Myers E. A.-The Ituraeans and The Roman Near East - Reassessing The Sources (Society For New Testament Studies Monograph Series) (2010) PDF

This page intentionally left blank
THE ITURAEANS AND THE ROMAN NEAR EAST
The Ituraeans, a little-known people of late first-century BCE Syria-

Palestine, are referred to briefly in a number of early texts, notably
Pliny, Strabo and Josephus, and the principality of Ituraea is men-
tioned in Luke 3.1.
There is, as yet, no consensus among archaeologists as to whether
certain artifacts should be attributed to the Ituraeans or not.
Overall, they form a mysterious backdrop to what we know of the
area in the time of Jesus, which remains obstinately obscure despite
the enormous amount of research in recent decades on the ‘histor-
ical Jesus’ and Greco-Roman Galilee.
Through reference to the early texts, modern scholarship has
contributed to a claim the Ituraeans were an Arab tribal group
known mainly for their recurrent brigandage. E. A. Myers chal-
lenges these presuppositions and suggests a reappraisal of previous
interpretations of these texts and the archaeological evidence to
present a more balanced portrait of this ancient people.
E . A . M Y E R S is an independent scholar and alumnus with the

Centre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto.
SOCIETY FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
MONOGRAPH SERIES
General editor: John M. Court
147
THE ITURAEANS AND THE ROMAN NEAR EAST
REASSESSING THE SOURCES
SOCIETY FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
MONOGRAPH SERIES
Recent titles in the series

125. Jesus’ Defeat of Death
PETER G. BOLT
126. From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica
COLIN R. NICHOLL
127. Matthew’s Trilogy of Parables
WESLEY G. OLMSTEAD
128. The People of God in the Apocalypse
STEPHEN PATTEMORE
129. The Exorcism Stories in Luke–Acts
TODD KLUTZ
130. Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic Reconciliation
TET-LIM N. YEE
131. Ancient Rhetoric and Paul’s Apology
FREDRICK J. LONG
132. Reconstructing Honor in Roman Philippi
JOSEPH H. HELLEMAN
133. Theological Hermeneutics and 1 Thessalonians
ANGUS PADDISON
134. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus
MARK A. CHANCEY
135. Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark
SUZANNE WATTS HENDERSON
136. The Judaean Poor and the Fourth Gospel
TIMOTHY J. M. LING
137. Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of Christ
MICHELLE LEE
138. The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of God
JOCELYN MCWHIRTER
139. The Torn Veil
DANIEL M. GURTNER
140. Discerning the Spirits
ANDRÉ MUNZINGER
141. The Sheep of the Fold
EDWARD W. KLINK III
142. The Psalms of Lament in Mark’s Passion
STEPHEN P. AHERNE-KROLL
143. Cosmology and Eschatology in Hebrews
KENNETH L. SCHENCK
144. The Speeches of Outsiders in Acts
OSVALDO PADILLA
145. The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and Acts
PATRICIA WALTERS
146. Geography and the Ascension Narrative in Acts
MATTHEW SLEEMAN
The Ituraeans and the Roman
Near East
Reassessing the Sources
E.A. MYERS
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,
São Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo
Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521518871
© E. A. Myers 2010
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the

provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part
may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published in print format 2010
ISBN-13 978-0-511-67541-6 eBook (NetLibrary)

ISBN-13 978-0-521-51887-1 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy

of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
To my grandchildren, the next generation
Brandon Charles Jeffery
Mitchell James Gordon
Morgan Paige
and
Kai Lancelot the ‘little one’
CONTENTS
List of illustrations page x

Preface xi
List of abbreviations xii
Introduction 1
1 Early scholarship 5
2 Literary texts 12
3 Archaeology 42
4 Coins 102
5 Inscriptions 115
6 Ituraeans and identity 133
7 The Ituraeans in history 147
8 Conclusions 169
Appendix 1: Two small finds and the Ituraeans 176

Appendix 2: Inscriptions relevant to the Roman
auxiliary units 180
Bibliography 186
Index 213
ix
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1 The Golan Heights as seen looking to the south

from the lower slopes of the Hermon (photograph
by the author) 43
Figure 2 Mount Hermon capped with snow as seen from
the northern reaches of the Golan (photograph by
the author) 68
Figure 3a Looking to the north-west from the northern
ridge of the upper cult enclosure, in the far
distance the northern Galilee and Huleh valley
with Lebanon beyond (photograph by the author) 72
Figure 3b Looking to the north-east from the upper cult
enclosure (photograph by the author) 73
Figure 4 Facing north and part of the upper cult enclosure
with Locus 17 in the foreground (photograph by
the author) 74
Figure 5a The two stelae in situ at Structure 7 (photograph
by the author) 75
Figure 5b The taller stele (photograph by the author) 76
Figure 5c The smaller stele (photograph by the author) 76
Figure 6 The remains of the temple at Majdal ‘Anjar
(photograph by Hanswulf Bloedhorn, September
1999) 91
Figure 7 Monimus, the Ituraean archer, from his
gravestone now in the Mainz Museum
(photograph by Jürgen Zangenberg) 116
x
PREFACE
This monograph is a result of research done for my PhD dissertation,

the initial challenge being an attempt to add to our scant knowledge
of a little-known people. In the process, however, it became obvious
that certain ideas formulated in antiquity and carried through to the
present were ideas repeated often without any significant change.
In general these assumptions tended to be negative and at times
disparaging, leaving the questions: how do we know, and why? This
monograph attempts to address this dilemma, to look again at the
few textual references mentioning Ituraeans, and to reassess what has
been said about them. In the end there may be, as yet, no clear answer
to any question, but it is hoped that in the questioning at least a new
and more perceptive view will be taken in future scholarship.
Once again I would like to say thank you to the committee for the
Canadian Friends of the École Biblique; their generosity in awarding
me a second grant to cover full residence at the École is much
appreciated. My time in Jerusalem in the summer of 2008 enabled
me to update my material and spend many productive hours in the
library. I would also like to thank Liz Bettles and Steve Mason, who
willingly read sections of the manuscript and provided useful com-
ments and suggestions. I am grateful for your efforts on my behalf.
The editorial staff at Cambridge University Press have been most
helpful in sorting out any questions regarding the technical side, and I
thank them all for guiding me through this process.
xi
ABBREVIATIONS
AAE Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

AB The Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities Jordan
AE Année épigraphique
AEHL The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land
AHL Archaeology and History in Lebanon
AJBA Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology
ANET James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Relating to the Old Testament
ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt
AO Archiv Orientální
ARAB Daniel David Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria
and Babylonia Vol. I
ArOr Ars Orientalis
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAAL Bulletin d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises
BAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeology Society
BAR Biblical Archaeological Review
BAR/IS British Archaeological Reports International Series
BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
BCH Bulletin de correspondance hellénique
BE Bulletin Épigraphie
BGU Berliner griechische Urkunden (Aegyptische Urkunden
aus den Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 1895)
BIFAO Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale
BMB Bulletin du Musée de Beyrouth
BMC Syria W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Galatia,
Cappadocia, and Syria
BMC Galatia W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Galatia,
Cappadocia, and Syria in the British Museum (1964)
xii
Abbreviations xiii
CAH Cambridge Ancient History

CANE Jack M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient
Near East
CIG Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum
CMO Collection de la Maison de l’Orient méditerranéen
CPL Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum
DaM Damaszener Mitteilungen
Daris Documenti per la storia dell’ esercito romano in Egitto
DCA Dictionary of Classical Antiquities
EAEHL Michael Avi-Yonah, ed., Encyclopedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land
ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel
FGH F. Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen
Historiker
Hist. Num. Barclay Head, Historia Numorum: A manual of
Greek Numismatics
HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology
HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual
IDB Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
IGL Philippe Le Bas and William Henry Waddington,
Inscriptions grecques et latines recueilles en Asie
Mineure
IGLS Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie
IGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes
ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae I–III
INJ Israel Numismatic Journal
JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of
Columbia University
JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society
JESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
JRASS Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series
xiv Abbreviations
JRS Journal of Roman Studies

JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian,
Hellenistic and Roman Period
JSPSS Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplement
Series
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
LCL Loeb Classical Library
MA Mediterranean Archaeology
MASupp Mediterranean Archaelogy Supplements
MUSJ Melanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph Beyrouth
NEAEHL Ephraim Stern, ed., New Encyclopaedia of
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land
OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary
OEANE Eric E. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of
Archaeology in the Near East
OED The Oxford English Dictionary
OGIS Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae
OLA Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta
OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica
PECS Richard Stillwell, ed., Princeton Encyclopaedia of
Classical Sites
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
PEFQSt Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement
PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani
PPUAES Publications of the Princeton University
Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 1904–1905
and 1906
QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in
Palestine
RA Reallexicon der Assyriologie
RB Revue biblique
RE Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und
Kirche
REG Revue des études grecques
RIU Romischen Inschriften Ungarens
RMD Margaret Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas
RMRP Roman Military Records on Papyri
SAA State Archives of Assyria
SB Sammelbuch griechischen Urkunden aus Aegypten
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
SCI Scripta Classica Israelica
Abbreviations xv
SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan

SIG Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Study Monograph Series
TA Tel Aviv
TAPA Transactions of the American Philological
Association
TDOT E. Johannes Botterweck et al., eds., Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament
Trans Transeuphratène
UF Ugarit-Forschungen
VT Vetus Testamentum
VTSupp Vetus Testamentum Supplement Series
WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen
Orientgesellschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen
Gesellschaft
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins
ZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Unless otherwise stated, all Greek and Latin authors quoted are from
the Loeb Classical Library.
INTRODUCTION
There is a certain elusiveness about history; always contingent on

those who both shape and interpret events, it is subject to accurate
and well-considered reporting or inaccuracy and distortion. In the
first century BCE people of the ancient Near East were witness to the
end of the Seleucid Empire, a consolidation of power and the rise of
the Roman Empire in the East. For the ancient world of Syria-
Palestine it was a period of inevitable change and accompanying
instability in the midst of which, of the many peoples of the affected
region, were the Ituraeans. Their involvement in and contribution to
events of this period is portrayed in the historical record as relatively
minor, the written sources that have survived to the present day being
minimal, and often only a fleeting mention. As a result, in part, the
Ituraeans remained largely obscure, occasionally acknowledged by
scholars when in reference to affairs recorded by the classical writers.
In recent history, from the nineteenth century to the present, it
became an accepted belief that Ituraeans were an Arab, unruly peo-
ple, usually associated with brigandage and robbery endemic to the
ancient world. A more detailed history of these enigmatic and almost
invisible people was yet to be written.
This book attempts to reassess the textual sources relevant to
Ituraeans, and how the sources are understood and interpreted in
modern scholarship. It will endeavour to place the Ituraeans within
the larger context of the ancient Near East as opposed to being
understood as a people subordinate to the greater Hellenistic and
Roman world of which they were an integral part. A brief history of
scholarship over the past century outlines important contributions
made by scholars to the study of ancient Syria-Palestine, and of
Ituraeans who were a part of that world. The source material is
divided into four main sections: literary texts, archaeology, coins
and inscriptions. Until recent scholarship began to enrich our knowl-
edge, it was only through texts of the classical writers that a people
1
2 The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East
called ‘Ituraean’ and a territory named ‘Ituraea’ were known to have

existed. There is a risk, however, in relying entirely upon these diverse
and varied texts, as often they reflect little more than the fundamental
aims of the original authors, and ever present in the mind of the reader
are questions of language and context, the author’s intended aim and
audience. Both past and present scholarship frequently reflects a
tendency to repeat early assumptions and ideas without adequate
consideration of their reliability and context. The problem is whether
to accept implicitly what the primary texts state, or attempt to under-
stand the text in light of the original author’s intent and circumstance.
Throughout the twentieth century archaeology has introduced a
new dimension to historical studies, and in particular with reference
to the Ituraeans. On this foundation modern scholarship has formu-
lated new and occasionally challenging conclusions regarding
Ituraean settlement. The inherent problems in formulating any com-
prehensive understanding of who the Ituraeans were, or even what
language they spoke, are yet to be fully resolved. Both the challenge
and the risk are in the interpretation: on what basis do we come to any
conclusion in respect to a site or to a text? Mentioned in the early texts
are three large geographical areas: the Biqa‘ Valley of present-day
Lebanon, the Anti-Lebanon including the Hermon massif, and the
region known today as the Golan Heights with its natural extension
into what is now southern Syria. Surveys and excavations in each of
these three regions, although varying in extent, have contributed in
recent years to research on their settlement history. Each region
presents its own unique geographical landscape in which, according
to the early writers and modern scholars, the Ituraeans were present in
the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Although certain spe-
cific sites have been identified as ‘Ituraean’, there is need to clarify
what archaeology can or cannot say about an ‘Ituraean’ occupation
of the land in relationship to the historical sources.
Among the primary sources, coins preserve evidence for an
Ituraean principality formed under rulers who bore the titles of
ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΕΩΣ, tetrarch and chief priest, both
titles reflecting the prevailing cultural milieu in which Ituraeans inter-
acted. In the late Hellenistic and early Roman period the title of
tetrarch indicates the rank of a minor prince whose political power
was less than that of a king. It was particularly popular in Roman Syria
with the term ‘chief priest’ occurring frequently in inscriptions from the
Roman provinces. In this context the translation of αρχίερεως
as ‘chief priest’ is more suitable, the term ‘high priest’ used more
Introduction 3
specifically for Jerusalem. As well as confirming the names and titles of

Ituraean rulers, the coins also provide a dating on which an Ituraean
historical chronology can be framed.
The corpus of Greek and Latin inscriptions offers a diverse and
occasionally enigmatic assemblage of information. The majority of
inscriptions that mention Ituraeans are concerned with Ituraean aux-
iliary units in the Roman military, the name for the unit being taken
from the original Ituraean tribe or tribal leader. Initially these first
units would have comprised Ituraean men recruited from their towns
and villages, along with Syrians and other eastern tribes known for
their skill in archery. These inscriptions offer a glimpse, albeit brief,
into lives of individual soldiers, but do not elucidate a specific
Ituraean identity. Along with archaeology, coins and the early texts,
the inscriptions provide information which necessitates a careful
interpretation within the context from which they originate.
Most scholars of the past twentieth century, along with many
today, assert that Ituraeans were of Arab origin, yet perhaps it is
time to challenge this preconception. It is important to emphasize
the need to examine how the early writers understood the terms
‘Arab’ and ‘Arabian’, and at the same time to acknowledge what
the Arabs in antiquity considered their own self-identity, if in fact
that can be understood. Determining ethnic identity through histor-
ical sources and archaeological finds is not without its obstacles and
often results in vague and misleading conclusions. The relevant
material presented here is meant to challenge some of these prior
presuppositions. Questioning what the primary texts say and how
they have been ascribed, how scholars both past and present have
used these texts, and how we might best understand the information
we have before us may lead to a new and enlightened perspective.
The information here presented is intended to examine the Ituraeans
in a neutral framework, reassess the texts in which they are men-
tioned, and discuss the archaeology in terms of what it may or may
not reveal of an Ituraean people. In the early years of scholarship
the various disciplines tended to be studied in isolation without
integrating other contiguous areas of research into the examination.
That approach is rapidly changing, and it is now understood that an
appreciation of archaeology can give substance to texts, while the
texts can provide context and historical precision to the archaeo-
logical evidence. Coins and inscriptions may reflect the religious and
cultural trends of a society sometimes not revealed in other features
of an archaeological excavation and often provide insight into
cultural and religious background. Together these various disci-

plines form a more complete picture, often if not always prompting
the researcher with further questions. The following chapters will
consider each of these topics in light of the Ituraeans, and in so
doing question some of the prevailing ideas regarding Ituraeans.
1
EARLY SCHOLARSHIP
First published in German in 1874, Emil Schürer’s Geschichte des

jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi includes a section summa-
rizing a history of the Ituraeans.1 Schürer documented all the then-
known primary textual sources, inscriptions, coins and Roman
military inscriptions relating to the Ituraean principality. An
English translation, now substantially revised and updated, and
reflecting the opinions and ideas of those who worked on the revision,
remains an important resource.2 Treatment of the sources is well
balanced and objective, and does not rest on unreasonable assump-
tions. This general historical outline with detailed references is a
fundamental tool in any initial research for the historical Ituraean.
Within a few years of Schürer’s first English publication between
1885 and 1891, George Adam Smith published The Historical
Geography of the Holy Land.3 As a clergyman he was particularly
interested in geography and its relationship to the history of Israel/
Palestine and the early church. Having made two trips to the Middle
East, the first in the spring of 1880 and the second in 1891 when he
travelled further into Syria, it was his first-hand experience of a new
and varied landscape that inspired him to seek a greater understand-
ing of the biblical and extra-biblical texts. Although this experience
tends to colour his writing, it still affords a particular insight into the
region, its geography, environment, climate and inhabitants. Though
the writing is often subjective and occasionally outdated, references to
early writers, surveyors and explorers of the region furnish a unique
resource. His conclusions regarding the Ituraeans are to be noted
when he states quite emphatically the ‘Ituraeans were Arabs’, describ-
ing them as ‘wild bordermen between Syria and Arabia’.4 Initially
Smith published an article in The Expositer, a journal dealing mainly
1
Schürer 1874, vol. I, ‘Geschichte von Chalcis, Ituräa und Abilene’.
2
Schürer 1973. 3 Smith 1902. 4 Smith 1974: 350–1.
5
with biblical and theological issues. Here Smith defends his position
on the geographical limits to the territory of the Trachones and
Ituraea, and at the same time discusses the territory of the Ituraeans
in light of Schürer’s evidence. Much of this discussion centres on the
reference to the territory of Ituraea as mentioned in Lk. 3.1.5
A more detailed and comprehensive study of Syria and surround-
ing regions which again concentrates on historical geography was
published under the auspices of the Haut-Commissariat de la
République Française en Syrie et au Liban in 1927. René Dussaud’s
monumental Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale
furnishes maps, an extensive bibliography, detailed footnotes with
references, and a well-documented text.6 As the title suggests,
Dussaud was primarily interested in the topography of ancient
Syria, including what is presently known as Lebanon, the Hauran
and the Golan. In chapter 6 he discusses the regions of the Hauran,
the Hermon and the Biqa‘, all important in relation to the Ituraeans.
The topographical maps are particularly useful as they include sites
modern maps often overlooked. Arabic names, when known, are
given for towns and villages, rivers, wadis and mountain ranges. As
a guide to understanding the landscape of Syria-Palestine in the late
Hellenistic and early Roman periods it is invaluable.
A history of Rome’s control in the Eastern territories is the focus of
A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (1937),
which makes extensive use of coins, inscriptional evidence and pri-
mary texts.7 In Jones’ view, the Ituraeans were one of two tribal
principalities, the other being the Nabataeans. The Ituraeans are
called an ‘Arab people’, and he suggests that they were ‘an unruly
people, given to brigandage’.8 These valuations represent still a
widely accepted view as will be demonstrated and challenged later.
Although Jones gives extensive reference material, his writing, in
general, tends to be subjective. In a previously published article on
the Ituraeans he outlines the development, urbanization and history
of an Ituraean principality which remains a basic reference point.9
Such early twentieth-century publications have been enhanced by
evidence from archaeological excavations, and the textual historical
record reinvigorated by renewed interest in the ancient world. In the
1980s Willi Schottroff expanded the study on Ituraeans through his
article ‘Die Ituräer’ by including a detailed listing of Ituraean
5 6
Smith 1894: 231–8. Dussaud 1927. 7 Jones 1937.
8 9
See Jones 1971: 254. Jones 1931–1932: 265–75.
Early scholarship 7
auxiliary units recorded on Roman military diplomata.10 His article

begins with a description of gravestones found in and around Mainz,
Germany, on which names of soldiers enlisted in the Ituraean auxil-
iary units are inscribed. Two of the gravestones each have a sculptural
relief of an auxiliary soldier. Here, for the first time, a picture is drawn
of an individual whom we might assume to be an Ituraean, yet even in
this context there is no way of proving it. Schottroff maintains the
previously accepted view that Ituraeans were Arabs, describing them
as Hellenized Arabs who gradually changed their lives from robbery
to farming.11 Schottroff’s recording of Ituraean alae and cohortes
auxiliary units in the Roman army lends yet another aspect to our
scant knowledge of an unknown people. His pioneering work on the
Ituraean auxiliary units forms a background to which others have
since added. This field of study on auxiliary units of the Roman
military is both varied and extensive, with significant contributions
made by numerous scholars. As it remains a separate field of scholar-
ship with a vast publication, only a few examples have been included
in the bibliography.
Since the 1970s and early 1980s increased activity in the archaeology
of the Galilee and the Golan, and in particular that conducted by
Shimon Dar and Moshe Hartal, has provoked substantial discussion
and raised further questions.12 Their identification of sites as Ituraean
based on a particular pottery type has given rise to a renewed interest in
the Ituraeans and their history. Some have challenged previous views
concerning the northern Galilee and its ethnic composition during the
period of Hasmonean expansion in the late second and early first
centuries BCE. Questions posed as a result of these enquiries have led
to a greater consideration of whether a people called Ituraean formed a
substantial part of the Galilean population, or whether they were
merely one of many groups that may or may not have inhabited the
region. The work by Dar and Hartal is significant, in part for the
archaeological record it has produced, but also in terms of their desig-
nation of settlement sites in the Hermon and northern Golan as
‘Ituraean’. To date it is the only archaeological evidence on which
such a claim rests, and it has yet to be fully understood and expanded.
Since their determination of ethnic identity rests on a pottery type, this
question is discussed in some detail in a following chapter.
Ethnicity is a more deceptive but significant issue arising from
pursuit of the Ituraeans, an issue which is often merely a matter of
10 11 12
Schottroff 1982: 125–52. Schottroff 1982: 145. Dar 1993; Hartal 1989.
perception. As one scholar framed it, ethnicity ‘can never be a single

water-tight category’.13 It is a common fallacy to assume ethnic
identity through names or language; in consideration of these issues
Michael Macdonald suggests that both language and artifact are
regrettably an insecure guide by which to determine the ethnic iden-
tity of a people.14 There are, in fact, inherent dangers in so doing.
Many scholars assume the Ituraeans were Arabs; indeed, this is the
standard and most widely accepted view. This is clearly evident in one
publication, where it is confidently stated the Ituraeans were of
Arabian stock and spoke Aramaic.15 From what little evidence we
have in order to support either part of this statement, we must first ask
the question, how do we know? There is no firm evidence upon which
such statements can be supported; we can merely speculate. These
misconceptions endure, however, where in a recently published travel
book the Ituraeans are described as being of Arabian origin and
Aramaic speaking.16 Unfortunately, there is nothing in the primary
sources either to confirm or negate such statements with confidence,
and only the essential ideas implied are misleading. A society that
speaks Aramaic is not necessarily Arab; conversely Arabs do not
necessarily speak Aramaic. These statements are made even more
confusing by the absence of any clear definition of the term ‘Arab’.
The question as to whether Ituraeans were Arab involves an under-
standing, first, of what the word ‘Arab’ implied in antiquity and,
second, how the term is understood today. A work which offers a
highly detailed history of the Arabs and attempts to understand this
complex term is a recent publication by Jan Retsö.17 In his book
Retsö presents a vast amount of detail with references to literary,
historical and archaeological sources, along with an extensive bib-
liography and footnotes. This follows earlier works by Israel Eph‘al
and Irfan Shahid, both writing specifically about Arabs and their
place within the history of the ancient Near East.18 In a number of
articles, Michael Macdonald has published some of the most signifi-
cant work regarding the Arabs. With his expertise in Semitic lan-
guages, and in particular Ancient North Arabian (of which Safaitic is
only one), along with a clear understanding of the historical sources
and archaeological results, Macdonald’s research offers a rich and
enlightening resource for any modern scholar.19
13
Macdonald 1998: 182. 14 Macdonald 1999: 256. 15 Hitti 1957b: 171.
16
Mannheim 2001: 581. 17 Retsö 2003. 18 Eph‘al 1984 and Shahid 1984.
19
See bibliography for complete listing.
Early scholarship 9
Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship has tended to view

the ancient Near East from a western classicist point of view often,
but not always, with the result that the ancient Semitic world is
coloured by an overlay of Greek and Roman dress. The drama of
the classical world simply obscured the Semitic roots of Syria-
Palestine. Eph‘al pointed to a lack of literary documentation for the
Persian period which he describes as a ‘veritable dark age’.20 This
‘dark age’ is no longer, as the wealth of epigraphic sources which have
come to light in recent years encouraged scholars to rethink previous
assumptions relating to the years before Alexander’s conquest of
Syria-Palestine. Archaeological finds of this past century support
the ‘abundant evidence of considerable Greek influence in Palestine
before the advent of Alexander the Great’, which has led scholars to
recognize the even greater impact and influence of the Persian Empire
upon the Near East.21 Significant also is a greater discernment for
comprehending the ancient Near East in terms of its long history and
the immense diversity in which East and West met and at times co-
existed. Questioning these earlier preconceptions, in which the vari-
ous stages of Near Eastern history were treated as separate and often
unrelated events, are Susan Sherwin-White and Amélie Kuhrt, who
focus mainly on contact between the Greek world and the non-Greek
world of what became the Seleucid Empire. Their purpose is to
emphasize this world as a ‘multiplicity of cultures’, in which the
indigenous peoples maintained their own cultures and traditions
while absorbing and reinterpreting those of the Persian, Hellenistic
and Roman worlds.22 As a classical scholar, Fergus Millar’s emphasis
on the frequency of Greek language in the inscriptional evidence from
Syria-Palestine seems to contrast with this way of thinking.23 As a
result, Millar provides a much less comprehensive understanding of
the nature of the Semitic world upon which the Greek and Latin
language was imposed. In describing the hinterland of the Lebanon
and Anti-Lebanon, he points to the lack of much inscriptional evi-
dence, and so declares this region to be ‘almost wholly obscure’, with
any details that might remain in the texts ‘not worth pursuing’.24 If
such a strict standard is to be used, possible insights into the indige-
nous populations are severely reduced.
How we approach and understand the historical record and its
nature, and what biases we bring to any interpretation, is not without
20
Eph‘al 1998: 107. 21 Eph‘al 1998: 118.
22
Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 144. 23 Millar 1993. 24
Millar 1993: 273–4.
its inherent complexities. In his publication on the Roman East,

