Rafid on the Golan A profile of a Late Roman and Byzantine village

Rafid on the Golan

A profile of a Late Roman and Byzantine village

Dan Urman

Edited by

Shimon Dar, Moshe Hartal and Etan Ayalon

BAR International Series 1555 2006

Reprint from:

This title published by

Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England [email protected] www.archaeopress.com

BAR S1555

Rafid on the Golan: A profile of a Late Roman and Byzantine village

© the estate of D Urman 2006 and the individual authors

ISBN 1 84171 984 6

Printed in England by The Basingstoke Press

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford 0X2 7BP England [email protected]

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com

THE GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING

1

PART ONE

INTRODUCTIONS

CHAPTER ONE

2

page 2 - empty


3

0 5 10 15 20Km

© Moshe Hartal

NorthernGolan

CentralGolan

SouthernGolan

Hawran

Jebel

(Nuqra)

Leja

Jedor

eß-Íafa

Mt. Herm

on

Golan

Jo

rd

an

Y a r m u k h

Nah

r el -

Ru

qad

Na

hr

el -

‘ Al a

n

Hawran Plain

Damascus Basin

Li

ta

ni

Ardel-Batanea

A j l u n

Buteiha

Hula

Sea ofGalilee el-Óara

Bashan

Damascus

Mismiyyeh

Umm el-Jimal

Boßra esh-Sham

Der‘a

Shahba

es-Suweida

el-Qanawat

Nawa

eß-Íanamein

IrbidÍalkhad

Tel el-Óara

Ezra‘

Qaßrin

Qunei†ra

Banias

Sa‘sa‘

Mt. Peres

Bash

anit

Rafid

Chapter One

The Geographical Setting

Moshe Hartal

Rafid is situated in a region covered by thick layers ofvolcanic rock called Lava Lands (Miller 1984:1). The regionspreads from south of Damascus to the Yarmukh river andfrom the Jordan river to the Jebel Hawran (Jebel Druz) andthe Syrian desert, and forms the northern part of Transjordan.It is divided into several sub-zones that differ in theirgeographical characteristics (Map 1):

The Golan (ancient Gaulanitis) – is a plateau that stretchesfrom the Mt. Hermon foothills in the north to the Yarmukhriver in the south and between the Jordan river in the westand the Nahr el-Ruqad in the east. The plateau reacheselevations of 1000 m above MSL in the northeast and thecinder cones reach 1200 m and more. The Golan descendsgently to an elevation of c. 300 m. In the west it is bounded

Map 1. Northern Transjordan.

CHAPTER ONE

4

by steep slopes that drop to the Hula valley, the Jordan andthe Sea of Galilee, at an elevation of c. 200 m below sea level.The Golan itself can be subdivided into three main units:

1. Northern Golan is the high region, covered by youngbasalt and topped by cinder cones interspersed withsmall, fertile valleys. The precipitation is the highest inthe Golan and reaches an average of 900 mm and morein the high areas. Arable land is limited but land suitablefor grazing is rich and plentiful.

2. Central Golan descends gradually from an elevation of650 m above MSL in the east to the Butei˙a valley whichforms the estuaries at the northern end of the Sea ofGalilee, at an elevation of 220 m below MSL. This areais primarily covered by the fractured Dalwe Basalt andthe Muweisse Basalt, which produce fertile soil. Theamount of precipitation varies from 650 mm at the highend to 450 mm in the Butei˙a valley. In central Golantoo the landscape is that of fractured basalt and plotssuitable for agriculture are small.

3. Southern Golan is a flat area surrounded by steep slopesthat descend to the Sea of Galilee, the Yarmukh and theRuqad. It is covered by ancient basalt that eroded andcreated large tracts of fertile land. This is the bestagricultural area in all of the Golan. Precipitation hereis lower, at c. 400 mm rain in a year.

The Nuqra (ancient Batanea) is a vast plain east of theGolan, reaching the foot of Jebel Hawran. It is 500-700 mabove MSL, and is covered by eroded basalt that createdlarge tracts of fertile, stone-fewer areas, particularly suitablefor cereals. Jebel Hawran and the Leja bound the Nuqrafrom the east and northeast. West of the Leja, the Nuqraextends north to eß-Íanamein. In the south it graduallymerges into the Jordanian desert. Because the relatively lowprecipitation (200-350 mm per year) hardly any trees growthere and lack of water is the major obstacle to settlement.

Jedor is the area northwest of eß-Íanamein, where theground rises gradually to a small lava field at the foot ofMt. Hermon. It differs from the Nuqra in the fractured rocklandscape and its elevation, which reaches 600-900 m aboveMSL. Volcanic cinder cones in the area, such as Tel el-Óarareach 1000 m elevations. In many ways this is a continuationof the volcanoes and valleys of northern Golan.

The Leja (ancient Trachonitis) is an area of c. 1000 sq.km between Shahba, Mismiyyeh and Ezra‘, covered by solidbasalt with hardly any soil, creating alternating patches oflarge basalt boulders and irregular basalt labyrinths. Theregion looks like a desert, and has served as shelter toshepherds and as hideout for bandits. At its southern endthere are a few basins of fertile agricultural land withoutstones. The settlements are divided between those that arearound the circumference of the Leja, enjoying its protectionand the fertile land around, and those that are inside theLeja, especially in its south, near the fertile basins.

Jebel Hawran (Jebel Druz, Jebel el-‘Arab, Hauran,ancient Auranitis) was created by huge lava flows thataccumulated to a maximum height of 1860 m above MSL.The mountain is approximately 60 x 30 km. The summitplateau, at the northern end, is at an elevation of 1500 mand is surrounded by many cinder cones. The steeper sidesare on the east and west. South of the summit plateau theslopes are less steep and they descend to Ajlun, the plain ofÍalkhad and Boßra esh-Sham and south to Umm el-Jimal,which is sometimes called ‘southern Hauran’. This area issuitable both for grazing and for winter crops. On themountain slopes there is fertile soil, suitable for cultivation.Because of its high elevation, the mountain is wooded andthere is much available water on the summit plateau. Themountain slopes are the eastern edge of permanentsettlements in the Lava lands and form the boundary withthe desert. The western part of Jebel Hawran enjoys highprecipitation and is utilized for agriculture. On the westernslopes, at elevations of 1000-1300 m there is a belt of oakforests. The growing of vines and orchards is possible from950 m and upward. At lower elevations cereals and legumesare grown.

Eß-Íafa and el-Óara are east of Jebel Hawran, alsocovered by lava flows. This is a desert landscape, whereprecipitation is less than 200 mm per year and dwindlesfurther eastward. Throughout most periods the area servednomadic or semi-nomadic peoples. Seasonal agriculture ispossible in the wadi-beds and in areas close to Jebel Hawranand the Leja (Ard el-Batanea).

Rafid is located at the junction of three geographic units.To the northwest lie the cinder cones of northern Golan, tothe west the fractured rocky plateau of central Golan and toeast the vast land of the Nuqra. The immediate vicinity ofRafid is rich in small springs and provides rich pasture. Invarious periods throughout history Rafid and theneighboring villages served as a horse breeding center.Schumacher (1888:89) recounts that the tribe of ‘Arab el-Nu‘em, whose summer camp was at Mt. Faras (Tel el-Faras),west of Rafid, which was “country, rich in springs, is wellsuited for … great herds of cattle” was lately chased off theland by the government, to keep this rich pasture for thehorses of its soldiers stationed in Damascus. The two riversthat influence the most in the area are the Nahr el-Ruqadand the Nahr el-‘Alan. Both reach the Yarmukh throughdeep and impressive gorges, difficult to cross and servingas natural boundaries. At their northern ends however, theyare no more than shallow rivulets, hardly visible in thelandscape. Throughout most of the year their flow is lightand there is no difficulty in crossing them. Only duringfloods they turn into turbulent streams that carry enormousquantities of water and cannot be crossed. Scholars aredivided as to which of the two rivers forms the easternboundary of the Golan. In any case, near Rafid the two arevery close to each other (3 km), shallow and hardly noticeable.


5

Rafid is situated on the road connecting Golan (Golanitis)to Hauran (Auranitis). Though this is not the principal road ofthe area and there were two Roman roads that passed five andten km south of it, near the village two roads merge. One

passes through southern Golan and the other descends fromQunei†ra along the foot of the Bashanit ridge. At Rafid thetwo merge and continue to Nawa in the Nuqra (Batanea) andto Jebel Hawran (Auranities).

CHAPTER ONE

6

page 6 - empty

THE HAURAN STYLE ARCHITECTURE

7

Chapter Two

The Hauran Style Architecture

Moshe Hartal

Travelers and researchers who passed through the Hauranin the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centurywere surprised by the multitude of sites that harbouredimpressive remains of buildings from the Roman andByzantine periods. The buildings are virtually all constructedof local basalt, which is weather-resistant and was instrumentalin their preservation. Another reason for the preservation wasthe fact that the buildings stood abandoned for hundreds ofyears and their stones were not reused. The first travelers,including De Vogüé (1865-1877), still found many buildingspreserved to a considerable height, sometimes to the roof.During this period visited the area also S. Merrill (1881)and G. Schumacher (1886, 1888). A thorough survey of theHauran (Auranitis), Bashan (Batanea) and Trachon(Trachonitis) was carried out during 1904-1905 and againin 1909 by the Princeton University ArchaeologicalExpedition to Syria, headed by H.C. Butler, and the resultswere published in a series of books that are the richestdocumentation to date of the Hauran style (Butler 1903-1929).

The renewed settlement in the ruins towards the end ofthe nineteenth century caused deterioration in their state.Some served as dwellings but most were used as source forbuilding stone. The damage continued and increased in thetwentieth century.

In the 1970s interest and research into the Hauran stylearchitecture was renewed. In the Hauran and Bashan aFrench team operates, led by M. Dentzer (1986) and F.Villeneuve (1985). Umm el-Jimal in the southern Hauran,where many buildings were preserved sometimes threestories high, was surveyed by Butler in 1913 and in theyears 1972-1981 by B. De Vries (1998). The Golan, whichwas surveyed in the nineteenth and twentieth century bySchumacher (1888) received much attention and researchafter its occupation by Israel in 1967 through numeroussurveys conducted in it. Rafid was also surveyed and theresults of this survey are presented in this volume. C.M.Dauphin and others conducted thorough surveys in fourvillages that preserve Hauran style architecture: Farj, er-Rumthaniyeh, Kafr Nafakh and Na‘ran (Dauphin 1979,1980, 1982a, 1982b, 1983a, 1983b). Unfortunately, theresults of these surveys have not been fully published, butonly as preliminary results. Hauran style buildings have beenfound also in excavations conducted on the Golan and

bordering areas (For a bibliography, see Hartal 2005).Following the 1973 war, a survey was conducted in the sameyear in the Jedor and northern Bashan areas, whereadditional sites with Hauran style architecture were found.The most important of these is Kafr Nasaj, where imposingbuildings survived (Ben-Dov 1975). The distribution ofthese sites is shown on Map 2.

In the Hauran and Trachon many public buildingssurvived, including temples, theaters, nymphaea, gates, aswell as churches and monasteries. While these buildingswere built under the influence of Hellenistic-Romanarchitecture, they nevertheless have characteristics uniqueto the Hauran. As often happens, most publications that dealwith the region were devoted to the study of the publicbuildings, and the research of domestic buildings, andespecially the rural buildings was, by and large, neglected.Since on the Golan in general, and at Rafid in particular, nopublic buildings survived, this chapter will deal with therural architecture. The construction elements were describedin detail in the various buildings. Our aim is to present asynoptic picture of the basic components of Hauran stylearchitecture and the various ways in which they werecombined. To illustrate the points, the reader is referred tothe photographs throughout the book, as well as to severalphotographs of buildings in the Hauran and Bashan thatserve to better illustrate the finds from Rafid.

Northern Transjordan is mostly covered by volcanicrocks, especially basalt. In the basalt covered areas thereare plenty of stones that served as raw material for all kindsof construction, from the most modest to the most elaborate.The simplest buildings are constructed of raw field stonesthat were collected in the field and used ‘as-is’. In manycases however, the stones were prepared for building. Basaltis a very hard stone, but is extracted relatively easily, becausebasalt rock tends to be fractured. It is also easily worked;its brittleness enables trained workmen to shape it with afew well-placed hammer blows. The main drawback ofbasalt is its porosity, which varies greatly. Stones with littleporosity are best for the cutting of smooth ashlars. Thesestones served also as the raw material for architecturalelements made in relief and carving. The durability of basaltpreserved works of art for hundreds of years (see chapterthree).

CHAPTER TWO

8

Traditional houses in the Middle East are usually roofedwith flat roofs made of wooden beams covered by reed matsand earth. In most of northern Transjordan however, thequantity of precipitation is low, and trees are scarce. Thisnecessitated the expensive importation of wood when this wasnecessary. The inhabitants exploited the tendency of basalt tofracture into columns creating 3-5 m long basalt beamsnaturally, and these were used for roofing. Thus, stone roofsbecame one of the characteristics of Hauran style architecture.“The Architecture of the Hauran was the most truly lithic thatthe world had seen; it was entirely of stones, sometimes evento the doors and windows shutters” (Butler 1909:68).

The Characteristics of the rural Hauran Style

All construction was with the local basalt. The walls wereon the average 0.80 m thick, dry-built without a bindingagent of two faces of basalt stones, the core filled with rubble

Map 2. Hauran Style Buildings.

and earth. Most houses are built of dressed stones (Fig. 241)or ashlars (Fig. 625). In the houses of the wealthy, of whichthere are examples in Rafid, the front was constructed ofhigh-quality ashlars (Figs. 18-23). Buildings of all threequalities were found in the Hauran and the Bashan as well(Butler 1903:313-314; Ben-Dov 1975:176; De Vries1998:113, Fig. 64).

The roofing was made of long and narrow basalt beams,usually supported by corbels jutting out of the walls (DeVogüé 1865-1877: Pl. 12:2; Butler 1903:315-316; 1909:62).Most corbels were made of dressed stones (Figs. 59-65),and in some houses of ashlars (Figs. 159-162). The lengthof the basalt beams limited the spaces that could be bridgedto four m wide. This figure could be doubled with the aid ofarches: stones were laid across the top of the arches, whichprojected on either side and served as double-ended corbels(Figs. 82-86; 109-117). The roof beams were laid over thecorbels in two layers at right angles to each other (Figs. 64-65). In wealthy houses the beams were smoothed (Fig. 605;

0 5 10 15 20Km © Moshe Hartal

Mumsiyye

Jueizeh

Inkhil

Nawa

Kafr Nasaj

Tel Tanim

Ra‘abane

Korazim

Qaßrin

Gamla

Farj

er-RumthaniyehNa‘ran

Kafr Nafakh

Baiederus

Dier Saraseß-Íanamein

Óebran

Mayamas

Busan

el-Mushannef

TarbaNimreh

Tafha

Si‘el-Qanawat‘AtÌl

es-Suweida

Sleim

el-Hayat

Umm ez-Zeitun

Shabba

Bostra

Jmarrin

Mu‘arribah

Shaqqa

Umm el-Jimal

Umm el-Qana†ir

Khisfin

Kanaf Mazre‘at Qunei†ra

DeirQeru˙

el-‘Assaliye

Breikh Rimetel-Lu˙f

Waqm

Lubben

Djren

el-Mesikeh

el-Uber

Íurel-‘Aßim

Sha‘rah

Mismiyyeh

Sa˙r

Ezra‘

Khalkholeh

Dakkir

Samma

el-Muta‘iyyeh

Umm es-SurabSemej

ed-Dier

Íub˙iyah Íab˙ah

el-Majdel

el-Butheineh

Shaqra

Jubata el-Khaseb

el-Habriyeh

Kh. Namra

Ofaneh

Deir Maker

Mas˙ara

Íalkhad

Damascus

Mt.

Herm

on

Qunei†ra

Damit el-‘Alya

Jaba

Public buildings

Private buildings

Sayda

Bab el-Hawa

Farj Well preserved site

Bu†miyye

Giv‘at Or˙a


9

Villeneuve 1985: Pl. 6:c) but normally they were onlyroughly dressed (Figs. 64-65; Ibid.: Pl. 6:b). Over the beamsa layer of compacted earth was placed, which waterproofedand insulated the roof (Figs. 15, 89, 200; Ben-Dov 1975:177-179, Figs. 11-14; Butler 1909: Ill. 50; De Vries 1998:113-117, Figs. 62, 63, 65).

The considerable weight of the stone roof necessitatedthe construction of massive walls, and this is the reason forthe paucity of windows, which weaken the walls. Openingsand windows were only in the front wall (Villeneuve1985:91). The lintels were also made of long beams, and toprevent breaking, were provided with either small windowsor relieving arches above (Figs. 244, 245, 403; De Vries1998: Figs. 75-78). The outside doorways were constructedof ashlars cut as frames, including hinge sockets and recessesfor bolts (Figs. 457-459). The doors opened inside and werebolted from inside. The original doors, doubtless made ofwood, did not survive, but a good idea of their shape can begained from the stone doors preserved at Kafr Nafakh (Hartal2005: Fig. 181). In the Hauran, stone doors served also inhouses (De Vogüé 1865-1877: Pl. 14; De Vries 1998:117-118, Figs. 71, 72).

The few windows that do exist are small, and are usuallyconstructed above the lintel to relieve stress. The mostcommon windows were created by leaving out a stone inthe wall above the lintel or elsewhere in the front wall andare rectangular (Figs. 407, 618, 620). In a few cases thewindow was constructed with a dressed frame as that of thedoorways (Figs. 38, 40, 458, 459). A few of the windowshave an arched lintel (Figs. 537, 538, 540, 613) and in asingle case a round window was found (Hartal 2005: Fig.186). In the side and back walls of the house there were nowindows usually, so that the interiors were rather dark.

In the more imposing houses sometimes a carved basaltstone lattice was inserted in the window frame. At eß-Íurmana well-cut lattice was found, made of a stone slab measuring89 x 84 x 25 cm (Gregg and Urman 1996:217, AF 93; Hartal2005: Fig. 187). Most of the inner side was carved out, sothat an only 5 cm thick lattice remained at front. The frontwas decorated with a wreath that contained a rosette, andbetween its petals six perforations were bored, each with adiameter of 8 cm that let light through. The lattice was foundin secondary use in a minaret of a mosque. At Jaba, c. 10km northeast of eß-Íurman three similar windows werefound (Ben-Dov 1975: Figs. 19-21, Pl. 34:3; Hartal 2005:Figs. 188, 189). Stone grilles were found also at sites of theHauran (De Vogüé 1865-1877: Pls. 13, 14).

At Rafid a few houses were found, where a square (Figs.393, 394) or arched (Figs. 18, 19, 22) niche was built in thefront wall. It seems that in the niches large pithoi withdrinking water were placed. This custom prevailed in theGolan villages until the mid-twentieth century (Figs. 569,570, 689). Such niches are common throughout the Hauranand Bashan (Ben-Dov 1975:176; Villneuve 1985:94) butwere not found at other sites on the Golan.

The front walls sometimes carried stairs leading to thesecond storey. The steps were made of stone beams

incorporated into the wall and projecting from it withoutadditional support. In many cases two sets of stairs startfrom the center of the façade (De Vogüé 1865-1877: Pl. 12;Butler 1909: Ills. 48, 53; 1913: Figs. 179, 181; Villneuve1985: Pl. 2:b; De Vries 1998:117, Figs. 69, 70). On theGolan, such stairs were found only at Rafid (Figs. 16-20).The stairs led to a doorway on the second storey – if thisexisted – or to the roof. The same technique was used forthe construction of balconies in front of the second storeydoorways (Figs. 16, 19, 23 and cf. De Vogüé 1865-1877:Pl. 12).

In front of some of the houses in the Hauran and Bashanporticoes were built with columns in front and roofed withstone slabs (Ben-Dov 1975:179, Figs. 2, 3, 5, 12, Pls. 32:1,34:1, 2). Such porticoes were not found in Rafid.

The basic unit of these houses included a high front roomwhose ceiling was supported by a central arch. Behind itwere low, narrow rooms creating two semi-storeys and opento the front room (Figs. 289, 365; De Vogüé 1865-1877: Pl.12:2; Butler 1913: Fig. 181; 1919: Ill. 369; Epstein andGutman 1972:273; Villeneuve 1985:91, Figs. 8, 9; Tepper1997: Fig. 19).

The front room was the principal space in the buildingand it is double or even treble the size of the back rooms.The ceiling is supported by one or more arches, which allowa larger roof in spite of the limitations imposed by the lengthof the basalt beams (Figs. 109, 110, 112). Sometimes theceiling is supported by full height built piers or columns(Hartal 2005: Fig. 196). The simple arches are constructedof dressed stones or ashlars of uniform width. They aresupported by built piers (Figs. 98, 666, 667), or, inexceptional cases by columns (Figs. 149, 153, 154). In afew buildings impressive arches made of smooth ashlarswere found, supported by well-built piers with a carvedcornice at the spring of the arch (Figs. 150-152, 312, 313,461-465; De Vogüé 1865-1877: Pl. 12:2; Ben-Dov 1975:Figs. 4, 9, 11, 12, Pl. 33:3). Such arches were sometimesdecorated with reliefs (Butler 1915: Ils. 282, 285; Dentzer-Feydy 1986: Pl. 12:a-c).

The front and the back rooms are separated by afenestrated wall. About 0.60-0.70 m above the floor a rowof windows was built, separated by monolithic stone piers,and above these the wall continued upward to the ceiling(Figs. 107, 110; Hartal 2005: Figs. 199-203; Villeneuve1985:94). It seems that the main purpose of the fenestratedwalls was to provide illumination and ventilation to the backroom, in whose walls there were no windows. The qualityof the piers making up the windows is not uniform. Someare built of dressed stones (Figs. 125-127; 599), while othersof ashlars (Figs. 50-58).

