remains seem not to have been examined by any more recent traveller. In respect to the second objection, it may be remarked, that the exposure to miasmata has not prevented the erection of permanent mills; and if the Arabs do not pitch their tents in this vicinity, it is probably not from dread of such an exposure, for we find them 1 Onomast. art. Bersabee (Bndoaμaić). 3 Onomast. ibid. 2 Ibid. art. Dan. 4 See above, p. 197. Comp. Judg. 18: 8 sq. 5 Burckh. Syria, 4to, p. 42. elsewhere encamped among the very reeds of the marsh. As to the third objection, it is obvious, that the report of the spies related not merely to the immediate site of Laish; but to the region of country of which that was the chief place.-The statement that Tell el-Kâdy is so near the marsh and so entirely exposed to its miasmata, serves to illustrate the remark of Josephus respecting the lake Semechonitis, viz. that "its marshes extend up to Dan (Daphne), where are the fountains of the lesser Jordan."2 After all, it is nevertheless true, that the two places Dan and Paneas were sometimes confounded, even at an early age; though not until after the comparative importance and renown of the former had disappeared before the latter. Jerome, whose very explicit testimony in the Onomasticon we have already seen above, but who seems never to have visited this region in person,3 writes thus in a certain work: Dan, quae hodie appellatur Paneas,-in direct inconsistency with himself, and also with Eusebius, who had personally been at Paneas. So too some later translations of the Bible, not noted for accuracy, and who in geographical names usually give a quid pro quo; as the Samaritan version and the Arabic of Saadias, in Gen. 14: 14.5 Such evidence, however, can weigh nothing against the explicit testimony above brought forward; corresponding as the latter also does to the physical features of the region. Hûnîn. Hazor. The argument brought forward in the preceding pages for the identity of Hûnin with the ancient Hazor, is certainly very plausible; although a clear investigation may perhaps diminish in some degree the probability there made out. Josephus does not directly say, that "Hazor was on a high mountain above the Hûleh;" his language is simply that “ Hazor lies over the lake Semechonitis:” αὐτη δὲ ὑπερκεῖται τῆς Σεμεχωνίτιδος λίμνης.7 Here nothing is said of a high mountain ; though it certainly may be implied. But the expression vлexiσdαi ris líurns, to be over the lake, seems also to imply, that Hazor was situated over against the lake itself, and not ten miles north of any part of it; as is the case with both Hûnîn and the castle of Bâniâs. Such a position would bring Hazor to the south of Kedesh; the latter being itself north of the lake. Further, Tiglath Pileser is said to have taken “Ijon, and Abel-Beth-Maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, etc." Here the first three names, as also Kedesh and Gilead, are men 1 See above, p. 200. 2 B. J. IV. 1. 1. 3 In the Onomast. art. Ermom, we find Jerome quoting his Hebrew teacher for the fact, that "Mount Hermon overhangs Paneas. 4 Comm. in Ezech. 48. 5 Gesenius Anm. zu Burckh. Reisen in Syr. 1. p. 7 Antiq. V. 5. 1. See above p. 202. 494. 2 Kings 15: 29. 1846.] Hunin and Hazor. 213 tioned in the order in which they are known to lie, from north to south; and the implication is certainly strong, that Hazor in like manner lay south of Kedesh. And this is rendered the more probable by the list of fenced cities assigned to Naphthali, which too are enumerated apparently in their order from south to north; and where likewise we find Hammath, Rakkah, Cinneroth, along the lake of Tiberias; and then Ramah, Hazor, Kedesh, Edrei, etc. Still implying that Hazor was south of Kedesh. Again, Hazor was an important city," the head of all the kingdoms" round about.2 But, such a city we should not expect to find in a position totally destitute of living water, as is Hûnîn.3 Kedesh, at least has an abundant supply of fine water. Such are some of the considerations which prima facie seem to throw doubt upon the identity of Hûnîn and Hazor, and to place the latter on the south of Kedesh, somewhere on the way between Kedesh and Safed. It is a matter well worth the attention of future travellers, to ascertain whether there exist in that district any remains, or any name, which may correspond to the name and the features of the ancient Hazor. If not, the way will then be open to rest with more certainty in the conclusions of the foregoing Article. But, at any rate, the fortress of Hûnîn is obviously a remarkable remnant of high antiquity; and the public are greatly indebted to Mr. Thomson for his full and graphic account of it. Nor are they less indebted to him for a knowledge of the important fact, now first brought out, of the existence of bevelled stones in the architecture of the three great fortresses at Bâniâs, Hûnîn, and esh-Shŭkîf, as well as in the island Ruad, the ancient Arados. If this feature in all three instances, and especially in Ruad, be the same as in the remains of ancient architecture at Jerusalem and Hebron, then the interesting and important result follows, that this was a peculiarity of Phenician architecture; for even the temple of Solomon was built by Phenician workmen. So far as relates to Jerusalem and Hebron, there is no similar feature in Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, or Saracenic architecture. The only approach to it is the rustic style under the later Roman emperors which is itself an exaggeration of the bevelled style, and may very possibly have been borrowed from the east. It is to be hoped, that this subject may be taken up ere long by some traveller, who shall be competent, by his professional skill and historical knowledge, to decide upon the many questions which will arise in this new and interesting field of inquiry. Abel. Ábil.—This ancient place is usually in Scripture called Abel 1 Josh. 19: 35-37. 2 Josh. 11: 10. 3 See above, p. 201. • See Hirt's Baukunst der Alten, Berlin 1809. fol. p. 152. Pl. XXXI.—Bibl. |