Warwick Ball questions the ways in which the Roman Empire of
the East is frequently perceived. Early in his book he criticizes Millar
for constantly labouring on the lack of native character in the Near
East, and suggests that the ‘Romans in the East are almost universally
viewed from an overlay of western cultural bias’.25 In support of his
thesis, Ball considers the many works dealing with the Roman East,
and in particular those usually written by the classicists whom Ball
describes as being ‘necessarily Eurocentric’.26 Ball is critical of schol-
arship which has continued to interpret and understand the East, and
in particular the Roman East, from a Western classicist viewpoint. If
in an appreciation of the Seleucid Empire these biases exist (Kuhrt
and Sherwin-White would probably agree), then scholars today must
be aware of these along with any modern biases they might bring to
the interpretation of material. The Ituraeans would have experienced
both Seleucid and Roman, and possibly Achaemenid, rule. Yet, in
attempting to gain an understanding of who the Ituraeans were as a
people, it is also necessary that the researcher place them within the
Semitic world they inhabited. What the Semitic world in turn
imprinted onto the Seleucid and Roman empires is frequently over-
looked in preference to a Greco-Roman view.
Ball attempts to raise another important issue of terminology in his
discussion on differences between the use of such terms as ‘Greek’ and
‘Macedonian’ or ‘Greco-Roman’, where each can be a source of
cultural confusion. The question becomes even more critical with
the word ‘Arab’, and Ball’s comment here is telling: ‘History’s atti-
tudes to the Bedouin Arab range from uncivilised barbarians of the
desert fringes, constantly threatening the civilisation of the Fertile
Crescent, to the European Romantic era’s adulation of the Bedouin
as the ultimate embodiment of nobility and environmental har-
mony.’27 There is certainly some truth to this statement, as such
attitudes have coloured perceptions and consequent ideas relative to
Arabs down to the present. How the term ‘Arab’ was perceived in
antiquity, and how the word is presently used when describing
Ituraeans, is an issue of considerable importance to any possible
appreciation of both.
Two recent publications add to the growing body of scholarship
dealing with ancient Syria-Palestine. First is the publication, in
French, of Maurice Sartre’s history of greater Syria from the time
25 26 27
Ball 2000: 2. Ball 2000: 2. Ball 2000: 32.
Early scholarship 11
of Alexander’s arrival to the rule of Queen Zenobia.28 At over a

thousand pages it provides much information on an important sub-
ject, though his approach to the Ituraeans follows a conservative,
traditional one in which they are involved in banditry and eventually
lose their principality to the Herodian dynasty. Kevin Butcher’s
publication is a wide-ranging history of ancient Syria, from its annex-
ation by Pompey to the Muslim conquest in the seventh century CE.29
Amply illustrated with excellent drawings and photos, the book offers
insight into the history, geography, economy and politics of Roman
Syria in the Near East, as well as acknowledging the culture, religion
and economic background of the people who inhabited this vast
region. Accepting the difficulties inherent in any discussion of the
Roman Near East, Butcher emphasizes the need for caution when
attempting to define or understand the past, especially when using
modern terminology. The age-old problem of perception, of how a
region is best understood, is expressed as being neither East nor West,
since both are ‘identities projected on to the past’.30 Butcher argues
that those who lived throughout this long chronological period in
such a vast and diverse landscape were ‘active participants in a net-
work of social relations, imperial and otherwise, with a capacity for
apportioning and using cultural symbols of different origin for their
own ends’.31 Here Butcher expresses a well-considered concept of a
region, where only by acknowledging the multiplicity of layers can we
begin to understand the inhabitants. Although brief, in a section
referring to Ituraeans at the time of final Seleucid rule, he suggests
they became a serious threat to the cities along the coast during the
period of Pompey’s annexation of the land.
Although scholars have discussed primary source material in pre-
vious works – texts, inscriptions, coins, and archaeology – it is per-
haps incumbent upon us to reassess this whole range of available
information. This is becoming more apparent in the field of archae-
ology, where recent excavations have enriched the available informa-
tion, and occasionally changed prior assumptions. The approach to
historical material for the ancient Near East is invigorated under new
direction, with a now conscious attempt to understand it in its broad-
est perspective. As scholarship is an ongoing process, the future holds
much to explore and learn afresh in regard to Ituraeans, and to better
understand their place in the historical record.
28
Sartre 2001. It is now available in English, see Sartre 2005.
29
Butcher 2003b: 17. 30 Butcher 2003b: 17. 31 Butcher 2003b: 17.
2
LITERARY TEXTS
For many years the only basis on which scholars were able to attest to
the existence and reality of the Ituraeans, and their principality
known as Ituraea, was the early textual material. Based on the
experience and preconceptions of the early writers, this historical/
literary material has been subject to various interpretations by mod-
ern scholars. Analogous to this was, for many scholars, a long-
accepted approach when dealing with the ancient Near East, to
look for ‘something Greek – almost to the exclusion of the existing
cultures’.1 How do we look to the ancient Near East without impos-
ing preconceived ideas or misinterpreting the primary source mate-
rial? A brief mention by Strabo, and more frequent mention by
Josephus, reveal in their writings the existence of a people named
Ituraean. More frequently than not this led scholars to make assump-
tions about a relatively unknown people in which they are consis-
tently viewed within a negative framework. In one instance Ituraeans
are considered as ‘belligerent’, in another as ‘wild border-men
between Syria and Arabia’.2 In an attempt to address this fundamen-
tal misconception, and at the same time to help bring about a more
objective interpretation, this textual material will be reconsidered.
Recent scholarship has challenged the way we have, in the past,
viewed the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world, yet, in
spite of this enhancement, many outdated and ill-conceived ideas still
prevail.
The Greek and Latin writers from antiquity left us with a wealth of
information, occasional first-hand experience of travels to foreign
lands, and accounts of witnesses to significant events. They do, how-
ever, frequently illustrate an author’s prejudice, or personal interpre-
tation of events, which often reflects a bias in attitude toward other
1
Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 141.
2
The first quote is Knauf 1998: 275; the second is Smith 1974: 544.
12
Literary texts 13
cultures. Compounding this are difficulties in translation of text,

occasionally with our own inability to understand the nuances in
the language of the author; what does the writer mean and why is
this expressed in such a way? For example, caution is required in
reading Strabo when he describes a landscape he has not visited, or
when Josephus conveys information on events relied on through other
sources. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholarship often
reflected the colonial/imperialistic attitudes of western culture, clearly
illustrated in one comment made in reference to Ituraeans, where they
are described as ‘another backward people of Syria’.3 Such a negative
stereotype is difficult to dispel, with recent scholarship sometimes
strengthening such an aspect as illustrated in the following statement:
‘One aspect of the Ituraean lifestyle which was their hallmark else-
where, namely brigandage, is perhaps the closest that they came to
leaving a direct trace of their ongoing presence in Galilee and its
environs.’4 Elsewhere, in making a comparison to another group the
author is more explicit: ‘the Nabataeans seem to have gained their
wealth by trading, whereas the Ituraeans preferred robbing’.5 Such
views are not uncommon among present scholarship, with one
scholar seeing the Ituraean tribe as essentially being ‘infamous for
its ferocity’.6 It is necessary to reassess these primary texts and
attempt to understand both the writer’s intent and the context within
which the text was written. Concurrent, as emphasized elsewhere, is
‘understanding the evidence in some plausible and comprehensive
way’ as well as ‘admitting disagreement among interpreters’ to be
one of the necessary stages we must enter into.7
Eupolemus
According to Schürer the earliest mention of Ituraeans in the Greek
sources comes from the Greek/Jewish historian Eupolemus who com-
pleted his History of the Jews in 158 BCE. He is mentioned in both 1
and 2 Maccabees as an ambassador to Rome for Judas Maccabaeus
in 161 BCE.8 Recorded in his writings, of which only fragments
remain, the Ituraeans are listed as being one among several groups
whom David subdued: στρατευ̑σαι δ’ αυτὸν καὶ ἐπὶ Ἰδουμαίους καὶ
᾽Αμμανίτας καὶ Μωαβίτας καὶ Ἰτουραίους καὶ Ναβαταίους καὶ
3
Jones 1931–1932: 265. 4 Freyne 2001: 207. 5 Knauf 1998: 273.
6
Knauf 1992: 583–4. 7 Mason 1998: 12.
8
Schürer 1973: 561–2; 1 Macc. 8.17 and 2 Macc. 4.11.
Ναβδαίους9 (‘he also made expeditions against the Edomites, the

Ammonites, and the Moabites, and Ituraeans, and Nabataeans, and
Nabdaeans’).10 This fragmentary text includes the names of several
tribes, but notably without reference to Arabians, although
Eupolemus may well have understood these tribal groups as Arab,
it being a common assumption in antiquity. Wacholder, in his study
on the works of Eupolemus, suggests the inclusion of Nabataeans and
Ituraeans to be noteworthy, and describes the Ituraeans as ‘a preda-
tory Arab tribe, which occupied the Lebanon and the Hermon moun-
tains whose capital Heliopolis (modern Baalbek) was in Chalcis’.11 It
is difficult to understand what Wacholder is implying here; there
appears to be an assumption that Heliopolis is the capital of the
Ituraean kingdom, which would in fact clearly contradict Strabo’s
statement (Geog. 16.2.18) that Chalcis is the acropolis of the Massyas
Plain. Wacholder considers that the inclusion of both Nabataeans
and Ituraeans in the list of Eupolemus might be significant because at
the time these tribes, like the Jews, were attempting to gain independ-
ence from their Seleucid rulers. Eupolemus writes of the tenth century
BCE but includes peoples he is familiar with from the second century
BCE, and at the same time there is an idealization of David as ‘a
perfect king’.12 While Eupolemus may be the earliest written refer-
ence in Greek for Ituraeans, he tends to reflect his Jewish Hellenistic
background and milieu, and provides little for any further under-
standing of the Ituraeans.
In a discussion on the southern Aramaean kingdom of Soba (Greek
Σούβα) in the Biqa‘ valley, Lipiński suggests that Eupolemus, in his
list of David’s enemies, substituted Ituraeans for the biblical Soba.
The etymology of Soba links it to the meaning of ‘swamp land’, which
according to Lipiński seems to indicate the historical centre of Soba
as ‘close to the ancient marshy lake of the Biqa‘ valley and that Soba
may have designated a region before becoming a city name’.13 It
could be that by the early years of the tenth century BCE the
Aramaean kingdom of Soba was in existence within the Biqa‘ valley,
although the origins of Aramaean settlement in this region are still
largely unknown.14 The most important site in this area of the south-
ern Biqa‘ valley is Kamid el-Loz, ancient Kumidi, which was
destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Recently renewed
9
Mras 1954: 538 = FGH 723 F2, p. 673 for the Greek text.
10
Gifford 1903: 447 for the translation. 11 Wacholder 1974: 134.
12
Wacholder 1974: 148. 13 Lipiński 2000: 320. 14 Lipiński 2000: 330.
Literary texts 15
excavations have begun to provide more information on its long

history of settlement after this destruction, and support its importance
during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Letters sent by the
governor of the Neo-Assyrian province in the eighth century BCE to
King Sargon II reflect the close relations between the Arabs and the
region of Soba. It is in this light that we might speculate on the
possibility of Ituraean tribes being descended from the Aramaeans
who had settled within this kingdom. While the list Eupolemus pro-
vides gives us no clear evidence as to whom he understood the
Ituraeans to be, a separate tribal group of Arabs or possibly
Aramaeans, Schürer merely points to Eupolemus as making the ear-
liest reference in Greek, and offers no further comment.
Strabo
Strabo, the late-first-century BCE historian and geographer,
describes the Ituraeans as an identifiable group with lands they
inhabit specifically mentioned. In the Geography, the second of his
two major works, he locates the Ituraean principality within the
Massyas Plain, today known as the Biqa‘ valley of modern
Lebanon. The name of the first Ituraean ruler, and hints of the
Ituraeans’ reputation as a people, are provided in two brief passages:
and at no great distance, also, were Heliopolis and Chalcis,
which latter was subject to Ptolemaeus the son of Mennaeus,
who possessed Massyas and the mountainous country of the
Ituraeans (16.2.10).
The beginning of this plain is the Laodiceia near Libanus.
Now all the mountainous parts are held by Ituraeans and
Arabians, all of whom are robbers (κακου̑ργοι πάντες), but
the people in the plains are farmers (16.2.18).
The ancient name Massyas is, according to Lipiński, a possible tran-
scription of the Semitic name meaning ‘something like marsh’, deriv-
ing from the same root verb found in Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic,
meaning ‘to soak in water’.15 Strabo makes a clear distinction
between Ituraeans and Arabians, possibly implying that there were
at least two distinct groups of people living within the mountains of
the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, and the valley or plain below. There
15
Lipiński 2000: 307.
is general agreement that Strabo used the writings of Posidonius,

along with other sources particularly in Geography 16. Though he
travelled widely and wrote about a great many places, Strabo did not
visit either Syria or Palestine during his travels, therefore any infor-
mation he provides concerning the hinterland of Syria must be taken
as second-hand. Strabo is unclear about who the Arabians were; for
the Greeks they were usually the people who dwelt in regions to the
east and south of the Anti-Lebanon mountains. In this respect per-
haps we can be reminded of Macadam’s assessment of Strabo’s
knowledge of Syrian geography, on which he considers it to be gen-
erally poor.16 Whether Strabo knew the landscape personally or not,
he provides some interesting and detailed information on the people
and their customs. In an earlier passage he describes parts of
Mesopotamia towards the south as being inhabited by ‘Arabian
Scenitae, a tribe of brigands (ληστρικοι) and shepherds, who readily
move from one place to another when pasture and booty fail them’
(16.1.26). Such a statement may well reflect the situation in antiquity,
and as Strabo understood it, however, modern scholarship has
unfortunately often taken such statements as absolute and reinforced
a negative stereotype of the nomad. Macdonald sees this pattern in
modern works on the Roman period and Late Antiquity, where the
terms ‘Arab’, ‘Arabic speaker’ and ‘nomad’ have often been ‘treated
as synonymous’.17 It quickly becomes a standard, modern interpre-
tation for the use of the term, derived uncritically from the ancient
sources. That Strabo names both Ituraeans and Arabians is signifi-
cant; he at least hints at the possibility the Ituraeans are distinct from
Arabians, although without any further detail provided. Whether or
not there was a difference between these two groups we can only
speculate, except to lean on the side of the inevitable question: why
mention both if there was no distinction?
Geographical locations for Arabs were many: by the beginning of
the Hellenistic period there were six different regions identified by the
Greeks as referring to Arabia. One of the six was the region of the
Anti-Lebanon. The list covers a large geographical area, diverse and
varied in both language and culture, but all inhabitants were consid-
ered to be Arabians. In Book 16.3.1 Strabo describes the ‘whole of
Arabia’ as being ‘above Judaea and Coele Syria, as far as Babylonia
and the river country of the Euphrates towards the south’. The
Arabians are known to be ‘not very good warriors even on land’
16 17
Macadam 1986: 48. Macdonald 1998: 179.
Literary texts 17
(16.4.23), appearing to be less civilized than the Syrians but ‘having

governments that are better organized [than the Scenitae]’ (16.2.11).
Although still considered ‘Arabian’, the Scenitae are ‘tent dwellers’
who are ‘divided off into small sovereignties and live in tracts that are
barren for want of water’ (16.3.1). In an earlier passage mentioning
‘parts of Mesopotamia’, Strabo appears to understand the Arabian
Scenitae as ‘a tribe of brigands and shepherds, who readily move from
one place to another when pasture and booty fail them. Accordingly,
the people who live alongside the mountains are harassed not only by
the Scenitae, but also by the Armenians, who are situated above them
and, through their might, oppress them’ (16.1.26). Continuing in the
following passage, Strabo compares two caravan trade routes used by
merchants, one crossing the Syrian desert, the other a much shorter
route following the Euphrates. Travellers on either route would be
expected to pay tribute; for those travelling the more difficult route
across the desert it was exacted by the Scenitae, and for those taking
the shorter, less risky route along the river, it was exacted by the local
chieftains. There was no common standard of tribute set, as each
group determined its own depending on particular circumstances. As
the crossing of the desert took much longer (according to Strabo
twenty-five days), water would be a fundamental requirement for
the merchants.
Essentially Strabo’s information is of the activity of merchants
travelling varying routes, and dealing with an ever-changing payment
in tribute, its arbitrariness due to ‘peoples that are self-willed’ (16. 1.
27), making it impossible for a common standard of tribute to be set.
It is not unlikely that raiding also occurred; the caravans were always
vulnerable to such activity, but as Strabo makes no direct mention in
this passage it is perhaps too hasty to assume changes only as a result
of banditry. Furthermore, it is evident that Strabo has a mixed view as
to who the Arabians/Scenitae are: they are at the same time ‘brigands
and shepherds’ (16.1.26) as well as ‘peaceful and moderate toward
travellers’ (16.1.27). The Ituraeans remain a separate group from
Strabo’s general description of the Arabians and are only mentioned
in relationship to the geographical region of the Massyas Plain.18
Strabo provides information in terms of the Arabians: tribal names,
habitat, livelihood and customs. However, the ethnicity that lies
behind the terms cannot be discerned, nor can we know how the
people themselves would have understood their own identity.
18
Strabo, Geog. 16.3.1–16.4.27.
Arabs/Arabians
At this juncture it is worth clarifying the use of the term ‘Arab’, how it
was used and understood in antiquity, and how it is reflected in
present discourse, especially in light of today’s highly charged polit-
ical implications. It first occurs in the Assyrian Annals of the ninth
century BCE, used mainly in reference to nomadic peoples living in
eastern and southern Syria and northern Arabia. In the present
twenty-first century the term ‘Arab’ comes laden with ethnic, histor-
ical and modern political detritus, with the result that it is often
difficult to define, and even more so when used in the context of
antiquity. What do present-day scholars mean when they state that
Ituraeans were Arabs? Do they use the term within its ancient context,
or is it used in a modern sense? The difficulties are expressed in one
comment in which the term ‘Arab’ is seen to trigger erroneous
assumptions in the modern mind, including a readiness to accept
the stereotypical image of the Arab as a nomad, mounted on a
camel. Unfortunately this has been a dominant feature of Western
thinking about the Middle East from antiquity to the present.19 The
usual picture lacks any recognition of Arab diversity, whether in
language, lifestyle or the various geographical locations in which
they lived. The stereotype of the nomad as a ‘constant wanderer’,
and an ‘incorrigible brigand and pillager, incurably violent’ was
formed first within the written records of the Assyrian and
Babylonian official documents, and contained in most of the biblical
prophecies.20 These documents express the opinions of those who
encountered the Arabs (or those who are referred to as Arab), and
not of the Arabs themselves.
The concept of ‘Arabia’ and by association ‘Arabians’ as it has
come down through the historical sources was the name the Greeks
and others gave to any place where ‘Arabs’ were found. The
Assyrians considered the Arabians as merely inhabitants of ‘the
land of the Arabians’, a vague and undefined region of nomadic
peoples whom they encountered through trade and commerce in
widely differing regions. However, as Macdonald emphasizes, it
‘did not prevent them from regarding each of these regions as
“Arabia”, though inevitably this led to a certain amount of
19
Macdonald 2003: 308; see also Macdonald 2001: 1–46.
20
Macdonald 1995: 1359.
Literary texts 19
confusion’.21 It remains unclear as to ‘how the word “Arabian” was

defined by those who used it in antiquity’, so assumptions made in
modern scholarship in any attempt to understand or define ‘Arabian’
or ‘Arab’ still require careful consideration.22
In a third-century CE Greek epitaph (IGR I 839) inscribed on a
gravestone, a man describes himself as an ‘Arab of the city of
Septimia of Kanōtha’. It is likely that this brief and enigmatic passage
is the only expression of ‘Arab’ as a self-designation before the sixth
century CE, and in Macdonald’s opinion any application of ‘Arab/
Arabians’ to groups before this period may well be misleading or
incorrect.23 In part, the difficulty in providing the term ‘Arab’ with an
identity or ethnicity is increased by the fact that, until the sixth
century CE, the Arabic language was purely oral. If it became at all
necessary to write it down, the script was borrowed from another
language. The result was that Arabic speakers of antiquity became all
but invisible in the written records.24 Recent scholarship is now
beginning to revise long-held attitudes that portray both the nomad
and the mountain peoples in consistently negative terms, although
unfortunately this view has not disappeared entirely. It is well worth
remembering Macdonald’s statement:
Indeed for several centuries after they first encountered them,
the Greek image of the ‘Arab’ was that of a rich merchant
not a nomadic herdsman. This suggests that we should dis-
card the stereotypical pictures which have filled the pages of
political and literary works since the Assyrians, and refuse to
make assumptions about the way-of-life or geographical
origins of populations, simply on the basis of a term ‘Arab’
which is at present indefinable, but in fact seems to have
nothing to do with how you live or where you are from.25
In discussing the many polities existing on the fringes of the Syrian
desert, Hoyland reflects on how both Greco-Roman writers and
modern scholars often describe these groups as Arab, and within
these groups are included the Ituraeans around Mt Lebanon. In
general, he considers that lack of evidence prevents any firm state-
ment to confirm or refute the Arab character of these groups.26
21
Macdonald 2001: 1–2. 22 Macdonald 2001: 2.
23
Macdonald 2003: 304 and fn. 3. 24 Macdonald 2003: 304–5.
25
Macdonald 2003: 318. 26 Hoyland 2001: 69.
Apart from the few brief references already discussed, Strabo has
nothing further to say on the Ituraeans. What little he does say,
however, must be considered seriously in the light of his distinction
between the Ituraeans and the Arabians. This distinction leads one to
think, however speculatively, that he must have understood the
Ituraeans to be other than Arabians. Those called Arabians are
from lands called Arabia, presumably those regions to the east and
south of the Anti-Lebanon. The Ituraeans are described as mountain
dwellers, and it would seem safe to conclude that some were brigands,
although not necessarily all. For modern scholarship to so readily
accept that Strabo believed Ituraeans to be Arab is speculative and
unverifiable.
Strabo and brigands/robbers

At the same time that we learn of two distinct groups, Strabo also
speaks of the mountainous parts being held by Ituraeans and
Arabians ‘all of whom are robbers’ (16.2.18). In this passage Strabo
uses the Greek κακου̑ργοι to describe the Ituraeans, which Jones
(LCL) translates as ‘robbers’, indicating they are different and some-
how separate from the Arabian Scenitae who are named ‘brigands’ in
16.1.28, using the Greek ληστρικοί. The implication that all
Ituraeans were ‘robbers’ has been assumed by most scholars while
citing the above passage 16.2.18. According to Liddell and Scott,
κακουργέω has the meaning of ‘do evil, work wickedness; to cheat,
act badly’.27 One can only speculate as to why Strabo uses two
different words, apart from his own emphasis on how he viewed
each group and what he thought personally about them.
There is an aura of personal feeling in describing someone as being
wicked, or doing evil. Did Strabo merely repeat what others reported
to him, or did he in fact see these brigands as ‘doing evil’? It is
impossible to know, except that Strabo once again differentiates
between Arabians and Ituraeans. The more common word for rob-
bery, piracy, plunderering and brigandry, and used frequently by
Josephus, is λῃστεία (Latin latrocinium). Mason contends that
Josephus’ use of the Greek λῃστεία is entirely in keeping with con-
temporary Roman usage.28 Strabo, however, uses λῃστεία on only
four occasions in speaking of brigands (Geog. 4.6.6; 4.6.8–9; 15.3.4–5;
27 28
Liddell & Scott 1994; see also Rengstorf 1975, II. Mason 2001: 31.
Literary texts 21
16.1.24), and never in reference to Ituraeans where he uses the cognate

κακουργοι. Brigandage is defined as ‘unlawful use of personal vio-
lence to maraud land’, and was ‘not condemned wholesale by the
Classical Greeks’, whereas by the Hellenistic and Roman periods this
situation had changed radically.29 Such activities were clearly a threat
to the settled populations, and Strabo obviously sees these groups as
such. Where we might question Strabo at this point is in taking too
literally that ‘all’ Ituraeans were involved in such activity.
It is important to consider Strabo’s aim in writing the Geography
as he was primarily concerned with the inhabited world as it had
been shaped by the efforts of generations of civilizing people. For
Strabo, the ‘desert zones without important urban settlements and
agriculture are backward regions, and a nomadic way of life is
always a sign of a low level of civilization’.30 This attitude is
reflected in Strabo’s statement: ‘These Scenitae are similar to the
nomads in Mesopotamia. And it is always the case that the peoples
are more civilised in proportion to their proximity to the Syrians,
and that the Arabians and Scenitae are less so’ (16.2.11). These
tribes then seem to represent disorder for Strabo, and as they also
appear to have a nomadic lifestyle would undoubtedly be perceived
as uncivilized. Added to the inherent difficulties in understanding
Strabo’s terminology and meaning in reference to ‘Arab/Arabians’
and ‘robber/brigand’ is his reliance on earlier written sources, as well
as the experiences of friends and contemporaries. It is agreed among
scholars that he used Posidonius, although it has been argued it is
almost impossible that Strabo knew Posidonius personally. Strabo
did not visit either Syria or Palestine during his travels, and his
descriptions of areas and regions he did not know first-hand were
phrased in terms peculiar to his own time. Later writers who accep-
ted Strabo’s account considered all inhabitants of the Massyas Plain
to be robbers or criminals, then assumed they were Ituraeans.
Strabo’s information on these tribes is far more negative than
positive, and his second-hand descriptions have introduced a stereo-
type that continues to the present. In the Greco-Roman tradition,
Arabs were generally regarded as plunderers, the prejudice being
maintained into the modern era.31 It would seem that Strabo, to a
large extent, reflects the common view from his contemporaries as
much as anything.
29
OCD: 260–1. 30
Engels 2003: 3. 31
Graf 1997.
Apuleius and the later writers

Almost two centuries later, Apuleius mentions both Ituraeans and
Arabs in his description of India:
Far away it lies, beyond the learned Egyptians, beyond the
superstitious Jews and the merchants of Nabataea, beyond
the children of Arsaces in their long flowing robes, the
Ituraeans to whom earth gives but scanty harvest, and the
Arabs, whose perfumes are their wealth (Florida 6).32
Here are two brief allusions, one to a landscape the Ituraeans inhabit
producing nothing but ‘scanty harvest’, suggesting a harsh environ-
ment; the second to prosperous caravan traders moving north from
the southern Arabian lands with their incense and other exotics.
During the siege of Tyre, Alexander was forced to confront the
native population, whom Quintus Curtius Rufus refers to in quite
generalized terms:
To meet this the Tyrians brought the boats to the shore, too
far away to be seen by the enemy, and landing soldiers,
butchered those who were carrying rocks. On Mt. Libanus
also the peasants of the Arabians attacked the Macedonians
when they were in disorder, killed about thirty, and took a
smaller number of prisoners (History of Alexander 4. 2.24).
These lines led Dar to propose that the Macedonians were confronted
with Ituraean tribes – the peasants of the Arabians – seeing them as
‘well established in the region’ by the fourth century BCE.33 Plutarch
supports Curtius Rufus in that he also mentions Arabians as being the
perpetrators: ‘In the midst of this siege Alexander led a force against
the Arabian tribes who inhabit the mountains of the Anti-Lebanon’
(Lives Alexander 24), yet it is important to recognize that neither
writer specifically mentions Ituraeans, only the Arabians. Arrian, in
his account of Alexander’s conquest, merely implies it without relat-
ing any confrontation: ‘While his engines were being fitted together,
and his ships were being equipped for the attack and for trying the
issue of a naval battle, Alexander with some of the cavalry squadrons,
the Agrianes, and the archers, marched toward Arabia to the moun-
tain called Antilibanus’ (Anabasis of Alexander 2.20.4).
32 33
Stern 1974–1984, II: 204–5. Dar 1993b: 15.
Literary texts 23
Curtius Rufus and Plutarch both write of Arabians or Arabian

tribes, a loosely defined term, whereas Arrian refers only to a geo-
graphical location, Arabia and the Anti-Lebanon mountains. These
classical writers reflect the predominant view in antiquity that Arabia
is toward the east, those places in which Arabians are found to be
living, repeating the circular argument previously mentioned.
Significantly, there is no direct mention of Ituraeans in any of these
statements. None of the Latin historians of the first century CE make
the claim that Ituraeans are Arabians, even though Dar seems con-
vinced they are well established in the region at this time. He reasons
that it would be a logical assumption for Ituraean tribes to have
received permission from the Persians who controlled the region to
live in this mountainous territory. Appealing to the same sources,
Freyne suggests that these passages indicate the possibility that
‘Ituraeans had been able to gain a permanent foothold in the Biqa‘
region as early as the Persian period, since we hear of Arabs in the
region of the anti-Lebanon harassing Alexander during his campaign
against Tyre in 333 BC’.34 There is no direct evidence to establish a
link connecting the Arabs mentioned by Curtius Rufus and Plutarch
with the Ituraeans of the Biqa‘. As emphasized by one scholar, the
claim that Arabs who fought Alexander were Ituraeans ‘cannot be
established on the basis of the literary sources’.35 This is perhaps the
crucial point, and by determining that they were Arabs we remain
closed to other possibilities.
Macdonald clearly demonstrates that the classical writers use the
term Arabia/Arabians in a general sense, sometimes referring to
varying geographical locations and sometimes to those who inhabit
these regions. They may have considered Ituraeans as Arabians, but
this is conjecture, not explicit statement. It appears, however, that
from a very early period and even after Strabo’s Geography, no
distinction was made between Arab and Ituraean. The fact that
both Strabo and Dio Cassius describe some of the inhabitants of the
hinterland as Arab led Millar to observe, ‘what they meant by this
remains obscure’.36 The hinterland as referred to by Millar is the area
at the northern end of Mount Lebanon, between the coast and the
upper Orontes valley. It was an area of villages in antiquity and
therefore remains crucial to an understanding of the dynamics under-
lying settlement in the regions.37 By the third century CE, Dio Cassius
34 35
Freyne 2001: 190. Shatzman 1995: 184; see also Macdonald 2003: 313.
36 37
Millar 1993: 274. Butcher 2003b: 135–45 discusses this problem.
assumes that Ituraeans were Arab when he comments that land

granted to Sohaemus was land of the ‘Ituraean Arabians’ (Roman
History 59.12.2). Kasher, who relies heavily on biblical sources for his
identification of Ituraeans as Arabs, felt that the biblical sources
already provided the important basic data for understanding the
history of Ituraeans.38
The term ‘Arab’ primarily indicates people who inhabit a vaguely
defined landscape called Arabia. In viewing antiquity, when various
groups are called Arab rather indifferently, the modern interpreter
needs to remain acutely aware of the ambiguities. Since, as
Macdonald has suggested, the term seems not to appear as a self-
designation until the sixth century CE, in considering these earlier
periods it is the writer’s own beliefs about another group that we are
required to understand and interpret.39 The term, as used by Arrian,
Plutarch and Curtius Rufus, is in the words of Eph‘al ‘too general a
designation for the exact identity of the nomads mentioned to be
determined’.40 In referring to populations in the desert areas of north-
ern Sinai, northern Arabia and Syro-Arabia, Eph‘al applies the term
‘nomads’ and includes the oasis dwellers as well. He recognizes the
distinction made, particularly within the classical Arabic sources,
between those who lived in temporary camps and those who culti-
vated land of the oasis, but adopts the terminology of the biblical and
cuneiform sources, which do not distinguish between them.41 The
association of Arab with the Ituraeans is in part due to how modern
scholars have interpreted the early Greek and Latin authors and in
part to an assumption that Ituraeans were descendants of the tribe
Jetur (Hebrew ‫ )יטור‬mentioned in the biblical lists of Arab tribes.
This issue will be discussed in a later chapter.
Josephus
Josephus first mentions an Ituraean ethnos (ἔθνος) in Antiquities
13.319 where he writes of conquests achieved by the Hasmonean
king Aristobulus I – τὸ μέρος του̑ τω̑ ν Ἰτουραίων ἔθνους ᾠ κειώ σατο
(‘he brought over to them a portion of the Ituraean nation’). It is
generally accepted that this passage reflects the Jewish historian’s
reliance on information provided by Timagenes and Strabo, and
uses his sources to portray the Ituraeans as constituting an ethnos.
38
Kasher 1988: 12. 39 See Macdonald 2003: 304 and 2000: 25.
40
Eph‘al 1984: 100 n. 337. 41 Eph‘al 1984: 5–6.
Literary texts 25
Here I believe Josephus uses ἔθνος as it was understood in Hellenistic

and Roman times, as referring to an outside group, of people living
together, a company or body of men. The Jewish people were con-
sidered an ethnos in this sense, and by his own statement Josephus
also accepts the Ituraeans as a separate group. In both War and
Antiquities the Ituraeans are mentioned often in reference to their
interaction with the Hasmoneans, their recurring disorderly conduct
and general brigandage. Josephus, in language he frequently repeats,
characterizes the Ituraean ethnos as nothing more than trouble for the
Hasmoneans, and successfully portrays the Ituraeans in a clearly neg-
ative way.
Having reported on the death of Aristobulus, Josephus provides
two passages in which the king’s character and accomplishments are
described. The differences in sources account for the variation in
content.
And scarcely had he spoken these words when he died; in his
reign of one year, with the title of Philhellene, he conferred
many benefits on his country, for he made war on the
Ituraeans and acquired a good part of their territory for
Judaea and compelled the inhabitants, if they wished to
remain in their country, to be circumcised and to live in
accordance with the laws of the Jews.
Josephus continues by quoting from Strabo’s Historica Hypomnemata
on the authority of Timagenes:
This man was a kindly person and very serviceable to the
Jews, for he acquired (προσεκτήσατο) additional territory
for them, and brought over (ᾠ κειώ σατο) to them a portion
of the Ituraean nation (Ἰτουραίων ἔθνους), whom he joined
to them by the bond of circumcision42 (Ant. 13.319).
It is widely accepted that Strabo used many written sources in the
Historica. In Stern’s opinion, Josephus in Antiquities 13–14 depends
more on the Historica than any of his explicit references to Strabo
indicate. When considering the above passage (Ant. 13.319), Stern
emphasizes that ‘without any qualms he [Strabo] quotes Timagenes,
who praises Aristobulos I, thus allowing the latter to emerge as quite a
different ruler and man than the one pictured by Nicolaus, whose
42
For Strabo, Historica Hypomnemata = FGH, II A88 F5.
opinion has been preserved in the main narrative of Josephus’.43