In addition to their main purpose, the windows servedother ends, depending on the function of the back room (Ben-Dov 1975: Pl. 34:3; Villeneuve 1985: Pl. 3:b). In many casesthe ground floor of the houses served as a cattle pen or stable.The animals were accommodated in the back room andfeeding troughs were constructed in the windows (Figs. 55-58, 128, 315-317, 626; Villeneuve 1985:94; Tepper

CHAPTER TWO

10

1997:253-259). In such cases the front room served forstorage of fodder and agricultural tools. In the Golan suchfeeding troughs were found at Rafid and Farj, which aresituated in areas suitable for raising horses. On the otherhand, at sites north of Qunei†ra, e.g. Bab el-Hawa (Hartal2005: Figs. 82-84, 101, 103) and Kh. Namra (Ibid.: Figs.40, 45) no troughs were installed, and the windows seem tohave been used as cupboards. Plain windows werediscovered also at Qaßrin (Ma‘oz and Killebrew 1988:12-13) and Deir Qaru˙ in central Golan and at Khisfin insouthern Golan. The fenestrated wall included also adoorway connecting the front and back rooms, but as it didnot have a frame, it apparently had no door (Figs. 55-57,108, 110, 126).

The ceiling of the back room is often lower than that ofthe front room and above it a loft was built, accessed throughan opening in the fenestrated wall (Fig. 167; Dauphin andGibson 1992-1993: Fig. 8; Hartal 2005, Figs. 202, 203).Unlike the doorway to the back room, the doorway to theloft does have a frame, which allowed the addition of alockable door. The doorway was the only source of light forthe loft, and it was rather dark. This space seems to haveserved as the bedroom of the owners. In a few houses in theHauran there is an inner staircase giving access to the loft.In most cases stairs were not found, and access seems tohave been by a wooden ladder. A unique set of stairs carvedin one block of stone was found at Farj, not in its originallocation (Ibid.: Fig. 204). It may have served to access theloft, but lacking any parallel, this remains a speculation.

In the walls of the buildings cupboards were installed aswell, constructed as square niches, similar in size to thewindows in the fenestrated wall. Such cupboards areincorporated in the fenestrated walls (Figs. 466-470; Ibid.: Fig.202) or in one of the other walls (Figs. 547-549; Ibid.: Figs.67, 178). Mostly the cupboards were constructed of dressedstones, but in imposing buildings, e.g. Building 86 at Rafid,they were constructed of smooth ashlars (Figs. 593-596).

Many buildings are made up of a combination of severalbasic units (Villeneuve 1985: Figs. 14-21). Sometimes theyare built side-by-side, so that each has a separate entrance,and sometimes they are built around a central courtyard.There are two-storied buildings and in the Hauran there arethree-storey buildings as well. In the Golan the only two-storey buildings were found at Rafid. The ground floor wasused for animals and for the storage and protection of fodderand agricultural produce from the weather and theft. Theupper storey was the living quarters of the owners and forguests (Tsafrir 1984:313-315; Villeneuve 1985:99).

The decorations were rather modest, and in fact themajority was unadorned. In some buildings the lintels weredecorated with reliefs and crosses (Ibid.: Pl. 5:a; Dentzer-Feydy 1986: Pls. 20:c, d, 23:a, b). Close to 100 decoratedlintels were found in northern Golan (see details in chapterthree). In the Hauran and Bashan the windows sometimeshad decorated frames (Ibid.: Pl. 23:d), but such were notfound on the Golan. In the front rooms of the moreimpressive buildings the lower part of the arches was

sometimes decorated (Butler 1903:409; 1915: Ills. 282, 285;Villeneuve 1985: Pl. 5:b; Dentzer-Feydy 1986: Pls. 20:a, b,22:b-e, 23:c), as were the corner corbels supporting the roof(Ben-Dov 1975: Pl. 33:4-6). In the Golan no decorated archwas found in situ, but many such stones were found insecondary use. A cornice decorated with a vine in relief wasfound in Qunei†ra (Hartal 2005: Fig. 290) and cornices withcrosses were found at er-Rumthaniyeh (Ibid.: Figs. 340, 341).About forty arch stones with superb reliefs, some in frontand some as a running trellis around the outer edges werefound in northern Golan (Ibid.: Figs. 279-288) and theysuggest that this was the principal decorative motif in thehouses.

The Stone Roofs

Though stone-roofed buildings characteristic of the Hauranstyle were found at sites south of Qunei†ra, not all survivingroofs were built in antiquity. Repairs, and even new roofs,were made in recent times as well. An examination of mostroofs at er-Rumthaniyeh shows that ancient and freshly cutstones are used together. Schumacher (1888) found at er-Rumthaniyeh in 1884 a number of underground roomsroofed with stone slabs, as well as a large building that hadbeen restored shortly before his visit and which he thoughtdated to the ‘Islamic period’. Today a large number of theextant houses in the village have stone roofs, and it seemstherefore that most were built in the twentieth century. AtKafr Nafakh Schumacher (1888) found only ruins ofbuildings, and it seems that here too most were built only inthe twentieth century (Ma‘oz 1985:60-61). The situationseems to be similar at Rafid. Some of the stone roofs werebuilt in the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, but manywere apparently built in the Mamluk period and recently.Schumacher, who visited the site in 1884, described onlysmall underground structures that were roofed with stone,and noted that above-ground structures were roofless(1888:226-227).

North of Qunei†ra, at Bab el-Hawa and Kh. Namra, thehouses from the Late Roman and Byzantine periods thatwere excavated and studied preserve the characteristics ofthe Hauran style architecture. They were functional but notimposing. No carved architectural elements were found, andnot even cut and dressed door frames. The main differencehowever, is that buildings north of Qunei†ra seem not tohave been roofed with stone beams but with wooden beams,reeds and earth. At first glance the reason for this departurewould seem to be the abundance of wood suitable forroofing. The Bashanit range however, at whose foot the sitessouth of Qunei†ra (see maps 1, 2) were built, was forestedas well, yet the houses there were roofed with stone. It wouldseem thus that the reason was the very different quality ofbasalt. North of Qunei†ra the Odem basalt formation iscommon, which does not naturally break into narrow slabsand is less suitable for roofing. Indeed, at all sites that lie onthe Odem basalt, such as Ra‘abane, and at those on its edge,


11

the use of stone roofs was limited to special cases, such asthe tomb at Bab el-Hawa (Hartal 2005: Figs 111-113).

The Date of the Hauran Style Architecture in theGolan

The earliest structure built in the Hauran style is the olive-oilpress in the Western Quarter at Gamla, which was roofed withstone beams supported by two arches, and which is dated tothe first century CE (Gutman 1994:130-134). In the presentstate of research this seems to be an exceptional case of apublic building and not a domestic one. All other excavatedhouses at Gamla (including the synagogue) were constructedof dressed or field stones and roofed with wood and earth(Ibid.:111). At Bethsaida, not far from Gamla, domesticbuildings of the Hellenistic and Roman periods were excavated,which show no influence whatsoever of Hauran stylearchitecture (Arav 1995).

At Tel Tanim (Tel Wawiyat), a stratigraphic sequencefrom the Hellenistic through to the Byzantine periods wasexcavated. In the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods thehouses were constructed of field stones and no Hauran stylehouses were found. This style is evident only after the secondcentury CE and continued into the Late Roman andByzantine periods. The buildings were constructed withdressed stones with doorways, and fenestrated walls werein use. Only a small number of stone beams was found inthe excavation, and it appears that most structures wereroofed with wood, as at the sites north of Qunei†ra(Avshalom-Gorni and Getzov 2001, 2003).

At Kh. Namra a structure was excavated, which includeda large front room and a narrow back room, separated by afenestrated wall. Construction was with dressed stones only,with no ashlars. The building was dated to the second halfof the third century CE (Hartal 2005: Figs. 38-45).

At Korazim, several buildings of the Hauran style wereexcavated, which were built from the third century CEonward and were still in use in the Byzantine period (Yeivin1993). Hauran style buildings were also built in Qaßrin, fromthe fourth to the eighth centuries CE (Killebrew 1993; Ma‘ozand Killebrew 1988:11-15). At Bab el-Hawa a buildingconsisting of three units was excavated, each comprising ofa front and back room separated by a fenestrated wall. Thebuilding was constructed of dressed stones only, and ashlarswere not used even in the doorways. It was built at the endof the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century CE, andwas in use until the beginning of the seventh century (Hartal2005: Figs. 58, 65, 80, 82-84). House 300 at H. Kanaf, alsobuilt in the Hauran style, was constructed in the sixth centuryCE (Ma‘oz 1993f:849). At Deir Qeru˙ a stone-roofed churchwas excavated, dated to the sixth century CE (Ma‘oz 1993b).

Rafid is the southernmost of a group of sites in the easternGolan at the foot of the Bashanit range. Three others havebeen well preserved: Farj, er-Rumthaniyeh and eß-Íurman.

Farj extends over c. 40 dunams, and many of its buildingsare in the Hauran style, including fenestrated walls and stoneroofs. The buildings underwent modifications, andarchitectural elements, inscriptions and reliefs wereincorporated in them in secondary use. Some modificationswere carried out in the Byzantine period, but most in theMamlu \k period (Epstein and Gutman 1972:273; Dauphin1982b: Figs. 2-5; 1984:234; 1998:657; Dauphin and Gibson1992-1993:17; Tepper 1997: 253-259).

At er-Rumthaniyeh many Hauran style buildingssurvived, and although many were renovated and roofedwith stone beams in recent generations, the original wallshave survived to a considerable height. In addition to ruralhouses with fenestrated walls and arches, at this site also amartyrium was found (Epstein and Gutmann 1972:267-268;Dauphin 1988-1989, 1993, 1995, 1998:650-651; Dauphinand Gibson 1992-1993:28-29).

At eß-Íurman fifteen Hauran style buildings were found,complete with fenestrated walls and stone roofs (Epsteinand Gutmann 1972:262; Dauphin 1998:645; Hartal 1989:54;Urman 1995:398-404; Gregg and Urman 1996:215–246).

Apparently other sites in the region, such as Qunei†ra,Mu\msiyye and Jueizeh were built in the same style. Althoughthese sites yielded architectural elements and inscriptionsdating them to the sixth century CE, the buildings themselveshave not been preserved.

West of Qunei†ra two villages in a good state ofpreservation have been found. At Kafr Nafakh Hauran stylebuildings were found, though as previously mentioned theirroofs are new (Epstein and Gutman 1972:264; Dauphin andSchonfield 1983:194-197; Urman 1995:404-409). Dauphin’sexpedition identified at the site a Roman road and a servicedepot (mutatio; Dauphin and Gibson 1992-1993:12-14). Atnearby Na‘ran stone-roofed houses were found as well(Dauphin and Gibson 1992-1993:14-16).

Hauran style buildings have been identified south of Rafidas well. At Bu†miyye Schumacher (1888) found a fenestratedwall, and at Khisfin several houses with a stone roof werediscovered.

A review of the evidence shows that the Hauran style isnot attested before the first century CE. This should notsurprise, because it was at this time that the Hauran culturecrystallized (see discussion in chapter 9). It would seemtherefore that until the turn of the era the Golan houses werebuilt according to local traditions, and were little influencedby the Hauran. Greater changes were effected during thesecond and third centuries CE, when the Hauran, Trachonand Bashan reached a high cultural level and influencedfarther areas as well. The domestic houses that evolved theresuited well the basalt regions. From the fourth century theHauran style house became the dominant form in the Golan,both with Jews and gentiles. In the northern Golan thisprocess reached its zenith in the course of the Byzantine period,and the style was apparently used also by the Ghassanids, whosettled here in the sixth century (see chapter 9).

CHAPTER TWO

12

page 12 - empty

THE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION

13

Chapter Three

The Architectural Decoration

Moshe Hartal

In the Hauran style tradition, the buildings at Rafid weredecorated with architectural elements cut in engraving andrelief. Most often it was the lintels that were decorated, butarches and other elements were decorated as well. Alldecorated elements are made of local basalt.

In northern Golan over two hundred decorated elementshave been found, most in the eastern part, where Rafid islocated. The decorations include geometric motifs, wreaths,aediculae, vines and palms, animals, human figures, the treeof life, but especially crosses (for a detailed discussion ofthe decorated elements of northern Golan see Hartal2005:303-341; for maps see Urman 1995:387; Gregg andUrman 1996: Map 2). Most elements are dated to theByzantine period, when the area was settled by theGhassanids (see chapter 9).

Rafid is one of the richest sites in architecturaldecorations: altogether sixty nine elements were identified,but in contrast to other sites, especially Farj, er-Rumthaniyehand Qunei†ra, the repertoire is rather limited and most itemsare, in fact, crosses. In this chapter the decorations will bedescribed, with references to illustrations in chapters 4-8and to parallels elsewhere on the Golan.

Geometric motifs

Geometric motifs appear as either a central motif or a framefor another decoration. The simplest one is an X pattern,decorating a doorjamb in Building 59 (Figs. 413, 414). Asimilar decoration is found at er-Rumthan¥yeh (Hartal 2005:Fig. 229). A doorjamb in Building 40 carries a circle inrelief, in which there is a round, raised projection resemblinga shield (Figs. 278, 279), but possibly representing the sundisk (cf. the altar from Kh. el-Beida, Ibid.: Fig. 228). Asimilar design in a wreath ending in a Heracles’ knot wasfound at Óafar (Ibid.: Fig. 236). A somewhat more complexdecoration is a four-rayed star in a circle, found in Building22 (Figs. 205-206).

In secondary use in Building 106 is a lintel that carriestwo concentric circles engraved in its center. At both endsof the lintel there is a decoration consisting of a small circleenclosing an X, and a builders’ right angle (Figs. 691-693).This motif is not attested elsewhere in the Golan.

Rosettes

The rosette is a common motif. In its basic form it consistsof six petals enclosed in a circle, drawn with the aid of acompass. An example is on lintel fragments with aninscription from Building 15 (Figs. 140-143). On the lintel inBuilding 90 there are two leaf-less rosettes (Figs. 632, 633).

The rosette is common in architectural decoration fromthe Second Temple period to the end of the Byzantine period(Turnheim 1987:102–103; Ma‘oz 1995:237). In the Hauran,more naturally rendered rosettes are common (Butler 1903:Ills. 360, 362; 1915: Pl. 20, Ills. 296, 317; 1919: Ill. 387:F),but geometric ones are extant as well (Butler 1909: Pl. 7,Ills. 68, 69; 1915: Fig. 288). In central and southern Golangeometric rosettes are the rule, at Jewish (‘Ein Nashot,Yahudiyye, Danikle, Umm el-Qana†ir) or pagan andChristian sites (Na‘ran, Khisfin, el-‘Al, Fiq). Natural rosettesare more common at pagan and Christian sites, such asMazra‘at Qunei†ra, Khisfin, el-‘Al, Fiq, Kafr Óarib (KefarÓarub), but have been identified at Jewish sites as well,such as Danikle, ‘Ein Nashot, Yahudiyye, Umm el-Qana†irand Bethsaida (the data is from the catalogue of the GolanArchaeological Museum at Qaßrin).

As rosettes have been in use for a very long time and bymany different ethnic groups, they cannot serve aschronological or ethnic indicators.

Amphorae

Amphorae served both as central motifs in the decorationof arch stones, and as a secondary decoration, with vinetrellises emerging from it. At Rafid only a single item wasfound that made use of an amphora in its decoration. A stoneslab from Building 88 is decorated with a Greek crosssurrounded by a vine trellis emerging from an amphora(Figs. 616, 617).

Amphorae with emerging vine trellises are common inJewish art in the Golan (Ma‘oz 1995: Pls. 49:4, 135:4;Hachlili 1995: Nos. 3, 52, 53) and in Galilee (Hachlili 1988:214, Fig. 52: f, g). In the Hauran, where vine trellis reliefsare common, they never emerge from amphorae.

Two stones from Qunei†ra, one of them found by

CHAPTER THREE

14

Schumacher (1888: Fig. 102) and the other in the Golanmuseum in Qaßrin, appear to be fragments of the same lintel(Hartal 2005: Figs. 255, 256), and are decorated withamphorae with a widening base, round body and a wide,short neck. From the amphorae emerge branches withtriangular leaves, perhaps vines. Small animals appearamong the branches. An arch stone from er-Rumthaniyeh(Ibid.: Fig. 257) is decorated in relief with an amphora witha high base from which a vine trellis emerges, carved on thefollowing arch stones.

Altar Reliefs

A doorjamb incorporated into Building 69 displays an altarin high relief (Figs. 495-497), similar to others found atseveral sites in northern Golan (Ibid.: Figs. 403-406). Altarreliefs are common in the Hauran and the Bashan (Butler1916:26, 87-88, Ills. 68, 69, Pl. 8; Dentzer-Feydy 1986: Pl.23:d), northern Golan (Hartal 2005: Fig. 260) and southernGolan (Schumacher 1888: Figs. 46, 51, 73). In synagogueson the Golan just one altar was found, on a capital from‘Ein Nashot (Ma‘oz 1995: Pl. 61:3) and in the Galilee thismotif is not found at all. It appears therefore that this is apagan or Christian symbol that did not find acceptance inJewish art, except in the depiction of the sacrifice of Isaac.

Aedicula

A doorjamb in Building 45 is decorated with an aedicula inhigh relief, depicted as an arch supported by two columns(Figs. 291, 292). A nearly identical aedicula decorates oneside of an interesting capital that was found embedded inthe courtyard wall of Building 46 (Fig. 319). A similaraedicula carved on a large ashlar was found at er-Rumthaniyeh (Hartal 2005: Fig. 261). The motif is commonin Jewish art in general and in the Golan synagogues itrepresents the Torah ark (Ma‘oz 1995:277–278, Pl. 137:7;Hachlili 1995: No. 18), but it is in no way limited to Jewishart. Aediculae appear also in churches of the Hauran (DeVogüé 1865-1877: Pl. 20; Schumacher 1886: Fig. 111; Butler1909:210; Dentzer-Feydy 1986: Pl. 23:d; Dentzer andDentzer-Feydy 1991: Pl 23:315).

Wreaths with a Heracles Knot

A common motif in the art of northern Transjordan is awreath tied at the bottom with a Heracles knot, the end ofwhich is in the form of a vine trellis. The wreath usuallysurrounds an inscription or a relief, sometimes that of ahuman head. A lintel fragment found in Building 51 in Rafidcarried a wreath in the centre, of which just the knot survives(Figs. 356-357). Fine examples were found at er-Rumthaniyeh, near Birket Ram, in Qunei†ra, in Kafr Nafakhand in Kh. Mas‘adeh (Hartal 2005: Figs. 262-268). Wreaths

with a vine trellis were also found at Mashara and Inkhil inthe Batanea (Dentzer-Feydy 1986: Pl. 22:b), in a church atel-Umta‘iyeh in the Hauran (Butler 1909: Ill. 70), in theTrachon (Butler 1919: Ill. 369, and see also Littman 1915:Insc. 603; 1921: Insc. 763). Wreaths with a Heracles knot butwithout a vine trellis, often surrounding an inscription, reliefor cross are rather common in southern and central Golan inboth Jewish (Dabura, Yahudiyye, e†-Tayibeh, ed-Dikkeh) andgentile settlements (Fiq, el-‘Al, Khisfin) (Gregg and Urman1996:30, 49, 77). In Jewish settlements the wreath is foundon lintels, mostly without the vine trellis (Ma‘oz 1995:278-279).

Vines

The vine and its various parts is the most common vegetalmotif in northern Transjordan. At Rafid only two items werefound with such motifs. One, already mentioned, is the stoneslab from Building 88 with a vine trellis emerging from asmall amphora and creating a frame for a small decoratedGreek cross (Figs. 616, 617). The other is the decoratedcapital found in the courtyard of Building 46, also mentionedabove. On one side it carries three grape clusters (Fig. 323).

The vine as a decorative motif is very common in theNear East, in both Hellenistic-Roman and Jewish art(Turnheim 1987:98-100; Ma‘oz 1995:211-212). In the Golanit decorated synagogues (Ibid.: Pls. 10:1-3, 16:2, 23:2, 49:1,91, 102:1, 2, 108:1, 135:4; Hachlili 1995: Nos. 3, 35, 36,51, 53). Vine reliefs were found in northern Golan (Hartal2005: Figs. 276-290) as well as in southern Golan (Epsteinand Gutman 1972:283, 289; Schumacher 1888: Figs. 40,41, 288, 289). Vine trellises were a common decorative motifin the Hauran from the Early Roman until the Byzantineperiod. They decorated the entrances to temples andchurches, lintels, consoles, arches and more (Dunand 1934:Pls. 6:14, 9:15; Butler 1903:317, 329, 346, 349, 363-364,374, 407; 1909:68-70, Pl. 7; 1915:276, 282, 286, 317;1919:369, 371, 376, 377; Dentzer-Feydy 1986: Pls. 5:c, 6:a,15:a, 20:d, 22:b, c, 23:c, d; 1991: Fig. 19; Dentzer andDentzer-Feydy 1991: Pl. 12:234). The wide distribution ofvines as decorative elements does not allow attributing thefinds from Rafid to any one ethnos or religion.

Peacocks

On an arch stone in Building 19 there is an engraving of apeacock holding a wreath in its beak (Figs. 191-192). Apeacock is engraved also on a lintel from er-Rumthaniyeh(Hartal 2005: Fig. 300) and a peacock in relief is knownfrom a doorjamb in Qaßrin (Ma‘oz 1993g:1221; Hachlili1995: No. 4). Peacocks are common on mosaic floors, both insynagogues and churches, and usually come in pairs (Hachlili1988:338-389). There are no published examples from theHauran, but they are well attested in churches of northern Syria(De Vogüé 1865-1877: Pl. 45; Butler 1929: Ill. 287).

.