Josephus does not precisely locate where the confrontation took
place or what part of the land the Ituraeans occupied, although it is
assumed by most scholars to be the northern Galilee. Referring to
Josephus’ use of ᾠ κειώ σατο in this passage, Seth Schwartz argues
that having ‘appropriated’ part of the Ituraean nation, it does not
imply ‘conquest and forcible conversion, but some sort of agreement,
the outward sign of which was the fact that both the Judaeans and the
Ituraeans, an Arab tribe, were circumcised’.44 This of course assumes
that the Ituraeans were an Arab tribe, and hence the acceptance of
circumcision. Horsley, however, comes to a somewhat different con-
clusion. In his discussion on the Galileans’ identity at the time of the
Second Temple, and prior to the Hasmonean expansion, he considers
Ant. 13.318–19, where Aristobulus makes war on the Ituraeans, as the
key text: ‘If we take Timagenes at face value and/or do not differ-
entiate between Ituraeans and “the inhabitants” of the country, then
the Ituraeans must have comprised a substantial portion of the pop-
ulation when Galilee was taken over by Aristobulos.’45 Again the
conclusion is rather shaky as we cannot know from Josephus just who
the population of the Galilee really were; we can only speculate which
often leads up a rather insubstantial path.
The territory acquired for Judea was, in Horsley’s opinion, part of
Galilee. Elsewhere he is far more explicit when he asserts that the
‘Galilee had been dominated by the Ituraeans’, something we simply
cannot acknowledge with any assurance.46 This ready acceptance
that Ituraeans conquered the Galilee is taken one step further by
two scholars, who, in citing Ant. 13.318 to support their claim, state
in a recent article: ‘In 104 B.C. John Hyrcanus I’s sons, Antigonus
and Aristobulus I, conquered Mt. Hermon, and probably forced the
Ituraeans to convert to Judaism.’47 It is interesting that Mt Hermon is
mentioned as opposed to the Galilee, especially as Josephus makes no
reference to Hermon. Thus we are now confronted with several layers
and three pieces of information: that Aristobulus acquired additional
territory for the Jews, that he made war on the Ituraeans and that a
portion of the Ituraean nation was converted through circumcision.
The somewhat speculative reference to circumcision follows a pattern
already set in similar circumstances with the Idumaeans. Stern has
argued against the forced Judaization of the Ituraeans in the Galilee
43
Stern 1974–1984, I: 262. 44 Schwartz 1991: 19. 45
Horsley 1995: 41.
46
Horsley 1996: 26. 47 Eshel 2002: 119.
Literary texts 27
by Aristobulus.48 Recently Freyne has questioned the authority of

Josephus on this issue and states: ‘The hypothesis of enforced
Judaization of the Itureans has been developed by modern scholars
to fill the gap, but without sufficient basis either in the literary or
archaeological evidence.’49 I am inclined to agree with Freyne, and
for the following discussion I consider the circumcision question to
have little bearing on the question whether this happened or not.
Being reminded of Josephus’ literary-rhetorical aims in his writings,
Ant. 13.318–19 and War 1.76 will be considered separately rather
than conflated as one.
When recalling the duplicity that led to the death of Antigonus, in a
passage quite unrelated to any confrontation with the Hasmoneans,
Josephus describes Antigonus as having ‘procured for himself some
very fine armour and military decorations in Galilee’ (War 1.76 =
Ant. 13.308–10). The parallel passage in Antiquities does not mention
the decorations or the location of Antigonus’ successful military
campaign. The conclusion drawn by many scholars is that this partic-
ular military success, with its consequent decorations as mentioned in
War, was achieved through victory won over Ituraeans in the north-
ern Galilee, even though it is not explicitly stated. Nowhere in War
does Josephus mention the Ituraeans by name. Kasher states it thus:
‘from an indirect hint in War, 1, 76, Marcus (the translator) assumed
it took place in Galilee’ and continues by suggesting the possibility of
one of the Hellenistic cities in the northern Sharon or the Carmel
coast as being a likely place for any such confrontation, and in
particular Strato’s tower ‘where everyone anticipated Antigonus
would be killed’.50 But still the question must be asked as to why
scholars have Josephus place the Ituraeans in the northern Galilee
when he does not state it in the text. Since Josephus does not place the
Ituraeans in the Galilee, the issue need not be a problem or considered
as fact. By assuming Josephus has the Galilee in mind, scholars have
constructed a view which may be entirely misconstrued. Although
Kasher expresses serious doubts about how to interpret Josephus, he
also raises another issue. From a detailed examination of the passage
he suggests that evidence from Timagenes actually proves annexation
of the Galilee by Judas Aristobulus rather than its conquest. In this
sense he sees the expression ‘he acquired additional territory’ as not
necessarily being interpreted as an act of military conquest.51 Lastly,
48
Stern 1974–1984, I: 225–6. 49 Freyne 2000: 128–9.
50
Kasher 1988: 81. 51 Kasher 1988: 81.
there is another argument which needs to be mentioned. In Antiquities

the reference is made to Aristobulus, who has apparently ‘made war
on the Ituraeans’; however, in War it is Antigonus who has been
awarded the ‘decorations in Galilee’. The implication here cannot
be overlooked, and suggests further the need to reassess these earlier
assumptions.
In modern scholarship these two passages are frequently conflated,
resulting, with great regularity, in the assumption that Ituraeans
occupied the northern Galilee, and were subject to Hasmonean
aggression, which ended with a military victory and its consequent
decorations for the Hasmoneans. The ‘decorations’ referred to are
those worn by the soldier who has been victorious in battle. The
Romans generally issued rewards on the basis of rank, the most
common awards being the torque and the phalerae, the latter being
sculptured disks displayed on the breastplate. Such decorations are
displayed by Antigonus as reported by Josephus, and perhaps one
might ask who in fact awarded these decorations. Is Josephus here
suggesting it was the Romans? Knauf appears to readily accept
Josephus and even adds to the conquest, although Josephus himself
makes no mention: ‘In 104/3 BC, the Hasmonean Aristobulus con-
quered the Ituraean territory in Galilee and Transjordan and force-
fully converted the inhabitants to Judaism.’52 Again, why, we must
ask, at this juncture is the Transjordan included when there is no
mention by Josephus? Schürer (according to the English translation)
is rather more cautious in his description, where the Jewish king
Aristobulus, having ruled the kingdom of the Ituraeans, ‘seems to
have included the Galilee as well’.53 In agreement with both Knauf
and Schürer, Overman also assumes the conversion and states,
‘Aristobulus conquered the Ituraean territory in Galilee and
Transjordan and converted the people to Judaism’ (Ant. 13.318),
but then adds that Ituraean territory ‘appears to have extended
south into Upper and Eastern Galilee – at least as far as Lake
Hulah and perhaps as far as the north shore of the Sea of Galilee’.54
At this early period, when the Hasmoneans were beginning to lay
claim to territories, there is no explicit evidence the Ituraeans were
moving into southern regions, and these passages in Josephus provide
no support for such conclusions. Whether or not they eventually
‘conquered’ these territories is yet another problem as yet unresolved.
52 53 54
Knauf 1992: 583, and 1998: 271. Schürer 1973: 564. Overman 2001: 2.
Literary texts 29
In regard to the above passages, one is reminded that ‘Timagenes

does not specify the territories captured from the Ituraeans by
Aristobulus’.55 Careful reading of the text would seem to indicate
that Ituraeans and Hasmoneans encountered each other and inter-
acted by the end of the second century BCE, but no specific geo-
graphical boundaries are given as to where this interaction took place.
To some extent, archaeology, particularly in the latter part of the
twentieth century, has clarified the texts but also presents new chal-
lenges. This is perhaps best illustrated in Andrea Berlin’s view on
Hellenistic Palestine, where in a reference to Josephus’ comment that
Aristobulus made war on Ituraea (Ant. 13.318) she admits, ‘it is
difficult to reconcile the literary account with the archaeological
evidence’. On the other hand, in taking into account surveys con-
ducted in the region of the Hermon and northern Golan, as well as the
question of unique Golan Ware pottery being named ‘Ituraean
Ware’, she suggests that it is reasonable to assume that the presence
of Golan Ware can be taken to indicate an Ituraean population.56
This again presupposes the Golan Ware pottery to be Ituraean. The
first part of her conclusion demonstrates once more a continuing need
to question Josephus, but the second part merely supports a very
tenuous supposition that Golan Ware was the distinctive pottery of
the Ituraeans. After consideration of the Galilee in the light of
archaeological excavations, and a comparison of the evidence from
the Golan sites, she then concludes that to date there ‘is no evidence
for Ituraean settlement in Galilee itself’, and suggests that Josephus
‘misreported the conquests of Aristobulus’.57 A recently published
report by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) on the results of two
archaeological surveys in the western Galilee supports Berlin’s con-
clusion on the lack of evidence for Ituraean settlement in the Galilee.
As a result of their analysis of pottery types, and other features, the
IAA suggests that there is little or no evidence for Ituraean settlement
in the Upper Galilee.58 Once again, however, this is based on the lack
of any pottery clearly attributable to Ituraeans being found in surveys
of the Upper Galilee. That ethnic identity be determined entirely
through pottery is, in this case, rather speculative. As nothing is
known regarding Ituraean culture, language or identity, the presence
or absence of this specific pottery is not in itself an ethnic marker.
55
Stern 1974–1984, I: 225. 56 Berlin 1997: 36.
57
Berlin 1997: 37. 58 Frankel et al. 2001: 110.
The works of Josephus remain an indispensable resource for infor-

mation on the lives and intrigues of those who controlled, or attemp-
ted to control, Syria-Palestine in the late Hellenistic to early Roman
periods. Although the Ituraeans and their rulers get only a brief
mention, their appearance in Antiquities is frequently cast in terms
more derogatory than complimentary. Josephus, having lived within
a few generations after the events, leaves the more detailed record for
the Hasmonean dynasty, which is of course his main objective. From
this record can be captured mere fragments of information about
Ituraeans as an ethnos during this same period, and how he writes
his history tells us as much about Josephus as about the history he
relates. The Hasmonean Judah Aristobulus ruled for barely one year
(104–103 BCE) but in that short period he apparently ‘made war on
the Ituraeans’ (Ant. 13.318). In 103 BCE Alexander Jannaeus, who
had been ‘brought up in the Galilee from his birth’ inherited the
Hasmonean kingship (Ant. 13.323). Kasher has suggested that this
may indicate a Jewish presence in the Galilee ‘and perhaps even
Hasmonean control in parts of it (if not officially then in practice)
as far back as the days of John Hyrcanus I’.59
The twenty years after the accession of Jannaeus were witness to
the ongoing struggles within the Seleucid Empire at large, and those
of the Hasmonean princes whose main ambition was to regain control
of Judea. The Seleucid ruler of Damascus, Antiochus XII Dionysus,
was defeated in battle by the (Nabataean) Arab ruler Aretas III in 85
BCE. Josephus relates how Aretas was called ‘to the throne by those
who held Damascus because of their hatred of Ptolemy, the son of
Mennaeus’ (Ant. 13.392). This is the same Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus,
as mentioned by Strabo when describing Chalcis as ‘subject to
Ptolemaeus the son of Mennaeus, who possessed Massyas and the
mountainous country of the Ituraeans’ (Geog. 16.2.10). Ptolemy
began his rule in 85 BCE and died during the Parthian incursions of
40 BCE. Prior to the establishment of the principality of Ituraea,
Tigranes as ‘king of kings’ had maintained control over Syria, and
Ptolemy would likely have been subject to him. Another change
occurred during this same period resulting from the internal politics
of the Hasmonean dynasty, when in 76 BCE, after the death of
Alexander Jannaeus, his widow Alexandra appointed her elder son
Hyrcanus as high priest. This action followed an already established
pattern of hereditary succession set by the Hasmoneans in the
59
Kasher 1988: 80.
Literary texts 31
previous century.60 Josephus, however, advances another reason for

Hyrcanus being appointed, suggesting that the younger Aristobulus
II was a ‘man of action and high spirit’ (Ant. 13.407). Obviously
Josephus or his sources deemed him not fit to rule. This same young
man of high spirit was later sent out in 70 BCE by his mother with an
army to Damascus against Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus. Josephus
tells us Ptolemy was a ‘troublesome neighbour to their city’ (Ant.
13.418 = War 1.115–16), but provides no further information on this
campaign except to say that Aristobulus returned without accom-
plishing anything noteworthy. Little was achieved it seems, and pre-
sumably Ptolemy succeeded in quashing the campaign. Alexandra
was an astute ruler who recognized within her two sons both their
strengths and failings; her reasons for initiating such a campaign must
have been political. Sullivan interprets it as an indication of pressure
put on Damascus by Ptolemy, and suggests that Alexandra sent her
son with troops to Damascus because of Ptolemy’s ‘continual oppres-
sion’.61 Josephus is more enigmatic than informative, and there is
little given which offers information on the internal strife of a region
in conflict.
Upon the death of Alexandra in 67 BCE there were several years of
continued struggle between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, along with
alliances made with Aretas and Antipater, until in 64 BCE Pompey
arrived in Syria to bring order to a vast and troubled land. On his way
to Damascus in the spring of 63 BCE it is recorded that Pompey
‘demolished (κατέσκαψεν) the citadel at Apamea and devastated
(κατεπόνησεν) the territory of Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, a
worthless fellow …’ (Ant. 14.38–9). Ptolemy, however, escaped pun-
ishment for his sins by paying a thousand talents with which Pompey
paid the wages of his soldiers (Ant. 14.38–9). In all these passages
Josephus repeats the phrase ‘Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus’, possibly to
clarify Ptolemy’s identity, but perhaps at the same time to remind us
that this same Ptolemy was the same ‘troublesome neighbour’ and
‘worthless fellow’ he had alluded to previously. An impression of
some hostility is presented here, perhaps on the part of Josephus
himself, or the sources upon which he has relied. It may be a literary
device constructed by Josephus for emphasis, but however we might
perceive it, there is little doubt that Josephus, without further detail,
imparts a negative picture which future writers will repeat and
embellish.
60 61
Rajak 1994: 285–7. Sullivan 1990: 71.
The intervening years – fourteen all told – were years of continuous

struggle, with the Hasmonean Aristobulus twice taken prisoner to
Rome. Dio Cassius puts a slightly different slant on it: ‘Aristobulus he
sent home to Palestine to accomplish something against Pompey’
(Roman History 40.18.2). In 49 BCE Caesar released Aristobulus
and sent him to Syria with two legions, hoping he might win the
support of the Syrians. Unfortunately, the partisans of Pompey suc-
ceeded in having him poisoned, and his body, after it had lain for
some time preserved in honey, was sent back to Judea (War 1.184).
Not long after, at the instigation of Pompey, Alexander the son of
Aristobulus was beheaded in Antioch, and ‘his brother and sisters
were taken by Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, who was prince of
Chalcis at the foot of Mount Lebanon’ (Ant. 14.126 = War 1.185).
Having accepted responsibility for the family of Aristobulus, Ptolemy
sent his son Philippion to Ascalon to meet the widow of Aristobulus,
along with the two sisters and brother, and escort them home.
Philippion unexpectedly fell in love with the young Alexandra and
quickly married her. Ptolemy, however, upon meeting his young
daughter-in-law, coveted her for his own, ordered his son to be put
to death and married the widow. Thus was forged a matrimonial link
between the Ituraean dynast and the Hasmoneans. Within the year, in
September of 48 BCE, Pompey was assassinated on the Egyptian
shores. A mere eight years later Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, suc-
ceeded and ruled from 40 to 36 BCE. It is worth noting that Lysanias
inherited a territory referred to as a principality and not a kingdom.
During this period, Lysanias made a pact of friendship with
Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus (Ant. 14.330–2), who was also a
supporter of the Parthians. A similar fate befell Antigonus, when in
37 BCE he also was beheaded in Antioch. This may have been, in part,
a result of his popularity among his own people (Ant. 15.8–12), with
Antony perceiving him as a potential threat.62
It was not long before Lysanias also fell victim to the ambitions of
Cleopatra, for in 36 BCE she succeeded in persuading Antony to have
Lysanias put to death and the lands under his domain given to her
(Ant. 15.92–3). After Cleopatra’s suicide in 30 BCE, Octavian handed
over her possessions to Zenodorus, (presumed) son of Lysanias, who
bore the title of tetrarch and chief priest as depicted on his coinage.63
62
Plutarch, Ant. 36.2, and Dio Cassius, Roman History 49.32.5.
63
Wroth 1899: 281, no. 7.
Literary texts 33
Zenodorus is assumed to have followed the same policy of ‘holding

the region without tribute’.64 Zenodorus died unexpectedly in 20
BCE, and from this point the history of the Ituraean principality is
overshadowed by the increasing power of Rome and the rise of the
Herodian dynasty.
Josephus and the bandits/robbers

The question of the brigand/robber in antiquity and how the term has
been perceived is important if for no other reason than to better
understand this phenomenon within the context of a study on
Ituraeans. The subject of banditry is broad, with an ever-expanding
body of information and many differing opinions. The most impor-
tant point here is to emphasize that, in terms of the Ituraeans, brig-
andage/robbery must be seen within the context of antiquity and how
it was understood at that time. It is also crucial, in reading both
Strabo and Josephus, that we attempt to discern just how they under-
stood these terms and used them in their writings. In the ancient
world, brigandage (or piracy) was particularly prevalent along the
Mediterranean coast and in the heavily forested, mountainous zones
of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. Its causes were undoubtedly
rooted in the social and economic conditions of the period. Isaac
suggests that the destruction caused by passing armies would have
likely increased rather than diminished banditry.65 van Hooff has
expressed the phenomenon from a different perspective, where, in
his opinion, the robber in many cultures might be seen as a represen-
tative of disorder.66 The instability which likely existed within the
political and economic life of small kingdoms and principalities
would have easily fuelled such enterprise, and in reality created dis-
order. Bandits usually operated within groups or gangs, and were
often connected to the local elites or wealthy lords. It was even
considered desirable to admit them into the Roman military. Yet
Roman law did not know how to deal with this ‘fundamental sub-
version of social order’, and in the rhetoric of the period the term itself
would have had ‘powerful political currency during times of social
upheaval’.67
In highlighting Josephus’ recording of events concerning Ituraean
rulers, there is another aspect one must consider: that of his repeated
64
Sullivan 1990: 208. 65 Isaac 1990a: 61.
66
van Hooff 1998: 108. 67 Mason 2001: 32.
reference to bandits/robbers. As mentioned earlier, Josephus uses the

Greek λῃστεία where Strabo, especially in reference to Ituraeans,
does not. Mason contends that Josephus’ uses of λῃστεία in his
narratives are highly charged terms, ‘entirely in keeping with contem-
porary Roman usage’.68 In this sense they are perceived by urban
populations as an all-pervasive threat, with bandits often having
support from élite landowners. There was at this period a complex
interaction in structures of power between tyrants, kings and bandits,
which has been closely examined by one of many scholars. In inter-
preting these relationships Shaw points to Josephus’ use of λῃστεία in
Ant. 14–17.69 Paralleling Josephus’ emphasis on ‘banditry’, in the
later books Josephus provides a detailed treatment of the life, and
rise to power, of Herod. Shaw argues that Josephus brings in banditry
at this juncture because ‘there had to be some circumstantial explan-
ation for Herod’s later rise to near-absolute authority. Herod there-
fore had to face a “test” that would demonstrate his personal power
and his merit.’70 In Shaw’s opinion, the test would be a direct con-
frontation with the figure of a bandit seen as the embodiment of the
anti-state. Here we are reminded of van Hooff’s comment on the
robber/bandit being perceived as a sign of chaos.71 In order to estab-
lish power, it was necessary to restore order, and essentially the
restoration of order would be needed in those regions that were
considered order-less, promiscuous or troublesome. Herod’s first
encounter with a brigand-chief (ἀαρχιληστήν) was with Ezekias
(Hezekiah), whom he captured and put to death because he had
been ‘ravaging the district on the Syrian frontier’ (War 1.205; Ant.
4.159–60), which took place in 47 BCE. Although Herod had to face a
severe reprimand for his exploits, nevertheless, says Josephus, ‘Up
and down the villages and in the towns the praises of Herod were
sung, as the restorer of their peace and possessions’ (War 1.205).
Herod had proved he could fulfil one of the main expectations of a
ruler: the establishment of conditions of peace, and safe enjoyment of
goods.72 These to a large extent are literary constructions and reflect
quite dramatically on Josephus’ perception of the Ituraeans.
Another insightful examination on banditry is the recent work of
Thomas Grünewald, who begins his study with a semantic and
68
Mason 2001: 31; and OCD: 260.
69
Shaw 1993: 176–204. The frequency can be readily seen in Rengstorff 1975/1979,
III: 28–9.
70
Shaw 1993: 184. 71 van Hooff 1988: 105–24. 72 Shaw 1993: 185.
Literary texts 35
conceptual analysis of the Latin latro (Greek λῃστεία), the principal

term used by the Romans and, as mentioned above, by Josephus.73 In
his analysis Grünewald develops four main categories for the ‘rob-
ber’: the ordinary criminal, the political rebel, the rival political
pretender, the avenger. In his discussion as to the use of the term by
both modern scholars and writers such as Josephus, he attempts to
dismantle ‘superficial interpretations of the nature of bandits and
banditry’.74 In his examination of Josephus’ use of the term, he sees
the author as using it in reference to individuals in order to label them
as illegitimate and disreputable. Those who are held in great respect
would be brought down through the labelling by language. Cast
against the Hasmonean leaders, or any other group, the Ituraeans,
for Josephus, are constantly demeaned in this way.
Zenodorus had leased land from Cleopatra, once in the domain of
Lysanias, but was not satisfied with the revenues accrued. That
Cleopatra leased the land was not an unusual feature, as Sullivan
states: ‘She also used in Ituraea the same technique she did with
Herod’s balsam groves and her new holdings in Arabia. She leased
the territories to their former owners.’75 But Zenodorus decided to
increase his income by ‘using robber bands in Trachonitis’ (Ant.
15.344). Josephus does not actually accuse Zenodorus of being a
robber himself, merely of making use of robber bands for his own
benefit. By his association with these robbers, Zenodorus is consid-
ered one of them. The people who were being victimized by this policy
complained to the governor, asking that Caesar (Augustus) be
informed and some action taken. The result was suppression of the
‘robber bands’ by Varro, governor of Syria, and the gift to Herod of
the territory of Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis. The implica-
tions throughout are consistent with Josephus’ use and understanding
of the robber/brigand as one who is not worthy, a disparaging title
used to attack verbally the individual or the group. Although
Zenodorus opposed the transfer of his lands and sought redress, he
was not to recover his lands and died shortly thereafter at Antioch in
20 BCE. Herod was thus once again given the territory of Zenodorus,
plus Ulatha and Paneas (War 1.395–9). This event is confirmed by
Dio Cassius: ‘To Herod he entrusted the tetrarchy of a certain
Zenodorus’ (54.9.3). At this point Shaw understands Josephus to
mean that, although Herod had not been the one to rid the land of
brigands, he was the one who received the honours; furthermore, the
73 74 75
Shaw 2000. Shaw 2000: 1. Sullivan 1990: 207.
whole episode occurs at the same time that Herod seeks to restore the
Jerusalem temple, another example of Josephus’ literary constructs
by a comparison of the bandit to the superior other.
On the fringes of the Roman Empire it was impossible to distin-
guish those who were deemed ‘bandits’ from those local inhabitants
who lived a traditional life and were referred to as ‘barbarians’.76 In
our understanding of the part played by the robber/brigand, and the
implications understood in terms of the lands they inhabited,
Josephus has perhaps retained more than any other the tradition of
Ituraeans as unruly and bothersome neighbours. These passages in
Josephus present a picture of the Ituraean principality, of its brief rise
to power and its final absorption into the Roman Empire. Josephus
never comments on the tribal or ethnic identity of the Ituraeans or
whence they came. They may or may not have encountered the
Hasmoneans in battle in the northern Galilee, but what Josephus
states and repeats often is how difficult and troublesome a people
they were. As emphasized previously, a satisfactory interpretation of
Josephus’ writings must adequately understand his intention and the
context within which he writes. We are reminded that in his
Antiquities Josephus has an ‘immediate and serious purpose in
mind’, in which he presents a ‘coherent and powerful message in
spite of his ramblings’.77 How we interpret and understand these
writings will undoubtedly influence our appreciation of the Ituraeans.
The question of banditry in antiquity, and by association with
Ituraeans, is highlighted in an inscription. In antiquity roads connect-
ing the coastal city of Berytus (modern Beirut) and crossing the
heavily forested mountainous terrain of the Anti-Lebanon into the
Biqa‘ valley would have proved difficult to protect against the ever-
present bandits. The small, settled populations of the region would
probably have perceived this as an ‘all-pervasive threat’ which would
occasionally require ‘an all-out campaign’.78 It was common for the
Roman state to use its military strength in order to counter this
seemingly difficult problem. The written sources are silent in provid-
ing any details on this perceived threat, yet a Latin inscription from
the beginning of the first century CE, and originally set up in Berytus,
records an expedition against Ituraeans in the Lebanon. One scholar
76
van Hooff 1988: 109. On the use of the term ‘barbarians’, see also Christides 1969.
77
Steve Mason, ‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further (Ant. 1.25): The Aim and
Audience of Josephus’ Judaean Antiquities/Life’, in Mason 1998: 101.
78
See ‘brigandage’, OCD: 260.
Literary texts 37
has interpreted the inscription as demonstrating full-scale military

operations ‘still going on in southern Syria in the early years AD,
some seventy years after the formation of the province’.79 Perhaps
this is pushing the data too far, as there is nothing to confirm any
major disturbances over such a long period, though it is possible that
many more expeditions took place for which there is no known
record. It may well have been one of many incursions by the army
meant to bring about order and peace to the outlying areas.80
The inscription in question honours an equestrian military officer,
Q. Aemilius Secundus, records his expeditions in Syria, and refers to
one of the auxiliary units he commanded.81 Lines 12–14 of inscription
CIL III 6687 read: ‘missu Quirini adversus Ituraeos in Libano monte
castellum eorum cepi’ (‘sent by Quirinus against the Ituraeans in the
Lebanese mountains I captured their fortress/castle’).82 This inscrip-
tion has been used to support a belief that Ituraeans were again
nothing more than brigands and robbers, a constant menace to the
local populations in the region. By the first century CE the Ituraean
principality had ceased to exist in terms of its former self, and those
whom Secundus defeated may well have comprised a remnant group
roaming the regions of the Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon, and the Biqa‘.
To assume that all Ituraeans were bandits, that this was their only
activity and that Ituraeans were the only group involved in banditry
goes beyond what little evidence we have, even though they are the
ones most often mentioned by Josephus. Marfoe considered the
threat to the local population by brigands throughout the late first
century BCE as being directly related to the Ituraeans. In speaking of
the consequences for the Biqa‘, after the colonization of Berytus to
which the Biqa‘ valley was appended, he says: ‘The first consequence
may only have been a continuation of a policy begun by Pompey but
pursued later by Quintus Aemilius, the pacification of Ituraean brig-
ands in the highlands.’83 Here he is stretching a point; Pompey’s
policy in the Near East was not so much controlling piracy/robbers
as it had been on the Mediterranean, but more to do with bringing
order to a region increasingly threatened by internal strife and
Parthian invasion. With such scarcity of information regarding the
inhabitants of this region, especially within the Biqa‘, it is easy to
assume Ituraeans as being the greater threat. Our scant written sour-
ces do not offer any additional information to what Strabo and
79
Millar 1993: 35. 80 Isaac 1990b: 63. 81 Millar 1993: 35.
82
CIL III 6687 = ILS #2683 = PIR² A 406. 83 Marfoe 1982: 468.
Josephus convey, both of whom see them only as bandits and trouble-
makers. We cannot assume this to be the complete picture, as in fact it
is not.
Roman historians
By the mid-first century CE the Ituraeans had become known through
the annals of Roman history, and another portrait was fashioned, one
which presents a quite different picture of Ituraeans. In Bell. African,
the report on Caesar’s African war, line 20 reads: ‘sagittariisque ex
omnibus navibus Ityreis Syris et cuiusque generis ductis in castra
compluribus frequentabat suas copias’ (‘From all his ships he brought
archers into camp – Ityreans, Syrians and men of divers races – and
thronged his forces with numerous drafts of them’). This is the first
mention of Ituraean archers as part of the Roman military. Within a
few years they formed significant units of the auxiliary forces, and
well over two hundred years later they were still highly valued for
their prowess, as we read from Valerian’s letter to Aurelian:
I will be brief. The command of the troops will be vested in
you. You will have three hundred Ituraean bowmen, six
hundred Armenians, one hundred and fifty Arabs, two hun-
dred Saracens, and four hundred irregulars from Mesopota-
mia; and you will have the Third Legion, the Fortunate, and
eight hundred mounted cuirassier.84
In an earlier study of military warfare in the East, it was concluded
that since very early times the East was archer country par excellence
and, therefore, it was not surprising Rome had to adopt archery for its
campaigns in the East. Included among those recruited and known
for their skill in archery would have been Jews along with other
people.85 The reputation of both Ituraean and Syrian archers spread
across the ancient world; their importance was recognized by Caesar
during the African Wars when he recruited native Syrians as auxiliary
units for their skill as archers. It was because of this very skill, which
western soldiers lacked, that eastern archers contributed greatly to the
strength of the Roman military forces. Mark Antony it seems also
had high regard for their skill and competence. Cicero was moved to
attack Antony for having Ituraean archers among his personal
84
‘The Deified Aurelian’ 11.3, in Magie 1982, III, text dated to the third century CE.
85
Gichon and Vitale 1991: 252–3.
Literary texts 39
bodyguard, where even their very presence in the Senate was an

affront: ‘Concordiae non patent, cur hominess omnium gentium
maxime barbaros, Ityraeos, cum sagittis deducis in forum?’ (‘Why
do you bring Ityraeans, of all tribes the most barbarous, down into the
forum with their arrows?’).86
This passage can be misleading as account must be taken here of
Cicero’s intense opposition to Mark Antony. Earlier, in the
Philippics, Cicero accused Antony of being a fool and of having
caused the order of the Senate to be ‘beleaguered by Ituraeans’:
‘dum confiteare hunc ordinem hoc ipso tempore ab Ityraeis circum-
sederi’ (‘if you only confess that this our order at this very time is
beleaguered by Ituraeans’, Philippics 2.8 [19]). To Cicero these men
were barbarians, hence unfit to take their place among the more
civilized. This more than anything appears to reflect the tensions
between those who lived in the mountains, and were considered to
be ‘barbarians’, and those who inhabited the plain. Cicero had first-
hand experience in dealing with this regional conflict and described
such people as ‘wild savages beyond the pale of civilization’.87 The
word ‘barbarian’ is originally an epithet for a people speaking any
language other than Greek (DCA: 92); later it came to carry an
association of hatred and contempt, implying vulgarity.
On Cicero
Although brief, these two passages from the Philippics are frequently
referred to by scholars when describing Ituraeans, usually to indicate
their barbaric nature. However, the events to which Cicero was
reacting were not directed toward the Ituraeans so much as reflecting
his intense dislike for Antony. The aftermath of Caesar’s assassina-
tion, and the ongoing intrigues and internal turmoil in Rome, created
an atmosphere of distrust and hate. Cicero, although he took no
part in the conspiracy, was favourably disposed to its outcome
(Fam. 6.15). In mid July of 44 BCE Cicero left Rome for Athens.
Unexpectedly, however, on 1 August Piso attacked Antony in the
Senate, and upon hearing the news Cicero abandoned his trip, return-
ing to Rome on 31 August. Piso was already an enemy of Cicero, but
his attack on Antony confirmed a distrust of Antony among
those who had supported Caesar. The Senate met the following
86
Cicero, Philippics 2.44.12.
87
Shaw 1989: 225 n. 81 with reference to Cicero, ad Fam. 15.4.10.
day, 1 September, at which time Antony challenged Cicero on his

absence from the debate. Cicero pleaded tiredness, a consequence of
his long journey home. The following day, 2 September 44 BCE,
Cicero responded in a speech on which the First Philippic is based.
Antony was absent on this occasion, and some days later (on
19 September) Antony rejoined in a vehement manner. By October
Cicero had retired to Puteoli, and in November of 44 BCE, he
published his Second Philippic against Marc Antony. His last
Philippic was delivered on 21 April 43 BCE.88
The danger of taking information out of context is ever present.
This incident, in which Cicero condemns Ituraeans for being allowed
to be present in the Senate, is often used to support a negative
perception of the Ituraeans. This is much the case in one article,
where in support of a claim that Ituraeans are known for their
‘ferocity’ there is a reference to Cicero.89 This should not, however,
be considered proof that Ituraeans were necessarily disreputable or
dangerous and a threat to civilized society, even though it is probable
some Ituraeans were involved in such enterprise and known for it.
Regardless of Cicero’s angry condemnation, their reputation as arch-
ers was such that poets wrote of their prowess. Virgil speaks of
‘Ituraeos taxi torquentur in arcus’ (‘Yews are bent into Ituraean
bows’)90 while Lucan in his Bellum Civile twice mentions the
Ituraeans: ‘Ityraeis cursus fuit inde sagittis’ (‘from there the arrows
of the Ituraeans took their flight’, 7.230); ‘tunc et Ityraei Medique
Arabesque soluti, arcu turba minax, nusquam rexere sagittas’ (‘Next,
the Ituraeans and Medes and free Arabs, formidable archers, shot
their arrows at no mark, aiming only at the sky overhead’, 7.514).91
The textual sources present a varied and imprecise portrait, how-
ever brief, of a little-known people. Sifting through the historical
layers and fragmentary written documents is a formidable task.
Works of authors from antiquity are often interpreted within the
framework of a scholar’s own presuppositions and knowledge.
Eupolemus presents briefly a list of tribes, raising far more questions
than answers concerning the Ituraeans. Has he, in fact, listed
Ituraeans as one of David’s enemies among several, either through
assumed knowledge or perhaps, as Lipiński suggests, substitution? Is
88
See Philippics, trans. Walter C. A. Ker (LCL 1991), in particular pp. xii–xvi; also
E. Rawson, ‘The Aftermath of the Ides’, in CAH, IX: 468–90.
89
Knauf 1992: 583.
90
Georg. 2.448 (trans. H. R. Fairclough, rev. G. P. Goold, LCL).
91
Trans. J. D. Duff, LCL.
Literary texts 41
it possible to postulate here a connection between Ituraeans and

Aramaeans, another Semitic peoples who occupied the region of
Syria-Palestine before movement of the Arab tribes into the same
geographical region? Strabo’s clear distinction between the Ituraeans
and the Arabians cannot be overlooked. Yet many scholars empha-
size only Strabo’s mention of robbery in association with Ituraeans.
This is well illustrated in Butcher’s recent publication: ‘The Ituraeans
seem to have resisted foreign domination and appear in the sources as
aggressive conquerors of their weaker neighbours or, more nega-
tively, as “robbers”.’92
Ituraeans are usually described as brigands and robbers as
Josephus emphasizes, with frequent mention of their troublesome
nature. In all likelihood, of course, Ituraeans were involved in such
enterprises, since brigandage was endemic to the region and the
period. However, to assume the Ituraeans were only brigands is to
misinterpret the sources. It is particularly disturbing when Ituraeans
are identified as being Arabs, who in turn become victims of the same
unfortunate reputation. The interaction between the Ituraeans, the
Hasmoneans, the Seleucids, the Romans and others was both com-
plex and volatile. To look behind the outburst of Cicero is to under-
stand more clearly his attack on Antony, and also his derision for
Ituraean soldiers. It is important to understand the source material in
the context of the author’s goals (in the case of Cicero as one man’s
personal outrage), not as inherently true statements (in this case about
the disreputable behaviour of a people). In contrast, the reputation of
Ituraeans as skilled archers travelled far and wide, and their long
service within the Roman military units helped to sustain their name.
Highlighting these more positive primary textual sources underscores
the inherent dangers and difficulties in modern readings and the
importance of getting behind the sources as fairly and thoroughly as
possible.
92
Butcher 2003b: 93–4.
3
ARCHAEOLOGY
The Golan and its Pottery

They made all your planks
of fir trees from Senir;
they took a cedar from Lebanon
to make a mast for you.
Of oaks of Bashan
they made your oars;
they made your deck of pines from
the coasts of Cyprus,
inlaid with ivory. Ezek. 27.5–6
In his Lamentation over Tyre, the writer here captures an essential
quality of three geographic regions as they were known in antiquity.
Each was recognized for its own unique woods: the fir trees of Senir
(Mt Hermon), the great cedars of the Lebanon range and the oak
forests of the Bashan. In biblical terminology, the Bashan is always
preceded by the definite article and expresses the meaning of smooth
or stoneless plain. To the Romans it was known as Batanaea,
although Batanaea was only part of what comprised the Bashan of
antiquity. Along with ancient Gaulanitis, Trachonitis and Auranitis,
Batanaea forms part of the volcanic basalt region which lies to the
south of modern Syria, and includes part of northern Jordan. The
ancient names verify distinct districts within a varied and complex
landscape. The uplands were known as Auranitis, today the modern
Jebel Druze or Jebel al-‘Arab, and is composed of a mountainous
central region unsuitable for agriculture. Its northern area provided
good agricultural conditions where two cities, Philippopolis and
Maximianopolis, developed. The lava flows which extended to the
north-west formed the rugged, desolate landscape of ancient
Trachonitis, known today as the Leja. Westward of Auranitis is the
broad plain of Batanaea, the modern Nuqra, which eventually
42
Archaeology 43
Figure 1 The Golan Heights as seen looking to the south from the lower
slopes of the Hermon
reaches the eastern edge of the Golan plateau. During the late
Hellenistic and early Roman period this region included the cities
and settlements of Seleucia, Hippos, Gamala, Abila and Dion. The
name ‘Golan’ appears in the biblical references as a settlement within
the region of the Bashan (Deut. 4.43; Josh. 20.8) or as a city (Josh.
20.8; 1 Chron. 6.71), the first considered free, the latter a Levitical city.1
Almost nothing is known of this area in the Persian period, except that
both the Golan and the Bashan were included within the greater
satrapy of Karnaim. By the third century BCE in the early
Hellenistic period an independent administrative district was formed
separate from the Bashan and designated as Gaulanitis under control
of the Ptolemies. The territory of Gaulanitis apparently excluded parts
of what is now the northern and southern Golan. When the Seleucids
took control after 200 BCE the name Gaulanitis remained, and it is
under this name that most writers in antiquity refer to the region. The
Golan Heights of the present day is only part of what in antiquity was
recognized as the Bashan/Batanaea. As a modern geographical divi-
sion, the name Golan Heights does not appear before the nineteenth
century CE. The important issue as to how writers in antiquity such as
1
ABD I: 623–4, other biblical references include: Ps. 22.12; Amos 4.1–3; Isa. 2.13.
Strabo and Josephus perceived these regions, whether or not the Golan
is an independent physical-geographical region or part of a larger area,
has been discussed by Urman.2
In his description of the situation in the Galilee after the fall of
Jotapata (modern Yodefat), Josephus mentions Gamala as being on
the ‘other side of the lake’ and forming part of the territory allotted to
Agrippa. In the same passage he appears to have understood the
Golan as two distinct areas, naming them Upper Gaulanitis and
Lower Gaulanitis: ‘Gamala and Sogane were both in Gaulanitis,
the latter belonging to what is known as Upper, the former to
Lower, Gaulan’ (War 4.1–2). Somewhat later in his description of
the districts of Upper and Lower Galilee, the eastern side of southern
Galilee is described as being bounded by the territory of Hippos,
Gadara and Gaulanitis, ‘the frontier of Agrippa’s kingdom’ (War
3.37). The repetition of these regions in a list of territories that
includes Trachonitis would seem to indicate that Hippos and
Gadara are separate administratively from Gaulanitis (War 3.542).
Present-day Gadara (or Umm Qais as it is now known), situated
south of the Yarmuk River, overlooks the southern end of the
Golan as opposed to being geographically part of it. Hippos, how-
ever, on a western promontory of the southern Golan plateau over-
looking the Sea of Galilee was considered separate from Gaulanitis
by the political divisions of the period in that it was one of the ten
cities of the Decapolis.
Along with extensive surveys in the region, Urman studied the
name Golan as used by Josephus in his writings and found that it
appeared twenty-one times.3 As a result it became clear that Josephus
distinguished between the Upper Golan and the Lower Golan,
which scholars have tended to see as meaning Upper = north, and
Lower = south. However, Urman suggests that in fact it is possible
Josephus was using Upper in the sense of ‘higher’ meaning to the east,
and Lower as ‘lower’ in the sense of the western slopes. Urman’s
familiarity with the Golan, and his studies throughout the 1970s on
the geology, hydrology, climatology and flora of the region, testified
to him the ‘correctness of Josephus’ distinction’.4 Josephus mentions
Batanaea/Bashan in the context of Herod’s rise to power and the gifts
of land he received from Caesar Augustus: ‘he gave him the territory
of Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis’ (Ant. 15.343). Much later,
after the death of Herod, Agrippa II is transferred from Chalcis and
2 3 4
Urman 1985. Urman 1982. Urman 1982: ii.
Archaeology 45
assigned ‘Philip’s former province, namely Trachonitis, Batanaea,

and Gaulanitis’ (War 2.247). In only two other places does
Josephus refer to both territories Batanaea and Gaulanitis, in Ant.
17.189 and 18.106. Josephus seems to have understood the region of
Gaulanitis as separate from the Bashan/Batanaea, and he divided it
between Upper and Lower in much the same way he speaks of the
Galilee. Paneas is named as a separate administrative area at the foot
of the Hermon, granted to Philip and later to be renamed Caesarea
Philippi as recorded by the New Testament Gospel writers Matthew
(16.13) and Mark (8.27).
Essentially the Golan Heights, as we understand it today as a
modern geographical division under Israeli rule, is a broad volcanic
plateau covering 1,200 sq km that slopes from an altitude of about
900 m above sea level in the north-east to about 250 m above sea level
in the south. Its natural boundaries are more or less the same as in
antiquity. The Yarmuk River, flowing on a south-west course, rea-
ches the Jordan River at the southern end of the Golan plateau
effectively forming its southern limit, and the modern boundary
between Israel and Jordan. The western escarpment of the Golan
plateau, along the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee in the south,
and the Huleh basin to the north, provides a natural boundary along
this section of the Jordan rift valley. In the north is the Nahal Sa‘ar,
which divides the limestone foothills of the Hermon massif and the
basalt plain beyond. This same river flows west along the foothills of
the Hermon and through Banias to join the Jordan near its source.
The eastern boundary is less clear, although it is generally accepted
that the deep wadi of the Nahal Ruqqad forms a natural barrier
separating the Golan proper from the easterly extent of ancient
Bashan. This eastern boundary region now falls within an area con-
trolled by the modern Syrian Arab Republic. A survey conducted in
November 1973, and led by Israeli archaeologists G. Barkay, Z. Ilan,
A. Kloner, A. Mazar and D. Urman, initiated a renewed interest in
the Golan. At this time it allowed them access to territory in which
they were able to assess remains of an area east of the present-day
Golan – ancient Bashan/Batanaea. The south-central region, part of
the larger area known as the Hauran, and now within Syria, was
considered by the authors to be Ituraean territory during the Second
Temple Period.5
5
Barkay et al. 1974: 173, 182.
Although some distance from the coast, the climate of the Golan
plateau is heavily influenced by the Mediterranean, with temperatures
on average being warmer in the south than in the north. Precipitation
is much higher in the northern Golan, sometimes up to 1,200 mm per
annum, almost double that in the south. In spite of the heavy rainfall,
as a result of its geological-geomorphologic formation the Golan
Heights is a poor aquifer. Most precipitation becomes surface runoff,
eventually draining into the major river gorges. Winter snows are a
common occurrence, especially in the north, influenced in part by its
higher elevation. The Hermon massif directly affects the northern
territory, and along with its higher precipitation, rocky landscape and
less arable soils, it has been more sparsely settled throughout its
history. In antiquity the northern Golan was characterized by a
covering of dense oak forest which in part still exists today. In con-
trast to the flatter and more fertile southern region, the northern
region is, in general, little suited to agriculture.
Due to the many differing factors of elevation, soil, precipitation,
winds and geological makeup, the environment varies greatly within
the region as a whole, and temperature variations between north and
south can, at times, be dramatic. The large amounts of run-off water
during the winter seasons form natural reservoirs in places where
there are depressions without outlets on the surface of the landscape.
The bottom of these depressions is usually composed of basalt soils
mixed with clay, which eventually become fossilized and form a
sealed container. These natural cisterns or reservoirs are known as
bi’r (or birka) and are very abundant in the Golan, especially in the
northern and central regions, as well as being extremely common
throughout the Middle East.6 By holding water for most of the
year, they provide an essential requirement for the local inhabitants.
The most exceptional is Birkeh Ram in the northern Golan (site ref.
2216/2930) located near Majdal Shams, described by Josephus in War
3.509–13, and called by the Greek name Φιάλης (Phiale).
In stark contrast, the southern Golan is rich in natural springs and,
in combination with a fertile plain, enabled rapid growth in settle-
ment. Throughout its history, topography and climatic conditions
have determined settlement patterns in the Golan. The nature of the
terrain made access difficult, with water supply restricted to natural
springs and streams crisscrossing the basalt plateau. Human occ-
upation is attested as early as the Paleolithic and Chalcolithic
6
The spelling of bi’r (pl. abyar) and birka according to Lent 1997: 45.
Archaeology 47
periods, with a flourishing population during the Bronze Age, which

by the end of the third millennium had diminished. A renewal of
settlements seems to have occurred in the Iron Age. Except for a few
exceptions in the south, surveys and excavations have revealed that
the region as a whole was mostly unpopulated in the late Babylonian,
Persian and early Hellenistic periods. Not until the late Hellenistic
period, after the battle of Panion in 200 BCE, did settlements begin to
reappear. In the southern Golan fertile soil and rich springs, com-
bined with a temperate climate, provided all the right conditions.
These early settlements of the southern Golan were established on
the edges of plains, usually close to a natural water supply. According
to surveys conducted in the region, a system of towers and fortresses,
typical of Hellenistic military construction, was built in order to
defend and control the region. The central Golan saw the beginning
of settlement during this same period. It is, however, the settlements
in the northern Golan that are crucial to this study.
The north experienced a resurgence beginning in the second cen-
tury BCE, having had almost no permanent agricultural settlements
during earlier periods. These sites, established in the second century
BCE, were concentrated in the north-east of the Golan. The northern
village settlements were built, in general, on the edge of fertile valleys,
on low hills and land that required the clearing of Mediterranean
forest which at the time still formed a dense cover. Small in area, the
sites were unwalled and comprised only a few isolated buildings of
roughly hewn field-stone. It would appear the population subsisted
mainly on agriculture. In these early surveys shards of a distinctive
Golan Ware pottery were found at many of the sites. Prominent
among these was a large handmade pithoi presumably used to store
water, and of pinkish to light-brown clay with a considerable admix-
ture of grits. Shards of this distinctive Golan Ware were collected,
mostly from the surface, from sixty-seven sites in the north-eastern
Golan, all above 700 m. The excavators dated thirty-three of these
sites to the Hellenistic period. A small proportion of imported ware
and pottery from the early Roman period was also noted.7 This
typical Golan Ware pottery appears to have been prominent in the
repertoire, and suggested to the excavators that during the Hellenistic
period the northern Golan was settled by Ituraeans, and all sites in
which Golan Ware together with imported ware were found indicated
an Ituraean settlement.
7
Ma‘oz 1993: 534–6, which provides a good summary.
Archaeological history
In the nineteenth century Oliphant (1879–1886) and Schumacher
(1883–1885, 1914) visited the region and recorded sites they found.
Schumacher’s detailed writing on sites he encountered resulted in the
still valuable work The Jaulân.8 With the region’s political situation
remaining unstable after the First World War, it was not until after
1967 that surveys were initiated by a number of scholars. Claire
Epstein and Shemariah Gutman pioneered this work in 1967–1968,
followed by Dan Urman in 1968–1972. Epstein continued with her
surveys from 1973 to 2000 concentrating mainly on the Chalcolithic
period. Zvi Ma‘oz worked in the area from 1977, and Claudine
Dauphin in 1978–1988. Since 1983 Moshe Hartal has surveyed and
excavated in the northern Golan, resulting in a number of published
sites, many of which he identifies as Ituraean.
As the political landscape changed and access to the Golan Heights
was made possible, Epstein and Gutman were able to conduct the first
archaeological survey in the Golan Heights region in 1967–1968.
Over a period of four months they recorded approximately 200
sites. It was in the northern district that perhaps the most significant
find was discovered, pottery shards otherwise known within Palestine
or Syria, and subsequently designated as ‘Golan Ware’.9 Epstein
commented on the uniqueness of the find, and with further surveys
conducted in 1968 and 1972 more pottery of this type was found at
sites concentrated in the northern Golan.
In September 1971 Dan Urman, on behalf of the then Israel
Department of Antiquities (Israel Antiquities Authority), conducted
a rescue excavation at the site of Kh. Zamal (modern Zemel), located
approximately 1 km south-east of the Druze village of Buq‘ata in the
northern Golan. The site, which lies on a low flat hill, derives its name
from the Druze Khakur el-Zemel. The excavations cleared half of a
rectangular room in which fragments of three large pithoi, all of the
Golan Ware type, were found at floor level in the excavated area.
Some shards bore fragmentary Greek inscriptions, but all proved
difficult to decipher. Along with these finds were two Seleucid coins
and a bronze spearhead. On the basis of the coin finds, Urman
determined the dating for the structure be attributed to the
Hellenistic and the beginning of the Roman periods (third to first
century BCE). In his conclusions he considered the Golan Ware to be
8 9
Schumacher 1888 and Oliphant 1880. Urman 1985: 72.
Archaeology 49
the work of Ituraean tribes who lived in the Golan during that period.
On the basis of these finds, Urman determined that the shards from
Khirbet Zamal ‘should be attributed to the Hellenistic period and the
beginning of the Roman period (3rd to 1st century B.C.)’.10 He states,
‘This ware was probably the work of Ituraean tribes who lived at that
time in the Golan’.11 According to Hartal, the finds were transferred
from the storage facility at Quneitra to the Department of Antiquities
in Jerusalem shortly after the end of the 1972 War. It is from this point
that they are recorded as being lost.
Not long after Urman’s initial work Gutman wrote an article (1973)
suggesting that Golan Ware pottery should be attributed to the
Ituraeans. A year later, in August/September of 1974, Urman con-
ducted a rescue excavation at Kh. Nimra, also in the northern Golan.
The excavated building was similar to the one at Kh. Zemel, and shards
of Golan Ware-type pottery along with coins from the second century
BCE and second to third centuries CE were found. Urman, writing ten
years or so after these excavations took place, suggested that Gutman’s
idea as presented in the 1973 article was basically acceptable, but did
not elaborate. From later surveys conducted by Claudine Dauphin and
Shimon Gibson in the years between 1978 and 1988, Golan Ware
pottery was discovered and collected from the site of Farj in the south-
ern Golan. It was concluded from this evidence that Farj represented
the southernmost distribution point of this Golan pottery type.
The work of Shimon Dar established the name ‘Ituraean’ in place
of the former ‘Golan’ Ware. His initial explorations in the Hermon
region began in the summer of 1967, after the Six Day War. Over the
following years, and after spending a good deal of time in the area, he
published a detailed description of these investigations, the first
results of surveys previously having been published in Hebrew.
After finding Golan Ware pottery at many of the Hermon sites, Dar
was convinced that Golan Ware had been in use throughout the
Hermon region from the Hellenistic until the late Roman period, and
possibly through to the Byzantine era.12 After studying the pottery,
10
Urman in EAEHL: II, 464. See Urman 1985: 163, where he repeats this statement.
Note Urman has ‘Zamal’ where Hartal uses the modern designation ‘Zemel’.
11
Ibid. See also Kasher 1988: 81–3 where he discusses Gutman’s decision on the
ceramics.
12
Papers published in Hebrew entitled The Hermon and its Foothills: A Collection of
Studies and Articles (Applebaum 1978); reference is from Urman 1985: 163 nn. 79 and
80. Urman emphasizes that Dar’s publication of the ceramics made it ‘clear’ Golan
Ware continued to exist into the Byzantine period.
Dar concluded it was locally made, although no kiln site was found,
and confined to sites in the northern Golan and the Hermon. While
still in the field, Urman and his colleagues had made an earlier com-
parison between the composition of the collected shard material and
the different soils found in the northern Golan and Hermon regions. As
a result of this experiment, they concluded that Dar’s statement was
basically correct: the Golan pottery was of local origin. However,
Urman did not accept the second part of the statement in which Dar
concludes that the pottery was limited to the Hermon and northern
Golan. Further evidence from regions east, north and west of the
Hermon massif was considered necessary before coming to any con-
clusion regarding geographical distribution.13 The ongoing political
situation has since made it impossible to determine with certainty the
geographic boundaries for Golan Ware. It is important to note also
that, beside the locally made Golan Ware, other types of ceramics from
both the Roman and Byzantine period have been found at many of
these sites, indicating their continued habitation and settlement
activity.
Golan Ware: early surveys and excavations