THE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION

15

Birds

Schumacher, who visited Rafid in 1884, published a drawingof a lintel, decorated with a relief of two birds holding in theirbeaks ribbons attached to a wreath (Schumacher 1888: Fig.113); unfortunately this lintel was not found in the survey.Birds appear in the art of the Golan usually as a secondarymotif, often as a bird pecking at a bunch of grapes (Ibid.: Fig.102; Hartal 2005: Figs. 265, 303). This same motif is commonin the Golan synagogues too (Ma‘oz 1995: Pls. 49:4, 91:2,108:1), and was also found at el-‘Al in southern Golan(unpublished) and in the Hauran (De Vogüé 1865-1877: Pl. 3;Dentzer and Dentzer-Feydy 1991: Pls. 3:302, 12:234).

Human Figures

A sarcophagus fragment from Building 69 (Figs. 507, 508)is decorated with a high relief. On the left a male figure isdepicted, whose face was deliberately defaced, the upperpart of its head is missing and the chest was damaged aswell. On the right there are traces of a scene that probablydepicted a woman lying on a bed, her body covered by amantle with only her feet bare. The rest of the sarcophaguswas not preserved, including parts of its left side and top.The sarcophagus should probably be dated to the LateRoman period.

One corner of the decorated capital from Building 46carries a human head in relief (Figs. 319, 320). The head isvery schematic, with a prominent nose, eyes and mouth. Itmay be that on a lintel, a fragment of which is embedded inBuilding 19, there was a relief of the upper part of a humantorso (Figs. 188-190), but the surviving part is insufficientfor a reconstruction.

Crosses

Unquestionably the most common architectural decorativeelement in northern Golan is the cross, found on over onehundred stone elements. Over ninety were found at sitessouth of Qunei†ra, 69 at Rafid. Only 23 crosses were foundnorth of Qunei†ra, and 35 in central and southern Golan.The crosses are either engraved or in relief, as main orsecondary motif, free or surrounded by frames and come ina variety of shapes (Testa 1962; Tzaferis 1971).Greek Cross – with straight, equal arms (Schick 1894:186;Whitney 1911:1361, No. 7; Morrisroe 1913:538, No. 15;Finney 1997:304). It is modeled by engraving or in relief,as simple lines crossing each other at right angles (Figs.286, 287, 300, 301, 674, 675) or as an outline (Figs. 611,612, 637). Greek crosses have been found almost exclusivelyat sites south of Qunei†ra (Rafid, Farj, er-Rumthaniyeh, eß-Íurman and Qunei†ra; Hartal 2005: Figs. 307-315) as wellas at Khisfin in southern Golan. Similar crosses are foundin the Hauran (Littman 1915: Insc. 618, 707, 718, 716A,723) and the Trachon (Littman 1921: Insc. 784, 797, 802).

Cosmic Cross – a Greek cross surrounded by a circle,representing the cosmos. In Rafid eleven such crosses werefound (Figs. 1, 74, 173-175, 245, 246, 281, 282, 527, 528,550, 551, 686, 687). This cross is common in northern Golan(Hartal 2005: Figs. 316-327). Cosmic crosses have beenfound in southern Golan at Khisfin, Fiq and Squfiyye andin central Golan at ‘Ein Samsam, Fiq and ed-Dhashe. In theHauran only few cosmic crosses were found (Butler1903:409, 413; Littman 1915: Insc. 603).Horned Cross (Cross Fourchée) – the end of each arm forksin a V shape (Whitney 1911:1361, No. 11; Morrisroe1913:538, No. 15). These crosses were only engraved.Twenty three such crosses were found at Rafid, more thanany other type (Figs. 10, 202, 218-221, 223-226, 362, 384-386, 415-418, 438, 439, 492, 574, 575, 578-582, 635, 636)and is generally rather common in northern Golan (Hartal2005: Figs. 331-342). Similar crosses have been found insouthern Golan at Fiq and Kafr Óarib and in central Golanat ed-Dahshe (Gregg and Urman 1996:107). From theHauran only few such crosses have been published (Littman1915: Insc. 609, 677; 1921: Insc. 792).Cross of Golgotha – is a Horned Cross standing over aconvex line representing the hill of Golgotha. This type wasfound engraved on an arch stone from Building 85 (Figs.583, 584). On a lintel in Building 19 there is a Horned Crosssurrounded on top and on the sides with convex lines (Figs.183-184). It might represent a Cross of Golgotha where lackof space dictated a different arrangement. A Cross ofGolgotha decorates also a column at Farj (Hartal 2005: Fig.343) and at Sukeik a lintel was found with a Horned Crossbetween two ‘hills’ (Ibid.: Fig. 345). A similar motif isperhaps carved on a lintel from er-Rumthaniyeh andidentified there as a Cross of Golgotha (Dauphin 1993:75,Fig. 16). If the drawing is correct then perhaps this is theonly example in northern Golan of a Greek cross on the hillof Golgotha.Maltese Cross – four arms in the form of triangles withconvex sides (Whitney 1911:1361, No. 10; Morrisroe1913:538, No. 8). Thirteen crosses were found at Rafid, allin relief (Figs. 43, 44, 212, 213, 251, 252, 337, 338, 352,376, 377, 471, 474-476, 501, 502, 639, 640). Some crosseswere executed with the aid of a compass, similar to thegeometric rosettes, and sometimes it is difficult to tell thetwo motifs apart (Figs. 537-539). Maltese crosses arecommon in northern Golan (Hartal 2005: Figs. 347-379).They have been found also in southern Golan at Khisfin, Fiqand Squfiyye as well as in Hauran and Trachon (De Vogüé1865-1877: Fig. 16, Pl. 21; Butler 1903:413; Littman 1915:Insc. 602, 739; 1921: Insc. 804).Monogrammatic Cross – a monogram made up of the Greekletter Rho (P) and a cross, short for Christos (Schick1894:187; Morrisroe 1913:538, No. 40; Tzaferis 1971:57-58; Finney 1997:304). A Monogrammatic Cross is carvedon a lintel in Building 56 (Figs. 390-392) as well as on alintel in Building 103 (Figs. 686, 687). Two other exampleshave been found in northern Golan: at er-Rumthaniyeh andBab el-Hawa, both at the beginning of an inscription (Hartal

CHAPTER THREE

16

2005: Figs. 381, 413). From the Hauran two similar crosseswere published (De Vogüé 1865-1877: Pls. 20, 30, 31).Crosses decorated with dots – In Building 54 part of anarch stone was found, decorated with a relief of a cosmiccross that has between its arms a series of dots (Figs. 371,372). At er-Rumthaniyeh two arch stones with a similardesign have been found (Hartal 2005: Figs. 383, 414).Maltese crosses were sometimes decorated with a dot at thewide end of each arm (Ibid.: Figs. 245, 275, 384) or betweenthe arms (Ibid.: Figs. 383, 385, 413, 414). It seems that thedots were meant only to fill empty spaces and had nosymbolic value. At er-Rumthaniyeh a lintel was found withthree crosses in relief, and between their arms dots, crosses,bunches of grapes and letters (Schumacher 1888: Fig. 118).

Tree of Life

A common motif in northern Golan, comprising a centraltrunk from which branches spread diagonally upwards. Theleaves are of equal size and do not end at the same height.

In most cases the central trunk does not stand on a base.This design has usually been identified as the ‘tree of life’.It appears on tombstones, corbels and lintels, usually togetherwith crosses (Hartal 2005: Figs. 387-396). At Rafid twolintels decorated with this motif were found. One is on alintel in Building 40, with Maltese crosses on either side(Figs. 275-277). On a lintel in Building 77 there appears, inaddition to the ‘tree of life’, a staff and two cosmic crossesat either end of the lintel (Figs. 550, 551).

The tree of life is common in the art of the ancient Eastand it was in use up to the Byzantine period. Though itappears in the Golan synagogues (Ma‘oz 1995: Pls. 26:1,133:2, 3; Hachlili 1995:208), its main distribution is inChristian contexts in the Golan and Hauran (Ma‘oz 1985;1995:276-277; Dentzer-Feydy 1986: Pl. 20:b, c). Dauphinidentified this motif as a lulav or menorah and saw in itsappearance together with crosses evidence of Judeo-Christian communities in the Golan (Dauphin 1982b, 1993).However, these are quite different from the menorahs knownfrom the Golan sites, including Farj, and there is nocompelling reason not to see in them the ‘tree of life’.

THE HISTORY OF RAFID

267

PART THREE

HISTORICAL PHASES

CHAPTER NINE

268

page 268 -empty


269

Chapter Nine

The History of Rafid on the Background of the History of Northern Transjordan

Moshe Hartal

There is no identification for Rafid, and there are no

historical sources that mention it directly. Rafid is situated

on the boundary between Golan and Bashan and in antiquity

was on the border of three Roman provinces: Palaestina,

Syria-Phoenice and Arabia. Thus, in order to reconstruct its

history, one must look at the history of the whole region.

This chapter deals with the historical processes and

settlement dynamics of Northern Transjordan and their

influence on the history of Rafid.

The Hellenistic Period

During the third century BCE, Palestine and southern Syria

were under the control of the Ptolemaic dynasty.

Archaeological investigations in Northern Transjordan failed

to identify settlements from this period. It seems that the

Jordan river served as the easternmost boundary of

permanent settlement (Hartal 2005:356). Northern

Transjordan was effectively a buffer zone between the

Ptolemaic possessions and Damascus, which was ruled by

the Seleucids. The entire region was settled mostly by

nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples, the best-known among

them being the Itureans and the Nabateans. Because the

population was small, the Ptolemies saw no need to divide

the region into small administrative units and the units were

large, according to geographical divisions (Dentzer

1986:395).

The historical sources for the settlement of Northern

Transjordan are nearly as meager as the archaeological

evidence (Ma‘oz 1986:17). Their examination suggests that

agricultural settlements existed only in the Yarmukh basin,

where forts were erected to control the local population and

protect the Ptolemaic kingdom.

The decisive battle between the Ptolemies and the

Seleucids took place in 200 BCE. In this battle Antiochus

III defeated the Ptolemaic general Scopas and took control

of southern Syria and Palestine (Polybius, Historiae xvi,

18-19). The battle took place near Paneion, the sacred cave

to Pan (the place in which the city Paneas was established

two hundreds years later, see below). The battle had little

immediate effect on the settlements in the nearby region,

which was still sparsely populated at the time, but the

stability of Seleucid rule had a long term effect on the region.

Whereas the Ptolemies took no particular interest in

developing the country and saw it as a buffer zone, the

Seleucids saw in it an integral part of their kingdom. In spite

of political instability, their rule is characterized by

flourishing communities and a thriving economy (Smith

1990:123-127). In Galilee, particularly Upper Galilee and

the Hula valley, the number of settlements in the late

Hellenistic period increased threefold from what it had been

in the preceding period (Berlin 1997:26).

In the course of the second century BCE, for the first

time in the Hellenistic period, settlements were founded on

the Golan. In southern Golan at least ten settlements were

founded and it seems that the polis of Hippos/Sussita was

founded towards the end of the century. In central and

southern Golan small forts were established (Ma‘oz 1986:61,

76-77). A sedentarization of the Itureans began in northern

Golan, dated by archaeological excavations at Hurvat Zemel

to the mid-second century BCE (Hartal 2002). East of the

Golan, in Bashan (Batanea), Hauran (Auranitis) and Trachon

(Trachonitis), the land was still to be controlled by nomadic

peoples for the next century (Map 4).

The Conquests of Alexander Jannaeus

Towards the end of the second, and the beginning of the

first centuries BCE the Nabateans in southern Hauran and

the Itureans in northern Golan and Lebanon gained power.

In between the two peoples there remained a large tract of

land that included the Golan, the territory of Hippos, Bashan,

Trachon and northern Hauran (Map 4). Most of this area

was without permanent settlements and thus became

attractive for Jewish settlers in the next 200 years. It would

seem that the view expressed by several scholars claiming

that this area formed a conflict zone between the Itureans

and Nabateans is unfounded (Hartal 2005:381-391, 401,

contra Kasher 1988:143-144, n.35).

The second military campaign of the Hasmonean king

Alexander Jannaeus during the years 83-80 BCE was of

prime importance for the history of the region. In its course,

Jannaeus conquered Pella, besieged Gerasa and took it

without a fight. “He also demolished Golan, and Seleucia,

and what was called the Valley of Antiochus; besides which,

CHAPTER NINE

270

Hip

pos

Map 4. Northern Transjordan in the late Hellenistic period.

he took the strong fortress of Gamala, and stripped

Demetrius, who was governor therein, of what he had, on

account of the many crimes laid to his charge” (Josephus,

War I 104-105). In the parallel passage in Antiquities (XIII

393-394), the conquest of Dium is described instead of Pella.

Jannaeus thus took southern Golan (the territory of Hippos;

see Syncellus, Chronographia:558-559) and central Golan

(Gaulanitis), but northern Golan remained under Iturean

control (Map 4; Ma‘oz 1986:41; Hartal 2005:388-391).

The destiny of the two regions was not to be the same.

Hippos, just as other Hellenistic cities, was captured but

not destroyed by Jannaeus and apparently a pagan population

remained within and in the surrounding territory; indeed,

later it was restored by Pompey as one of the cities of the

Decapolis (Josephus, Ant. XIV 75; War I 156). However,

Jews settled in its area, as well, as is shown by the ‘list of

forbidden villages’ in its territory. The list is evidence of a

predominantly pagan area, but with well-established Jewish

villages.

The district of Gaulanitis, which was nearly empty of

residents during the conquest of Jannaeus, became a favorite

destination of Jewish settlers and soon became a significant

Jewish territory. Though this process is not explicitly

mentioned in the sources – just as it is not mentioned in

relation to the Jewish territories in Galilee – it can be inferred

from later developments: no towns in Gaulanitis were

restored by Pompey or Gabinius and they appear on the eve

of the Jewish War as Jewish cities (Josephus, War II 574).

The Jewish settlement process in Gaulanitis has to be

observed on the background of the situation in Judaea, where

there was a rapid natural population growth in a rather

restricted area. On the eve of the Maccabean revolt there

was a state of overpopulation, with many landless; it was

apparently this overpopulation that led to the expansion wars

of the Hasmoneans. The landless were the mass of

Hasmonean soldiers and in return for their services received

land in the conquered territories (Bar-Kochva 1977:170-

177). At this time the Jewish settlement in Galilee expanded

too (Schalit 1964:15; Bar-Kochva 1977:147-176; Adan-

Bayewitz and Aviam 1997:161).


271

The Jewish settlement that developed in Gaulanitis was

essentially the same as that in Galilee. There are many

similarities in material culture and behavior patterns between

the two populations (Meyers 1976), and though Gaulanitis

was a separate administrative unit, it was considered for all

practical purposes as part of Galilee. Thus Josephus,

appointed commander of Galilee at the beginning of the

Jewish war, was also the commander of Gaulanitis.

It seems that Gaulanitis district was created following

Jannaeus’ conquests, in the area between the territory of

Hippos/Sussita and the Iturean domains in the northern

Golan Heights (Map 4). The Jewish settlement there

continued without interruption until the Byzantine period.

Because Jewish Gaulanitis bordered on pagan territories

north and south of it, its boundaries can be determined by

the extent of Jewish settlement as reflected in the distribution

of the Byzantine period synagogues, as well as by other

material culture, especially the variation and distribution of

ceramic vessels within Golan and outside of it (Hartal

2005:271-274).

Both characteristics indicate that Jewish Gaulanitis

extended only in the central Golan Heights of today, and

the seven hundred year continuous Jewish occupation of

the area is a direct result of Jannaeus’ conquests.

Rafid is situated at the eastern edge of Jannaeus’ domains

in the Golan. The village had not yet existed in his time,

and in the vicinity there are but few settlements dating to

the Hellenistic period (Ibid.: Map 3). One of them is ‘Esheh,

ca. 2 km northwest of Rafid (Map 4), which yielded evidence

of an Iturean settlement, the southernmost in northern Golan.

It seems that the settlement at Rafid commenced a few

decades after Jannaeus’ conquest, when settlement of

Batanea to the east began as well (see below).

The Roman Occupation

From 63 BCE Syria and Palestine were firmly under Roman

control. The Roman general Pompey passed through the

Iturean principality and reduced its territory. Ptolemy son

of Mennaeus, the Iturean ruler, saved himself and secured

his rule by paying large sums to Pompey. The fate of the

Hasmonean kingdom was harsher. Pompey abolished its

independence and reduced its size (Josephus, Ant. XIV 74-

76; War I 155-157). He tore from Judaea the Hellenistic

cities that were captured, and liberated and restored those

that were not completely razed by the Jews (Josephus, Ant.

XIV 74-76; War I 155-158).

Pompey’s actions in the Golan were different for each

district. The Hellenistic city of Hippos, taken by Jannaeus,

was torn from the Hasmonean kingdom together with its

territory (covra), restored and granted autonomy (Josephus,

Ant. XIV 75; War I 156). Later it was reckoned among the

cities of the Decapolis. The other towns however, Golan,

Seleucia and Gamla are not mentioned among the liberated

cities and on the eve of the revolt they are mentioned as

Jewish towns (Josephus, War II 574). It seems that contrary

to Hippos/Sussita, where the pagan component seems to

have remained significant, in the towns of Gaulanitis the

population was completely replaced.

The fact that Gaulanitis was not torn away from Judaea

has great importance in understanding the development of

the Jewish settlement there, and the statement by Avi-Yonah

(1966:81) that Pompey tore Gaulanitis from Judaea is not

substantiated by any source.

Herod the Great

Sometime between 30 and 20 BCE all of Northern

Transjordan came under the rule of Herod (Map 5), and most

of it remained under the control of the Herodian dynasty

until the end of the first century CE. In fact, this was the

only period in history when all of Northern Transjordan

belonged to a self-contained political unit, and this has

implications on the settlement dynamics. This is also the

period with the greatest amount of historical information.

In 30 BCE, after his victory at Actium, Octavian granted

Herod Hippos and Gadara, in addition to Samaria/Sebaste

and other cities in the coastal plain (Josephus, Ant. XV 217;

War I 396).The Hellenistic city of Hippos, that had been in

the hands of Jannaeus and was ‘liberated’ only 33 years

earlier by Pompey, has again lost its independence. The

annexation of Hippos to Judaea continued only in the lifetime

of Herod and after the king’s death it was again restored to

the status of a free city.

Seven years later, in 23 BCE, Augustus further expanded

Herod’s territories and annexed to him Trachonitis, Batanea

(Bashan) and Auranitis (Hauran) (Josephus, Ant. XV 343;

War I 398). The events that led to this annexation were

complex. After the death of Lysanias, Ptolemy’s heir (39

BCE), the Iturean principality was split into four smaller

units. The ruler of the southernmost unit was Zenodorus, of

royal Iturean lineage, who leased Lysanias’ territories from

Cleopatra and ruled over a large area: Trachonitis, Batanes

and Auranitis, in addition to the territory of Paneas and

Hulatha. The apparent size of this unit is misleading, because

the total income of this vast land was rather low: it was in fact

very sparsely inhabited by nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples,

and even the Paneas and Hulatha areas – northern Golan and

the Hula valley respectively – were rural and rather poor.

The Romans leased the area to Zenodorus expecting him

to impose order and safety, whereas he proceeded to send a

group of brigands, whose center was in Trachonitis, against

the territories of Damascus and the caravans approaching

it. Two independent sources describe the events: Josephus

(Ant. XV 343-348; War I 398) and Strabo (Geographica

xvi 2, 20). Strabo makes it clear that the brigands were a

special problem for the Romans, because not only the rural

areas suffered, but also commerce in general. Josephus

claims that it was economic conditions and poverty that

drove those people to brigandry. Both Josephus and Strabo

are explicit about the attacks on Damascus, and neither

mentions attacks on villages in Auranitis or Batanea. It seems

that at this stage there were no permanent settlements in

these regions.

CHAPTER NINE

272

Map 5. Herod’s Kingdom in Northern Transjordan.

Strabo accredits the Romans in the subjugation of the

brigands, and it is so in Josephus’ War. In Antiquities the

brigands are suppressed by Herod and his army. The version

in Antiquities seems to be the right one. The suppression of

the brigands necessitated unconventional action and

traversing difficult terrain with the aid of local guides.

Herod’s army was more suitable and experienced in such

operations, following his struggles with the rebels and

brigands in Galilee.

It is not completely clear who were the brigands of

Trachonitis. Already the first Roman governors were

occupied by trying to repel ‘Arabs’ that harassed their

neighbors (Appian, Syriacus Liber 51), and these appear

not to have been the Nabateans, but Arabs that lived in the

Leja (Bowersock 1983:33-34; Dentzer 1986:400). The

brigands may have been disintegrating clans, individual

refugees or small groups of Trachonitis residents that

‘supplemented’ their meager income by robbing the villages

of Damascus and the caravans that passed by (Peters

1977:270, 1978:318; Dentzer 1986:400). According to

Josephus they also farmed animals, and to ensure a water

supply for them, they prepared in their hideout caves water

reservoirs that were fed from rainwater and were available

even in periods of drought.

The epithet ‘brigands’ was generally applied by the

Romans to all who did not accept the ordinary lifestyle of

the peasants, and especially to nomads, and this label was

part of the Romans’ propaganda to justify their actions. In

this case however, it seems that the damage caused by the

brigands was very real, and they were so well known that

their image remained in collective memory down to the days

of Philip the Arab (244-249 CE) (Ibid.:399).

During the first years after the annexation of Auranitis,

Trachonitis and Batanea to Herod’s domains and the

subjugation of the brigands, the latter were afraid of the

king and ceased their acts of brigandry. In consequence,

Herod was much esteemed by the Romans (Josephus, Ant.