Moshe Hartal, on behalf of the Qasrin Museum, was able to carry out
and complete further excavations at the site of Kh. Zemel between
1985 and 1987.14 A large building on the northern edge of the site was
excavated. The excavators were able to determine two phases of
occupation; in the second and final stage the building consisted of
five rooms. Another building, to the east of a courtyard and partially
excavated, again indicated two phases of occupation. Large quanti-
ties of handmade ‘Ituraean’ storage pithoi shards, as well as four
complete pithoi in situ, were found in the building.15 Two more pithoi
from remains on the floor were restored. In addition to the pithoi, the
floor contained shards belonging to imported cooking pots and ‘fish
plates’ as well as shards from proposed locally made, light-coloured
ware with large grits. Along with pottery finds were Seleucid bronze
coins from the reign of Antiochus III (or IV) and two silver tetra-
drachms of Alexander Balas and Demetrius II, minted at Tyre in 146/
145 BCE. According to these finds the excavators dated the building
to the second half of the second century BCE. The storage jars found
13 14
Urman 1985: 163. Hartal 1987: 270–2; see also Hartal 2002.
15
Hartal 1987: 270.
Archaeology 51
at Kh. Zemel differ from those found at the late Roman site of Kh.
Nimra, which are dated to the third century CE. From his observa-
tions, Hartal concluded that the finds from Kh. Zemel made it pos-
sible to discern typological changes in ‘Ituraean’ ceramic forms. It
was the first time a dating was possible for all those sites containing
this type of pottery found in the northern Golan and the Hermon
region.16
Excavations at the site of Tel Dan in the northern Huleh basin
began in 1966, and continued until 1993. In the 1968 season it was
decided to begin digging in the northern area around the springs, later
to become known as Area T, or the sacred precinct. By 1976 they had
reached the Hellenistic layer, which appeared to be in two phases. The
second phase is dated through coins to the Seleucid period of
Antiochus III (223–187 BCE), and Demetrius II (146–140 BCE).
Discovered to the west of the sanctuary was a large assemblage of
broken vessels including what were considered to be both locally
made and imported vessels. Within this group were large, thin-walled
amphoras, made locally by hand, which were also found in other
parts of the sacred precinct. Biran ascertained that this material
belonged to a ‘newly-identified pottery group of this period from the
Golan Heights’, and attributed it to a ‘local tribe or people known as
Itureans’.17 Prior to Biran’s claim of finding ‘Ituraean’ pottery at
Dan, Moshe Hartal had published (in Hebrew) his findings from
surveys conducted in the northern Golan. In the English summary
Hartal clarifies the essential elements which led him to determine the
identity of Golan Ware pottery as ‘Ituraean’. The spread of this
pottery over a particular period of time, and the territories the
Ituraeans are considered to have held, provided the essential points.
Those sites in which this pottery constitutes the overwhelming major-
ity of finds were then considered to be Ituraean sites.18 First proposed
by Gutman, this determination is maintained by Dar, who labelled
shards of the type found at surveyed sites in the Hermon region as
‘Ituraean’.
Excavations at Tel Anafa provided additional insights into the
region of the Huleh basin and the Upper Galilee during the
Hellenistic period. Mentioned in the extensive published report on
pottery findings is a type called ‘Everted rim baggy jar’ PW 484–87.
This particular vessel is comparable to the one (amphora) found at
16 17 18
Hartal 1987: 272. Biran 1994: 224. Hartal 1989: 7.
Tel Dan.19 PW 486 is of the same type, and marked with a graffito in
Greek. A second form similar in size and body shape differs in its rim,
which is here finished in a neatly scalloped pie-crust decoration. This
is known as the Pie-crust rim baggy jar PW 488–91, with numerous
parallels occurring at sites in the northern Huleh valley, the northern
Golan and the flanks of Mt Hermon. The excavators identified this
type as an Ituraean production, although no manufacturing site had
yet been identified.20
Stating the problem

As stated above, over the years there has been a shift in the name
given to a particular pottery type. Initially labelled ‘Golan Ware’
pottery, the name reflected an identification with its location or
provenance as it was found to be locally made in the Golan. In itself
this material can say little more; it cannot tell us who fashioned it, nor
can it explain fully why it is there. Through excavations and the study
of accumulated finds, archaeologists are able to paint a picture, albeit
a fragmentary one, of settlement patterns within the region. Enough
pottery, both whole and fragmentary, has been found to enable a
typology and chronology to be proposed. This chronology is signifi-
cant as it presents us with a sure indication that these settlements first
began to appear in the northern Golan in the late Hellenistic period. It
would also suggest that the population of the region remained in the
Golan well into the Roman period, and continued to produce this
typical Golan Ware pottery albeit with later modifications. Until this
pottery was first found and named little was known of the Golan
during this same period, except to surmise an increase in habitation
after 200 BCE. The shift which took place in renaming Golan Ware to
‘Ituraean’ remains, nevertheless, somewhat problematic.
The problem is twofold: firstly, the difference in meaning when an
object is labelled with an ‘ethnic’ name as opposed to the location/
region in which it is found; secondly, how to understand the textual
evidence which is presumed to support this identification. To begin,
the important and much discussed issue of ethnicity requires clarifi-
cation. The Greek ethnos comes to our attention in Josephus, Ant.
13.319 in reference to an Ituraean nation (although Josephus is here
quoting Strabo on the authority of Timagenes). Josephus’ use of the
19
Andrea Berlin, The Plain Wares, in Herbert 1997: 156 and pl. 58.
20
Ibid. p. 157.
Archaeology 53
term ethnos is typical of the classical writers of his period, and used to
describe a company of men, a number of people living together, or
being part of a group separate from others. In this sense the Jews were
considered an ethnos as were the Arabians, and in the LXX it is used
for Gentiles. The question as to how people in antiquity defined
themselves remains dependent on the sources which are left to us.
The Egyptians provided us with a multiplicity of recorded thoughts,
and ideas, as did the Greeks and others before them. To date we do
not have similar documents in which to more fully understand what
made the Ituraean an Ituraean.
Modern scholarship within the social sciences has developed com-
plex sets of categories and attributes in order to help determine ways
of understanding ethnicity.21 In this case it does not resolve the
question as to who were the Ituraeans, but certain guidelines are
worthy of consideration. In attempting to explain the phenomenon
of ‘ethnic group solidarity’, some social scientists see allegiances ‘as a
result of political or economic interests’, there being many levels of
contact – political, economic, religious, familial or social.22 In this
sense the Ituraeans constituted a group who were separate from
others, and seen by others as such. From the limited literary texts it
becomes apparent that they were viewed mainly as robbers and
troublemakers. There are, however, two points worth noting. One is
from the social scientist’s viewpoint which states that ‘overt ethnicity
is most evident under economically difficult circumstances and is
often used for political or defensive purposes’.23 In other words, if
on looking back we perceive an Ituraean ethnos, its emphasis on
brigandage may reflect the social and political environment of the
period, and not necessarily the individual. Killebrew emphasizes the
implicit difficulties in attempting to identify ethnicity within antiq-
uity, or even if it existed. She explains her own approach as being in its
broadest meaning and states: ‘Defining ethnicity based on material
culture in modern-day societies has often proven challenging for
social scientists. Far greater obstacles are encountered when archae-
ologists attempt to discern ethnicity and ethnic boundaries based on
the very incomplete material record of the past.’24 This is well worth
our consideration and brings me to the second point, the incomplete
material record of the past.
21
See Dever 2003 and Killebrew 2005, especially pp. 8–9. 22 Killebrew 2005: 8–9.
23
Killebrew 2005: 9 with reference. 24 Killebrew 2005: 9.
Most archaeologists would readily admit that we cannot know

everything about a region and the sites within it, no matter how
much material evidence is discovered through excavations. Every
site has its own story to reveal, some more than others. The excava-
tions at Khirbet Zemel proved successful in that it enabled, from the
amount of pottery both fragmentary and whole, along with other
finds, the development of a chronology for the site. Thus it was
concluded that Khirbet Zemel, a small settlement site, was established
during the second half of the second century BCE in a previously
unoccupied area. They were able to determine that the inhabitants
would have been farmers who vacated the site in an organized fash-
ion. Khirbet Zemel is only one of dozens of settlements which existed
in the northern Golan during the Hellenistic period. Some apparently
were abandoned, others continued and developed over several cen-
turies. In spite of the information gathered regarding these sites,
nothing was found to indicate who these ‘farmers’ were or where
they had come from.
In his discussion on the site Hartal proposes that Khirbet Zemel is
one of the first Ituraean settlements in this region in the second century
BCE.25 In reaching this conclusion Hartal outlines the process of
moving from a nomadic to a sedentary lifestyle. In its pattern of
development and building construction he sees that this process existed
at Khirbet Zemel. By dating the settlement as beginning in the second
century BCE Hartal assumed that Ituraeans were the most likely
peoples, particularly as they are mentioned in the early texts. This,
however, rests on an assumption presumed from the texts: that
Ituraeans were a nomadic Arab tribe who moved into this region in
the second century BCE. Why the Ituraeans? Most scholars appear to
have accepted Josephus as their main authority at this point. In War
1.398–400 Josephus relates the demise of Zenodorus, who, having
taken on the lease of territories once belonging to Lysanias, loses it to
Herod. The territory in question is Trachonitis and the adjacent dis-
tricts of Batanaea and Auranitis. This event occurs in the late first
century BCE, and by this time the principality of Ituraea appears to be
in decline. Ant. 15.343–4 gives a parallel account, but here Josephus
uses the expression that Zenodorus had leased the ‘domain’ of
Lysanias. The core of the issue here is how are we to understand
what in fact Josephus is saying or implying? The territories and domain
mentioned would have comprised large tracts of land, precise
25
Hartal 2002: 114–15.
Archaeology 55
boundaries being indeterminate. Covering considerable distances,

these lands would have been scantily populated, but what inhabitants
there were would have been subject to the authority of whoever had
control. By the late first century BCE it was from Rome that came the
final authority, with petty kings and minor tetrarchs given powers to
collect revenues. What we do not have in the texts is any suggestion
that there were migrations of people into different regions or the
establishment of new settlements and villages, in the similar way we
have in the Assyrian records of an earlier period. That people travelled
long distances is readily accepted; trade more than anything brought
people into contact with each other. Unless we make the first assump-
tion that those who settled on the northern Golan were Ituraeans,
there is nothing in the textual sources or material culture which clearly
supports this proposition. That the tetrarchs Lysanias and Zenodorus
leased these lands simply indicates they had authority to take revenues,
but we are given no information from whom those revenues will come.
If in fact we accept the material evidence without making any assump-
tions, we clearly have some interesting settlement sites in the northern
Golan, which may in the future offer further insight into their inhab-
itants. Golan Ware has apparent parallels at Tel Anafa and Tel Dan in
the northern Huleh valley, and is found on the southern slopes of the
Hermon. We have yet to fully comprehend the Biqa‘ plain during the
late Hellenistic period, a region which is indispensable in terms of
understanding the Ituraean. As an ethnos the Ituraeans remain still,
much clouded by the scarce sources and contradictory or confusing
written material. The Golan Ware pottery needs to stand alone until
we can know without doubt that this material is indeed Ituraean.
Excursus on Galilean coarse ware

The Galilean Course Ware (GCW) has been compared to the Golan
Ware pottery, although the two remain separate productions.
Whereas the GCW is produced in the Galilee, the Golan Ware fabric
has been established as having come from the Golan, although no
production centre has yet been identified. As a pottery type, GCW
first appears in the Persian period as determined through evidence
from excavations at Tel Hazor and Mizpe Yamin. Recent excava-
tions at Yodefat, where GCW was found in clearly defined Hellenistic
contexts, confirmed that GCW was in use during this period.26 In the
26
Frankel et al. 2001: 62.
past few years ongoing excavations at Tel Kedesh in the Galilee have
identified a pottery type closely related to the GCW. The fabric for
this ware is designated as Red Brown Gritty (RBG).27 Studies on the
Galilean sites and pottery finds have determined that GCW is found
primarily in the region of Mt Meron from both the Persian and
Hellenistic periods, but it seems to be absent from the coastal plain
where the Phoenician jar (Type 36) predominates. Earlier published
material from Meron, in which the archaeologists had suggested it
was still being used in the Roman and Byzantine periods, has now
been disproved. This conclusion resulted from determining that pub-
lished examples from Meron from the Roman and Byzantine periods
were intrusive shards.28 The fact that GCW was discovered only at
sites of the Persian and Hellenistic periods indicated to the excavators
that its production did not continue into the Roman and Byzantine
periods. It was also apparent through the surveys that a large per-
centage of sites in which GCW pottery was found did not continue
into the Roman period. The abandonment of sites, and the changes in
settlement patterns, led archaeologists to suggest that these changes
took place during the period of ‘Hasmonaean aggression’.29
The GCW repertoire consists mainly of large vessels – bowls,
kraters and pithoi. The various forms are of coarse grey and pink
with large white grits. Occasionally wheel made, the vast majority are
handmade. In some cases, the GCW vessels are similar in form to
other vessels of the Persian and Hellenistic periods, but are completely
different in ware and in the manner in which they were made.
Regional parallels are to be found at various sites in the Upper
Galilee. One suggestion made was to attribute GCW pottery to the
Ituraeans, based on an association between the northern Galilee and
Aristobulus, who is presumed to have forced the Ituraeans to be
circumcised. This argument, however, remains problematical without
any archaeological evidence to substantiate it. In the view of the
authors who published the report on Galilean pottery, the pottery
which has been identified as ‘Ituraean’ elsewhere is not identical to the
GCW found in the Upper Galilee. The authors also suggest that none
of what they call the ‘distinguishing features’ of the Ituraeans has been
found in the Galilee.30
According to the authors, the mark of these ‘distinguishing fea-
tures’ mentioned is the proliferation of temples close to settlements
27
Herbert, Berlin 2003: 28. 28 Frankel et al. 2001: 62.
29
Frankel et al. 2001: 108–10. 30 Frankel et al. 2001: 110.
Archaeology 57
that are found in the Hermon region.31 What is suggested here, first of
all, is a concurrence that settlements on the Hermon are first of all
Ituraean, and secondly, that the temple structures which proliferate
on the Hermon, and stand close to settlements, are also Ituraean.
That these structures are absent in the Galilee confirmed the authors’
belief that the settlement population of the Galilee in the Hasmonean
period was not Ituraean. We are left with a circularity in this argu-
ment: it is difficult to accept that Ituraeans were responsible for the
temples in the Hermon region based on Dar’s rather shaky assump-
tions, and then assume Ituraeans were not in the Galilee by virtue of
the absence of similar temples. To date there is no thorough and
definitive archaeological work done on the temples of the Hermon,
with Dar’s conclusions regarding sites he surveyed and partially
excavated resting mainly on the Golan Ware he found at the sites.
In 2002 and 2003 surveys were conducted in the Syrian and
Lebanese territories of Mt Hermon which concentrated on collecting
and recording inscriptions from the temple sites. As a result of this
investigative work it was established that various forms of cultic
activity had continued from the Hellenistic period through to the
Roman. Located at high elevation, and often associated with village
settlements, these Roman sanctuaries with their inscriptions provide
support for habitation within this mountainous and rugged terrain. In
his discussion of these sites, Aliquot makes the firm statement that,
although some temples may have had earlier forerunners, ‘it is of the
utmost importance to stress that all were seemingly built under
Roman rule’.32 Differing from those of the Lebanon and the Anti-
Lebanon, the Roman temples of the Hermon are unique and have no
parallels in the Galilee. Furthermore, as the inscriptions found tend to
confirm the known sanctuaries of the Hermon as having been built
between the end of the first century CE and the beginning of the
fourth century CE, it still has to be proved if any stood on the
Hermon during the Hellenistic period.33
Khirbet Zemel
The final publication on excavations at Kh. Zemel is published in
Eretz Zafon Studies in Galilean Archaeology.34 Kh. Zemel was a small
settlement established in a previously unsettled area during the second
31
Frankel et al. 2001: 110. 32 Aliquot 2008: 80–1.
33
Aliquot 2008: 80. 34 Hartal 2002: 74–117.
half of the second century BCE. The coins and pottery finds testify to
it being a one-period site existing for only a number of decades. From
other finds it appears the inhabitants were farmers, and the site
represents one of dozens of settlements established in the northern
Golan during the Hellenistic period.35 In total five rooms of a large
building were excavated and documented. Hartal lists each of the
different types of ware found at the site, the most common being the
Golan Ware. The pottery finds consisted of four types of ware:
* Golan Ware, consisting of 85% of vessels, mainly pithoi as
well as mortaria, cooking, serving and storage vessels
* Fine Ware, probably imported, mostly bowls and saucers;
comprising 8% of vessels
* Gritty Ware, cooking vessels, 6%
* Spatter-painted Ware, named after typical colour decora-
tion found at Tel Anafa originating in the Huleh valley.
Two pots found at Kh. Zemel.
Over ninety rims from pithoi were found, along with seven com-
plete vessels. Three of the vessels were almost entirely restored, and a
fourth reconstructed to approximately two-thirds its height. The
general characteristics for the pithoi are:
* body usually handmade, sack-shaped with rounded
shoulders, pointed base
* neck, base and handles made separately and attached to
the body before firing
* short narrow neck is wheel made.
The pithoi
Until now it has been generally accepted that the pithoi are of local
production, limited to the northern Golan and the northern Huleh
valley. In Hartal’s opinion, because of their common characteristics
we are justified in categorizing them as one type.36 Kh. Zemel, how-
ever, presents a unique find which as yet is perhaps not fully under-
stood. Found in one house are five pithoi on the shoulders of which
are personal names in Greek, incised before firing. Two also contain
dates along with the personal name, the dates confirming that the
pithoi were made within two decades. Of the names, five are pure
35 36
Hartal 2002: 111–14. Hartal 2002: 93–102.
Archaeology 59
Greek and one is Syrian; however, if we are to heed Macdonald’s

warnings regarding names, this information may best be considered
as secondary and not necessarily indicating an ethnicity for the one
who incised the name. As Hartal so aptly points out, these Greek
inscriptions do raise a number of questions, two obvious ones being:
whose names are they and why are they Greek names? In answer to
the first he suggests three possibilities: the potter’s name, the buyer’s
name or an official’s name, similar to the case of handles of amphora
from Rhodes. In answering the second question as to why they are
Greek names, he makes a comparison to Rhodian amphora, where
the name of the potter or an official was commonly stamped onto the
handle. Significantly the Kh. Zemel pithoi were not stamped, but
incised before firing. As these vessels are locally produced, it would
seem unlikely that these are names of local potters. If they represent
the names of buyers, it would then suggest that the inhabitants of the
house were Greek-speakers, which again is unlikely.
As determined by the excavations, the site was simply a small
settlement in a marginal area, the homes constructed by people with
knowledge of the local building tradition. In Hartal’s opinion, ‘It is
not reasonable that such people used Greek names or even Hellenized
Semitic names.’37 It is the third option which Hartal suggests as a
possibility, that the names are of people who were in charge of
producing the pithoi. This could explain the Greek names if one
assumes these people are of Greek origin or Hellenized non-Greeks.
This, however, invites more questions and raises more problems.
Stamped Rhodian handles on amphora are not uncommon, the
amphora being used for the marketing of wine or oil and often trans-
ported over long distances. At Kh. Zemel the inscriptions are, as
mentioned before, incised on pithoi. Bearing in mind that pithoi
were used for storage and not transport, an official’s name on the
vessel would be unnecessary, and therefore one must question
whether this is the correct assumption for the Kh. Zemel pithoi.
Finally, as the majority of the pithoi found bear no inscription, it
seems that the core to the dilemma goes back to the initial question:
why are these few pithoi inscribed with a name in Greek, and found in
one house only? The questions raised concerning this unique problem
are important, and it is hoped the vessels will be studied further in an
attempt to find a satisfactory answer, unless we are to be left with a
puzzle.
37
Hartal 2002: 100.
From the presence of locally made Golan Ware found mainly in the
north and north-central areas and from sites identified within the
same time period, and those which coincided with the Ituraean his-
torical record, Hartal was led to conclude that Kh. Zemel was indeed
an Ituraean settlement site. The second century BCE pithoi found at
Tel Dan and Tel Anafa are similar to those found at Kh. Zemel and
therefore support a Hellenistic dating. However, according to Hartal
the vessels found by Dar in the Hermon region do not have the same
characteristics typical of Hellenistic pithoi, and therefore cannot be
older than the Roman period.38
Table 1 provides a simplified overview as to the development of the
name Golan Ware, from its first appearance in archaeological reports
through to its rapid change and acceptance as ‘Ituraean Ware’. As a
result of this change in name, many sites in the northern Golan and
Hermon regions are now identified as Ituraean. Gutman’s decision to
attribute Golan Ware to the Ituraeans was based on the supposition
that the pottery seemed to be concentrated within the northern Golan
and Hermon, and, together with coin finds, the same sites were dated
to the second century BCE through to the second to third century CE.
That some scholars readily accepted the view in which pottery finds
from Kh. Zemel are attributed to Ituraean tribes can be seen in an
early article on the ‘Golan’.39 Biran also accepted the naming of the
pottery as Ituraean, and referred to the works of Josephus to support
the claim that Ituraeans had inhabited the region during the same
period the pottery was produced. In Biran’s words ‘the Hasmonaean
King Aristobulus conquered part of their country and forced them
[the Ituraeans] to accept Judaism’ and so confirmed the fact that
Ituraeans were in the region.40 I argue against this assumption,
based as it is on a collation of two passages, one from Antiquities
and one from War, which Josephus himself does not make.
Dar reported finding a distinctive family of large clumsy vessels at
sites in the Hermon region, previously named Golan Ware, and
concluded that the pottery was of Ituraean provenance. In making
this judgement he was in agreement with the earlier conclusions of
Gutman, Urman and others, all of whom had conducted surveys
within the Golan region. Furthermore, all sites discussed in the
various articles in which this pottery type was evident were eventually
to be designated as Ituraean sites. A later publication gave the results
of Dar’s surveys and excavations on the Hermon, and the site of Har
38 39 40
Hartal 2002: 93. Urman 1976. Biran 1994: 226.
Table 1 Development of the name Golan Ware to Ituraean Ware
Date
Survey/excavation Year published Archaeologist Identification
Golan survey 1967–8 1972 C. Epstein S. Gutman Golan Ware shards found for first time; of local
manufacture
Hermon surveys 1968–72 1972 S. Dar Golan Ware found
Rescue excavation at 1971 D. Urman Golan Ware identified at site
Kh. Zemal
Kh. Nimra rescue 1974 1974 S. Gutman Golan Ware found; in 1973 publication attributed
excavation Golan Ware to the Ituraeans
Hermon surveys 1973–4 1978 S. Dar Golan Ware found
Kh. Zemel excavations 1985–6 1987 M. Hartal Golan Ware pithoi referred to as Ituraean; made
locally
Mt Hermon 1982 1988 S. Dar Pottery referred to as Golan or Ituraean Ware;
Ituraean provenance
Northern Golan 1983–7 1989 M. Hartal Attempts typology; identifies Ituraean pottery
excavations
Golan surveys 1978–88 1992–3 C. Dauphin S. Gibson Golan Ware found as far south as Farj
Hermon excavations and 1968–82 1993 S. Dar Golan Ware referred to as Ituraean Ware
Har Sena‘im
Tel Dan excavations 1966–93 1994 A. Biran Large vessel found, identified as Ituraean
Tel Anafa excavations 1968–70 1997 A. Berlin Pithoi found parallel to Golan Ware; one pithoi type
1972–3 identified as an Ituraean production
Kh. Zemel excavations 1985–7 2002 M. Hartal Kh. Zemel pithoi identified as Ituraean; provides
typology
Sena‘im in particular, which focussed on the proposition that the area

was a base for Ituraean settlement. These conclusions led to an
assumption that the Hellenistic and Roman period culture within
this region should be considered an Ituraean culture. The basis for
Dar’s argument is encapsulated in his statement: ‘the incidence of
these vessels corresponds with Ituraean country, the stronghold of
which was Mt. Hermon’.41 Dar supports this claim with coins from
the Ptolemaic and Seleucid periods (third to second century BCE)
found at sites on the Hermon. As these coins were included along with
what Dar claims is Ituraean material, he believed the coins were an
indication of the activity of Ituraean tribes. However, this can only be
speculation and inevitably a circular argument, as there is no way of
knowing who brought the coins and subsequently left them behind.
As noted by Ma‘oz, ‘coins may suggest activity of shepherds or
hunters, or may be residuals from later periods, but are in no way
proof of early settlement’.42
Although this information may provide an overview as to how
archaeologists have come to designate a particular pottery type as
Ituraean, there remain still many unanswered questions. Distinctive
features characterize the Golan Ware: it is a coarse ware, in a pink to
pinkish-brown clay, containing large and medium-sized grits, and
locally made by hand. The variations in rims, handles and bases are
a result of hand manufacture.43 These vessels are predominantly large
pithoi/storage jars, which to date have been found in the northern
Golan and the northern Huleh valley. Vessels that appear at Kh.
Zemel, with parallels from Tel Dan and Tel Anafa, are dated to the
second century BCE, during the Hellenistic period. Vessels similar to
those found in the Hermon region do not appear at Tel Anafa until
the early Roman period and therefore were used to support Berlin’s
suggestion that the final phase of occupation at Anafa could not be
attributed to the Ituraeans.44 Hartal’s latest article, in which he
provides what he refers to as ‘the first full account of the Golan-
ware pithoi from the Hellenistic period’, also reinforces the fact that
these are of ‘local production, their distribution limited to the north-
ern Golan and the northern Hula Valley’.45 Furthermore, evidence
from material at Kh. Zemel led Hartal to conclude that the site
41
Dar 1993b: 80. 42 Ma‘oz 1997: 281. 43 Hartal 2002: 93.
44
Berlin 1997: 29 n. 75; suggested by Berlin on the basis the Hermon vessels are
Ituraean. Hartal 2002: 93, discusses pithoi discovered at these sites and concludes the
material found on Mt Hermon is no older than the Roman period.
45
Hartal 2002: 98.
Archaeology 63
‘represents one of the first Ituraean settlements in the area in the

second century B.C.E.’46
The renaming of Golan Ware as ‘Ituraean’ is problematic and the
argument somewhat circular, as I have already noted. The suggestion
appears to rest mainly on taking as fact the historical textual sources,
and assuming Ituraeans controlled the Golan, the Hermon, the Huleh
and regions to the east. On this basis it is claimed that a pottery type
presumed local, found in some of these same regions, should be
associated with Ituraeans. From this association the sites in which
this same pottery is found are then identified as Ituraean. However, as
stated earlier, this assumption is untenable. As yet there is no clear
marker that identifies any of the material on the Golan or the Hermon
as being specifically Ituraean. It is still preferable to give this pottery
the name Golan Ware, which identifies its origin and location, a
provenance for which further study is required. To date there is no
known site for its production, and the extent of its geographical
distribution remains unknown. In light of how little is known or can
be known from the textual sources in terms of culture, language,
religion or ethnic identity for the Ituraeans, it is perhaps misleading
to attempt to draw overly specific conclusions. The known geograph-
ical distribution for Golan Ware remains artificially limited by the
nature of the terrain and political constraints. The eastern border of
the Golan Heights, now controlled by modern Syria, cuts off the
possibility of any additional survey and excavation in what was
ancient Bashan/Batanaea. Much of the Hermon now lies outside the
boundaries of modern-day Israel, with both Syria and Lebanon dis-
allowing easy access for surveys and excavations. The result is that
there is little likelihood of fully establishing the distribution pattern of
Golan Ware in the foreseeable future.
What the previous surveys and limited excavations in the Golan
and Hermon have revealed is evidence of a resurgence of settlement in
the Hellenistic period. During the late Hellenistic to early Roman
period these settlements appear to have been small, each having
adapted to the general environment within its location. Unique, it
seems, to the Hermon is the proliferation of temple structures and cult
sanctuaries; similar structures do not appear in the Golan. The man-
ufacture of a locally made pottery would not be unusual, and Dar’s
surveys revealed a well-constructed road system, making local trade
46
Hartal 2002: 93, 98, 115.
and mobility possible. Distribution to the south-west into the Huleh

valley and the Galilee, and hence the appearance of the Golan Ware
pithoi at Tel Anafa and Tel Dan, would not have been impossible.
But these are at present mere possibilities, and there is nothing in the
pottery identifying it as Ituraean. The evidence is too fragile to make
the assumption that gives the Golan Ware pottery an ethnic identity
by naming it Ituraean Ware. Much more information regarding the
Ituraeans is required in order to make this leap. The Golan Ware
pottery remains enigmatic and its study incomplete, therefore its use
as an ethnic marker continues to be unreliable.
The Hermon and Har Sena‘im