XVI 271-272) and so it was only natural that after the death

of Zenodorus in 20 BCE Augustus, at the time visiting Syria,

“bestowed his country, which was no small one, upon Herod;

it lay between Trachonitis and Galilee, and contained Ulatha,

and Paneas, and the country round about” (Josephus, Ant.

XV 359-360; see also War I 400; Cassius Dio, Historia

Romana lxvi, 9, 3). This is taken to be the district of Paneas


273

and the northern Hula valley, and the annexation of the whole

Northern Transjordan to Herod was thus complete. This

latest addition was the core area of Zenodorus’ principality

and was inhabited by Itureans, and contrary to the situation

in Auranitis and Trachonitis, there is no evidence that the

inhabitants resisted Herod’s rule in any way.

Thus, Herod’s domains in the north included Hippos,

Batanea, Auranitis, Trachonitis and Paneas. There is no

mention however, of Gaulanitis ever being annexed to his

kingdom, although there can be no doubt that it was included

in it, because in his will it is counted among the districts to

be given to his son Philip (Josephus, Ant. XVII 189).

Although Gaulanitis is not mentioned among the districts

approved by Augustus for Philip (Josephus, Ant. XVII 319;

War II 95), it is included in his tetrarchy at the end of his

life (Ant. XVIII 106). He even founded a city there: he

renamed Bethsaida, on the shores of the Sea of Galilee near

the estuary of the Jordan river to Iulias (Ant. XVIII 28; War

II 168). Gaulanitis is also mentioned as one of the districts

of king Agrippa II (War II 249) and was the only district in

Northern Transjordan to actively revolt against the Romans

in the Jewish war (War II 574, IV 2; Life 185-187).

Why then is its annexation to Herod not mentioned? This

district was inhabited predominantly by Jews and included

hardly any pagan settlements. It seems that it was this reason

that prevented Pompey from tearing it away from Judaea,

just as he did not separate Galilee and Idumea – both strongly

Jewish in character – from Judaea. Therefore, Gaulanitis

remained an integral part of Judaea even after the Roman

conquest, and when Herod took over the Hasmonean kingdom,

this already included Gaulanitis and its later annexation was

not necessary (Ma‘oz 1986:49; Hartal 1987:71).

Until the last third of the first century BCE the eastern

regions of Batanea, Auranitis and Trachonitis were under

complete control of nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes

(Schürer 1973:319; Peters 1977:267). In 33 BCE the tribes

began the construction of a cultic precinct at Si‘, near el-

Qanawat, in northern Hauran. The temple was constructed

at the crossroads of three regional roads, where no settlement

had existed before (Dentzer 1986:404-405). The reason for

the construction of the cultic center at this precise time is not

clear, but may indicate the stabilization of the tribes and perhaps

even the beginning of a process of sedentarization. The internal

security in the region however, was still rather weak.

The Romans expected Herod to enforce security in the

region and prevent the continued harassment of the

permanent settlements and commerce. Fear of the king

caused the brigands to change their ways, and Herod even

tried to encourage them to settle down and take up

agriculture. But the poor soil could not sustain an income

comparable to that from robbery and the semi-nomadic

people found it very difficult to settle down to a peasant

life. As soon as they thought that Herod was dead and the

situation changed, they rebelled and returned to their old

ways (Ant. XVI 271-275). In the year 12 BCE, while Herod

was in Rome, the inhabitants of Trachonitis rebelled and

renewed their banditry (Ant. XVI 130).

When Herod returned from Rome in 10 BCE he turned

to deal with the rebels, who found refuge with the Nabateans.

At first he swept through Trachonitis and massacred their

relatives (Ant. XVI 276-277), and when this move did not

help in stopping the rebels, he declared war on the Nabateans

(Ant. XVI 271-285).

To stem any future rebellions, Herod strengthened his

forces and settled at the edge of Trachonitis 3000 Idumeans,

whose duty was to secure safe travel and to prevent the

inhabitants to raid their neighbors. The Idumeans however,

as either garrison or military colonists, did not last long in

the hostile Trachonitis. Augustus’ harsh reaction to Herod’s

campaign against the Nabateans in 9 BCE weakened the

latter’s position and in fact caused a new rebellion, aimed

this time against the Idumeans (Ant. XVI 292). The Arabs

who rebelled were not the Nabateans or desert nomads, but

the inhabitants of Auranitis (Gracey 1986:316; Macdonald

1993:313-314). Their cooperation with the inhabitants of

Trachonitis against the Herodian garrison in Herod’s own

territories shows the king’s temporary weakness at this point

in time.

Soon after the failure of the Idumean experiment, Herod

attempted yet again to control and subdue Trachonitis and

ensure safe passage in those parts (Ant. XVII 23-28). In order

to prevent raids from Trachonitis it was necessary to keep a

military presence nearby, and the most suitable form of such

a presence was a military colony (Cohen 1972:91). Herod

seems to have learnt a lesson from the Idumeans’ failure

and this time he put the colonists in Batanea and not around

the fringes of Trachonitis, so as to keep them less exposed

to attacks by the brigands. He also founded a large, central

settlement which was easier to protect than the small villages

of the Idumeans. But most important, he chose a man with

the right qualities to lead the colonization. Zamaris was a

Jewish aristocrat from Babylon, who moved to Syria with a

force of mounted archers, an expertise of the Parthians. By

invitation from Herod, he came with his unit to Batanea

and founded a military colony (Applebaum 1970; Cohen

1972; Shatzman 1991:175-180). The colony included a large

village, Bathyra, and a chain of forts. Daily life was

conducted in the village, while the forts served for defense.

Zamaris received from Herod title to the land and

exemption from taxes. These incentives attracted many

settlers, whose origin and background are not always clear,

but they came from all over Herod’s kingdom, and from

Babylon (Shatzman 1991:177).

The tasks of Zamaris were manifold. He was required to

safekeep the general security in the area and the pilgrim

routes from Babylon to Jerusalem, as well as the prevention

of brigandry. Zamaris seems to have succeeded where the

Idumeans failed. The uprisings of the people of Trachonitis

stopped and for the first time in a long time security was

achieved. The combination of free land, tax exemption and

personal security led to prosperity in Batanea. According to

Josephus, the settlers were Jews, and having received so

much from Herod they felt obligated to him and remained

loyal to him and his successors for a long time.

CHAPTER NINE

274

It would be reasonable to assume that such a large scale

resettlement project, involving the transfer of large tracts of

land would cause resentment on the part of the former

inhabitants, just as had been the case with the reaction of

the Nabateans and the inhabitants of Trachonitis to Herod’s

earlier actions. The sources however, do not mention any

such resentment, and Josephus explained the tax exemptions

by that ‘the land is not productive’ (Ant. XVII 25). It seems

therefore that the military colonization in Batanea took place

in an area that had been only sparsely inhabited until then.

This colonization was in fact the ‘watershed’ event in the

history of Batanea, Auranitis and Trachonitis. In the next

hundred years, when the area was under the control of the

Herodian dynasty, it enjoyed peace and security that brought

forth the establishment of sedentary settlements and

gradually pushed out the nomadic elements (Dentzer

1986:393, 396; Sartre 1997:80-81). Batanea turned into the

granary of Syria.

Rafid is situated on the boundary between Gaulanitis and

Batanea, but it is not known to which district it belonged.

Unfortunately no finds were found in the survey that could

determine the exact date of its establishment. Relying on

Urman’s dating, it seems to have been founded in the early

Roman period and so its founding can be reasonably

connected with the settlement process described above.

Rafid is in an area with much grazing land and small springs

suitable for the raising of horses, and indeed, in many of the

surveyed houses remains of stables were identified. Thus it

seems that horse breeding was the main economy of the

village, horses having been in high demand by the military

colonists and the Herodian armies (see below).

Herod himself did not make any significant contribution

to Auranitis. The suppression of the residents of Trachonitis,

the stabilization of security and the colonization campaign

started not long before his death, and most actions were

carried out by his successors. Yet the sanctuary at Si‘, whose

construction started ten years before the annexation of the

area to Herod, was mostly built during his lifetime (Dentzer-

Feydy 1991:45-47; Sartre 1991b:29-31) and completed

under Philip. Herod undoubtedly contributed to the

sanctuary, but his influence on its architectural character

was minimal (Dentzer 1986:411). In the temple at Si‘ the

base of a statue was found with a dedication to Herod

inscribed on it (Gracey 1986:319; Dentzer and Dentzer

1981:101; Millar 1994:395-396).

Herod did not contribute a thing to Gaulanitis. The area

had already been settled by Jews, who arrived during the

reign of the Hasmoneans. These, as their brethren in Galilee,

did not feel much obliged to Herod and surely remained

loyal to the memory of the Hasmonean dynasty. The Jews

of Batanea on the other hand, owed their land, villages and

good circumstances to Herod and remained loyal to him

and his heirs. The difference between the Jews of Gaulanitis

and those of Batanea continued in the following generations

and reached its climax during the Jewish war.

Philip and The Founding of the Tetrarchy in Northern

Transjordan

After the death of Herod in 4 BCE, his kingdom was divided

among his three surviving sons. Northern Transjordan was

the share of Philip (Josephus, Ant. XVII 189, 318-319; War

II 95) and only the Hellenistic city of Hippos/Sussita,

annexed to Herod in 30 BCE, was taken away and attached

to the province of Syria (Ant. XVII 320; War II 97). The

tetrarchy of Philip extended over a large area and included

Gaulanitis, Paneas, Batanea, Auranitis and Trachonitis. Its

inhabitants were diverse (Schürer 1973:336-338). Its western

part, the Golan Heights, was already inhabited by Itureans,

Jews and Syrians. Part of Batanea was inhabited by the

Babylonian Jews concentrated in the military colony of

Bathyra and the surrounding villages. The eastern districts,

Huranitis, Batanea and Trachonitis were inhabited by Syrians

– Arameans and Arabs – who were in the process of a large

scale settlement and sedentarization (Map 5). The insecurity

that characterized the region until Herod was replaced by

stability and peace that lasted over a hundred years.

Philip ruled his tetrarchy for 37 years (4 BCE-33 CE).

He seems to have had the right personal qualities and he

succeeded in consolidating a tetrarchy with widely varying

populations into a coherent political unit in which peace

and order were the rule. There are no echoes of animosity

between the various ethnic constituents of his domains

(Kasher 1988:175-176).

Philip’s way of governing and his voyages across his

tetrarchy, followed by his court and his readiness to set up a

tribunal wherever it was necessary (Josephus, Ant. XVIII

106-108), reflects on a reality where most of the population

had not yet settled down to a sedentary life. His capital at

Paneas was built at the edge of his tetrarchy and was not

accessible to most of the population. In his journeys Philip

brought government to the people.

The Babylonian military colony in Batanea was exempt

from taxes during the lifetime of Herod, and this preferential

condition was helpful in creating the settlement boom in

the region (Ant. XVII 27). This tax exemption was canceled

with the king’s death, probably because his income was low

(Ant. XVII 28; Gracey 1986:314; Shatzman 1991:176-177).

Philip’s revenues from his tetrarchy were relatively low:

100 talents only, in contrast to 200 talents that Antipas,

Herod’s other son received from the Galilee and the Peraia

and the 600 talents that went to Archelaus from Judaea and

Jericho (Ant. XVII 318-320; War II 93-100). Herod had

received 1050 talents. By this time however, the settlements

in Batanea were well-established and the imposition of tax

did not undermine their economic stability.

The suppression of brigandry removed the obstacles for

settlement not only in Batanea, but also in Trachonitis and

Auranitis as well. In these regions, and especially in

Auranitis, rural communities developed (Dentzer 1986:396).

Most of the population in Philip’s tetrarchy was pagan;


275

Jews resided in Gaulanitis and Batanea. Itureans settled in

the Paneas area and Syrians made up the rest. It seems that

the pagan population increased in Batanea as well, following

the Babylonian immigration. In spite of his Jewish religion,

Philip allowed religious freedom throughout his domains.

In addition to the temple to Augustus at his capital – which

also appears on his coins – temples were built in his days

also at el-Mushennef, el-Qanawat and es-Suweida in

Auranitis, at Sa˙r and Íur in Trachonitis and at ̂ Aqrabeh in

northern Batanea. The sanctuary at Si‘ was completed during

his reign.

Almost as soon as he came to power, Philip founded his

capital at Paneas (Ant. XVIII 28; War II 168) and called it

Caesara, and to distinguish it from other cities with the same

name he added the epithet Philippi. The numismatic and

epigraphic evidence suggests a founding date in 2 BCE

(Stein 1989; Di Segni 1997:17).

In the Buteiha valley in lower Golan, Philip granted the

status of polis to Bethsaida and renamed it Iulias (Ant. XVIII

28; War II 168). The city was apparently dedicated in 31/30

CE (Kindler 1999:245-247). Excavations conducted in

recent years on the summit of el-Tel revealed a settlement

stratum from the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. The

stratum is characterized by houses with large courtyards

(Arav 1995).

Philip died at Iulias in 33 CE (Kokkinos 1998:237) “and

when he was carried to that monument which he had already

erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great

pomp” (Ant. XVIII 108). It is likely that Philip built his

tomb at Paneas, which was his capital and residence and

where he built large and imposing public structures. Herod

too, having died at Jericho, was brought to be buried in the

tomb he had prepared for himself at Herodium (Josephus,

Ant. XVII 188; War I 673), so Philip’s body was apparently

carried with great pomp from Iulias to Paneas and was buried

there (Kokkinos 1998:238, n. 121).

As Philip had no heirs, his tetrarchy was annexed to Syria

(Ant. XVIII 108), but the emperor Tiberius meant this as a

temporary annexation and ordered the tax revenues collected

in the tetrarchy to be kept there and not transferred to the

provincial capital.

Agrippa I

During the first century CE, Northern Transjordan served

as a training ground for the Herodian rulers. They received

at first small territories and their efficiency was monitored

by the Romans. If they were successful, their domains were

gradually enlarged (Dentzer 1986:393).

When Philip died, his nephew Agrippa lived in Rome.

He lived there a licentious life and was close to Tiberius’

court, but towards the end of Tiberius’ life he was thrown in

jail for half a year (Ant. XVIII 143-204). When Caligula

became emperor in 37 CE he freed his friend Agrippa and

gave him the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias (Abila) and

conferred on him the title of king (Ant. XVIII 235-237; War

II 181; Philo, In Flaccum 25, 40). Agrippa did not hasten to

his new kingdom. Only in Caligula’s second year (38 CE)

he left Rome and arrived in his capital Caesarea (Paneas)

(Ant. XVIII 238-239). In 39 CE Caligula transferred to Agrippa

Antipas’ tetrarchy as well, which included the Galilee and the

Peraia (Schwartz 1990:59-62; Kushnir-Stein 2003).

In contrast to Philip, who ruled only over Northern

Transjordan, lived there and was active towards its

development, Agrippa I ruled over a far larger area with the

inclusion of the Galilee and Peraia. His actions within his

kingdom, and especially in Northern Transjordan, are by

and large unknown. Most of his interests lay in Judaea

(Schwartz 1990:67-74), which was added to his kingdom

in 41 CE together with Samaria, after Claudius confirmed

his rule (Ant. XIX 274-275; War II 215). Agrippa returned

to Judaea in 41 CE and spent his last years in Judaea and its

capital, Jerusalem. Northern Transjordan remained a remote

region and does not appear to have received much attention

from the king. Relatively few pieces of evidence have

survived in Auranitis from the days of Agrippa I. In an

inscription found at el-Qanawat, King Agrippa (it is unclear

whether the first or the second) turns to the population to

ask them to stop living in caves like animals and move to a

sedentary life in real houses (Waddington 1870: No. 2329).

This inscription is extremely fragmentary, but if its

reconstruction is true, it can proves that the process of

sedentarization had not yet been completed and there were

still nomads and inhabitants living in caves, just like the

inhabitants of Trachonitis.

Agrippa I died in 44 CE, having ruled six years, the last

three over his large kingdom (Josephus, War II 219). His

son, Agrippa II was too young at the time, so Claudius

annexed the kingdom to Syria. A Nabatean inscription found

in Óebran and dated in the seventh year of Claudius (47/8

CE), marks the southern boundary of Roman rule in

Auranitis and is evidence of the interim period of direct

Roman rule from the death of Agrippa I to the accession of

Agrippa II (Sartre 1982a:50).

Agrippa II

The system of training the Herodian rulers was renewed

with the accession of young Agrippa II. In 48 CE he was

given the rule of Chalkis (Josephus, Ant. XX 104; War II

104). Four years later, in 53 CE, Chalkis was taken away

from him and he was given Philip’s tetrarchy, Lysanias’

kingdom (Abila) and Varus’ tetrarchy (‘Arqa) (Ant. XX 138;

War II 247). In 61 CE Nero enlarged his kingdom further,

and granted him Tiberias, Tarichaea and the Peraia (Ant.

XX 159; War II 252). The career of Agrippa II thus followed

that of his father. The outbreak of the revolt interrupted the

process of the enlargement of his kingdom, but his loyalty

to Rome ensured his continued rule until his death.

Agrippa’s capital was at Paneas, which he enlarged and

beautified (Josephus, War III 514). His rule is characterized

by stability and prosperity in Northern Transjordan (Dentzer

1986:393; Sartre 1985:193), which led the nomads to take

up agriculture and settle down (Villeneuve1985:75), a

CHAPTER NINE

276

process that continued throughout the first century CE

(Dentzer 1986:400). The excavations at Si‘ and Bostra

emphasize the importance of the second half of the first

century CE in the development of the area. This period of

peace was an important one for the development of

agriculture and for the building of monuments (Dentzer

1986:398; Dentzer-Feydy 1986:285), and it is in this period

that Íur became a nucleus for settlement in Trachonitis

(Sartre 1985:193).

In Batanea the Babylonian settlements continued to

prosper, but alongside the Jewish settlements a Syrian-pagan

population settled as well.

The rule of the house of Herod brought an accelerated

Hellenization of Auranitis, Trachonitis and Batanea. During

the reign of Agrippa II the temple of Ba‘al-Shamin at Si‘was enlarged (Dentzer-Feydy 1986:270, 1991:46) and the

Si‘ 8 temple was built (Dentzer 1985:74-75, 82; Dentzer-

Feydy, Dentzer and Blanc 2003). Also in his time were built

the temples at es-Suweida in Auranitis and at Íur in

Trachonitis, as well as the ‘Nabatean’ gate at Si‘. These

structures differ in their façades and their decorations from

the Hauranitis tradition. Similar decorations have been

discovered on an inscription of Agrippa II, corroborating their

dating to the first century CE (Dentzer and Dentzer 1981:101).

Another testimony for the influence of Agrippa in Hauran

is the widespread distribution of the name. Of thirty

inscriptions from Syria containing the name Agrippa,

twenty-five are from the Hauran. It seems therefore that the

local population was not indifferent to the king’s actions

(Sartre 1985:201, n. 29). Inscriptions of Agrippa II have

been found at el-Íanamein, Íur, el-Hayat, Si‘, es-Suweida

and ‘Aqrabeh (Sartre 1982a:48; Kokkinos 1998:333).

Agrippa’s army, as surely also that of his predecessors,

was built around the nucleus of the military colonists of

Batanea. During the reign of Herod, when security was low,

the Babylonians stayed in the area and were exempt of

military duty. During the reign of Agrippa things changed.

Philip son of Jacimus, inherited his father’s post as

commander of the cavalry of Batanea, and was also a loyal

friend of the king (Josephus, Ant. XVII 29-31; Cohen

1972:9192; Shatzman 1991:179-180). The cumulative

experience of three generations taught the Babylonians the

special problems of the defense of the region. The military

colony was the power base of Agrippa and in spite of the

taxation on the colony, it was able to supply cavalry for his

bodyguard (Gracey 1986:319). We hear about the cavalry

during the Jewish War: Agrippa sent 2000 cavalry to

Jerusalem, 2000 cavalry and 3000 foot archers to aid Cestius

Gallus and 1000 cavalry and 2000 foot archers to join

Vespasian’s army. This army’s main purpose however, was to

keep internal security and protect the permanent settlements

from the nomads in eß-Íafa or within the kingdom.

The Role of Northern Transjordan in the Jewish War

The kingdom of Agrippa II in Northern Transjordan was an

intricate mosaic of peoples: Itureans in the territory of

Paneas, Jews in Gaulanitis and Batanea and Syrians in

Batanea, Trachonitis and Auranitis. The diversity of the

population caused each group to react differently to the revolt

of the Jews against the Romans. Naturally, the Itureans and

Syrians did not participate, but even among the Jews there

were two groups with opposite orientation. The Jews of

Batanea, led by the Babylonians, were settled in the region

with the help of Herod and enjoyed special privileges. It

seems that even after the revocation by Philip of the tax

exemptions granted by Herod these Jews had remained loyal

to the Herodians. They formed the nucleus of Agrippa’s army

and led it. Thus, the Jews of Bashan not only avoided joining

the revolt, but were among the first forces to try and put it

down. In contrast, the Jews of Gaulanitis, descendants of

the settlers from the time of Alexander Jannaeus, did not

receive any special support from Herod. These Jews were

no different in any respect from the Jews living in Galilee

and were surely connected there also by marriage ties. They

had no special affinity to the Herodians, and the same factors

that caused the Galilean Jews to revolt against the Romans

caused them to revolt too. It should not surprise therefore

that the inhabitants of Gaulanitis were the only ones in

Northern Transjordan to join the revolt.

Gaulanitis was not involved in the very first moves of

the revolt. Agrippa II apparently trusted the loyalty of the

population, and had sent 2000 horsemen from Batanea, led

by Darius, to strengthen the ‘peace party’ in Jerusalem.

Together with them went Philip son of Jacimus, the king’s

general (Josephus, War II 421). The army arrived from areas

inhabited by Jewish military colonists and pagans, all loyal

to the king. It joined the fight against the rebels in Jerusalem

but was unsuccessful and retreated (War II 422-440).