And they were, all of them, two hundred, who descended in
the days of Jared onto the peak of Mount Hermon. And they
called the mountain ‘Hermon’ because they swore and
bound one another with a curse on it (1 Enoch 6.6).47
The above lines from 1 Enoch affirm an ancient belief in the moun-
tain’s sacredness that is reflected in the Enoch tradition, the summit of
Hermon being the place of assembly for ‘the angels or watchers, the
children of heaven’ who descend to earth in order to swear an oath.48
Mount Hermon presents two aspects worthy of consideration: its
enduring legacy within the mythology of the ancient Near East, and
its awe-inspiring physical presence. The two are often interwoven.
Each aspect has influenced the lives of those who have lived within its
environs, both in antiquity and in the present. Acknowledged in text
and oral tradition throughout antiquity, it has remained a dominant
force within both the physical landscape and the religious thought of
Syria-Palestine. In the ancient Near Eastern texts Saryan/Siryon is the
ancient (Hebrew) geographical name for the Hermon massif: ‘the
Sidonians call Hermon Sirion, while the Amorites call it Senir’
(Deut. 3.9). Named in reference to its ‘precious trees’, in one of the
Ugaritic myths it is Sirion, while in a Hittite treaty it is Mount
Sariyana.49 Although the name ‘Hermon’ does not itself appear in
the ancient Near Eastern texts, it is found juxtaposed with other
toponyms in the Bible.50 Known in Arabic as Jebel e-Sheikh, and
47
Nickelsburg 2001: 174. 48 Lipiński 1971: 17–18, 28–35.
49
From a Hittite ‘Treaty Between Mursilis and Duppi-Tessub of Amurru’,
A. Goetze, trans. in ANET: 205.
50
Arav 1992: 158.
Archaeology 65
rising to a height of 2,814 m (9,232 ft), the Hermon is a truly com-

manding presence. That it was considered a sacred mountain is
exemplified in its Semitic root hrm meaning ‘taboo’ or ‘consecrated’,
seen also in the Arabic al-haram, ‘sacred enclosure’. The sacredness of
Hermon, known throughout antiquity and in many different regions,
has been compared to the inviolability of Mount Sinai as described in
Exod. 19.12, where the people are forbidden to go near the mountain
or to ascend it, for whoever touched the mountain would be put to
death. Eloquently expressed in the words of Clermont-Ganneau, the
Hermon became known as ‘the mountain of oath’.51 That its sacred-
ness prevailed is also reflected in the writings of the Church Fathers
when as late as the fourth century CE Eusebius, in his Onomasticon,
fully recognizes the long tradition of sacredness this mountain holds:
᾽Αερμών ὄρος ὀνομάζεσϑαι καὶ ὡς ἱερὸν τιμα̑σϑαι ὑπὸ τω̑ ν ἐϑνω̑ ν
καταντιχρὺ Πανεάδος καὶ του̑ Λιβάνου (‘Until today, the mount in
front of Panias and Lebanon is known as Hermon and it is respected
by nations as a sanctuary’).52 Arab geographers wrote of the Hermon
and the Lebanon range, where the Hermon is known as the Jabal
Sanir, and defined as the ‘mountain of snow’ with the Jabal Lubnan,
the Lebanon mountains, famed for their covering of trees and variety
of plants.53
The summit of Mt Hermon is comprised of three peaks within a
few hundred yards of each other, and together they form a compara-
tively level, oval-shaped plateau. The highest of these peaks is in the
south-west where the remains of a sacred enclosure of hewn stones
surround what was once a temple/structure known as Qasr ‘Antar.54
In September 1869 Charles Warren reached the summit and made
detailed notes of his observations, which he later submitted to the
Palestine Exploration Fund. He describes finding the ruins of an
unroofed rectangular building, the temple or sacellum, which
appeared to be of more recent date than the stone oval. Warren
compared the stone oval to the kaaba at Mecca and suggested it
may well have been used for the same purpose.55 Among the limited
finds from north-west of the oval was a stele of grey limestone incised
with a Greek inscription. Its removal from the summit was not with-
out incident, and in the difficult process it was broken into two pieces.
It now rests in the British Museum, the two pieces once more together.
51
Clermont-Ganneau 1903: 233.
52
Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. & trans. Klostermann: 20 line 10.
53
Le Strange 1890: 77–80. 54 Conder 1874: 52. 55 Warren 1869–1870: 213.
Nickelsburg’s translation of the inscription reads: κατὰ κέλευσιν θεου̑

μεγίστου κ[αί] ἁγίου οἱ ὀμνύοντες ἐντευ̑θεν (According to the com-
mand of the greatest a[nd] holy God, those who take an oath [proceed]
from here).56 In connection with recent surveys to complete the IGLS
collection of inscriptions from the Hermon, Aliquot recently studied this
inscription and mentions Clermont-Ganneau as being the first editor to
publish the text.57 From his reading of the inscription, Clermont-
Ganneau recognized the divine order of ‘the greatest and holy god’
(θεου̑ μεγίστου) and considered it to be the Ba‘al Hermon of the Bible
under a Hellenized name: ‘and the Hittites who dwelt on Mt. Baal-
Hermon’ (Judg. 3.3); ‘they were very numerous from Bashan to Baal-
Hermon, Senir and Mt. Hermon’ (1 Chron. 5.23).58 In Aliquot’s opinion
this oath fits well ‘with the ancient traditions that characterized Mt.
Hermon as the mountain of oath’ and also reflects a similar order
restricting access to another holy mountain, that of Mt Carmel.59
Nickelsburg, however, notes two parallels to the Enoch tradition. He
first of all suggests that the oath is reminiscent of the oath of the watchers
in 1 Enoch 6.6; while the title of the ‘greatest and holy God’ closely
parallels a divine title in 1 Enoch ‘the Great Holy One’, often rendered in
Greek as ‘the Great and Holy One’.60 That such an enclosure, as first
reported by Warren, exists on the summit of Hermon lends credence to a
long tradition of the sacred high place, and supports the textual evidence
for Hermon as a holy mountain. It also provides evidence for the
endurance of a people who must have made considerable effort to
come and worship within such a harsh and cruel environment.
That the mountain preserved its sacredness throughout is dramati-
cally demonstrated by the presence of numerous temples and cult sites.
During the years 2002 and 2003 two epigraphic survey campaigns were
conducted covering the Lebanese and Syrian side of the Hermon.
These surveys are part of a programme to collect all the inscriptions
on the Hermon to complete the corpus of IGLS epigraphic material
covering the whole of the Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and the Hermon.61
The survey did not cover the southern (Israeli) side of the mountain, as
Dar’s surveys on the Hermon have been included within the corpus. In
total the corpus now lists at least twenty-five cult sites on the Hermon,
spread over 1,500 sq km including Har Sena‘im and Qal‘at Bustra,
56
Greek text and translation in Nickelsburg 2001: 247.
57
Aliquot 2008: 82. Aliquot provides a translation of the inscription based on
Clermont-Ganneau.
58
See also Lipiński 1971: 27–8 and Nickelsburg 2001: 247.
59
Aliquot 2008: 82. 60 Nickelsburg 2001: 247. 61 Aliquot 2008: 74 and n. 7.
Archaeology 67
previously surveyed by Dar and his team. Evidence from the epi-
graphic campaigns reveals the frequency of Roman sanctuaries situ-
ated at high altitude, and verifies that ‘Mt. Hermon was continually
inhabited during the first three centuries AD’.62 These surveys have
provided much additional information for the continued study of
temples on the Hermon as well as the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon.
There is still a need to better understand the reasons for so many temple
structures in the Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and Hermon during the
Roman period, and Aliquot refers to Seyrig’s statement that these
temples may well be ‘the clue to an important social and economic
change that [would] deserve to be one day the focus of a study’.63
As a result of his surveys in the Hermon region, Dar identified
several temple and cult sites, many with pools of water and stands of
oak close by. The existence of so many temple sites in the Hermon area
and the Anti-Lebanon merely confirms an observation made by
Teixidor that a cult of the mountain gods was well preserved and at
all times an important element in the religious life of the people.
Mountains were the dwelling place of the gods, and sacrifices were
made at the acknowledged cult sites.64 The recent surveys covering the
northern regions of the mountain would support this view, and rein-
force observations made by the explorers of an earlier period. After
having reconnoitred the area of the southern Lebanon in the mid-late
nineteenth century, Warren was convinced that the village temples
about Mt Hermon were temples associated with the Wadi et-Teim,
which runs along the western flank of the mountain. Warren argued
that, because the wadi is closed at each end by a narrow gorge, it
formed a natural defence against invasion, therefore preserving these
structures where others in the plains had long disappeared. His obser-
vations led him to conclude further that the sacred enclosure on the
Hermon summit had ‘nothing in common in its construction with the
temples on the west below, and it may have had to do with a quite
different form of worship’.65 Warren may well be correct in his obser-
vations, and the ongoing study of these many temple structures may
help to clarify the significance of this sacred landscape. One important
aspect of the recent surveys has emphasized their geographical, homo-
geneous distribution, which contrasts with those of sanctuaries in the
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon which are less regular.66
62 63
Aliquot 2008: 77. Aliquot 2008: 73, quoting Seyrig, (1939), p. 441.
64 65
Teixidor 1977: 33. Warren 1869–1870: 214. 66 Aliquot 2008: 77.
Figure 2 Mount Hermon capped with snow as seen from the northern
reaches of the Golan
The Hermon
The pre-eminence of Mt Hermon as a sacred mountain, an ancient
Semitic high place, lends credence to this location as a place of
ancient worship. As the southern extension of the Anti-Lebanon
range, the Hermon massif covers an area c. 50 km from north to
south and c. 30 km from east to west. Its sheer size, rugged terrain,
deep ravines and high peaks have, to a large extent, helped to main-
tain it as ‘terra incognita’.67 The Nahal Sa‘ar acts as its southern
boundary, effectively separating it from the volcanic region of the
Golan Heights to the south. The Zebdani depression in which the
Barada river flows is at the northern most extension of the Hermon
proper providing an east–west passage through the Anti-Lebanon.
From here the Anti-Lebanon continues up to the Homs basin.
The Hasbani river, and its extension the Wadi et-Teim paralleling
the western foothills of the Anti-Lebanon, is effectively the
western boundary. Here the climate is heavily influenced by the
Mediterranean, and, as a consequence, the natural flora on the west-
ern slopes of the Hermon differs from that on its eastern slopes. Most
difficult to define is the eastern border with its steep inclines sloping
downward into the Damascus basin.68 At its higher levels the Hermon
is composed mainly of Jurassic limestone, similar to that of the
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, with an abundance of basalt, sandstone
and marl around the foothills and base of the mountain. Annual
67
Ma‘oz 1997: 279.
68
The following information on its climate, topography and environment is from
Dar 1993b, unless otherwise stated.
Archaeology 69
precipitation of up to 1,800 mm, mainly in the form of snow at higher

elevations, in combination with its geological formation helps to
create a karstic landscape in which springs and water sources are
found along its geological faults. The Dan, the Jordan and the
Hasbani all have their source within this south-western region of the
mountain, where this landscape is most prevalent. In those areas
where water was not readily available, cisterns were constructed by
the inhabitants.
Due to its geological and geographical location, climate on the
Hermon is not homogeneous, and there are significant differences
which affect both humans and agriculture. The summit is treeless, its
surface a layer of stones and loose boulders and, except for mid-
summer, usually covered in snow. In antiquity the inhabitants of this
region, as in the present, collected snow and stored it in underground
installations for use in the summer months. Dar suggested the possi-
bility of the inhabitants transporting snow to distant places, thus pro-
viding economic benefit to the settlement. It is only within the past few
years that the mountain’s unique climate has been fully understood and
appreciated. Its fierce winds are notorious, particularly at high eleva-
tions where the wind pattern evolves, which combined with its ‘destruc-
tive climate’ creates ‘an extraordinary and powerful phenomenon’.69
Along its western slopes, influenced as they are by the Mediterranean
winds, vines can be cultivated up to about 1,400 m (4,650 ft), with oak
trees and bushes surviving at higher elevations. Surveys conducted by
Dar and his team were able to establish that permanent human settle-
ments in antiquity were not found beyond the 1,500 m level. In areas
protected from the wind, those who chose to live on the slopes of the
Hermon constructed their dwellings to withstand the extremes in cli-
mate, as well as to ensure their own survival. Dwellings made from the
local limestone had walls averaging in thickness from 0.80 m to 1.20 m.
The stones are well hewn and fitted without mortar. Windows were
small, and flat roofs were constructed with a beam framework on
which layers of plaster made from wattles and earth were placed.
Most settlements were built near natural springs or, where there was
no running water, they collected water in open reservoirs or cisterns.
Ancient orchards have been detected up to the 1,000 m level.
Dar and his group were able to trace many of the ancient roads
connecting these small settlements, their surveys detecting a more
frequent west–east direction than north–south. Four main longitudinal
69
Dar 1993b: 6–9.
routes across the landscape were determined across difficult mountain-

ous terrain, enabling connections to be made ‘between settlements in
the foothills, the internal mountain settlements and more distant neigh-
bors’.70 This route system of ancient roads has yet to be studied fully,
but its significance cannot be overlooked. It would seem that, in spite of
harsh conditions, both with physical landscape and uncertain weather,
the Hermon was home to a number of settlements and inhabitants who
were able to successfully adapt to the environment. The epigraphic
surveys conducted by Aliquot and his team will undoubtedly contrib-
ute to enriching our knowledge of this region.
Dar’s Hermon surveys and excavations

The first surveys were carried out in the years 1970–2. In 1983 Dar
and his team returned to the site after a stone, from a public building,
was found in a thicket. As the stone was discovered to have a Greek
inscription, it gave the impetus to renew their surveys and excava-
tions. Archaeological excavations under the auspices of the
Department of Land of Israel Studies at Bar Ilan University, and
with support from the IAA, were carried out from 1983 to 1989.71 The
documented sites numbered in total sixty-four, but due to the
Hermon’s difficult terrain only a few were excavated. The team
were also unable to carry out a complete systematic survey of the
whole region, therefore not all archaeological sites are necessarily
listed. Some sites have been destroyed in recent years while others
have decayed naturally. The result of these surveys has, however,
provided a wealth of information on an area little known beforehand,
and provoked further interest to understand more fully this region in
antiquity. Settlement sites connected by ancient road systems, agri-
cultural areas protected by walls, water storage facilities, oil presses,
evidence of mining and pottery making, all have revealed a rich and
industrious habitation on this mountainous terrain. The few sites
which were more fully surveyed and partially excavated exposed
temple structures at Kafr Dura and Qal‘at Bustra as well as Har
Sena‘im, and stelae and evidence for cultic activity from the
Hellenistic period, or even earlier, and lasting well into the Roman
period.
70
Dar 1993b: 10.
71
Unless otherwise stated, most of the information on the site is from Dar 1993, with
pp. 180–99 listing all sites surveyed and a brief description of each.
Archaeology 71
Har Sena‘im
First surveyed in the 1970–2 expeditions, Har Sena‘im became one of
the ‘focal points’ of the 1983 to 1989 archaeological excavations
conducted by Dar and his team. It is one of the larger and more
significant settlement sites on the Hermon, situated only 4 km north
of Paneas (modern Banias) and connected to an ancient road system.
The site occupies an area 400 m from east to west and 150 m north to
south, within the north-eastern part of the Sirion range, including the
Hermon ridge. At an elevation of 1,146 m above sea level, the area is
still covered to a large extent by oak forest which forms part of an
ancient oak forest still preserved on the south-west slopes of the
Hermon. The ancient name for Har Sena‘im is unknown, its present
name given by the Israelis who explored the region in the 1970s. Local
residents of the area still refer to Har Sena‘im by its various Arabic
names: Ras Jabel Halawa (Head of Sweetness Mountain) or el-Hirbe
(The Ruin). As a result of their excavations, the team were able to
define four distinct areas at Har Sena‘im: an upper cult enclosure
including Structure 7; a lower cult enclosure with the remains of two
temple structures; a settlement area which covered approximately 10
dunams (2.5 acres); a structure with pillars and hewn grave at the
southern foot of the hill.
Upper cult enclosure

The area designated as an upper cult enclosure has been described as
the ‘most impressive of Dar’s discoveries’, and sits along the northern
edge of an escarpment whose peak rises to 1,146 m above sea level.72
The area is divided by a saddle creating two sections, one to the west
and one to the east. The northern edge of the escarpment affords a
spectacular view of the Nahal Sion to the west, the Nahal Sena‘im on
the north and surrounding mountains of the Hermon to the east. The
survey and partial excavations were concentrated within the western
section of the upper cult enclosure which revealed a natural rock
sanctuary enclosed by crude walls. Along the western side a 40 m by
40 m section was measured and studied, which included quarried bed-
rock, the head-walls of courtyards and structures, round stelae and cult
altars. Although the archaeologists who excavated the site were
unable to determine the nature of the cavities hewn out of the rock
72
Jacobson 1994–1995: 67.
Figure 3a Looking to the north-west from the northern ridge of the upper
cult enclosure, in the far distance the northern Galilee and Huleh valley with
Lebanon beyond
that create the varied geometric figures, they considered the whole
enclosure to have been a cultic high place, typical of the ancient Near
East. An apt description of the enclosure is provided by one archae-
ologist who saw it as ‘an agglomeration of rooms clustered against a
natural rocky outcrop overlooking a spectacular view’.73 Finds from
the site, including many fragments of vessels, along with numerous
scattered and fallen stelae, led Dar to conclude that the enclosure had
served as a cult area in which cultic feasts had taken place.
Archaeologists are in agreement that rituals were practised here, in
the open, and likely involved the veneration of large stelae and
73
Ma‘oz 1997: 281.
Archaeology 73
Figure 3b Looking to the north-east from the upper cult enclosure
ceremonial meals. In total more than a dozen round pillars were

discovered scattered about the site, some in pairs and some single,
either standing or overturned. Dar refers invariably to these round
pillars as ‘stele’, and concludes they were not an integral part of any
building’s construction, therefore served another purpose. All of these
round pillars are uninscribed. In only one area is a pair in situ, standing
just 25 m south-east in what is known as Structure 7 Locus 17 of the
upper cult enclosure. The pillars in Structure 7 were found upright,
along the centre of a room (3.4 × 4 m), and on a dirt and stone founda-
tion. They are made of local limestone with the heads flattened but not
smoothed. One pillar stands 0.9 m high, the other 0.7 m, and together
Figure 4 Facing north and part of the upper cult enclosure with Locus 17 in
the foreground
they are 0.65 m apart on a north–south axis. Adjacent to the south

pillar was a plastered basin full of ashes, designated not to be a stove,
which is ordinarily made of clay. Half of the room to the west of the
pillars had a white plaster floor, while the other half was paved with
stones. In the opinion of one archaeologist, the finds from this room left
no doubt that ‘the squatty “round pillars” of the Hermon were cultic in
nature’ and suggested a possible Ugaritic origin.74
74
Ma‘oz 1997: 281.
Archaeology 75
Figure 5a The two stelae in situ at Structure 7
Finds from Structure 7 include shards of local ‘Ituraean’ pottery

(Dar’s designation) along with fragments of eastern terra sigillata
that, according to Dar, matched ceramic finds from the early and
late Roman periods. In his observations on the site Dar felt there was
enough evidence to demonstrate the stelae were not an integral part of
the building’s construction, and their main use was for ritual purposes.
His statements in regard to the enclosure as a whole, and his obser-
vations on Structure 7 leave little reason to question his conclusions
Figure 5b The taller stele
Figure 5c The smaller stele

Archaeology 77
that Har Sena‘im was an ancient cult sanctuary. Whether it can be

considered an ‘Ituraean’ cult sanctuary is quite another question. The
difficulty remains in the uncertainty of his initial claim that some of the
pottery shards found at the site be identified as ‘Ituraean’. If we ques-
tion this label and simply recognize it as Golan Ware, the original and
far more acceptable label, then there is nothing that clearly identifies
this site as Ituraean. Jacobson has suggested that in order to ‘justify
such a firm identification with the Ituraeans, the author would have
to demonstrate a distribution of this pottery throughout the Ituraean
territories, and in particular in the Beqa‘a valley and the Anti-Lebanon
Mountains’.75 Indeed this is a crucial point. The texts indicate that by
the middle of the first century BCE the Ituraeans had established a
principality within the southern Biqa‘ valley. Any excavations and
surveys in this region to date have yet to provide specific evidence to
support this, with the late Hellenistic period being little understood
within this hinterland. The stone pillars, together with the possible cult
practised, present an interesting aspect to the site of Har Sena‘im; as
with the high place they are an expression of the aniconic tradition
within ancient Near Eastern worship, and found throughout the envi-
rons of Syria-Palestine. The site of Har Sena‘im is considered by one
scholar to be of particular importance because, ‘irrespective of its
dating, it represents a virtual high place of relatively primitive and
humble dimensions when compared with other rural sites in Syria’.76
Standing stones are well known through archaeological discoveries,
and their possible connection to the tradition of the baitylos, regarded
as holy, has been much discussed. That there are two in situ at Har
Sena‘im may offer some clue as to cult practices at the site, but does not
reveal any information that is specifically Ituraean.
Excursus on the standing stone

The use of the phrase ‘standing stones’ is dependent upon its meaning
within the context of the ancient Near East, either as an ‘intentionally
raised stone’ or ‘stones vertically set into the ground’. These are stones
erected by human hands, yet not to be considered as having an
architectural function.77 They can range from the rough, unhewn,
natural stones to those that have been worked, but not inscribed
either with a relief or an inscription. Unlike stelae, the standing stones
75
Jacobson 1994–1995: 68–9. 76 Freyne 2001: 193.
77
J. Gamberoni, ‘masseba’ TDOT, III: 483–94.
are usually neither decorated nor inscribed.78 The standing stones

may vary in size and shape, may stand alone or in groups. It has been
suggested by one scholar that where a typology has been attempted it
remains unresolved as to whether or not there is any significant
correlation between form and function.79 They are the ‫ מצבה‬of the
Hebrew Bible, derived from the Semitic root nṣb, ‘to be stood
upright’. In Aramaic they are known as ‘Ammūdā, meaning “col-
umn” or “standing stone”’.80 The ancient Semitic world appears to
have preferred the cruder stones, shaped only by nature and usually
freestanding following the precepts set down in Exod. 20.25: ‘And if
you make me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stones;
for if you wield your tool upon it you profane it.’ A different aspect is
reflected in the Arabic nuṣub (plural anṣāb) with the meaning of blocks
of stone on which the blood of victims sacrificed to idols was poured,
or it may be a reference to those stones that mark a sacred enclosure.81
In most instances in the Septuagint, the ‫ מצבות‬are rendered as ‘stele’,
interpreting the Greek στήλη as meaning ‘standing stone’.82
Significantly, the standing stones discovered at sites on the Hermon
are referred to as stelae by Dar. However, according to Gamberoni,
‘Modern scholarship prefers to reserve the word “stela” for artisti-
cally worked columns or raised stones with inscriptions and/or pic-
tures’, whereas Graesser distinguishes between the stele as inscribed
and the maṣṣebot as uninscribed.83 This distinction is worth consid-
ering, particularly in light of the stones found at Har Sena‘im, and
other sites on the Hermon.
Inscribed stones are found occasionally within the same context as
the uninscribed, as at Hazor. At times the standing stones have been
considered to be structural, emphasizing the need on the part of the
archaeologist to use caution when interpreting their function.
Although Dar’s excavations were incomplete, he was led to an inter-
pretation that they were for cultic purposes and not structural. In
general the stones can vary in shape, size and function, depending on
context; some are understood to be funerary/burial markers, some as
commemorative stones or markers of a legal relationship. In terms of
these various ‘overlapping’ functions, de Moor suggests there should
be no ‘sharp differentiation of types’ and sees the commemorative
78
Avner 1999–2000: 97. 79 Graesser 1972: 48, see also n. 19.
80
Lipiński 2000: 599. 81 Hoyland 2001: 183–7. See also Fahd 1993: 154.
82
La Rocca-Pitts 2001: 265. 83 Gamberoni, TDOT, III: 484; Graesser 1972: 35.
Archaeology 79
aspect as the one that ‘connects all’.84 Others are cultic, sometimes
defining a sacred area in which the deity might possibly be perceived.
In regard to the meaning and function of these stones, and the role
they have played within the religious realm of the ancient Near East,
there remains still much discussion and debate, and a topic worthy of
its own study.
If we consider Gamberoni’s definition, the stones found on the
Hermon fall into the category of the ‫מצבות‬. They are uninscribed,
as is typical for ancient Palestine where few inscribed stelae have been
found. In this aspect the Palestinian stones differ markedly from those
of the empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia.85 Since these stones are
uninscribed, it is difficult to understand their specific function within
the ancient world. Among the more well-known ‫ מצבות‬of Palestine
are the standing stones at Gezer. Shortly after the Gezer standing
stones were first published another publication described a group of
large stones from Assur, some inscribed and others uninscribed.
Bridging the gap of distance and time between these two sites are
two other sites in which rough uninscribed stones were found, those at
Tell Chuera and at Tell Halaf.86 The main difference – and what
characterizes the stones at Har Sena‘im – is that they are all columnar
as opposed to either blocks, or crude, natural stones.
Any discussion on the meaning and function of the standing stones
at Har Sena‘im (or at other sites on the Hermon) would require a
much more detailed study. The local cult practices in the Hermon
area are, as yet, not fully understood, although Aliquot’s surveys have
supported a connection between these sanctuaries and the local com-
munities nearby. Unique to Har Sena‘im are the stelae, and in partic-
ular the two in situ, and what might be said at this time is their natural
affiliation with the religious world of Syria-Palestine from its early
history through to the Roman era. One suggestion is to look to the
pillars of Ugarit and the Lebanon for parallels to the standing stones
of Har Sena‘im, and the Hermon region. That standing stones can be
considered part of a long tradition within the ancient Near East is
reasonably certain, and well supported by other sites. Excavations at
the Ugaritic site of Ras Shamra determined that two temples with
outer enclosures had stood on the acropolis; each enclosure also
included an altar for sacrifice and a standing stone.87 A more exten-
sive study of the site of Har Sena‘im and its environs is needed before
84
De Moor 1995: 3. 85 Graesser 1972: 35.
86
Canby 1976: 113–28. 87 Curtis 1985: 88.
one can say what these standing stones actually mean in terms of the
cult practised or, for that matter, what might be said about the
identity of the inhabitants who raised up the stones.
Lower cult enclosure

The lower cult enclosure is situated about 100 m south of the older,
upper cult enclosure. Included within the temenos of the lower cult
enclosure are the remains of two temples, a well-paved square in
front, and a group of three stone altars. The remnants of what was
an impressive gate into the temenos still stand. A narrow ancient path
leads down from the enclosure to the foot of the mountain in the east.
The upper temple was located in the centre of the enclosure, while the
lower temple was built at an angle of 45° to the upper temple, its main
axis running east–west. In the first year of excavations at the site the
archaeologists were not aware of the existence of a lower temple on
account of a thick covering of vegetation. Their excavations did not
allow them to determine which of the temples was the earlier, and,
therefore, they proposed that the two temples may have been part of a
single cult complex. Both temples face a natural stone mass which
showed no signs of quarrying or construction, leading the excavators
to conclude that it ‘tends to affirm the sanctity attributed to the area; it
is as if the temples are sitting at the foot of the rocks’.88 The finds from
this area were among the richest produced at Har Sena‘im. They
range from small objects, architectural pieces, votive objects, frag-
ments of eagles to other sculptural figures, including human.89
Dar speaks with some confidence about Har Sena‘im being both an
‘Ituraean’ settlement and cult site. His assessment of the possible cult
practices associated with the Syro-Phoenician world of the first cen-
tury BCE is not unreasonable, yet there is nothing to support his
contention of it being a specifically Ituraean site. His firm identifica-
tion of Har Sena‘im as being Ituraean is based mainly on a pottery
type found originally in the Golan, and discussed in the previous
chapter. In his summary of the pottery finds from surveys, and partial
excavations at Har Sena‘im, Dar emphasizes that due to the stony
structure of the area they were unable to determine any stratigraphy.
The objects were dated by comparison with objects from other sites,
some found near the Hermon, and others at some distance away.
Several different groups of pottery were identified, including some
88
Dar 1993b: 60. 89
See Dar 1993b: 60–81 for a discussion of the finds.
Archaeology 81
imported ware (a Hellenistic bowl and fragments of eastern sigillata),

along with a majority of local ware. The local ware consisted of well-
crafted and delicately wrought material, as well as a cruder type, with
a large part of this pottery having no equivalent in any other site in
Palestine. According to Dar, this seems to be of a distinctive local
variety. The ‘Ituraean’ vessels constituted a large part of the finds, and
although included within the locally made pottery, Dar considered
them as a ‘separate group’.90 This ‘separate group’ paralleled the
same locally made vessels first seen in the northern Golan, and sub-
sequently named Golan Ware. Dar’s identification of these vessels as
‘Ituraean’ is based on his observation that the finding of these vessels
appears to correspond with what he considers ‘Ituraean country’,
with Mt Hermon as its ‘stronghold’.91 Further to this, the Golan
‘Ituraean’ pottery found in the southern regions of the Hermon
could be dated to the Hellenistic period or even earlier, with produc-
tion lasting until the Byzantine period or even the early Islamic.
As a consequence of his work on the Hermon, Dar gave an ethnic
identity to a pottery type that is mainly confined to a storage jar/pithoi
and found in the northern Golan, the northern Huleh valley and the
southern Hermon regions. He based his argument on ‘historical and
archaeological considerations’ in which he believes the ‘Ituraean
tribes arrived on Mt. Hermon before the Hellenistic Period, and
that their connections with their neighbours in the Phoenician
Syrian region date from before that’.92 Contradicting earlier views,
Ma‘oz challenged Dar’s conclusion stating: ‘There is … nothing in the
archaeology of Mount Hermon which carries an unequivocal stamp
“Ituraean”; his definition of the Hermon settlement as such rests,
therefore, on a chain of historical assumptions which, although
based on previous scholarship, is by no means beyond doubt.’93
This challenge by Ma‘oz reflects a concern which needs to be taken
seriously. The historical assumptions upon which Dar bases his con-
clusions are speculative and open to question. Our understanding of
these three regions, the Hermon, the Golan and the Biqa‘, will require
more detailed study in order to make a definitive statement as to the
nature of the inhabitants who settled these disparate territories. The
most compelling question raised is: ‘How can archaeology distinguish
between the various ethnic groups?’94 A problematic question to
90
Dar 1993b: 80. 91 Dar 1993b: 80–81. 92 Dar 1993b: 41.
93
Ma‘oz 1997: 279; see Freyne 2001: 192–3 who refers to Ma‘oz.
94
Ma‘oz 1997: 280.
answer easily if in fact it can be answered in regard to Ituraeans. Dar’s

analysis of the pottery and other finds has been challenged, and he
admits it does require further study.95
The site of Har Sena‘im and the archaeological finds it reveals will
require more extensive study in order to better understand its signifi-
cance as well as its place within the Hermon region as a whole. Its
geographical location in such an inhospitable environment appears to
suggest a people hardy and industrious enough to make it habitable,
and of a cult which reflects a Semitic milieu within the Hellenistic and
Roman world of the late first century BCE. These impressive discov-
eries, comprising unusual cult enclosures with evidence of temple
structures and an accumulation of standing stones, are significant in
themselves, and further study may well contribute to our understand-
ing of the cults practised in this region. In order to understand more
clearly the many settlement sites on Mt Hermon it is perhaps more
productive to pursue the study from a more objective view, to see this
region in the light of the Semitic world from which it came and the
Hellenistic-Roman world into which it was thrust. As there is little
known or understood regarding the indigenous population of the
mountainous areas and those who settled these parts, it is perhaps
too presumptive to assume that they were Ituraeans.
Chalcis ad Libanum and the Biqa‘

After Macras one comes to the Massyas Plain, which con-
tains also some mountainous parts, among which is Chalcis,
the acropolis, as it were, of the Massyas (Strabo, Geog.
16.2.18).
If Strabo’s information is accepted, then the acropolis or capital of the
Ituraean principality was Chalcis, known from the classical texts as
Chalcis ad Libanum to distinguish it from the north Syrian city of
Chalcis ad Belum. Neubauer writes of Chalcis: ‘‫ – כלקיס‬Khalkis est
sans doute la ville de Chalcis à l’est de Tripolis, appelée aujourd’hui
Anjar.’96 In spite of this, much discussion still surrounds what might
be considered the correct identification for the site of ancient Chalcis.
Polybius, in his account of the march of the Seleucid king Antiochus
III and his forces during the Fourth Syrian War (219–217 BCE),
95
Dar 1993b: 200; see also Israel Shatzman, review of Dar 1993b in SCI 14 (1995):
184–5.
96
Neubauer 1868: 296.
Archaeology 83
describes how the Seleucid king ‘took the offensive with his whole
army and crossing the desert entered the defile (aulon) known as
Marsyas, which lies between the chains of Libanus and Antilibanus
and affords a narrow passage between the two. Just where it is
narrowest it is broken by marshes and lakes from which the perfumed
reed (calamus = sweet-flag) is cut, and here it is commanded on the
one side by a place called Brochoi (“Springs”) and on the other by
Gerrha, the passage between being quite narrow’ (Hist. 5.45.7–46.2).
In a later passage (Hist. 5.61.5–10) Brochoi and Gerrha are again
mentioned in reference to the same war when Antiochus, having
advanced his army, ‘encamped at the narrow passage near Gerrha
by the lake that lies in the middle’. In these few passages Polybius
presents us with a dramatic and recognizable picture of the Biqa‘
valley in antiquity.
An ongoing debate has concentrated on attempts to understand
Polybius’ geography merely adding to prolonged discussions on iden-
tifying either Brochoi or Gerrha as ancient Chalcis. This initial ques-
tion is made further complicated when considering whether one of
two present-day villages, ‘Anjar and Majdal ‘Anjar, both located in
this same region, is the possible site of Chalcis. Some have suggested
‘Anjar as the Gerrha of Polybius, while others have claimed Gerrha as
Chalcis. Initially both Brochoi and Gerrha were Ptolemaic defensive
forts intended to guard the only accessible north–south routes
through the Biqa‘. Perhaps the first question to be asked is whether
Gerrha and Brochoi can be identified, and the second whether it is
then possible to determine which might possibly be ancient Chalcis.
The Amarna letters and Egyptian texts of the second millennium
BCE provide us with the earliest mention of the Biqa‘. In the Old
Testament the name Bqʿt hlbnm is given for Biqa‘ as opposed to the
Late Bronze Age designation Amqu. The Biqa‘ valley, in contrast to
the Hermon or the Golan/Bashan region, manifests a dramatically
different landscape and environment. Averaging 10 to 15 km wide
and 1,000 m above sea level, the Biqa‘ has at times been described as a
plateau or plain, enclosed by high mountains, the Lebanon to the west
and the Anti-Lebanon, with its geographical extension the Hermon,
to the east. Historically and geographically this landscape forms part
of a narrow cultural land-bridge between the Mediterranean on the
western coastline and the Syro-Arabian desert to the east, providing
also an important connection between the Nile valley in the south and
the territories of Asia Minor and Mesopotamia in the north.
Throughout antiquity the valley formed a natural passageway in
every direction, allowing for traffic in goods and movement of peo-

ples. In geological terms the Biqa‘ valley constitutes the northern end
of the Great Rift Valley, running south from the Orontes valley in the
north, and through the Jordan valley to the Red Sea at its southern
end, and is in reality only part of the Great Rift extending into Africa.
In its entirety the Biqa‘ lies within modern Lebanon and continues to
be an important focal point for traffic moving across the length and
breadth of the region. Its total length from Jubb Janin to the Homs
basin is approximately 175 km, the average height above sea level in
sharp contrast to its natural extension, the Jordan valley to the south.
In the watershed region of the Leontes and Orontes rivers, within
the environs of Baalbek, the valley is divided naturally between its
southern and northern parts. Looking at the Biqa‘ from a ‘settlement-
geographical point of view’, Hachmann was of the opinion that the
‘northern border of the Beqa‘ has to be at the edge of the plain of
Baalbek’.97 The landscape to the north of Baalbek changes dramat-
ically: the terrain is drier, sparse and rocky, with arid steppe merging
into the Syrian flatlands. The region known to Strabo (Geog. 16.2.20)
as the classical Massyas Plain was included within the greater geo-
graphical region of Coele Syria. In antiquity most of this southern
area was covered in marsh and numerous lakes, the region where the
lake of Polybius would likely have existed. The name Biqa‘ (pl. for
baq’ah) itself is evocative of the landscape, its meaning denoting a
depression between mountains, and applied especially to a place
where water stagnates in contrast to a normal watering place. The
word also appears frequently as a toponym, as exemplified here.
Surveys have been able to substantiate human settlements in the
Biqa‘ since the Neolithic Age.98 Extending west and south-west of
Baalbek down to Jubb Janin, this area of the Biqa‘ is today almost
exclusively fertile alluvial land.
At its southernmost end, the Biqa‘ is divided by the Nahr al-Litani
plate, and the north-west and western slopes of the Hermon. A vital
connection between the Biqa‘ and the upper Jordan valley is formed
by the Wadi et-Teim (or Wādī at-Taym) that runs east of the Nahr al-
Litani along the western base of the Hermon. In the early spring of
1870, Charles Warren, on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund,
explored this region and wrote a vivid description as he viewed the
pass from the western side at a height of 5,170 ft (1,575 m). This
southern region had been visited before by travellers from the West,
97 98
Hachmann 1989: 17. Marfoe 1999.
Archaeology 85
as Edward Robinson and William Francis Lynch both wrote and

published their impressions of the landscape, its terrain and accounts
of the inhabitants.
North-west of Baalbek the steep, well-watered eastern slopes of the
Lebanon range reach to a height of over 3,000 m, and confine the
western edge of the Biqa‘ valley below. Resulting from a geological
shift, a fractured anticline, the Lebanon range slopes gently to the
coast along its western flank. On its eastern side, the Biqa‘ valley is
enclosed by the mountain ranges of the Anti-Lebanon and the
Hermon. As the Anti-Lebanon is far more broken up than its counter-
part, the Lebanon, it provides various east–west passages which allow
for roads connecting the Mediterranean coast, through the Lebanon
mountains into the Biqa‘, and then on to the east. In turn this allows
access to the Damascus basin and the Syrian desert beyond, while the
Wadi et-Teim offers a natural link between the southern Biqa‘ and the
upper Jordan valley.
Marfoe considered the lake mentioned by Polybius as undoubtedly
the same marshy region still evident in the southern Biqa‘ today. In
making this statement he made specific reference to an earlier article
in which Rey-Coquais argues for the identification of this lake (that of
Polybius) with the ‘lake of aromatic plants in the auloniskos of
Theophrastos’.99
Sweet-flag and ginger-grass grow beyond the Libanus
between that range and another small range, in the depres-
sion thus formed; and not, as some say, between Libanus and
Anti-Libanus. For Anti-Libanus is a long way from Libanus,
and between them is a wide fair plain called ‘The Valley’ but,
where the sweet-flag and ginger-grass grow, there is a large
lake, and they grow near it in the dried up marshes, covering
an extent of more than thirty furlongs.100
Some years later Hafez Chehab, when studying the site of ‘Anjar,
described these same marshes and lakes as extending over the whole
width of a shallow plain, whose altitude varied only between 964 and
967.5 m above sea level. The medieval Arab geographer Abu-l Fidâ
described it as a ‘sheet of stagnant water, full of thickets and reeds,
lying, at the distance of a day’s journey, to the west of Ba‘albakk
99
Marfoe 1999: 630; with reference to Rey-Coquais 1964: 289–312.
100
Theophrastos, Enquiry into Plants 9.7.1 (trans. Sir Arthur Hort, LCL).
[A.F. 40]’.101 In their own descriptions of the Lebanon region, both

Strabo and Ptolemy make no mention of a lake in the middle of the
Biqa‘ valley; however, this does not preclude the existence of such a
lake. Vast stretches of the marshland were first drained in 1320–39 CE
with a second drainage as late as post 1860.102 Salient information
regarding the first drainage in the fourteenth century CE is found in
marginal notes from the Paris MS of Abu-l Fidâ’s Chronicle under
the year 740 AH. Within the complete document names of those
responsible for the drainage operation along with a description of
the area before and after the draining are recorded. The picture of the
draining remains clear and vivid:
The lake of the Bikâ was a lowland, covered with reeds and
osiers, which they used for making mats. It lay in the middle
of the Bikâ Plain of Ba‘albakk, between Karak Nûh and ‘Ain
al Jarr. The Amir Saif ad Din Dunkuz bought it for himself
from the public treasury, and cleared the land of water by
digging a number of channels, which drew off its waters into
the Litany River. He then established here over twenty
villages.103
It was the work of the Jesuits in the nineteenth century that led to the
reclaiming of this land for agricultural use. German excavators later
found evidence that this swampy environment in the southern Biqa‘
was not completely devoid of settlements in antiquity. Notwithstanding
this reclamation, at the time both Strabo and Polybius describe this
region of a low-lying valley or plain it would have been a shallow lake
and/or marsh, and in parts difficult to cross.
Polybius’ description of Brochoi as ‘the place that lies on the lake
and commands the passage’ (5.61.9) is identified by M. Chehab as
‘Ayn Barakah. The site lies at the foot of the Lebanon range, between
Jdita and Qab Elias. ‘This source is a counterpart to ‘Anjar, on the
other side of the Biqa‘, and is located at a crossing of the Beirut–
Damascus road with the road which passes between Lebanon and the
swamplands of ‘Ammiq going toward the south of the Biqa‘.’104
Marfoe contended that the Hellenistic site of Brochoi could be iden-
tified with Qala‘at es-Salūk (or Al Mudik), which lies at the foot of the
Jebel Barouk (in the Lebanon range), and Gerrha with Majdal ‘Anjar.
However, in a more recent article (2001) it was suggested that Gerrha
101 102
Le Strange 1890: 69. Chehab 1963: 19.
103 104
Le Strange 1890: 69. Chehab 1963: 19.
Archaeology 87
might have been located near ‘Anjar (ain al-Jarr) and Brochoi as
possibly on the opposite (western) side, the eastern slopes of the
Jebel al-Baruk. Hachmann, in his studies of the terrain, attempted
to understand the region, the extent of the marsh/lake area and what it
would have been like in antiquity. According to the results of his
study, he was able to determine that the lake would have extended to
the west, to the mountain edge near Qal‘at as-Salūk, the same site
mentioned by Marfoe as the possible Brochoi. Describing the route
likely taken by the Seleucid forces, following Polybius Hachmann
suggests that there must have been two routes leading south: one
which ran along the foot of the Lebanon range passing by Brochoi,
and the second which did not, apparently, ‘enter the Wādī at-Taym
between ‘Anjar and Majdal ‘Anjar – as one may have expected –
because in that case the march of Antiochus could not have been
halted near Gerrha and at the lake. It must have led south along the
western foot of the Antilebanon and did not turn into the Wādī at-
Taym (called Sahl ‘Izz in its northern part), until just southeast of
Kāmid el-Lōz, through the pass of Wādī Abū ‘Abbād.’105
There appears to be some general agreement as to the location of
ancient Brochoi. Its location affords a very narrow passage, barely
200–300 m wide, between the foothills and the lake, while Gerrha
overlooked a narrow defile, less than 1 km wide, at the northern end
of the Wadi et-Teim. What has indeed provoked greater discussion is
the location of Gerrha. Dussaud had much earlier identified Gerrha
with the ruins at ‘Anjar based mainly on the similarity of the name
Gerra, and the jar of ‘Anjar. However, ‘Anjar is not situated in a
strategic spot, and Dussaud’s identification was challenged by
H. Chehab. ‘Majdal ‘Anjar, two kilometres to the south, is a more
likely site for Gerra, since its promontory does indeed advance into
the plain (which is at its narrowest at that level) and controls the
passes along the eastern foothills of the Biqa‘.’106 There is agreement
from Hachmann where, in considering its geographical location, he
sums it up: ‘The name of the town Gerrha may correspond to ‘Ain al-
Garr = ‘Anjar. Whether this name is identical with modern ‘Anjar
remains questionable. Its location and name, indicating a fortified
position, points rather to Majdal ‘Anjar. If Gerrha lay east of the
lake, Brochoi must be looked for west of it.’107
105 106 107

Hachmann 1989: 21. Chehab 1993: 42. Hachmann 1989: 20.
Recent excavations in the Lebanon

In 1997, after a fifteen-year break, excavations at the site of Kamid el-
Loz were revived under the direction of Marlies Heinz, University of
Freiburg. Kamid el-Loz, known as Kumidi in the Egyptian Amarna
archive, is situated at the south-eastern end of the Biqa‘ plain, com-
prising one of the largest and highest tells of the region. The present
objectives are to investigate the Hellenistic-Roman settlement area
which was exposed in 2000. These renewed excavations have pro-
vided evidence for the existence of a large Hellenistic settlement at the
site.108 Included among the pottery finds are parallels with pottery
from Tel Anafa, although no definitive conclusions have yet been
made. It may, after further study, reveal the possibility of close
relations between the two regions during the second century BCE.
This recent work, refocussing on Kamid el-Loz, has contributed to
the larger investigation of settlement patterns in the Biqa‘ plain dur-
ing the Hellenistic period and early Roman period. It is hoped that
these renewed excavations will provide evidence to understand more
fully the settlement patterns at the site, and its larger implications for
the Biqa‘ as a whole. Marfoe’s 1972 and 1974 surveys mainly con-
centrated on earlier period sites in the Biqa‘, with the Hellenistic and
Roman periods little known at that time. However, his work has been
an invaluable resource for any continued investigation into the his-
tory of the Biqa‘, and as a result of this the Biqa‘ is, according to some
recent archaeologists, the most systematically and comprehensively
surveyed area in the Lebanon.109
In 2001 and 2002 surveys were carried out in the region east of
Kamid el-Loz, towards Yanta in the Anti-Lebanon mountains. These
surveys identified seventeen sites from which Hellenistic pottery was
found. Although a precise chronology was not possible from the finds,
analysis of the pottery allowed the excavators to make connections
for the Hellenistic period with the Huleh valley and the upper
Jordan.110 This would seem to support the claim for Kamid el-Loz
being an important centre which witnessed a resurgence in long-
distance trade during the Hellenistic and early Roman periods.
Heinz, in her summation of the Biqa‘ plain during the Hellenistic
period, sees this as a time when the Ituraeans infiltrated the region,
eventually settling in the Biqa‘, the Hermon and the Anti-Lebanon
108
Heinz et al. 2007–2008: 168. 109 Sader and Van Ess 1998: 259.
110
See Heinz et al. 2007–2008: 178.
Archaeology 89
regions. She suggests they later ‘took up residence in the Lebanese

mountains and in the hills of Galilee’.111 The reference to the Galilee
is, I would suggest, far too speculative and contradicts Berlin’s argu-
ment for there being no material evidence to indicate any Ituraean
settlement in the region of the northern Galilee. The material evi-
dence coming from the site of Kamid el-Loz is undoubtedly providing
much new information, but to date no definitive conclusions can be
made. Indications of renewed trade between the Biqa‘ and settlements
to the south are enough to suggest people were not isolated in spite of
political instability and an inhospitable landscape, and maintained
extensive trade routes. What this evidence does not present, however,
is firm identification with Ituraeans. Unless we accept all prior
assumptions and interpretations, there is as yet no clear and specific
evidence to make such claims.
The territories Ituraeans were given, the domains under their
control, are and remain elusive. After 64 BCE, when Roman rule
became paramount, boundaries were ill defined and territories much
disputed among the many ‘client’ rulers. Josephus is the only writer
who gives any information as to Ituraean territories at this period
of the second half of the first century BCE. It is difficult to deter-
mine just what Josephus actually means or how we are to under-
stand his writings. In reality, those who are given the power to lease
lands would have the powers to extract revenues from the local
populations. Josephus never mentions settlements of villages by
Ituraeans, nor do we read of movements of large populations. For
Josephus the Ituraeans remain a separate group, little more than a
constant menace in terms of their banditry, and generally an ethnos
seemingly without stability. Although the Ituraeans were organized
enough to form a principality and participate in the ongoing political
struggles of the period, whatever else that can be known must be
filtered through the rather negative reports of Josephus. Kamid
el-Loz will undoubtedly add to our knowledge of the Biqa‘ valley
and offer insights into its economic and social life during the
Hellenistic and early Roman periods. It may even settle the question
of the location of Chalcis, as Kamid el-Loz has also been suggested as
a possible site for the Ituraean acropolis as opposed to Majdal
‘Anjar.112
111
Heinz et al. 2007–2008: 178. 112
Reynolds 2003: 125.
Majdal ‘Anjar
Majdal ‘Anjar sits on a promontory at the northern end of the Wadi
et-Teim. The term ‘majdal/mejdel’ corresponds to the ancient Hebrew
‫( מגדל‬migdol), commonly used for tower or fortress, suggesting
the possibility of Majdal ‘Anjar as having served in that capacity.
The term is used equally as a place name for military stations. The
promontory advances into the plain at its narrowest point, where
passes along the eastern foothills of the Biqa‘ valley could be easily
controlled. ‘One narrow pass, the Wadi at-Taym, branches off the
eastern edge of the main valley at Madjdal ‘Andjar and eventually
reaches the Hule Valley in northern Palestine.’113 The village of
Majdal ‘Anjar, situated on the eastern slope of the promontory,
overlooks the northern extremity of the Wadi et-Teim. Although
the site is at a point where several caravan routes converge, it could
not have supported a caravan station in antiquity as it lacks a suffi-
cient supply of fresh water. On the heights of the promontory are the
ruins of a Roman-period temple which would indicate its significance
as a cult site, the characteristic high place of Semitic tradition. Full-
scale excavations at the site have yet to be undertaken, so what little
information is available is gained from the remains still standing, and
the detailed descriptions left by several early travellers to the region.
Excursus on the temple

If we accept the proposal that Majdal ‘Anjar was ancient Chalcis,
then it is reasonable to reconsider its significance through the remains
of a temple which still stands on the promontory. The temple is built
of local limestone with what Butcher refers to as a ‘locally-occurring
conglomerate’ used in the columns and pilasters.114 The term ‘locally-
occurring conglomerate’ refers to deposits of a Miocene conglomer-
ate found in the Biqa‘ valley and the region south-west of Damascus.
With its combination of mottled pink colouring and a rather rough
quality, seen from a distance this conglomerate has a vague resem-
blance to that of Egyptian granite. Found throughout the Biqa‘, it is
frequently seen being used in columns and pilasters.
The ruins at Majdal ‘Anjar indicate that the original building was
in the form of a large peripteral temple, a form described by one
author as ‘the most perfect of the temple forms’.115 The peripteral
113 114 115

Marfoe 1998: 22–4. Butcher 2003b: 205. Taylor 1967: 11.
Archaeology 91
Figure 6 The remains of the temple at Majdal ‘Anjar (photograph by

Hanswulf Bloedhorn, September 1999)
temple consists of columns round all four sides creating a peristyle or

colonnade. In plan the temple is in antis, the pronaos (or entrance
porch) formed by two antae (or pilasters), and two columns with the
antae forming the end of the walls of the cella. The structure sat on a
podium within a temenos, or courtyard, a feature common to many
temples of the Syria/Palestine region. An outer wall, the peribolos,
created the temenos or sacred space in which stood an altar, the focus
of the sacrificial ritual, and an enclosed area for worshippers to
congregate. The temple at Majdal ‘Anjar is one of approximately
one hundred cult sites situated in the Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and
Hermon region.116 Frequently placed at a high elevation providing an

imposing view over the surrounding countryside, many of these tem-
ples are raised on an immense substructure or podium increasing their
height and possibly indicating a desire to elevate the holy above the
more profane of everyday life. These temple structures tend to be
characteristic of the Roman temples of ancient Syria from the first
century CE onwards; they were, however, merely following in a long
tradition of architecture within the greater Semitic world. A large
court or temenos surrounded by a wall in which the temple stood with
a flight of steps leading up to the entrance all gave the illusion of a
high place. During the seventh and eighth centuries CE the Abbasids
converted the temple at Majdal ‘Anjar into a fortress in order to
guard the pass and caravan route through the Anti-Lebanon. As a
result the outer courtyard (temenos) was dismantled for construction
of defensive walls.
The fact that the temple at Majdal ‘Anjar remains unexcavated, as
do the majority of other temples in the region, does not diminish its
significance. It is reasonable to speculate that the structure rests on an
older cult site, important to the local population during the Seleucid
and possibly the Persian period, or perhaps even earlier. Descriptions
of its present remains indicate that the original was well built from
hard local limestone and finely crafted. If indeed the site of Majdal
‘Anjar was Chalcis, the acropolis of an Ituraean principality, it would
be entirely probable that much interest and care would be taken for
this, its main cult sanctuary. Although considered Roman in style, the
influence of Semitic culture and tradition is apparent in both the
temple’s design and decoration. The architectural concept within
the Near East was one of immensity: the internal space of the temple
a forbidden precinct, and only the external area accessible for public
ceremony. The inclination to locate these temples in the high places of
the countryside is uniquely exemplified by the temples of the
Lebanon, the Anti-Lebanon and the Hermon. Often these temples
are located in harsh, rugged and forbidding landscapes, occasionally
backing on to rocky outcrops reminiscent of ancient Hittite open-air
sanctuaries. The temple of Zeus at Fakra in the Lebanon mountains is
cut into a karst limestone outcrop with a rectangular temenos sur-
rounded by a high wall in the centre of which stands an altar.
Similarly at Niha, also in the Lebanon range, the west end of the
temple is described as ‘running into the side of the hill’.117 Dar
116 117
Aliquot 2008: 73. Warren 1890: 204.
Archaeology 93
describes the two temples in the lower cult enclosure of Har Sena‘im
as ‘facing natural stone masses’, with the absence of any quarrying on
the rocks giving the appearance they are ‘sitting at the foot of the
rocks’.118 More recently, Aliquot notes the two sanctuaries at Qasr
Chbib in the Anti-Lebanon as both having their northern walls
carved out of the rock scarp; at the western sanctuary, in place of
the adyton, the back part was also hewn out of the rock.119 As all of
this region is rugged, mountainous country with elevation remaining
consistently high, it is perhaps as Butcher suggests, ‘a lending of the
temples closer to the gods’, and at the same time giving ‘the gods and
their cults a commanding position over rural society’.120
The position of the Majdal ‘Anjar temple is without doubt very
striking, as Robinson observed in his writings. He took time to
measure its dimensions, 82 ft (25 m) by 46 ft (14 m), and noted the
position of the portico to the north with the altar at the south end. He
also remarks on the immense Doric capitals scattered amongst the
fallen columns, along with fragments of a sculptured pediment.
Although the Corinthian capital was common to this period, temples
in the Lebanon/Anti-Lebanon region are predominantly of the Ionic
order. The Doric order appears in some of the smaller Hermon
temples, as at Majdal ‘Anjar. Another feature common to temples
in the East was the development of an adyton (ἄδυτον) at the rear of
the cella. This comprised a flight of steps leading up to a raised dais on
which the cult statue stood, sheltered by a canopy. In the period
during which the temples of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon were
constructed, the form of the adyton was almost unvarying, and is
described by Ragette as a ‘specifically oriental element’.121 Butcher,
on the other hand, views the adyton as classical, and the Syrian
tripartite adyton more in keeping with the Greek term thalamus.122
In both the Greek ἄδυτον and Latin adytum the meaning is of an
innermost sanctuary, one which none but the priests could enter.
Essentially it formed part of the temple from which the public were
excluded, and to which only the priests of the cult had entry. In the
development and addition of the adyton, and the creation of a crypt
by vaulting under the cella floor, each became a feature typical to
these temples. The eventual addition of side chambers in the adyton
has been suggested as the prototype for the later sanctuary in the
Christian church.123 It is perhaps not difficult to understand Taylor’s
118
Dar 1993b: 60. 119 Aliquot 2008: 78. 120 Butcher 2003b: 352.
121
Ragette 1980: 56. 122 Butcher 2003b: 358–9. 123 Murray 1917: 5.
summation where in his view these temples were the product of ‘a

single master builder’, a view not entirely without merit.124
The western wall of the temple at Majdal ‘Anjar has remained the
best preserved, where it is still possible to see the finely bevelled stone of
the upper courses. The technical term ‘bevel’ is often used in reference
to architecture, and Robinson’s use of the term is paralleled by
the modern technical term ‘drafted margins’ as used in describing
masonry. In this sense the edges are chiselled (or dressed) at the margins
without the slope, and a tooled border around the face of the stone is
cut approximately to the width of the chisel, hence the drafted margin.
This decorative feature is at its most impressive in the foundation
stones of the Herodian temple platform (Haram al-Sharif) in
Jerusalem and the Herodian wall which surrounds the Haram el-
Khalil in Hebron. Robinson compares this feature at Majdal ‘Anjar
to the masonry in Jerusalem: ‘The bevel is the same as at Jerusalem,
and perhaps a little deeper; it is well cut and entire.’125 That it appears
here at Majdal ‘Anjar would seem to indicate a knowledge of the
architectural fashion of the time, and perhaps even an intent to impress.
The use of drafted masonry as a decorative feature in the Levant has
its origins in the Bronze Age. Dated to the tenth and ninth centuries
BCE marginal drafting can be seen on Palestinian, Syrian, Assyrian
and Urartian monumental buildings. In this early period it was crudely
executed and entirely functional.126 As a decorative feature it re-
appeared in the seventh century in Lydia and Ionia. One of the finest
examples from this time is found in the terrace platform at Pasargadae.
Drafted margins were also used in the cella of the great temple of
Artemis at Sardis (c. 300 BCE) and in the domestic architecture at
Pompeii.127 In significant aspects of its architecture and decoration the
temple at Majdal ‘Anjar reflects a long tradition within both the Near
East and the West. In his discussion of ‘oriental elements’ in the arts of
ancient Palestine during the Roman period, Avi-Yonah believed that
the ‘oriental vitality remained unimpaired’, and local artisans contin-
ued the tradition in execution of decorative detail.128 This interior
space at Majdal ‘Anjar appears to reflect something of this tradition.
As the internal arrangement within the temple is more important,
there developed a need to embellish. The interior walls of the Majdal
‘Anjar temple were adorned with alternating fluted half columns (or
124
Taylor 1967: 17. 125 Robinson, Smith et al. 1856: 493.
126
Jacobson 2000: especially 136. 127 Jacobson 2000: 139–41.
128
Avi-Yonah 1940–1942: 106.
Archaeology 95
pilasters) and decorated niches, which were a common feature in the