The first phases of the revolt were accompanied by riots

and clashes between Jews and pagans. After the murder of

the Jews in Caesarea Maritima (War II 457) the Jews went

on to retaliate. Bands of Jews attacked the villages of Syria

and the Decapolis, including Hippos on the Golan (War II

458-459). As the Gaulanitis was inhabited primarily by Jews,

it seems that the villages hit were around its edges, perhaps

on the border with the territory of Hippos. As a reaction to

the Jewish attacks, Jews living in Hellenistic cities were

massacred. The citizens of Hippos and Gadara also killed

some of the Jews living in their cities, and arrested the

remainder (War II 477-478). Some scholars believe that it

is these actions that ended the Jewish population in the

territory of Hippos/Sussita (Ma‘oz 1986:82-83).

Agrippa’s kingdom did not emerge unscathed either.

According to Josephus (War II 481483), a delegation came

to the king from the colonists of Batanea to seek protection

in the event that the unrest should spread to their area. The

text is not clear about whom they were seeking protection

from: the many pagans in the region or contrary, from the

rebellious Jews. It seems strange that the delegation from

Batanea should go to Paneas to seek military help,

considering that the center of the military colony and

Agrippa’s horsemen were in their region. It may be that the

reason for this was the transport of the cavalry to Jerusalem,


277

which left Batanea unprotected. In Josephus’ Vita (56-61)

the narrative is more detailed. Varus, of the family of the

Iturean king of ‘Arqa, was appointed by Agrippa to serve as

his caretaker at Paneas. Under the influence of the local

Syrians he attacked the Jewish population. According to Vita,

Varus himself solicited the Batanea delegation, scheming

to attack the Babylonians in Ecbatana. According to this

version, the Babylonians had not intended to revolt and sent

the requested delegation willingly. Having murdered the

delegation, Varus intended to join forces with the

‘Trachonites from the Batanea’ and attack Ecbatana. This

scheme was revealed to the inhabitants and they fled to

Gamla, leaving all their possessions behind. Josephus does

not mention whether or not Varus carried out his plan to

attack the Jews of Batanea. It is possible that Varus intended

to harm Philip’s men, because Philip was a threat to his

position in the court of Agrippa (Mason 2001:54, n. 311).

The ‘Trachonites from the Batanea’ are reasonably the

descendants of the brigands of Trachonitis, who settled in

Batanea. These were undoubtedly no great admirers of the

Herodians, and surely not of the Babylonians, who

campaigned against their forefathers. The request for help

on the part of the people of Bashan, described in War, may

have been directed against them.

As soon as Agrippa’s rule stabilized after deposing Varus

the king proceeded to return the Babylonian refugees from

Gamla to their homes in Batanea (Life 179-184). A few

stayed behind at Gamla, as “in a sedition they raised against

the Babylonians, after the departure of Philip, slew Chares,

who was a kinsman of Philip” (Life 177). These events

influenced the Jews of Batanea and some of them joined

the rebels (War II 520, III 541-542), but there is no evidence

that the district as a whole participated in the revolt.

The Batanean cavalry that retreated from Jerusalem was

sent by Agrippa to aid Cestius Gallus’ army, in his quest to

put down the revolt in Jerusalem (War II 500). It seems that

in the battle that Gallus was defeated (War II 540-555) many

of Agrippa’s contingent were killed as well, because a year

later, when Vespasian arrived in Galilee Agrippa sent him

only half the number of troops – 1000 cavalry and 2000

infantry (War III 68).

The defeat of Cestius Gallus (War II 513-555) changed

the attitude of the Jews of Gaulanitis to the revolt. Now

Josephus was made commander of Galilee and Gaulanitis

(War II 571), and at Gamla Joseph, son of the female

physician, recruited a group of young people who made the

town rise up in revolt (Life 185). Together with Gamla

rebelled all the Gaulanitis, as far as Kefar Shalem (Solyma,

Life 187), whose location is unknown. Three communities

were fortified by Josephus: Gamla, Sogane and Seleucia

(War II 574; Life 186-187). At Gamla, the initiative was

that of the inhabitants and Josephus only aided them (Life

186).

During the early stages of the revolt, before the arrival of

Vespasian to Galilee, Agrippa tried to handle the crisis in

the Golan by himself. Initially he tried to capture Gamla

with the aid of Aequus Modius, Varus’ successor. But as he

did not have sufficient troops at hand, he only threw a loose

siege around the town by placing units at strategic points

(Life 114). Later, he tried to block the passage to Gamla and

Seleucia near Iulias, to prevent supplies from reaching those

towns from Galilee (Life 394-406).

The Jews at Paneas did not fare much better. To prevent

them from joining the revolt, they were locked in the city.

Answering their request, John of Gischala supplied them

with kosher olive oil at an inflated price (War II 591-592;

Life 74-76). Josephus refers to him as a profiteer, but it seems

that John had used the revenues from this transaction to pay

for the expenses of the revolt and the fortification of

Gischala.

After capturing all of Galilee, Vespasian came to Paneas

to rest his army on the request of Agrippa, who hoped to put

down the revolt in Golan with the aid of the Romans (War

III 443-445). At this stage the struggle in Golan came to its

climax. Sogane and Seleucia surrendered to the Romans and

Gamla remained alone in its resistance (War IV 2). After

capturing Tiberias and Tarichaea, Vespasian marched his

army, which included three legions, and besieged Gamla

(War IV 11-13). The siege and battles are described in detail

by Josephus (War IV 2-83); after two attempts of storming

the city, one of which failed, the city was captured and most

of its inhabitants were killed either by the Romans or in

their attempt to flee (Gutman 1994:67-75).

With the fall of Gamla, the revolt in the Golan was in

fact suppressed. There is no information on further battles,

because other communities that rebelled had surrendered

already before the fall of Gamla. It seems that except for

Gamla and its immediate vicinity, Golan did not suffer on

the hands of the Romans and remained a densely populated

Jewish district afterward.

After the siege of Jerusalem Titus came with his army to

rest at Paneas and he “staid there a considerable time, and

exhibited all sorts of shows there. And here a great number

of the captives were destroyed, some being thrown to wild

beasts, and others in multitudes forced to kill one another,

as if they were their enemies” (War VII 23-24). It may be

that this passage alludes to a theater that was at Paneas but

not yet discovered.

Northern Transjordan After the Jewish War

After the suppression of the revolt Agrippa continued his

rule uninterrupted, but contrary to his father, he did not

receive any further additions to his kingdom and did not

rule over all of Judaea. There is precious little information

on the events of this period, but it seems that the effects of

the Jewish war on Northern Transjordan was marginal. The

only district to participate in the revolt was Gaulanitis and

within it the only town to be captured was Gamla. Other

communities were not affected (Ben-David 1999).

Agrippa lived for thirty years after the revolt. Scholars

have been divided as to his exact year of death, but lately it

has been accepted that he died in 100 CE (Kokkinos

1998:396-400). Agrippa II was one of the last vassal kings

CHAPTER NINE

278

of Rome. Already under Vespasian Emesa and Commagene

were transferred under direct Roman rule, and the small

tetrarchies of southern Syria vanished under Trajan. The

local rulers served as mediators between imperial power

and the local population and at this stage their role was not

necessary any more (Rey-Coquais 1989:52). A few years

later, in 106 CE, the process was complete with the

annexation of the Nabatean kingdom and the establishment

of the provincia Arabia.

With the end of Agrippa’s rule in Northern Transjordan,

whether on his death or a few years earlier, Herodian rule

over the region came to an end. The Romans did not pass

down the region to his heirs and it came under direct Roman

rule. After over a hundred years of being a single political

unit, Northern Transjordan was now divided between two

provinces. Auranitis, Trachonitis, Batanea and the territory

of Paneas were annexed to Syria, while Gaulanitis, Galilee

and the Peraia to Judaea (Map 6).

Why did Gaulanitis fare differently from the neighboring

districts? Why was it not annexed to Syria as well? There

are no extant sources to assert the Roman’s reasons for

treating Gaulanitis differently, but we can presume that the

reason was the predominantly Jewish character of this

district. This character, coupled with the rebellious

tendencies of the Gaulanitis, made it easier to rule as part of

Judaea, where most Palestinian Jewry lived. The Jewish

minorities in the other districts of Northern Transjordan were

mostly loyal to Rome. The Jewish communities of Batanea

eventually became a Jewish enclave in a pagan country, as

shown also by the Varus affair. The Babylonians were loyal

to the house of Herod and to the Romans and there was no

problem in annexing them to Syria.

Following the separation of Gaulanitis from the other

districts, the boundary between Gaulanitis and Paneas that

had been an internal boundary in Agrippa’s kingdom,

became a provincial boundary. This transformation sheds

light on the Romans’ considerations in fixing their provincial

boundaries. In this case it is clear that they related to the

demographic situation even in a small district such as the

Golan. This is not to say that these considerations were

always dominant, but it seems that the determination of the

provincial boundaries was not arbitrary. The new boundary

Map 6. Northern Transjordan in the 2nd c. CE.


279

between the provinces of Judaea and Syria was the boundary

between the Jewish dominated Gaulanitis and the Iturean

territory of Paneas. This move had consequences that

affected the history of the region in the following centuries.

The case of Gaulanitis, which in the first century was part

of a large unit and was detached from it at the end of the

century, allows us to follow the cultural changes that resulted

in this detachment. What began as a political division became

in time a barrier that created different material cultures

(Hartal 2005:271-274; Forthcoming).

Northern Transjordan in the Late Roman Period

Roman Rule in the Second and Third Centuries CE

In the second century the Roman empire knew peace and

stability, which brought prosperity to Northern Transjordan

(Sartre 1991b:31). The region remained untouched by the

events in Palestine, chief among them being the Bar-Kokhba

revolt (132-135 CE). The empire was ruled close to a

hundred years (96-192 CE) by the Antonines. The reigns of

Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius

(96-180 CE) was characterized by a stable regime that was

occupied with constant amendments and improvements to

justice and public service and acted for the welfare of the

provinces. During the reign of Commodus (180-192 CE)

the order in the empire was weakened and it came to near

anarchy and bankruptcy. Prosperity ended (Herr 1985:18-

19) and the third century was characterized by internal

uprisings and external invasions. Following the murder of

Commodus a civil war erupted, which lasted four years.

Septimius Severus took the reigns of government after

defeating Pescennius Niger, Syria’s governor, and founded

the Severan dynasty. To prevent provincial governors from

attaining too much power, as was the case with Niger,

Severus split some provinces, including Syria (see below).

He placed capable governors in the provinces and saw to

their welfare. In spite of the Parthian invasion of Syria in

162 and the struggle between Severus and Niger, Syria

enjoyed prosperity until the third century. Severus’ heir

Caracalla, known for his cruelty, relied on the army, raised its

pay and so the treasury dwindled. During the reign of his

successors Macrinus and Elagabalus the situation even

worsened. Alexander Severus’ attempt to restore civil

administration failed because his murder in 235 CE (Rey-

Coquais 1978:55-56; Herr 1985:23-26).

Following Severus’ murder a period of anarchy followed,

which lasted some fifty years (235-284 CE). Emperors

changed in quick succession and most did not die a natural

death. Among the many, we should mention Philip the Arab,

a native of Hauran, who seized control in 244 CE and turned

his village Shahba into a Roman city – Philippopolis (Map

7; Rey-Coquais 1989:58). Philip did not last long either,

and was murdered in a mutiny of the army in 249 CE.

Military discipline deteriorated and the army was loyal to

its commanders rather than to the emperor, time and again

trying to raise them to the purple. This state of chaos

encouraged outside enemies to invade the empire,

devastating the economy. The upkeep of the large army was

a huge economic burden and consequently the tax load

increased. The desperate need for money caused a sharp

decrease in the silver content of the coins and rampant

inflation. A by-product of inflation was the increase in payment

in kind, taxes were paid in labor and products. The tax burden

and conscriptions caused many farmers to leave their land and

move to the cities, thus worsening the situation in the cities

themselves. Many lost their land ownership and became tenant

farmers on their own land. These troubles were accompanied

by banditry and natural disasters, droughts and epidemics that

decimated the population and further increased the burden on

those who remained. City building stopped and the existing

ones were surrounded by walls for protection (Levine

1982:120-122; Avi-Yonah 1984:74-97; Herr 1985:38-43; Rey-

Coquais 1989:57-61; Bar 2001:144-145).

The economic crisis did not affect all parts of the empire,

or even neighboring districts, to the same extent (Bar 2001).

It is difficult to know how the crisis affected Northern

Transjordan. On the one hand, some regions appear to have

been little affected. The Northern Golan Survey for example,

showed that in the Late Roman period there was a record

number of settlements (Hartal 1989:130-132).

The economic crisis may have been one reason for the

abandonment of the Jewish communities in the territory of

Hippos, but it seems to be the end of a process that began

with the damages caused to these communities at the

beginning of the Great Revolt. During the mid-second to

the mid-third centuries CE, twelve settlements in central

Golan were abandoned and three were founded (Ben-David

1999:241). It is tempting to attribute the abandonment to

the economic crisis and the founding of new settlements to

the stabilization that occurred in the early fourth century,

but this cannot be proven unequivocally.

It seems that Auranitis enjoyed prosperity at this time, at

least in the reign of Philip the Arab, who turned his birth

village into a city and invested large sums in its

beautification. But even here there are signs of the crisis.

Towards the end of the third century there was an all-out

destruction and abandonment of the settlements of Auranitis,

yet in the fourth century a new period of prosperity began

(Villeneuve 1991:42).

The Changes in the Provincial Boundaries in the Second

and Third Centuries CE

The territories that were in the kingdom of Agrippa II were

not immediately integrated in the imperial administration.

At many sites the inscriptions are dated according to the

regnal years of the emperors, a fact that led Rey-Cocquais

(1989:52-53) to conclude that the entire territory was an

imperial estate.

In the early second century CE the process of annexation

of all vassal kingdoms was complete. In 106 CE the last

Nabatean king, Rabbel II died, and his kingdom was annexed

without resistance to the Roman empire by Trajan and

CHAPTER NINE

280

Map 7. Northern Transjordan in the 3rd c. CE.

became the provincia Arabia (Cassius Dio, Historia Romana

lxviii, 14). This province extended from southern Hauran

to Sinai and northern Hejaz. Its capital was fixed in Bostra,

which had been Rabbel’s capital, and which became the seat

of the provincial governor and the Third Legion (Cyrenaica)

under his command (Peters 1978:318; Bowersock 1983:79-

83; Starcky 1985:171-172; Rey-Coquais 1989:53; Sartre

1991b:31; Millar 1994:92-99).

After the creation of provincia Arabia and the annexation

of Agrippa’s kingdom, Northern Transjordan was divided

among three provinces (Map 7). The territory of Hippos

and Gaulanitis were annexed to Judaea, whose name was

changed to Palaestina following the suppression of the Bar-

Kokhba revolt in 135 CE. The territory of Paneas, Batanea,

Trachonitis and Auranitis were included during the second

century CE in Syria.

It appears that at the time of its creation, the northern border

of Arabia was placed along the course of the old boundary

between the Nabatean kingdom and the Herodian domains,

i.e. north of Der‘a (Adraa), Bostra and Íalkhad (Map 6). This

border did not change throughout most of the second century

(Sartre 1982b:17, 50-54; Dentzer 1986:395, n. 31).

A change in the structure of the provinces occurred at

the end of that century. After his victory over Pescennius

Niger, the governor of the province of Syria (195 CE),

Septimius Severus divided the province into two: Syria-

Coele in the north and Syria-Phoenice in the south.

The most important source for the borders of the Roman

provinces in the second century is the geographical guide

of Claudius Ptolemaeus, Geographica. This is a guide for

the preparation of maps that includes precise location in

degrees of longitude and latitude of the various provinces

and their capitals (Tsafrir 1984:354). The guide was written

in the mid-second century CE and is the first known

appearance of the provinces Syria-Coele, Syria-Phoenice,

Palaestina and Arabia. Although Ptolemaeus’ information

was sometimes inconsistent (the towns of Arabia are

included in five different chapters and he uses the

anachronistic names Decapolis and Coele-Syria), this is the

earliest evidence for the administrative status after the


281

annexation of Agrippa’s kingdom and that of the Nabateans.

In Northern Transjordan Ptolemaeus counts Caesarea-Paneas

in Syria-Phoenice and Hippos in the Decapolis which is in

Coele-Syria. Hippos was in fact in Palaestina, as shown by

an inscription found at Fiq. Iulias appears alongside the

towns of Galilee in Palaestina and Gaulanitis seems to have

been included in it as well (Sartre 1982b; Tsafrir 1984:355-

357; Ma‘oz 1986:53-54).

At the end of the second and beginning of the third century

CE the boundaries of Arabia changed, and annexed to it

were Auranitis, Btanean and Trachonitis that were separated

from Syria-Phoenice (Map 7; Sartre 1982b:54-62). At the

end of the process, most of Northern Transjordan was

included in Arabia, which now reached north to the territory

of Damascus. Only the western part, the territory of Hippos

and Gaulanitis remained in Palaestina, while the northwestern

area, the territory of Paneas, remained in Syria-Phoenice.

Eusebius as a Source for the Administrative Division of

Northern Transjordan

Eusebius’ Onomastikon was written towards the end of the

reign of Diocletian, possibly in 293 CE, that is, before the

Christianization of Palestine (Isaac 1996:155). Its purpose

was identifying and explaining the place names mentioned

in the scriptures. Though it does not include all the

settlements of his day, but only those identified with places

from the scriptures, it is still a major source of information

on contemporaneous geography (Tsafrir 1984:361, n. 24).

The Onomsatikon reflects also the changes in the provincial

borders in Northern Transjordan (Ma‘oz 1986:55).

According to Eusebius, Batanea, Auranitis and

Trachonitis were included in Arabia. In Phoenice he

explicitly includes only Damascus, but Paneas, Hermon and

Dan were included in it too. The territory of Hippos,

including Apheka, was in Palaestina, and it also included

Gergesa (Kursi), Bethsaida and the Decapolis (Ibid.:55-56).

Despite the large quantity of information provided by

Eusebius, it seems that he was not well acquainted with

Northern Transjordan (on Eusebius’ sources and their

limitations, see Isaac 1996). This is especially noticeable in

the description of Trachonitis which is always made in

connection with Bostra, though the two are separated by

some 30 km (Map 7). The influence of the Biblical or

evangelical text is apparent in the place descriptions. Luke

(3:1) describes Philip as “tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region

of Trachonitis”, so Eusebius identified Trachonitis with

Iturea, though this name is not likely to have been current

in his days (Hartal 2005:418-421). It seems that the

identification of Golan as a village in Batanea, which gave

its name to the district, was also influenced by the Biblical

passage referring to “Golan in Bashan” (e.g. Joshua 21:27).

As we shall see, in the sixth century Golan district (clima

Gaulames) was part of Palaestina secunda, while Batanea

was part of Arabia. Considering that there is no other source

that mentions “Golan in Batanea”, and that all extant sources

mention Golan in the central Golan Heights, there is no

alternative but to assume that Eusebius’ information was

incorrect.

Boundary Stones from the Tetrarchy

At ‘Esheh, about two km northwest of Rafid, a boundary

stone was found, which, according to Urman is from Rafid.

This stone is helpful in reconstructing the provincial

boundaries nearby. Because of the importance of this find

for the understanding of Rafid’s position in this period, I

shall elaborate below on the boundary stones and their

contribution to the reconstruction of the provincial

boundaries.

Following the economic crisis of the third century,

emperor Diocletian, who rose to power in 284 CE, succeeded

in stabilizing the empire and created a new form of

government – the tetrarchy. At the head of the central

government stood four leaders, responsible for the defense

of the empire and government. There were two augusti:

Diocletian and Maximian and two caesares: Constantius and

Galerius. Diocletian drastically reformed the administration:

he re-divided the provinces and changed their boundaries,

he separated civil from military administration, he changed

the status of the provincial governors – who were no longer

the commanders of the legions stationed in the province –

and initiated a more active and positive attitude of the

administration (Cameron 1993:36-38; Millar 1994:174-175,

190-195).

One of the more important actions of Diocletian was a

tax reform, initiated in 297 CE and extant in an edict found

in Egypt (Ibid.:193-194). Its purpose was to soil tax in a

more efficient way, and the basic requirement for this is

unequivocal information about land ownership and

boundaries between adjacent owners and communities.

Thus, inseparable from the reform was a re-mapping of the

boundaries between communities and their marking with

boundary stones (Tate 1989:101; Millar 1994:194-195; Di

Segni 1997:159-160). This mapping was apparently carried

out all over the empire, but boundary stones have been found

only in the limestone massif of Syria, in the region of

Damascus, in Bashan and Hauran, in the Hula valley and

northern Golan, and in southern Golan. For details of boundary

stones in Northern Transjordan see Map 8 (Aharoni 1955:109-

112; 1959; 1961; Sartre 1982a:66-67; 1992; Millar 1994:536-

544; Gregg and Urman 1996:13-15, 41-42, 252-253, 285-286;

Di Segni 1997: 148-150, 158-170, 184-187; 284-285, 288-

290; SEG 45:581-584; Hartal 2005:421-427).

The boundary stones differ in their shape and size, and it

appears that no great effort was invested in their cutting and

the execution of the letters. They can be elongated natural

stones or building blocks in secondary use. It may be that

the instructions for their placing were given by the censitores

after the measurement, and were carried out, partly or wholly,

by the local community and especially in places were there

was a need for several stones because of lack of natural

features (Di Segni 1997:186). The inscriptions vary, but can

be easily grouped in two: a full and an abbreviated version.

CHAPTER NINE

282

As an example of the full version I bring a stone found east

of Quneitra (Di Segni 1997:158-159, No. 17):

“Diocletianus and Maximianus, the augusti, and

Constantius and Maximianus, the caesares, order (this) stone

to be set up, marking the boundary of the fields of the villages

of Sarisa and Berenice, under the supervision of Aelius

Statutus, vir perfectissimus”.

The inscription contains three elements: the first specifies

the names of the four tetrarchs; the second specifies that the

stone marks the boundary between two villages and the third

informs that the action was carried out under the supervision

of Aelius Statutus, on whom I will elaborate below.

The abbreviated version contains only the second part,

e.g. a stone found north of Quneitra (Hartal 1993; Di Segni

1997:169-170, No. 18):

“Stone marking the boundary (of the fields of the villages)

of Achana and Sarisa”.

The first part allows dating the inscriptions securely to

the period of the tetrarchy, in 293-305 CE (Ibid.:160). The

two other parts however, are more important. The middle

part provides information on the names of the communities,

but also on the method of tax collecting. The stones were

usually placed on the boundary between the lands of two

adjacent villages, and sometimes on that of estates or towns;

they do not mark individual plots (Ibid.:160). The importance

of the village boundary was that the village was communally

responsible for its land taxes. It is not clear whether or not

villages that were in urban territory paid taxes through the

arbitration of the city, but the long list of villages based on

the boundary stones shows their importance in the economic

system (Millar 1994:196).

The last part of the inscription mentions the censitor,

appearing in the Greek inscriptions as khnsivtoro", the

person responsible for the surveying. The censitors were

district officials in charge of tax collecting (Aharoni 1955:114;

Herr 1985:53; Di Segni 1997:160). On the boundary stones

found in Northern Transjordan and Damascus four censitors,

or pairs of censitors, are mentioned:

1. Lucius and Akakius (Loukivo" kaiv Akakivo") are mentioned

on five boundary stones: at Juneyneh in Ard el-Batanea,

Mlei˙at el-‘Atash and Mlei˙at Sharqiyyeh in the Bostra plain,

Inkhil and ‘Aqrabeh in northern Bashan (Sartre 1992:121).

2. Marius Felix (Marivo" Fhvliko") is mentioned on two

stones from northern Bashan: at Ghabaghib north of Baßir

and at Namar, south of ‘Aqrabeh.

3. Aelius Statutus (Aivlivo" Statouvto") is mentioned on ten

stones from the northern Hula valley, northern Golan and

the Damascus area.

4. D… and Agelippus (D. FLUOU kev Agelivpo") appear

on a boundary stone from Kefar Óaruv, in southern Golan.

Aelius Statutus appears on stones both in the Damascus area

and in northern Golan and the Hula valley. These areas were

in the province of Syria-Phoenice and therefore he must be

connected with this province. The boundary stone found at

‘Esheh, about 2 km northwest of Rafid explicitly calls him

diashm(otavtou) khnsivt(oro"), proving that he was a

censitor (Di Segni 1997:184–186). In any case, the

distribution of stones bearing his name leaves no doubt that

Statutus worked in Syria-Phoenice and future findings of

such stones bearing his name can be used as evidence of the

findspot being in that province. Accordingly, the stone from

‘Esheh is adduced as evidence for asserting that Syria-

Phoenice extended to Mt. Peres.

The boundary stones were erected to mark the agricultural

lands of the villages. It seems that the full inscriptions were

erected near roads, where they would be seen and they could

convey the information about the current ruler (Millar

1994:196). In more remote places, the short versions were

deemed sufficient. It is reasonable to assume that thousands

of such stones were erected, but so far less than 50 have

been found. This could be explained by that they were not

placed within the villages proper, and because they are not

much different from ordinary field stones, they are not

prominent in the landscape and are difficult to spot (Aharoni

1955:114; Millar 1994:356).

Boundary stones were found in four provinces: Syria-

Coele, Syria-Phoenicia, Arabia and Palaestina (Map 8). Their

distribution is not even, and the difficulty in their

identification prevents concluding whether their absence

signals that no land-mapping was carried out or that they

simply were not found. While they were not meant to mark

the provincial borders, and were found at sites far removed

from the borders, the names of the censitors on them allow

assigning the sites to the provinces and help delineate their

borders.

Nearly half of the boundary stones of Northern

Transjordan were found in the district of Paneas, that is

northern Golan and the Hula valley. They were found near

fertile lands at the edges of the Hula valley, the Buq‘ata and

Quneitra valleys and near Mt. Peres. They were not found

in rocky terrain, where arable land is scarce; it seems that in

these terrains the land divisions were clear and there was no

need for imperial measurements. A similar picture obtains

from the districts of Hippos and Batanea. Within Gaulanitis

only a single stone was found, at A˙madiyye, close to the

boundary of the Paneas district (Ma‘oz 1986:175; Gregg

and Urman 1996:91, No. 92). It may be that this lack of stones

is connected with the nature of the soil – small plots whose

assignment to villages was straightforward, as in the rocky

lands of northern Golan (see also Ben-Efraim 2003:16-19).

The Boundary Stone from ‘Esheh

The extended discussion on boundary stones was presented

because of the one found at ‘Esheh, ca. 2 km northwest of

Rafid (No. 19 on Map 8; Di Segni 1997: No. 26; Ben-Efraim

2003). This boundary stone is important because of three

reasons:

1. It is the only one explicitly identifying Aelius Statutus as

a censitor (see above).

2. In contrast to other inscriptions, which mention two

villages, this one mentions only one: Agrippina

(Agrippivnh"), though later, in a different script, were added

the fields of Rhadanes (Radavno[u ?]). All the stones erected


283

by Aelius Statutus belong in Syria-Phoenice and this stone

appears to have been erected at the southern boundary of

the province, as it mentions only one village. This

assumption is corroborated by the ceramic material found

at ‘Esheh and north of it, which is similar in composition to

that found in the Paneas district, but different from

neighboring sites to the south, and especially Bu†miyye,

where the material is similar to that found at sites in

Gaulanitis (Hartal 2005:281-284). Thus, the stone is

evidence that Rafid was close to the border of the provinces

of Syria-Phoenice and Palaestina and apparently very close

to the border of Arabia (Map 8).

3. The name Agrippina reminds strongly of Grofina,

mentioned in the list of fire signal stations which helped

communicate the arrival of the new moon to the Jewry of

Babylonia (Mishna Rosh-Hashana 2:4; BT Rosh-Hashana

22, 2; Di Segni 1997:186-187; Ben-Efraim 2003). Mt. Peres,

west of the site, is eminently suitable for such a signal station.

The importance of the inscription from ‘Esheh did not

escape the late Dan Urman. He suggested identifying

Agrippina in Rafid, and planned to write a chapter on this

issue for the present volume, a plan prevented by his

untimely death. If we accept this identification, then Rafid

is in Phoenice. If we identify Agrippina at ‘Esheh, where

the stone was found, then Rafid belongs in either Palaestina

or Arabia.

4 3

2 1

56

79

8

1011

1312

17

1516

14

20

2122

1819

363738

39

40

35

33

2527

31

2423

30

29

34

32

28

Damascus

es-Suweida

Nawa

Full version - Aelius Statutus

Short version

Full version - Lucius and Akakius

Full version - Marius Felix

Full version - without name of censitor

Full name - in Palaestina

Aauranitis

TrachonitisB a t a n e a

Mt. Hermon

P a n e a s

H ippo s

Gaulanitis

esh-Sheikh Meskin

26

© Moshe Hartal

Rafid

PP hh oo ee nn ii cc ee

AA rr aa bb ii aa

PP aa ll aa ee ss tt ii nn aa

Mt. Peres Ardel-Batanea

Map 8. Diocletian’s Boundary Stones.

CHAPTER NINE

284

The Rural Settlement

In the second century CE there was considerable

development in Northern Transjordan because of the peace

in Syria (Sartre 1991b:31). The population had settled in

permanent settlements and the tribal order broke (Jones

1931:269-270; Altheim and Stiehl 1964:352-353).

In this period information on villages is more abundant

in Auranitis, Batanea and Trachonitis, where extant

inscriptions tell about the administration and the population.

Gaulanitis too had a network of villages (Millar 1994:422),

and it stands to reason that the administration was similar to

that in Hauran. According to the inscriptions and the

architectural remains, the village communities were

landowner farmers with no great difference in wealth among

them, who largely lived in extended family units with a house

to each family (Villeneuve 1991; Graf 1997:453). The

villages enjoyed a great degree of self-rule, almost that of

cities. They had a council to endorse laws, a common

treasury, common land and public buildings (Jones

1931:270).

The veterans of the Roman army who returned to their

villages after 20-25 years of service, used their discharge

grants to buy land and settle down. They built themselves

houses and imposing tombs, and did not hesitate to

generously contribute to temples and the erection of public

structures. Veterans and their heirs took high ranks in local

society and filled positions as judges and so on (Ibid.:269-

270; Sartre 1991b:31-32).

The village economy was based on crops, according to

its geographic situation. In Golan the main produce was the

olive, followed by vines (Ben-David 1998), legumes and

cereals. In Bashan mainly cereals were grown and in Hauran

mostly vines. The grapes were used for the production of

wine as well as raisins. Wine was the Hauran’s greatest

contribution to ancient trade. In contrast, no olives were

grown there and olive oil was imported from other regions,

such as Golan. Large scale animal husbandry is proven from

the feeding troughs found in many houses (Villeneuve

1991:41-42, 1997:35).

The villages underwent a process of Hellenization. In

almost all villages inscriptions in Greek were found (Sartre

1991a:35), but the irregular use of the language indicates

that this was a spoken language (Millar 1994:399); village

life was conducted in Greek. By the beginning of the fourth

century CE official use of Semitic languages had disappeared

completely, to be replaced by Greek (Ibid.:422-423), but it

seems that in the villages the colloquial use of the Semitic

languages continued.

Urbanization

The second century brought a process of urbanization to

the Hauran (Ibid.:421-422). The number of cities in Northern

Transjordan was small (Map 7): in the west were Paneas

and Hippos, both having existed already in the first century,

both having large territories. Paneas, the capital of entire

Northern Transjordan in the first century CE, remained now

the capital of only the Paneas district. This change did not,

however, impact its wealth or splendor, and in the second

and early third centuries CE temples were still being built

in the scared precinct of Pan (Ma‘oz 1993a). Iulias-Bethsaida

lost its fame and practically disappeared from the sources.

In southern Bashan there were two cities: Bostra and Adraa.

Bostra was the capital of the provincia Arabia and thus had

a relatively large territory, as evidenced by inscriptions found

as much as 30 km distant from it. The terrain south of it was

desert, so it seems that its territory extended to the north

and east, in lands previously held by Agrippa II. Several

cities were founded in Hauran. At el-Qanawat there was a

city identified with Canatha of the Decapolis, but was

founded as a village not earlier than the last third of the first

century CE and it is unclear when it received a city status

(Hartal 2005:382-383, 407). At es-Suweida a city was

founded in the days of Commodus (180-185 CE), dedicated

to the god Dushara, or its Greek counterpart Dionysus, and

called accordingly Dionysias. The emperor Philip the Arab

granted his birthplace, the village Shahbah a city status in

244 CE and named it Philippopolis. At the end of the third

century Maximianopolis was founded at Shaqqa. At the

northern edge of the Leja, at Mismiyeh there was a city called

Phaina, mentioned in the Byzantine period in the lists of

Heraclius and Gregorius. Naveh (Nawa in Bashan) is also

mentioned in Gregorius’ list, but it is not known when these

two cities received their status (Jones 1931:273-275; Sartre

1991b:32; Millar 1994:422).

The cities were beautified with a host of imposing public

buildings: temples, theaters, odeons, baths, gates, arches,

tetrapyla, nymphaea, monuments etc. The architectural

styles and decorations were influenced by Roman art, instead

of the traditional local art that characterized the pre-

provincial period (Dentzer-Feydy 1986:286). Hellenization

spread rapidly. The local inhabitants, especially the well-

to-do and those – such as veterans – who had tasted Roman

culture in their voyages, adopted Hellenistic ways, such as

theater-going and frequenting the baths and gymnasia. But

most of the population remained loyal to the Aramaic and

Arab traditions in keeping the local names and continued

worshipping the local gods in the ancient traditions.

Hellenization was only skin deep (Sartre 1985:201-202;

1991a:32).

It seems that Rafid too enjoyed the prosperity of the Late

Roman period. In this period the village seems to have been

relatively wealthy, as evidenced by the houses, built in the

Hauran architectural style. It may be that the few buildings

constructed of ashlars found at the site were built in this

period.


285

Northern Transjordan in the Byzantine Period

The Provinces in Northern Transjordan in the Fifth and

Sixth Centuries CE

In the last years of the 4th century or the very first of the 5th

century, by imperial edict, Palaestina was divided into three

provinces. Palaestina secunda extended over the Jezre’el

valley and Galilee west of the Jordan and Golan and Pella

east of it (Tsafrir 1984:372). Phoenicia too was divided in

two: Phoenice Paralios and Phoenice Libanensis. This

information on the administrative divisions is gained mainly

from two lists: one of Hierocles, dated in the first half of the

sixth century CE and the other that of Georgius Cyprus

(Ibid.:372).

The capital of Phoenice Paralios was Tyre, and it included

also Sidon, Berytus, Byblus, ‘Akko-Ptolemais and Paneas

(Hierocles, Synecdemus 715, 7-716, 9; Georgius Cyprus,

Descriptio Orbis Romani 967-983). The capital of Phoenice

Libanensis was Emesa (modern Óoms) and included

Heliopolis, Abila, Damascus and Palmyra (Hieroclis,

Synecdemus 717, 1-7; Georgius Cyprus, Descriptio Orbis

Romani 984-996). According to these data, Phoenice

Paralios extended along the Phoenician coast, in the

mountains of Lebanon and extended east to Paneas.

Phoenice Libanensis included the Beqa‘a valley, the anti-

Lebanon mountains, the Damascus basin and Palmyra. It

seems that the relations of Paneas with Galilee and the

Phoenician coast were responsible for its inclusion in

Phoenice Paralios (Map 9).

The capital of Provincia Arabia was Bostra and the

province extended over northern and central Transjordan.

Most of the communities, and probably most of the

unidentified villages were in Batanea, Auranitis and

Trachonitis (Tsafrir 1984:378-380). In Northern Transjordan

were included Adraa, Dium, Nilecome, Naveh,

Philippopolis, Phaina, Constantia, Dionysias, Canatha and

many villages (Hieroclis, Synecdemus 721, 12-723, 5;

Georgius Cyprus, Descriptio Orbis Romani 1058-1092).

In Palaestina Secunda were included from Northern

Transjordan Hippos-Sussita, Clima Gaulames (Hieroclis,

Synecdemus 719, 12-720, 11; Georgius Cyprus, Descriptio

Orbis Romani 1028-1041). The territory of Hippos appears

as part of Palaestina already in Eusebius’ Onomastikon.

Clima Gaulames is apparently the name of Golan district in

the Byzantine period (Tsafrir 1984:376; Ma‘oz 1986:56, 64;

Di Segni 1997:184, n. 3). The existence of Golan district in

the sixth century CE implies the continuation of this

administrative unit through the Late Roman period. Eusebius

mentions this district as being in Bashan. Since it is not

reasonable that the name of the district wandered from the

Golan to Bashan and back, it may be that Eusebius was

influenced by the biblical description ‘Golan in Bashan’ and

that in his days a Golan district existed in central Golan (see

above). Ma‘oz (1986:57) saw in the seeming disappearance

of ‘Golan district’ evidence of a settlement gap in the Golan,

but such a gap probably never existed.

The Jewish Settlement

In the Byzantine period, the Jewish settlement on the Golan

flourished. In at least 25 sites remains of synagogues were

discovered, dating to the fifth and sixth centuries CE. This

subject has been studied and published in depth, beginning

with the early researches of Oliphant (1885, 1886) and

Schumacher (1888), to the in-depth studies by Ma‘oz (1981,

1995), Urman (1995), Ilan (1991) and Ben David (1999),

so I shall add only a few remarks.

The Jews lived in villages, without an urban center. The

villages were small, probably because of the small springs

by which they were built, but the economic condition of the

inhabitants was good. This is testified to by the scores of

synagogues built in these villages. These were discovered

at sites in the western part of the Golan and not all over the

area of Golan district. It seems that during the Late Roman

period some of the communities in the eastern reaches of

Golan district became Christian (Ben-David 1999:294-295).

Urman (1995:383-384) dated the construction of the

synagogues to the second-third centuries CE, while Ma‘oz

(1995:349-351) to the years 451-527 CE. Ben David

(1999:247, 303) showed that at all 15 sites within his survey

area (Lower Golan) that had existed in the Middle and/or

Late Roman periods and which disappeared before 350 CE

there were no synagogues. In contrast, except at three sites

that contained Christian remains, all 25 sites that were

inhabited from 350 CE and later contained synagogues or

architectural elements belonging to synagogues. Ben David’s

findings corroborate the views of Ma‘oz, contra Urman,

that the Jewish settlement in the Golan flourished in the

fifth and sixth centuries CE.

The Spread of Christianity

Christianity penetrated into Northern Transjordan relatively

early, but the pace at which it spread varied from district to

district. In pagan Auranitis, Christianity was evident already

in the second or third century CE, but bishops are first

documented only in 325 CE, at Dionysias (es-Suweida) and

Maximianopolis (Shaqqa), and slightly later at Canatha (el-

Qanawat) and Philippopolis (Shahba). Just as elsewhere,

the population was at first mainly pagan, but by the fifth

century there was hardly a village without a church. Most

churches were dedicated to the saints popular with the Arabs

(Sartre 1991b:33; Sodini 1991).

Christianity penetrated the Golan Heights too. The district

of Hippos, pagan to begin with, gradually embraced

Christianity. Just as elsewhere, it seems that Christian

communities were first established in the Hellenistic cities,

and only later, in the fifth and sixth centuries in the rural

areas (Geiger 1982; Rubin 1982). At Hippos-Sussita four

churches were found (Epstein 1993). The cathedral

(excavated) was built in the late sixth century. Two other

churches were lately excavated (Segal et al. 2004:51-69).

At Khispin two churches were excavated, one built in the

late fifth and the second in the early sixth century CE

CHAPTER NINE

286

0 5 10 15 20Km

MumsiyyeJueizeh

AArraabbiiaa

PPaa llaaeess tt iinnaaSSeeccuunnddaa

Bostra

Phine

Maximianopolis

Philippopolis

Naveh

Paneas

Hippos

Damascus

Canatha

AdraaGadara

Dium

Dionysias

Tiberias

el-Hayat

B a t a n a e a

Trachonitis

A u r a n i t i s

DamascusMt. H

ermon

Hippos

Paneas

Rafid

PPhhooeenn ii cceePPaa rraa ll ii aa ss PPhhooeenn ii ccee

LLiibbaanneess ii ss

Clima Gaulames

Duwer el-Loz

Kafr el-Ma

‘Ayun

el-Naqara

Khisfin

Na‘ran

Dier Saras

‘Ein Semsem

Ra‘abane

Farj

er-Rumthaniyeh

KafrNafakh

Bab el-Hawa

Map. 9. Northern transjordan in the 5th c. CE.

(Tzaferis and Bar-Lev 1976; Ma‘oz 1993e). A third church

was identified in a survey east of the site (Y. Ben Efraim,

pers. comm.). Remains of a church were found also at Duwe\rel-Lo \z in the Nahr el-Ruqqad (Ma‘oz 1993d:539). Crosses

found at other sites in southern Golan, such as Fiq, Kafr

Harib, ‘Ayun, Kafr el-Ma and others, clearly indicate that

during the Byzantine period Christianity penetrated the rural

areas and replaced paganism.

Golan district was inhabited mostly by Jews and

Christianity had little effect there. Christian sites, mainly

monasteries, were found in the vicinity of Gamla, probably

on land that had been confiscated after the Jewish War (Ben-

David 1999:235-237). At Deir Qaru˙ a sixth century

monastery was excavated (Ma‘oz 1993b). Christian remains

were found in eastern Golan and near its northern boundary,

at Na‘ran, Deir Saras, and ‘Ein Semsem. These settlements

seem to represent the southern edge of the Christian

communities of the district of Paneas.

Of Christian Paneas only one structure survived – a

basilica identified as a fourth century CE church (Tzaferis

1998:13-14). No crosses or religious inscriptions were found

in the building, and this should not surprise, because Paneas

fell from its glory in the fifth century, before it became

Christian. It seems that Christianity was slow to penetrate

the Paneas area too. On Mt. Hermon no Christian remains

were found at all, perhaps because in the Byzantine period

it was sparsely inhabited. From Qunei†ra and southward there

is evidence of Christian sites. It is possible that this area

was inhabited by a community of Judeo-Christians, attested

by lintels carrying decorations combining the menorah with

crosses (Dauphin 1982, 1984, 1993; Ma‘oz 1985:63-65).

In this area many tombstones were found, carrying Greek

inscriptions, practically all of Christians (Gregg and Urman

1996). North of Quneitra hardly any crosses or tombstones

were found. Christian faith penetrated this area only in the

sixth century, following a decline in settlement density (see

below), probably brought by the Ghassanids, who settled

also in the southern area of the district of Paneas.

The Decline in Security in Northern Golan

In the Northern Golan survey, a decline in the number of

settlements in the Byzantine period was noted. From 69 sites

in the Late Roman period the number went down to only 40


287

(Hartal 1989:132). This situation is dramatically different

from other regions of Palestine, where in the Byzantine

period there was a record number of settlements (Tsafrir

1977, 1996; Broshi 1979). In central Golan this was a period

of prosperity for the Jewish settlement, and southern Golan

was also densely inhabited (Ma‘oz 1993d). The Late Roman

villas around Paneas, whose inhabitants enjoyed life close

to nature while receiving services from the nearby city,

disappeared in the Byzantine period. In this period a fortress

was erected at el-Naqara, east of Paneas, and Paneas itself

was surrounded by a wall. In the past I suggested that the

reason was the decline in security (Hartal 1989:132-133).

In excavations carried out at Paneas no remains were found

that are later than the first half of the fifth century (S. Israeli,

pers. comm.). Only in a favissa dug near the temples in the

sacred precinct, were some finds recovered that date to the

end of the Byzantine period (Magness, forthcoming). It is

interesting that no bishops from Paneas come to the councils

of the 5th and 6th centuries.

The cause in the decline in security in northern Golan is

not known, but it seems that the region suffered from attacks

by some enemy, probably nomads. Two tombstones found

at Qunei†ra shed some light on the events. One of them is

that of Zenodorus, who fell in a battle while bringing peace

to Phoenicia and the other is of his soldiers who fell in the

same battle. The second stone bears the date 463 CE

according to the era of Paneas (Di Segni 1997:169-174, Nos.

19, 20). Zenodorus, probably the dux of Phoenice fought

against unknown enemy, possibly nomadic tribes that came

from the east. A Byzantine street, found in the excavations

at Paneas, was destroyed in a great fire in the first half of

the fifth century. The cause of the fire is as yet unknown,

and could have been the result of an earthquake, enemy

attack or other reason. In any case, after the destruction much

of the city was abandoned. It could be that at this time the

city moved to the southern bank of Nahal Sa‘ar, which is

the only part enclosed by walls.

The Ghassanids

The penetration of bandits into the Sinai and the Euphrates

valley in the fourth and fifth centuries CE passed over

Hauran, which enjoyed at the time the protection of the Arab

allies of the Byzantine empire, who agreed to protect the

inhabitants in exchange of payment in corn and gold. In the

fourth century these were Lakhmide tribes, to be replaced

in the fifth century by the emirs of Sali˙ and finally, towards

the end of the fifth century by the Ghassanids (Sartre

1991b:34). The Ghassanids were a branch of the ‘Azd tribal

union that emigrated at the end of the fifth century from

south Arabia and settled in the Roman province Arabia, took

the Christian faith and agreed to pay taxes. At the beginning

of the sixth century (502-503 CE) they received the status

of allies (symmachoi) of the Byzantine empire. The

relationship between them and the empire was arranged

through a treaty (foedos), which stipulated that they receive

an annual payment (annonae foedertice) and in return gave

the Byzantine army mounted cavalry units. Their leaders

were philarchoi. The Ghassanids contributed many units to

the Byzantine army during the wars against the Sassanid

Persians and during the war against the Lakhmides, who

sided with the Persians and also controlled the desert

nomads. The most important Ghassanid leader was el-Óarith

Ben Jabala, who in 531 CE received the title philarch of all

Arabs in the Byzantine empire (Tate 1989:110-111; Sartre

1991b:34; Foss 1997:250; Sharon 2002:39-40).

The Ghassanid tribes counted in the summers thousands

of nomads with their animals. These needed areas rich in

pasture and water and one such place was at Jabiya (Sartre

1982b:179, 188), about 8 km east of Rafid. The Ghassanids

did not settle near the border but in Bashan and in Damascus.

The presence of el-Óarith and his sons at Jabiya and Jalliq

did not necessarily imply that the whole tribe settled there.

The monitoring of the borders by the Ghassanid forces could

be carried out even without the presence of the philarchs.

The Byzantines did not rely on the Ghassanids for the

protection of the borders of Arabia; their role was to keep

the peace in the agricultural areas and keep an eye on the

tribes in transit, and this could be better accomplished from

Bashan rather than on the border (Ibid.:187-188).

The Ghassanids enjoyed their service with the Byzantine

empire, increased their property and their stay in an

agricultural area caused them, at least partially to settle down

and to build many buildings (Foss 1997:250-251; Shahîd

2002). Ghassanid settlements existed in the Damascus basin

and Bashan: ‘Aqrabah, Jabiya, Jalliq, Óarith el-Jawlan (el-

Óara) and more (map 9; Sartre 1982b:178-182; Shahîd

2002). The Ghassanid presence in Bashan can explain the

prosperity of its villages. The large houses reflect on the

wealth of the leader and their architecture on their ways

(Foss 1997:251-252).

The Ghassanids played an important role in the history

of the monophysite church of Syria. Monophysitism was

first advanced by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople and

was propagated by Eutyches, archimandrite of a monastery

in the same city (378-454 CE). According to monophysitism,

Jesus had a single nature that merges the human and the

divine, his human aspects absorbed by the divine substance.

Monophysitism was considered a heresy by the dogma fixed

in Chalcedon, which claimed that Jesus was one with two

natures, and was forbidden to practice under Justin I (518-

527 CE). In 540 CE, el-Óarith Ben Jabala succeeded to

ordinate two monophysite bishops with the aid of empress

Theodora. These were Theodorus and Jacob Bardaeus, after

whom the Jacobite church is named. These two bishops

succeeded in creating an alternative monophysite hierarchy

in the Church of Syria (Atiya 1968:169-192; Tate 1989:111).

The Ghassanid philarchs became the chief patrons of

secular and religious architecture and supporters of churches

throughout their domains. Traces of their activities can be

seen in the region east of Damascus and north of Bostra

(Foss 1997:251; Shahîd 2002). The Ghassanids built

churches and monasteries around the large villages of the

philarchs, and while not all such extant buildings were built

CHAPTER NINE

288

by them directly, the emirs gave their patronage to the

monasteries and helped their well-being (Sartre 1982b:183,

1991b:34).

It seems that the Ghassanids’ support of monophysitism

eventually clouded their relationship with the orthodox

emperors and brought their downfall. Their last king, Mundir

ben el-Óarith and his son Nu‘man ruled during the years

569-582 CE. Mundir was arrested by emperor Tiberius in

580 CE on charge of treason and was sent in exile. His men

rebelled when the emperor cut down corn rations as a

measure to control them. The rebels were active in large

areas of Arabia and besieged Bostra. They retreated only

when Nu‘man ben Mundir was allowed to renew the

philarchy, but in 584 he too was exiled and the Ghassanid

philarchy was divided into several smaller units. Though

some of them continued to fight on the side of the

Byzantines, their power broke and the land remained without

solid protection, something that made it easier for the forces

of Islam to conquer (Foss 1997:252; Fahd 1989).

The Ghassanids in the Territory of Paneas

The center of the Ghassanid settlement was in the area of

Tel el-Óara (about ten km northeast of Rafid), and to the

south of it, very close to the Golan (map 10). It seems that

they penetrated also into the territory of Paneas. Evidence

of this is found in the letter of the archimandrites (Nöldke

1875; Lami 1898; Shahîd 1995:821-838), which mentions

several monasteries in northern Golan (Sartre 1982c:185-

186; Hartal 2005:363).

Dauphin and Gibson (1992-1993:22) believed that the

Ghassanids were influenced by their contact with the Jewish

community at Farj (some 6 km west of Rafid), and as a

result built imposing houses copied from their neighbors,

but with emphasized crosses on their lintels to stress their

religious affiliation. Though I accept that there was a

Ghassanid community at Farj (see below), the process as

described by Dauphin and Gibson appears odd. Though there

were Jews at Farj, their remains are very meager in contrast

to Christian remains. Dauphin and Gibson describe the

Ghassanids as nomads that were influenced by the sedentary

population, but, as shown above, the Ghassanid settlement

is widespread and their contribution to the architecture of

Bashan is considerable (Shahîd 2002). The Ghassanid

settlement at Farj has nothing to do with Jewish influence.

At er-Rumthaniyeh (ca. 7 km northwest of Rafid) a

foundation inscription was found, belonging to a martyrium

of St. John the Baptist, dated by Dauphin 377 CE (Dauphin

et al. 1996:325-326, Inscription 25), but lately dated by Di

Segni (pers. Comm.) to the 6th century. On top of the hill on

which the village is built there is a large structure, partially

rebuilt in recent times, which includes many inscriptions

and reliefs. Dauphin identified the structure as a late phase

of a martyrium and dated it by a large inscription in

secondary use to the sixth century CE (Dauphin 1995:696-

670; Gregg and Urman 1996:188-189, No. 155*; Dauphin

et al. 1996:327, Inscription 28). According to Dauphin, at

this stage it served as a pilgrimage center of the Ghassanid

tribes, who used to gather at the site on the birthday of St.

John and on the anniversary of his execution.

The adduced evidence can assist in reconstructing the

Ghassanid settlement in northern Golan. At several sites

ecclesiastic inscriptions were found, which mention large

scale building activity in the sixth century CE. At Mumsiyye,

13 km northwest of Rafid, a church inscription was found,

with a date reading “the tenth year of the indiction, years

534 and 535” (Ibid.:213-214, No. 174). The authors dated it

to 486-487 CE according to the era of Antioch (?!), starting

in 49/8 BCE. But “year 534” was the tenth year of indiction

only if calculated by the era of Paneas, and being in the

territory of Paneas this makes much more sense and thus

should be dated 531-533 CE, the floruit of the Ghassanids.

At Bab el-Hawa two church inscriptions were found

(Ibid.:275-277, No. 235*, 236), one dated in “year 540”,

i.e. 537/538 CE according to the era of Paneas. Undated

church inscriptions attributed to the sixth century were found

also at er-Rumthaniyeh (Ibid.:188-189, No. 155*) and

Mumsiyye (Ibid.:212, No. 172). The inscriptions thus show

that churches and community buildings were erected during

the influential period of the Ghassanids.

Bashanit ridge and its environs on the eastern Golan

Heights, where the above-mentioned inscriptions were

found, is close to the region of Ghassanid settlement. In this

area several villages were identified with Hauran style

architecture: Rafid, Farj, er-Rumthaniyeh, eß-Íurman and

Bab el-Hawa. All these sites had existed before the

Ghassanids, but extensive building took place mainly in the

Byzantine period. The only site excavated is Bab el-Hawa,

where the excavated building was constructed at the end of

the fifth or early in the sixth century CE, after a period of

abandonment (Hartal 2005:86-276). The construction of the

building can be thus attributed to the Ghassanids, and from

this it follows that the late structures at the other sites can

be attributed to them as well. According to the letter of the

archimandrites also Ra‘abane and Za‘ura were Ghassanid.

It may be that Ghassanids were present also at sites such as

Kafr Nafakh and Na‘ran in northern Golan and Khisfin in

southern Golan; these sites yielded structures and decorated

architectural elements similar to those in eastern Golan.

Rafid is in the heart of the Ghassanid settlement and seems

to have been inhabited by them. Christian symbols,

especially crosses are abundant, and are characteristic of

Ghassanid settlements. It is highly likely that a large

proportion of the houses described in this book were built

and inhabited by the Ghassanids.

End of an Era

The end of the Byzantine period was one of instability. In

542 and 600 CE there were outbreaks of the plague, and the

Ghassanids, as well as others in the region, were hit hard

(Conrad 1986). Ma‘oz (forthcoming) suggested that the

epidemics wiped out most of the work force, caused a

stoppage of olive oil production in the Golan and corn in


289

0 5 10 15 20Km

MumsiyyeJueizeh

AArraabbiiaa

PPaa llaaeess tt iinnaa

B a s h a n

Trachonitis

Auranitis

DamascusMt. H

ermon

Paneas ‘Aqrabeh

Rafid

PPhhooeenn ii ccee

Bostra

Paneas

Hippos

Gadara

Za‘ura

Tiberias Khisfin

Ra‘abane

Farj

er-Rumthaniyeh

Bab el-Hawa

Fiq

Deir ‘Aziz

Mt. Peres

Bashanit

Der‘a

DionysiasDionysiasAdraa

Abila

Gadara

Phine

Damascus

Maximianopolis

PhilippopolisCanatha

Jabiya

Jalliq

SaydaKharib

Zorva

Jailliq

Ghasanid settlement

CitySettlement mentionedin historical sourcesProvince border

Bashan, and finally brought about the abandonment of the

Jewish settlements of the Golan. Sartre (1991b:34) notes

the Ghassanids were not hit all that hard and they carried on

church building after the 542 CE plague. The Sassanid

invasion of Syria (613-630 CE) did not cause severe

destruction. In 613 CE the Sassanians won a victory in a

battle fought in Hauran, between Adraa and Bostra, and

carried away prisoners and booty (Schick 1995:20-21). Some

monasteries were damaged, such as the one at Kursi

(Tzaferis 1983:4), but there is evidence in Hauran of building

and renovating churches at this time (Foss 1997:252-253).

When the area was recaptured by emperor Heraclius, no

agreement was reached between the imperial administration

and the monophysites; the latter opposed any compromise

suggested by the administration (Tate 1989:111). The decline

in the Ghassanids’ status in 582 CE caused a reduced defense

of the empire in the south and east (Sharon 2002:42-43). In

April-May 634 CE the first Islamic units arrived in the area

and Bostra fell in May 634. After the Byzantine rout in the

battle of Yarmukh in July 636 (Sharon 2002) the whole

Hauran was lost to the Byzantines (Sartre 1991b:34). In

Hauran and Bashan the settlements not only continued, but

even thrived and developed under Islamic rule. There was

no perceptible change in activity or cultural patterns under

the Umayyad caliphs and there was no dwindling of the

population until the Mongol invasion (13th c. CE)

(Villeneuve 1991:42; Foss 1997:254-258). In the territory

of Hippos too, there was a continuity of settlement, including

the city of Hippos itself; the road connecting Hauran with

Palestine passed through southern Golan. This is testified

to by the milestones of the caliph ‘Abd el-Malik from the

eighth century found at Fiq (Elad 1999). Fragments of a

monumental inscription from the Early Islamic period found

at Farj induced Dauphin and Gibson (1992-1993:22-23) to

assert that Ghassanids continued to live there even after the

Islamic conquest, based on the assumption that the script

dated the inscription to soon after the conquest itself. But in

the publication of the inscription it is stressed that the script

cannot be securely dated (Dauphin et al. 1996:328-329).

Giv‘at Or˙a, some 3 km south of Rafid, was inhabited in

the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid periods (Ma‘oz 1993c). Other

settlements in Golan continued their existence in the Early

Islamic period. Umm el-Qanatir existed to the end of the

Umayyad period and the village at Deir ‘Aziz to the ‘Abbasid

Map 10. Ghassanid Settlements (6th c. CE).

CHAPTER NINE

290

period. Qasrin too was settled in the eighth century (Ma‘oz

1993f; Killebrew 1993). The Golan villages were not

destroyed by war, but rather economic reasons caused their

desertion, especially the decline in olive oil export to Hauran.

The excavations at Bab el-Hawa proved that the

settlement ceased to exist at the beginning of the seventh

century CE; no artifacts datable to the Early Islamic period

were found. A similar picture obtains in northern Golan:

only at four sites were any remains from this period found

(Hartal 1989:135). There is no reliable information about

Paneas in the first centuries of Islamic rule (Sharon 1999:26).

Thus, northern Golan was abandoned close to the Islamic

conquest and remained controlled by nomads until the

Mamluk period.

In the eighth century the settlement in Hauran ceased as

well and Northern Transjordan returned to be the stage for

nomadic tribes. This event brought the settlement history a

full circle, which began in the second century BCE with the

settling of the Golan Heights, expanded under the Herodians

over all of Northern Transjordan, reached its zenith under

Roman and Byzantine rule and ended in the Umayyad period

with the abandonment of the settlements and the returning

rule of nomads. It is one of the circles that characterize the

region’s history from prehistoric times to our own days

(Hartal 1989:138).

The Rafid area remained without permanent settlements

until the early Mamluk period, in the thirteenth century CE,

when it flourished again. The survey of northern Golan

showed that this was the second densest period in the number

of settlements (Ibid.:135-136). Villages were erected over

the ruins of Roman and Byzantine period settlements and it

seems that Rafid too was resettled then. Though this cannot

be ascertained, it seems that the latest construction phase in

the houses of the village, described in detail elsewhere in

this book, should be dated to the Mamluk period.

The Mamluk period prosperity was short. After about a

hundred years the villages were again abandoned and the

area returned to the control of Bedouin tribes, a state of

affairs that continued until the end of the nineteenth century

(Ibid.:136-137).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

291

Bibliography

Ancient Sources

Appian. Syriacus Liber. H. White transl. Appian’s Roman HistoryII (Loeb Classical Library). London-Cambridge. 1912.

Cassius Dio. Historia Romana. E. Cary transl. Dio’s Roman HistoryVI, VII (Loeb Classical Library). London-Cambridge.1917-1955.

Claudius Ptolemaeus. Geographia. C.F.A. Nobbe ed. ClaudiiPtolomaei Geographia. Hildesheim 1966 (Leipzig 1843-1845)

Eusebius. Onomastikon. E, Klostermann ed. Eusebius Werke. III.1:Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen. Leipzig.1904.

Georgius Cyprius. Descriptio Orbis Romani. H. Gelzer ed. GeorgiiCypri descriptio orbis romani (Bibliotheca ScriptorumGraecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana.). Leipzig. 1890.

Hierocles. A. Burckhardt ed. Hierocles Synecdemos (BibliothecaScriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana.).Leipzig. 1893.

Philo. In Flaccum. F.H. Colson transl. Philo IX (Loeb ClassicalLibrary). London-Cambridge. 1941.

Polybius. Historiae. W.R. Paton transl. Polybius, The HistoriesIII, V (Loeb Classical Library). London-Cambridge. 1956-1960.

Strabo. Geographica. H.L. Jones transl. The Geography of StraboVII (Loeb Classical Library). London-Cambridge. 1954.

Syncellus, Chronographia. W. Dindorf ed. Georgius Syncellus etNicephorus (CSHB 7). Bonn. 1829.

References

Adan-Bayewitz A. and Aviam M.1997 Iotapata, Josephus, and the Siege of 67: Preliminary

Report on 1992-94 Seasons. JRA 10:131-165.Aharoni Y.1955 Three New Boundary Stones from the Western Golan.

‘Atiqot 1:109-114.1959 Three New Boundary-Stones from the Hula Valley.

‘Atiqot 2:186-187.1961 Two Additional Boundary Stones from the Hule

Valley. ‘Atiqot 3:152-154.Alt A.1955 Augusta Libanensis. ZDPV 71:173-186.Altheim F. and Stiehl R.1964 Dir Araber in der alten Welt I. Berlin.Applebaum Sh.1970 The Troopers of Zamaris. In A. Gilboa et al. (eds).

Studies in the History of the Jewish People and theLand of Israel in Memory of Zvi Avneri. Haifa. Pp.79-88. (Hebrew with English abstract).

Arav R.1995 Bethsaida Excavations: Preliminary Report, 1987-

1993. In R. Arav and R.A. Freund (eds). Bethsaida:A City by the North Shore of the Sea Galilee I.Kirksville. Pp. 3-63.

Atiya A.1968 History of Eastern Christianity. Notre-Dame.

Avi-Yonah M.1933 Mosaic Pavements in Palestine. QDAP 3:26-74.1940 Abbreviations in Greek Inscriptions, Jerusalem

(QDAP, Supplement to vol. 9).1955 Christian Archaeology in Israel, 1948-1954,

Christian News from Israel 5, 3-4:20-26.1966 The Holy Land from the Persian to the Arab Consquests

(536 B.C. to A.D. 640): A Historical Geography. GrandRapids, MI.

1984 The Jews under Roman and Byzantine Rule: APolitical History of Palestine from the Bar KokhbaWar to the Arab Conquest. Jerusalem.

Avshalom-Gorni D. and Getzov N.2001 Tell el-Wawiyat. Hadashot Arkheologiyot:

Excavations and Surveys in Israel 113:1*-3*.2003 Tell el-Wawiyat – 2001. Hadashot Arkheologiyot:

Excavations and Surveys in Israel 115:1*-2*.Bar D.2001 The Third Century’s Crisis in the Roman Empire and

its Validity in Eretz-Israel. Zion 66:143-170 (Hebrew).Bar-Kochva B.1977 Manpower, Economics and Internal Strife in Hasmonean

State. Colloques Nationaux Du CNRS: Armées etFiscalité dans le Monde Antique. Pp. 167-196

Ben-David Ch.1998 Oil Presses and Oil Production in the Golan in the

Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods. ‘Atiqot 34:1-61(Hebrew).

1999 Settlement in “Lower Golan” during the Hellenistic,Roman and Byzantine Periods. Ph.D. Thesis. Bar-IlanUniversity. Ramat-Gan (Hebrew with Englishabstract).

Ben-Dov M.1975 Roman-Byzantine Dwellings at Kafr Nassej. Eretz-

Israel 12:171-185 (Hebrew with English abstract).Ben-Efraim Y.2003 The Boundary Between the Provinces of Palaestina

and Phoenicia in the Second and Third Centuries inthe Central Golan Heights. M.A. Thesis. Bar-IlanUniversity. Ramat-Gan (Hebrew).

Berlin A.M.1997 Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic

Period. BA 60.1:2-51.Bowersock G.W.1983 Roman Arabia. Harvard.Broshi M.1979 The Population of Western Palestine in the Roman-

Byzantine Period. BASOR 236:1-10.Butler H.C.1903 Architecture and Other Arts (The Publications of an

American Archaeological Expedition to Syria in1899-1900 II). New York.

1909 Ancient Architecture in Syria: The Southern Haura \n(PPUAES IIA2). Leyden.

1913 Ancient Architecture in Syria: Umm idj-Djima \l(PPUAES IIA3). Leyden.

1914 Ancient Architecture in Syria: Bosra (PPUAES IIA4).Leiden.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

292

1915 Ancient Architecture in Syria: Haura \n Plain andDjebel Haura\n (PPUAES IIA5). Leyden.

1916 Ancient Architecture in Syria: S¥ (Seeia) (PPUAESIIA6). Leiden.

1919 Ancient Architecture in Syria: The Ledja\ (PPUAESIIA7). Leyden.

1929 Early Churches in Syria: Fourth to SeventhCenturies. Princeton.

Cameron A.1993 The Late Roman Empire, AD 284-430. Cambridge.Cohen G.M.1972 The Hellenistic Military Colony: A Herodian Example.

Transactions of the American Philological Association103:83-95.

Colt H.D. (ed.)1962 Excavation at Nessana I. London.Conrad L.I.1986 The Plague in Bilad al-Sham in Pre-Islamic Times.

In M. ‘A. al-Bakhit and M. ‘Asfur (eds). Proceedingsof the Symposium on Bilad al-Sham during theByzantine Period. Amman. Pp. 12-58.

Dauphin C.M.1979 Golan Survey, 1979. IEJ 29:223–225.1980 Golan Heights. PEQ 112:68.1982a Golan Heights. PEQ 114:74.1982b Jewish and Christian Communities in the Roman and

Byzantine Gaulanitis: A Study of Evidence fromArchaeological Survey. PEQ 167:129-142.

1983a Golan Survey, 1981-1982. IEJ 33:112-113.1983b Survey of Roman and Byzantine Sites in the Golan

Heights. In D.R. Keller and D.W. Rupp (eds).Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area(BAR Int S. 155). Oxford. Pp. 353-355

1984 Farj en Gaulanitide: Refuge judéo-chretien? Proche-Orient Chrétien 34:233-245.

1988-1989 Er-Ramthaniyye: Surveying an Early BedouinByzantine Pilgrimage Center in the Golan Heights.BAIAS 8:82-85.

1993 Encore des judeo-chretiens au Golan? In F. Mannsand E. Alliata (eds). Early Christianity in Context(Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior38). Jerusalem. Pp. 69-79.

1995 Pélerinage ghassanide au sanctuaire Byzantin SaintJean-Baptiste à Er-Ramthaniyye en Gaulanitide.Akten des XII Internationaen Kongresse fürChristliche Archäologie, Bonn 22-28. September1991, 2. (JCE 20, 2). Münster. Pp. 667-673.

1998 La Palestine byzantine: Peuplement et Population(BAR Int S. 762). Oxford.

Dauphin C.M., Brock S., Gregg R.C. and Beeston A.F.L.1996 Païens, juifs, judéo-chrétien, chrétiens et musulmans

en Gaulanitide: Les inscriptions de Na‘ara\n, KafrNaffakh, Farj et er-Ramtha\niyye. POC 46:305–340.

Dauphin C.M. and Gibson S.1992-1993 Ancient Settlements in their Landscapes: The Results

of Ten Years of Survey on Golan Heights (1978-1988). BAIAS 12:7-31.

Dauphin C.M. and Schonfield J.J.1983 Settlements of the Roman and Byzantine Periods on

the Golan Heights: Preliminary Report on ThreeSeasons of Survey (1979-1981). IEJ 33:189-206.

Dentzer J.-M.1985 Six campagnes de fouilles à S¥‘: Développement et

culture indigène en Syrie méridional. DM 2:66-83.1986 Développement et culture de la Syrie du Sud dans la

période préprovinciale (Ier s. avant J.-C. – Ier s. après J.-C.). In J.-M. Dentzer (ed). Hauran I,2: Recherchesarchéologique sur la Syrie du Sud à l’époquehellénistique et romaine. Paris. Pp. 387-420.

Dentzer J.-M and Dentzer J.1981 Les fouilles de S¥‘ et la phase hellénistique en Syrie

du sud. Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres,Comptes-rendus:78-102.

1991 Le site et le sanctuaire de S¥‘. In J.-M. Dentzer andJ. Dentzer-Feydy (eds). Le djebel al-‘Arab: Histoireet patrimoine au Musée de Suweida \’. Paris. Pp. 45-48.

Dentzer-Feydy J.1986 Décor architectural et développement du Hauran dans

l’antiquité (du Ier s. av. au VIIe s. de notre ère). In J.-M. Dentzer (ed). Hauran I,2: Recherchesarchéologique sur la Syrie du Sud a l’époquehellénistique et romaine. Paris. Pp. 261-309.

Dentzer-Feydy J., Dentzer J-M. and Blanc P-M. (eds).2003 Hauran II: Les installations de S¥‘ 8. Du sanctuaire

à I’établissement viticole. Beyrouth.De Vogüé M.1865-1877 Syrie centrale: Architecture civil et religieuse du Ier

au VIIe siècle. Paris.De Vries B.1998 Umm el-Jimal: A Frontier Town and its Landscape

in Northern Jordan I: Fieldwork 1972-1981. RhodeIsland.

Di Segni L.1990 Horvat hesheq: The Inscription. In G.C. Bottini, L.

Di Segni and E. Alliata (eds). Christian Archaeologyin the Holy Land: New Discoveries. (StudiumBiblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 36).Jerusalem. Pp. 379-390.

1993 The Greek Inscriptions from the SamaritanSynagogue at El Khirbe, with Some Considerationson the Function of Samaritan Synagogues in the LateRoman Period. In F. Manns (ed). Early Christianityin Context. Monuments and Documents (StudiumBiblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior 38).Jerusalem. Pp. 231-239.

1994 Ei|" qeov" in Palestinian Inscriptions. SCI 13:94-115.1997 Dated Greek Inscriptions from Palestine from the

Roman and Byzantine Periods. Ph.D. diss. TheHebrew University of Jerusalem. Jerusalem.

2004 Two Greek Inscriptions at Horvat Raqit. In Sh. Dar,Raqit. Marinus’ Estate on the Carmel, Israel (BARInt. S. 1300). Oxford. Pp. 196-198.

Di Segni L. and Patrich J.1990 The Greek Inscriptions in the Cave Chapel at Horvat

Qasra. ‘Atiqot (Hebrew series) 10:141-154 (Hebrew),31*-35* (English summary).

Dunand M.1934 Mission archéologique au Djebel Druze: le musée

de Soueïda. Paris.Epstein C.1993 Hippos (Sussita). NEAEHL 2:634-637.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

293

Epstein C. and Gutman S.1972 The Golan. In M. Kochavi (ed). Judea, Samaria and

the Golan: Archaeological Survey. Jerusalem. Pp.244-295 (Hebrew).

Fahd T.1989 Le Hawrân a la veille de la conquête islamique. In

R. Farioli Campanati (ed). La Siria araba da Romaa Bisanzio. Ravenna. Pp. 35-43.

Finney P.C.1997 Cross. In E. Ferguson (ed). Encyclopedia of Early

Christianity I2. New York and London. Pp. 303-305.Foss C.1997 Syria in Transition, A.D. 550-750; an Archaeological

Approach. DOP 51:189-269.Gatier P.-L.1986 Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie.

Inscriptions de la Jordanie. Tome 2. Région centrale.Paris.

Geiger Y.1982 The Spreading of Christianity in Eretz-Israel - From

its Beginning to the Days of Julian. In Z. Baras, Sh.Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds). Eretz Israel fromthe Destruction of the Second Temple to the MuslimConquest. Jerusalem. Pp. 218-233 (Hebrew).

Gracey M.H.1986 The Armies of the Judean Client Kings. In P. Freedman

and D.L. Kennedy (eds). The Defense of the Romanand Byzantine East: Proceedings of a Colloquium Heldat the University of Sheffield in April 1986. (BAR Int.S. 297). Oxford. Pp. 311-323.

Graf D.F.1997 The Syrian Hauran. JRA 5:450-466.Gregg R.C. and Urman D.1996 Jews, Pagans and Christians in Golan Heights:

Greek and Other Inscriptions of the Roman andByzantine Eras (South Florida Studies in the Historyof Judaism 140). Atlanta.

Gutmann S.1994 Gamla – A City in Rebellion. Tel-Aviv (Hebrew).Hachlili R.1988 Ancient Jewish Art and Archaeology in the Land of

Israel. Leiden.1995 Late Antique Jewish Art from the Golan. In J.H.

Humphrey (ed). The Roman and Byzantine NearEast: Some Recent Archaeological Research (JRASuppl. Ser. 14). Ann Arbor. Pp. 183-212.

Hartal M.1987 The History of Golan in the Second Temple Period.

In M. Inbar and E. Schiller (eds). Golan Heights.Jerusalem. Pp. 69-76 (Hebrew).

1989 Northern Golan Heights: The Archaeological Surveyas a Source of Regional History. Qazrin (Hebrew withEnglish abstract).

1993 Quneitra Valley, Boundary Stone. ESI 13:121.2002 Excavations at Khirbet Zemel, Northern Golan: An

Ituraean Settlement Site. In Z. Gal (ed). Eretz Zafon:Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem. Pp. 74*-117*.

2005 Land of Itureans: Archaeology and History of NorthernGolan in the Hellenistic, Roman and ByzantinePeriods. Qazrin (Hebrew with English abstract).

Forthcoming The Use of Pottery as a Tool for the Definition ofProvincial Border. Adam Zertal Book. Haifa.

Heikel I.A.1902 Ueber des Leben Constantins. GCS 7. Leipzig:3-148.Herr M.D.1985 The History of Eretz Israel: the Roman Byzantine

Period: The Mishna and Talmud Period and theByzantine Rule (70-640). Jerusalem (Hebrew).

Ilan Z.1991 Ancient Synagogues in Israel. Tel Aviv (Hebrew).Isaac B.1996 Eusebius and the Geography of Roman Provinces.

In D.L. Kennedy (ed). The Roman Army in the East(JRA Suppl. Ser. 18) Ann Arbor. Pp. 154-167.

Jalabert J.1908-1909 Aelius Statutus, governeur du Phénicie (ca. 293-305).

MUSJ 3:313-322.Jones A.H.M.1931 The Urbanization of the Ituraean Principality. JRS

21:265-275.1992 The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire I:

A.D. 260-395. Cambridge.Kasher A.1988 Jews, Idumaeans and Ancient Arabs: Relations of

the Jews In Eretz-Israel with the Nations of theFrontier and the Desert During the Hellenistic andRoman Era (332 BCE-70 CE). Tübingen.

Killebrew A.1993 Qazrin: The Village. NEAEHL:1222-1224.Kindler A.1999 The Coins of the Tetrarch Philip and Bethsaida. In

R. Arav and R.A. Freund (eds). Bethsaida: A City bythe North Shore of the Sea of Galilee II. Kirksville.Pp. 245-249.

Kirk G.E. and Welles C.B.1962 The Inscriptions. In H.D. Colt (ed). Excavations at

Nessana I. London. Pp. 131-197.Kokkinos N.1998 The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and

Eclipse (Journal for the Study of the PseudepigraphaSupplement Series 30). Sheffield.

Kushnir-Stein A.2003 Agrippa I in Josephus. SCI 22:153-161.Lami M.Th.-J.1898 Profession de foi, adresse par les Abbe couvents de

la province d’Arabie a Jacques Baradée. Actes du XIIe

congrès international des orientalistes, quatrièmesection. Paris. Pp. 117-137.

Levine I.L.1982 Eretz Israel in the Third Century. In Z. Baras, Sh.

Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds). Eretz Israel fromthe Destruction of the Second Temple to the MuslimConquest. Jerusalem. Pp. 119-143 (Hebrew).

Littmann E.1915 Greek and Latin inscriptions in Syria: Hauran Plain

and Djebel Hauran (PPUAES IIA3). Leiden.1921 Greek and Latin Inscriptions in Syria: The Ledja

(PPUAES IIA7). Leiden.Macdonald M.C.A.1993 Nomads and the Hawran in the Hellenistic and

Roman Periods: A Reassessment of the EpigraphicEvidence. Syria 70:302-413.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

294

Magness J.Forthcoming Pottery from a Seventh Century C.E. Pit L. 243

(Stratum III). In Z.U. Ma‘oz. Paneion I: Excavationsat the Sanctuary of Pan at Caesarea Philippi – 1988-1993 (IAA Reports).

Ma‘oz Z.U.1981 The Art and Architecture of the Synagogues of the

Golan. In L.I Levine (ed). Ancient SynagoguesRevealed. Jerusalem. Pp. 98-115.

1985 Comments on Jewish and Christian Communities inByzantine Palestine. PEQ 170:59-68.

1986 The Golan Heights in Antiquity: A Study inGeographical History. M.A Thesis. The HebrewUniversity. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

1993a Banias. NEAEHL 136-143.1993b Deir Qeru˙. NEAEHL:348-349.1993c Giv‘at Or˙a. NEAEHL:521-523.1993d Golan: Hellenistic Period to the Middle Ages.

NEAEHL: 525-527, 534-546.1993e Haspin. NEAEHL:586-588.1993f Kanaf, Horvat. NEAEHL:847-850.1993g Qaßrin. NEAEHL 3:1219-1224.1995 Ancient Synagogues in the Golan: Art and Architecture.

Qazrin. Hebrew with English Abstract.Forthcoming The Decline and Fall of Byzantine Syria-Palestine:

A View from the Golan.Ma‘oz Z.U. and Killebrew A.1988 Ancient Qasrin Synagogue and Village. BA 51:5-19.Mason S.2001 Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. 9.

Life of Josephus. Leiden.Meimaris Y.E.1986 Sacred Names, Saints, Martyrs and Church Officials

in the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri Pertaining tothe Church of Palestine. Athens.

Merrill S.1881 East of the Jordan: A Record of Travel and

Observation in the Countries of Moab, Gilead, andBashan. London.

Meyers E.M.1976 Galilean Regionalism as a Factor in Historical

Reconstruction. BASOR 211:93-101.Millar F.1994 The Roman Near East, 31 BC - AD 337. London.Miller D.S.1984 The Lava Lands of Syria: Regional Urbanism in the

Roman Empire. Ph.D. diss. New York University.New York.

Morrisroe P.1913 Cross and Crucifix. In C.H. Herbermann, E.A. Pace,

C.B. Pallen, T.J. Shahan and J.J. Wynne (eds). TheCatholic Encyclopedia III. New York. Pp. 517-539.

Naveh J.1978 On Stone and Mosaic: The Aramaic and Hebrew

Inscriptions from Ancient Synagogues. Tel Aviv.Negev A.1991 Personal Names in the Nabatean Realm (Qedem 32).

Jerusalem.Nöldke Th.

1875 Topographie und Geschichte des Damascenischen

Gebiet und der Haurangegend. ZDMG 29:419-445.

Oliphant L.1885 Explorations North-East of Lake Tiberias and in

Jaulan. PEFQS:82-93.1886 New Discoveries. PEFQSt:73-81.Peters F.E.1977 The Nabateans in the Hawran. JAOS 97:263-277.1978 Romans and Bedouin in Southern Syria. JNES

37:315-326.Piccirillo M.1980 Le antichità di Rihab dei Bene Hasan. Liber Annuus

30:317-350.Rey-Coquais J.-P.1978 Syrie romaine, de Pompée à Dioclétien. JRS 68:44-

73.1989 La Syrie, de Pompée à Dioclétien: histoire politique

et administrative. In J.-M. Dentzer and W. Orthmann(eds). Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie II. La Syriede l’époque achéménide a l’avènement de l’Islam.Saarbrücken. Pp. 45-61.

Rubin Z.1982 The Spread of Christianity in Eretz-Israel – from the

Days of Julian to the Justinianic Period. In Z. Baras,Sh. Safrai, Y. Tsafrir and M. Stern (eds). Eretz Israelfrom the Destruction of the Second Temple to theMuslim Conquest. Jerusalem. Pp. 234-251 (Hebrew).

Sartre M.1982a Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie 23.1:

Bostra. Paris.1982b Trois études sur l’Arabie romaine et byzantine

(Latomus 178). Bruxelles.1985a Le peuplement et le développement du Hawran antique

à lumière des inscriptions grecques et latines. In J.-M.Dentzer (ed). Hauran I,1: Recherches archéologiquesur la Syrie du Sud a l’époque hellénistique et romaine.Paris. Pp. 189-202.

1985b Bostra des origines à l’Islam. Paris.1991a La langue et les inscriptions grecques. In J.-M.

Dentzer and J. Dentzer-Feydy (eds). Le djebel al-‘Arab: Histoire et patrimoine au Musée de Suweida\’.Paris. Pp. 35-36.

1991b La Syrie du Sud à l’époque gréco-romaine. In J.-M.Dentzer and J. Dentzer-Feydy (eds). Le djebel al-‘Arab: Histoire et patrimoine au Musée de Suweida\’.Paris. Pp. 29-34.

1992 Nouvelles bornes cadastrales du Hauran sous laTétrarchie. Ktema 17:112-131.

1997 Transhumance, économie et société de montagne enSyrie du Sud. Les Annales Archéologiques de Syrie41:75-86.

Schalit A.1964 King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler. Jerusalem (Hebrew).Schick C.1894 The Jerusalem Cross. PEFQSt:183-189.Schick R.1995 The Christian Communities of Palestine from

Byzantine to Islamic Rule: A Historical andArchaeological Study (Studies in late Antiquity andEarly Islam 2). Princeton.

Schumacher G.1886 Across the Jordan. London.1888 The Jaulan. London.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

295

Schürer E.1973 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus

Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) I. G. Vermes and F. Millar(eds). Edinburgh.

Schwartz D.R.1990 Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tübingen.SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum.Segal A. et al.2004 Hippos-Sussita: Fifth Season of Excavations

September-October 2004 and Summary of All FiveSeasons (2000-2004). Haifa.

Shahîd I.1995 Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century I.

Washington D.C.2002 Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, II,1:

Toponymy, Monuments, Historical Geography, andFrontier Studies. Washington D.C.

Sharon M.1999 Corpus Inscriptium Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP)

II. Leiden.2002 The Decisive Battles in the Conquest of Syria.

Cathedra 104:31-84 (Hebrew with English abstract).Shatzman I.1991 The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod: From

Hellenistic to Roman Frameworks. Tübingen.Smith R.H.1990 The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period. Levant

22:123-130.Sodini J.-P.1991 Monuments chrétiens du Mo˙a\faza de Saweida\’. In

J.-M. Dentzer and J. Dentzer-Feydy (eds). Le Djebelal-‘Arab: Histoire et Patrimoine au Musée deSuweida \’. Paris. Pp. 85-88.

Starcky J.1985 Les inscriptions nabatéennes et l’histoire de la Syrie

méridionale et du nord de la Jordanie. In J.-M.Dentzer (ed). Hauran I,1: Recherches archéologiquesur la Syrie du Sud a l’époque hellénistique etromaine. Paris. Pp. 167-181.

Stein A.1989 The Foundation Year of Caesarea-Paneas. In Z.

Robinzon (ed). Z. Perlman Book: 33 Studies on theClasical Culture. Tel Aviv. Pp. 376-378 (Hebrew).

Tate G.1989 La Syrie à l’époque byzantine: Essai de synthèse. In

J.-M Dentzer and W. Orthmann (eds). Archéologieet histoire de la Syrie II: La Syrie de l’époqueachéménide a l’avènement de l’Islam. Saarbrücken.Pp. 97-116.

Tepper Y.1997 Stables in the Land of Israel in the Roman and

Byzantine Periods. In S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds). TheVillage in Ancient Israel. Tel-Aviv. Pp. 229-274(Hebrew).

Testa P.E.1962 Il simbolismo dei Giudeo-Cristiani. Gerusalemme.

Tsafrir Y.1977 The Archaeological Survey in Judea, Samaria and

Golan as a Source of the History of Settlement inEretz Israel. In Between Hermon and Sinai: Memorialto Amnon. Jerusalem. Pp. 28-37 (Hebrew).

1984 Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the SecondTemple to the Muslim Conquest II: Archaeology andArt. Jerusalem (Hebrew).

1996 Some Notes on the Settlement and Demography ofPalestine in the Byzantine Period: The ArchaeologicalEvidence. In J.D. Seger (ed). Retrieving the Past:Essays on Archaeological Research and Methodologyin Honor of Gus W. Van Beek. Winona Lake, Indiana.Pp. 269-283.

Turnheim Y.1987 Architectural Decoration in Northern Eretz-Israel in

the Roman and Byzantine Periods. Ph.D. diss. Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew with English abstract).

Tzaferis V.1971 Christian Symbols of the 4th Century and the Church

Fathers. Ph.D. diss. The Hebrew University. Jerusalem.1983 The Excavations of Kursi – Gergesa (‘Atiqot 16).

Jerusalem.1998 Ten Years of Archaeological Research at Baniyas.

Qadmoniot 31:2-17. (Hebrew).Tzaferis V. and Bar-Lev S.1976 A Byzantine Inscription from Khisfin. ‘Atiqot 11:114-

115.Urman D.1995 Public Structures and Jewish Communities in the

Golan Heights. In D. Urman and P.V.M. Flesher (eds).Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis andArchaeological Discovery 2. Leiden. Pp. 373-617.

Villeneuve F.1985 L’économie rurale et la vie des compagnes dans le

Hauran antique (Ier siècle av. J.-C. – VIIe siècle ap.J.-C.) une approche. In. J.-M. Dentzer (ed). HauranI,1: Recherches archéologique sur la Syrie du Sud àl’époque hellénistique et romaine. Paris. Pp. 63-136.

1991 L’économie et les villages, de la fin de l’époquehellénistique à la fin de l’époque byzantine. In J.-M.Dentzer and J. Dentzer-Feydy (eds). Le djebel al-‘Arab: Histoire et patrimoine au Musée de Suweida\‘.Paris. Pp. 37-43.

1997 Économie et société des villages de la MontageHauranaise à l’époque romaine: L’apport desDonnées archéologiques. AAS 41:31-37.

Waddington W.H.1870 Inscriptions Grecques et Latines de la Syrie. Paris.Whitney W.D.1911 The Century Dictionary II. New York.Wuthnow H.1930 Die semitischen Menschennamen in griechischen

Inschriften und Papyri des vorderen Orients. Leipzig.Yeivin Z.1993 Korazim. NEAEHL:301-304.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

296

page 296 - empty

Rafid on the Golan A profile of a Late Roman and Byzantine village

Documents

Transcript of Rafid on the Golan A profile of a Late Roman and Byzantine village