Roman East, described as ‘purely Eastern’.129 Still visible in one of the
niches is a shell decoration (Krencker and Zschietzschmann (1938) use
the term ‘conche’ translated from the German Halbkuppel, a half dome
or cupola), the key at the top with the lines of the shell forming a
downward movement. This effect is in sharp contrast to the normal
eastern style, where the key of the shell is always at the bottom with lines
of the shell splaying upwards. This eastern-style pattern can be seen in a
niche of the temple at Hibbariye in the Hermon.130 In his discussion of
the lower temple in the lower cult enclosure at Har Sena‘im, Dar lists
the many architectural fragments found at the site. Among these he
mentions finding three large, sculpted ‘conch shells’ hewn from large
blocks of stone at the foot of the stairway of the lower temple. From the
drawings provided it is possible to discern their characteristic eastern
style.131 At Majdal ‘Anjar there are elements of decorative expression
visible from both eastern and Roman influence. This eastern feature
with the key at the bottom is even more dominant in the second to third
century CE, in the basalt temples and kalybe of the Trachon and
Hauran regions.132 One cannot help but speculate on the cultural/
artistic backgrounds of the craftsmen involved in the construction of
these many temples, and in particular that at Majdal ‘Anjar.
The fluted column was an unusual feature in Syria, yet amongst the
rubble is a fragment of a double-fluted column in rose-coloured lime-
stone, which again is in contrast to the unfluted columns of the
exterior. The sparse remains of this temple were impressive enough
to inspire the early travellers to write eloquently of its richness: ‘This
antique temple, next to the lesser one at Ba‘albek, is the finest and best
preserved ruin in or near the great valley. It is simple, massive, and
beautiful; and obviously of a severer and earlier type than any we had
seen, and also than those of Ba‘albek.’133 This description, both
eloquent and enduring, is matched only by Captain Warren:
As we went up the hill to it, it appeared to be quite a small
ruined building, and it was only on standing close to it that
I realized its noble proportions. It is the finest piece of masonry
129
Murray 1917: 110.
130
For the Hibbariye temple, see Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938: 216. For an
article on the history of the scallop shell as a decorative feature, see Wheeler 1957: 33–48.
131
Dar 1993b: 69–73.
132
Segal 2008; at Hebran, Is-Sanamen, Mismiyeh, Philippopolis, Kanawat, Bostra.
133
Robinson, Smith et al. 1856: 494. See also de Forest 1853: 363–4, who describes
the wall stones as being ‘singularly cut and bevelled’.
I have seen in the country: the courses are about 4ft. high each,
and are beautifully bevelled … There are bases of columns
about, similar to those of a larger temple at Baalbec.134
Nearly a hundred years later, the ruins of the temple at Majdal ‘Anjar
remain just as impressive: ‘This temple was, with Baalbek, the most
magnificently decorated of all Lebanese temples.’135
Although Butcher has suggested the location of Chalcis as possibly
Majdal ‘Anjar, he claims that this identification is by no means con-
firmed, emphasizing the lack of any clear evidence for any settlement on
the site apart from the temple. His statement ‘The last days of Ituraean
Chalcis languishes in almost total obscurity’ perhaps best describes what
is known of ancient Chalcis.136 The possibility that the temple at Majdal
‘Anjar, and not Baalbek as assumed by many scholars, was the centre of
an Ituraean cult remains open for discussion. The following statement
reflects a common belief among scholars: ‘Chalcis, today’s Majdal
Anjar, was the political capital of the Beqa‘a, while Heliopolis
(Baalbek) was its religious centre.’137 This is made even more emphatic
where in another statement Ptolemy, the first Ituraean tetrarch, is
described as the ‘High Priest of the sun’, who ruled his principality in
‘two capacities from two capitals, the sacred city of Baalbek-Heliopolis
and the administrative centre of Chalcis …’.138 Such an assertion
becomes quite insubstantial when one looks carefully at the passage in
Strabo, Geog. 16.2.10 753, the reference used by the author to support
this thesis. In translation the passage says, ‘and at no great distance,
also, were Heliopolis and Chalcis, which latter was subject to
Ptolemaeus the son of Mennaeus’. Strabo simply does not suggest any-
thing else but that Chalcis came under the jurisdiction of the Ituraeans.
There is nothing in the texts that explicitly states Heliopolis was the
religious centre for Ituraeans. The claim that Baalbek was the main
religious centre in the Hellenistic period is also supported by Freyne,
who refers to coins of Ptolemy displaying the titles ethnarchos and
archiereus. He believes Ptolemy regarded himself as controlling all the
important cult sites, a claim not without some merit but which cannot be
proved either one way or the other. This claim, however, need not reflect
an assertion for Baalbek’s superiority.139 The archaeological record is
problematic in regard to Baalbek, with much further study and excava-
tion needed in order to gain a clearer understanding of the site. The
134
Charles Warren 1870: 231. 135 Taylor 1967: 93. 136
Butcher 2003b: 93.
137
Ragette 1980: 16. 138 Greenhalgh 1980: 161–2. 139
Freyne 2001: 190.
Archaeology 97
status of Heliopolis/Baalbek was made more important when it received

Roman veterans under Augustus, initiating a gradual Romanization of
the area. This is depicted first and foremost in the building of the great
religious complex and illustrated through its architectural elements. The
architectural decoration displayed in temples is merely one example of
the diversity of cultural elements coming together, expressed in different
ways after Roman occupation of the land. Baalbek, as the largest cult
centre, is just one example.140 The absence of concentrated excavations
and research on the many temple sites throughout the hinterland does
not permit a detailed and comprehensive picture of its religious life. To
assume that Heliopolis/Baalbek was the ‘PreRoman Ituraean sanctu-
ary’ during the late first century BCE is not without difficulty, unless, as
has been suggested, we accept the great complex as a ‘rebuilding’ of
what had previously been an Ituraean sanctuary.141
The temple at Heliopolis-Baalbek

The Greek appellation Heliopolis, ‘City of the Sun’, came into use
during the Seleucid period and survived until the Arab conquest in
the mid-seventh century CE. However, ‘While the origin and meaning
of Heliopolis as well as the time span during which this name was in use
are fairly well established, those of the modern toponym are not.’142 It
is probable that the toponym Baalbek came into use during the
Hellenistic period and was used by the local population along with
the official Greek name. Baalbek seems to indicate a clear association
of the site with a deity Baal, ‘whose main attribute cannot be deter-
mined with certainty in the absence of a clear-cut etymology’.143 That
the site became a prominent religious cult centre in the Roman period
led scholars to suppose it had served as such also in the pre-Hellenistic
period. However, there is nothing to support the existence of a major
cult centre in the Bronze or Iron Ages.144 It was only after the conquest
of the area by the Seleucids that it developed into a prominent religious
centre, and that plans for extending and building on the site were first
undertaken. The reasons for such a decision may well have been
political, the choice being dictated by ‘favorable natural conditions
and by the creation of new communication routes’.145
140
Tracey 1998. 141 Tracey 1998: 340 n. 12. 142 Sader and Van Ess 1998: 248.
143
Sader and Van Ess 1998: 248 and n. 6.
144
Sader and Van Ess 1998: 249 and 255; and Hoffman 1998: 279–304.
145
Sader and Van Ess 1998: 259; Grainger 1991: 113.
Evidence for an ancient tell, which was covered later by the

Hellenistic and Roman architecture of the Great Courtyard, was
revealed during limited excavations. Archaeologists, in discussions
on the recent history of the excavations and the difficulties presented
in understanding the finds, have concluded, ‘The lack of scientific
data does not allow an exact evaluation of the importance of the
settlement in pre-Hellenistic times, and the heaps of pottery found in
the storage rooms do not unfortunately betray any clue about
Baalbek’s political and religious role in that period.’146 The examined
pottery belongs to a common and simple household ware, which
indicated to the archaeologists that it came from simple dwellings
and by no means from a forerunner of the later Hellenistic and
Roman religious complex. The great complex, of which many
remains still stand, consists primarily of a sanctuary to Heliopolitan
Jupiter and the Temple of Bacchus adjoining it to the south.
According to one scholar, ‘They were built on imperial initiative,
perhaps begun by Augustus himself’, the overall plan of the buildings
with their cult installations, successive enclosures and arrangement of
cellas conforming to the ‘ancient Oriental traditions’.147 In a detailed
discussion on the history of German and French archaeological and
architectural studies of the site, Hoffman suggests the dating of the
foundation phase for the Baalbek temples is now generally thought to
be connected to the founding of the colony. He supports this with
reference to inscription CIL III 202.6685 as confirmation of its found-
ing as Colonia Julia Augusta Felix Heliopolitana. Furthermore, he
claims that ‘decisive evidence about important questions of the sanc-
tuary’s protohistory can be gained only from a complete evaluation of
the excavation findings of the 1950s, and perhaps only from new
excavations’.148 According to Hoffman, results from excavations in
the 1950s remain significant. The site confirms the endurance of its
Semitic roots, and Roman influence is apparent in the architecture,
design and execution, but it was ‘local oriental factors that largely
determined the planning and final shape of the sanctuary’.149
Construction of the entire complex continued over several hundred
years and was completed only well into the third century CE. A
dedicatory inscription from the reign of Nero substantiates that the
146
Sader and Van Ess 1998: 262–5. 147 Rey-Coquais 1976.
148
Hoffman 1998: 300 and 285. See Butcher 2003b: 116, on the question of when
Heliopolis became a colony and its first issue of coinage.
149
Hoffman 1998: 303.
Archaeology 99
Temple of Jupiter was standing by 60 CE.150 A site which began in

antiquity as a Semitic cult centre became over time a monument to
Roman architectural genius. As commented on by Kennedy, ‘it was
surely Roman wealth and determination that finally completed the vast
sanctuary’, but the scale of its monumentality was not a Roman
innovation.151 In this aspect it sits well into the Semitic tradition.
There is nothing, however, to suggest that Heliopolis was the dominant
cult site of the Biqa‘ in the early part of the first century BCE. Strabo
makes one brief reference to Heliopolis, including Chalcis (16.2.10), but
in the same passage neither is described as being a major cult centre. In
fact, in his description of the Massyas Plain and surrounding country,
Heliopolis is never mentioned. In Antiquities, when Josephus recalls the
passage of Pompey through the land on his way to Damascus, Pompey
is described as merely passing by the ‘cities of Heliopolis and Chalcis’ in
order to cross the Anti-Lebanon (14.40). Interestingly, Josephus here
names both Chalcis and Heliopolis as cities, yet as Butcher states, ‘the
only settlement in the Massyas (Bekaa) valley to achieve city status was
Heliopolis; Chalcis did not’.152 There is no indication that these settle-
ment areas were approached or attacked. Its eventual size and grandeur
suggest wealth, dominance and power for Heliopolis, yet the texts
reflecting this same period in the first century BCE offer nothing to
support this for Heliopolis. As Butcher adds, ‘In spite of the richness
and monumental remains, many things about Heliopolis remain enig-
matic … not least the question of when it acquired civic status.’153
Heliopolis is considered by some to have been part of the territory
of Berytus until the reign of Septimius Severus (193–211 CE),
although others consider it to have been founded by Augustus.154 In
150
Segal 2000: 53. See also Rey-Coquais 1976: 381 in which he mentions a graffito
dated to 60 CE as providing evidence for its construction; Lyttelton 1974: 87 with
reference to Seyrig 1937: 95ff. in which the inscription is discussed; Ward-Perkins 1985:
314; Hoffman 1998: 285.
151
Kennedy 1997. 152 Butcher 2003b: 115.
153
Butcher 2003b: 116, and also pp. 230–1, 365.
154
Ball 2000: 39, who says it was a Roman veteran colony after 15 BCE as part of
Augustus’s foundation; the date for the founding is disputed, see Isaac 1992 who states
it was settled by Agrippa. Fergus Millar (1993: 124) says Heliopolis had been part of the
territory of Berytus since 15 BCE; and also pp. 279–80 where he discusses the signifi-
cance of Latin being the language used on the coinage of Berytus and the many Latin
inscriptions found at the site; Bowersock 1965: 66 emphasizes Heliopolis did not mint
coins until the reign of Septimius Severus, with reference here to Sherwin-White who
supports Bowersock. See also Negev, Gibson 2001: 225, where Heliopolis is again
described as being the religious centre for the Ituraeans; also Segal 2000: 52, who writes
that Heliopolis was founded as a Roman colony in 16 BCE at the behest of Augustus.
discussing this question, Isaac comments, ‘there is a substantial gap in

time between the establishment of the veteran settlements and the
earliest epigraphic documents related to the physical development of
these towns’.155 Although Heliopolis may not have become independ-
ent until late in the second century CE, it appears that a settlement
had long been in place, and its role as a religious centre along with its
attendant cult of Baal-Hadad well established. Excavations revealed
a temple associated with Baal-Hadad dating back to the Phoenician
settlement, and according to Ball, it is ‘for this temple, rather than as a
minor Roman colony, that Baalbek is famous’.156 The assimilation
and syncretism of Semitic and Roman deities created, in time, a
religious centre of great diversity. The religious centre that Baalbek
became lasted well into the Islamic period. Ball, however, emphasizes
what Baalbek was not: ‘Baalbek was no great capital or the centre of
any great dynasty. It was not a Roman provincial capital, nor even a
town of any significance … Baalbek in antiquity was nothing more
than it is today: a minor provincial town of little more than local
significance.’157
Considering the lack of textual and archaeological evidence for any
large settlement or major cult centre at Baalbek/Heliopolis in the early
Hellenistic period, there is some merit to Ball’s final statement.
Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that Chalcis was not an
Ituraean cult centre as well as the acropolis, although this once more
contradicts a recent publication in which Baalbek is considered to be
the capital.158 The prescription for Baalbek becomes even more spec-
ulative in another statement in which it is said to have been ruled by a
‘hellenized Arab dynasty, the Ituraeans’, between the years 100 to 75
BCE.159 Chalcis in the Biqa‘, and the Ituraean principality that it
controlled, had, by the mid-first century CE, ceased to be a political
force in the region. Although underlying the very nature of the cult
practised at Baalbek were the ancient Semitic deities, it was, as pre-
viously stated, Roman munificence and genius that created the great
sanctuary. From the descriptions of early travellers to the region of
Chalcis and the Biqa‘ it is known that the temple at Majdal ‘Anjar must
have been equally rich in decoration and execution, and of an impres-
sive size. It is possible to assume that both the site and the temple were
155
Isaac 1990b: 153. 156 Ball 2000: 39.
157
Ball 2000: 43, see also pp. 39–47 for a discussion on Baalbek, its architecture
and cults.
158
See Wilson 2004: 8. 159 Badre 1997.
Archaeology 101
of some significance, with Baalbek not necessarily taking precedence.

Once again, however, it is unreasonable to make any conclusions
without thorough excavations at both sites, and we should be aware
of assumptions made based more on speculation than evidence.
The Golan, the Hermon and the Biqa‘ constitute three distinct
regions into which the Ituraeans are thought to have infiltrated and
settled. From the texts there is support for the Biqa‘ as being their
centre, where they came to be known as having a principality governed
by one titled tetrarch and chief priest. This is a dynasty aligned with
Seleucid thought and language, their coins all depicting a Greek legend.
To date any further material evidence is elusive, and the texts open to
interpretation. It is still inconclusive as to how assured we can be in
terms of Ituraean control of territory: what in fact does it mean to the
writers in antiquity when they declare a ruler has control over a certain
domain? Are we correct in assuming that ‘acquiring territories’ implies
that these regions become something other than what they were? There
are still more questions than answers. There is a need to review more
thoroughly assumptions made regarding the pottery, and whether or
not such assumptions can sustain a belief which upholds Ituraean
occupation of a particular region. The diversity in climate, geography
and environment between these regions is such that one must consider
how vital an influence this would have on a settled population, and
whether the inhabitants themselves were a mixed population.
Religious identity presents yet another challenge in terms of whether
or not the proliferation of temple structures within the surrounding
regions of the Lebanon, Anti-Lebanon and the Hermon is in any way a
result of Ituraean control of the land. Dated as they are to the Roman
period, these first-century CE temples began to appear after the end of
the Ituraean principality. Or do the temples express an explosion in
population, and exhibit in design and execution a Semitic/Hellenistic
background and culture of an indigenous, mixed population now
benefiting under Roman control and protection? The Golan, surveyed
by Israeli archaeologists, offers no evidence for such temple structures,
and only further to the east in ancient Batanaea and the Hauran do we
find the remains of any temple structures, but these constitute a differ-
ent type. It is important to observe as an essential part of the evidence
that wherever inscriptions have been discovered the deities mentioned
relate both to an ancient Near Eastern and Hellenistic/Roman tradi-
tion. The Ituraeans are a distinct part of this tradition, yet to a large
extent remain still in the shadows, perceived only in negative terms.
4
COINS
Coin as defined in the OED has the meaning of making money by the
stamping of metal, the word itself having its origins in the Old French
term coignier, to strike, to mint money, to coin. Coinage from the
Roman province of Syria includes issues from many different cities,
among which are the coins of Chalcis, generally considered the polit-
ical capital of the Ituraean principality. These Ituraean coins consti-
tue just a small portion of the corpus of Syrian coinage dating from
the late Hellenistic to the early Roman period. Pompey’s annexation
of Syria into the Roman world virtually brought to an end the
Seleucid Empire, and with change of governance came a gradual
change in what had been the Hellenistic world of the East.
However, this shift in power brought no immediate changes to the
coinage of the area, and those changes which did take place were
often subtle, and were to continue over a long period of time.1 The
coinage of Roman Syria had its own distinctive character, both
similar to and different from that of other parts of the Roman
Empire. In the broader picture, this coinage reflects the three main
geographical divisions of Syria. As Antioch dominated the north both
in the production of silver and bronze coinage, the central regions were
dominated by Tyre, with Sidon producing silver on a much smaller
scale. Both these cities minted bronze coins, and each retained in great
strength its earlier identity. Silver coins were minted at Tyre (the Tyrian
shekel), with tetradrachms produced in Antioch. The third area of
Syrian coinage is that of Judea where bronze coins are more varied.2
As it is situated geographically on the western side of the Anti-
Lebanon, Chalcis falls into the region of Tyre. Its coinage was
described first by de Saulcy in 1870.3 The Seleucid era coinage
began in 312 BCE when, according to Butcher, the Seleucids
1
Burnett 2002: 115. 2 Burnett 2002: 115–16.
3
De Saulcy 1870: 1–34; see also Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 662.
102
Coins 103
‘imposed a new reckoning of time on the regions that they ruled’.4 It

proved remarkably successful and lasted well into the medieval
period. Enhancing and adding to the brief accounts recorded in the
texts, coins issued by the rulers of Chalcis offer some evidence of
Ituraean economic strength and power. It was during the final years
of the Seleucid era that Ituraean tetrarchs first issued coinage, and as
such the coins reflect Seleucid style and habit. The issue of coinage by
Ituraean tetrarchs suggests a legitimate commercial concern for eco-
nomic power, and reflects both the Seleucid and Roman environment
which they inhabited.
Excavations at sites on the Hermon, the Golan and the northern
Huleh valley have revealed only one Ituraean coin, and even if many
more were to be found in excavations, it would not necessarily secure
an Ituraean identity for these sites. The majority of Ituraean coins
available for study are without provenance, mainly obtained through
coin markets, and reside now in museums and private collections.
Regrettably, without extensive excavations in the southern Biqa‘ and
the Anti-Lebanon, little can be said in terms of coins coming directly
from that region. During the 1990s the Kadman Numismatic
Museum in Tel Aviv acquired a number of Ituraean coins enabling
numismatists to study in greater detail this coinage.
At the beginning of his article on this subject, Kindler described the
Ituraeans as an ‘Arab nomad tribe from the Arabian peninsula’ who
lived in the Lebanon during the second and first centuries BCE.5 He
accepts the two commonly held interpretations concerning the
Ituraeans: that they invaded the Galilee and were subsequently con-
verted by Aristobulus; that Heliopolis was their cult centre with
Chalcis as their capital. All the Ituraean coins in the Kadman
Collection, for which Kindler was responsible, are bronze represent-
ing issues from each of the known Ituraean rulers: Ptolemy (son of
Mennaios), Lysanias and Zenodorus, three generations of what is
assumed to be one family. Included in the collection are coins of
Cleopatra, who issued a series in the years 36–30 BCE, a period
when she acquired the territory of Ituraea.
Coins of Ptolemy are dated mostly to the Seleucid era with a series
of three dated according to the Pompeian era starting in 64/63 BCE.
Those of Lysanias and Zenodorus are dated mainly to the Seleucid
era. The evidence provided from dates of issue indicates that the
Ituraean coins were struck between 73 and 25 BCE, a period of only
4 5
Butcher 2003b: 122. Kindler 1993: 283.
forty-eight years, which according to Kindler was a relatively short

span. Coins of the Roman colonies and municipia use Latin legends,
and reflect themes appropriate to their status and origin. The coins of
non-chartered cities use Greek legends and types similar to those used
in the Hellenistic period, and reflect the religious cults practised in the
cities.6 The use of a Greek legend is one of the common features of
Ituraean coins. The titles ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΕΩΣ ‘tetrarch
and chief priest’ are consistent on all coins of the Ituraean tetrarchs.7
From the evidence we can surmise that the leaders had both political
and religious concerns. The late second to first centuries BCE wit-
nessed the gradual demise of the Hellenistic kingdoms, particularly in
Syria-Palestine. Currency systems existing throughout the Seleucid
period had remained stable since Alexander’s death in 323 BCE, but
over time Seleucid power after the Battle of Panion in 200 BCE
eventually faded, with continuing internal conflicts becoming ever
more a burden. Control of the territories was eventually handed over
to the Roman general Pompey in 64 BCE. It was in this troubled
transition period of the late first century that the issuing of coins by
some of the Hellenistic cities continued, with Chalcis ad Libanon
being one such centre. As the power to mint coins seems to have
been a royal prerogative in the Hellenistic world, Chalcis may well
have received royal permission to do so from Tigranes, who ruled
Hellenistic Syria from 83 to 69 BCE. There is no information as to
who controlled coinage for the provinces in the Roman Republic, but
after 64 BCE it is possible that authority to issue was often granted by
the Roman proconsul. However, it is known that the Romans were
prepared to allow existing systems to continue, as was the case in
many other aspects of local administration. The eventual breakdown
of the Hellenistic kingdoms of Syria during the first century BCE
certainly helped to bring about change within the hinterland. The
question as to the causes of the final demise of the Seleucid kingdom
was, according to one historian, as much related to a region without
internal unity of race and culture as it was to the disorder created by
rival dynasts.8 It was during this uncertain period that ‘authority over
coinage seems to have reverted to the individual cities to which
autonomy was granted’.9 Soon afterwards many of these cities
6
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992, 1999; both volumes provide good introduc-
tions to the coinage.
7
Burnett 2002: 118. 8 Sherwin-White 1994: 260.
9
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 1.
Coins 105
produced their own coinage, Seleucia in Syria being an example. In

light of these many changes and internal disruptions of power, it is
informative that Chalcis issued coins as early as 72 BCE.
Many Hellenistic cities asserted their own independence and
declared individual eras of autonomy.10 Chalcis was such a case,
with their first production in the Seleucid year 240 = 73/72 BCE,
followed later by two issues in the name of the chief priest and
tetrarch, Ptolemy. Pompey’s entry into Syria in 64 BCE appears to
have met with little resistance, and as a consequence of his annexation
many cities were moved to issue new coinage resulting in the
Pompeian eras. As one historian has expressed it, Pompey’s annex-
ation of the region was at least partly because of ‘the lack of any
effective and trustworthy ruler who could manage the whole country
in the interest of Rome’.11 A far more negative notion is frequently
expressed in the claim that Pompey conquered Syria and devastated
the land; perhaps a more apt description for Pompey’s action might
be subdue or reduce. The annexation of the region was not all peace-
ful, nor was it necessarily a ‘devastation’, which tends to lead to a
clearly negative impression. The events surely were far more complex
and calculated; paramount at this time would be Rome’s concern
over the possible intervention of Parthia into Syria.
Because Syrian coins generally bear precise dates, the change in
eras does not confuse the ability to use the coins for understanding the
various periods of Ituraean rulers. Along with the creation of new eras
for the coinage, in both the Roman and non-Roman communities,
the imperial portrait (head of the Roman emperor) was adopted.
Many coins were also pseudo-autonomous in that they were without
the imperial portrait, its adoption in Syria being from a late date.
A far greater proportion of these pseudo-autonomous types were
produced in Syria than in any other region, possibly reflecting the
various changes in political circumstance. One aspect of Syrian coin-
age which allows scholars to correctly identify the emperor depicted is
that it always contains the date.
A further distinction in the coins of Syria was the continued use of
the sign L to designate the word ‘year’. The custom had prevailed in the
Hellenistic period under the Ptolemies and was continued by the
tetrarchs of Chalcis, as well as other rulers. It remained constant in
Palestine and the Decapolis, down to the Flavian period.12 According
10
Butcher 2003b: 122. 11 Sherwin-White 1994: 260.
12
Seyrig 1950b: 31–2. See also Butcher 2003b: 122.
to Seyrig, L preceding the date is a characteristically Ptolemaic sign,

and in regions where the sign L is found on coins it also appears in
inscriptions.13 The area in which this sign is common is, in fact, the area
formerly occupied by the Lagids (Ptolemies) in the third century BCE:
Palestine, Coele Syria, the Decapolis and Phoenicia south of the
Eleutherus. Coele Syria in the larger sense included the Massyas
Plain (the Biqa‘ valley). It does not appear in Phoenicia north of the
Eleutherus, indicating Phoenician independence throughout the
Hellenistic period. In regard to its coinage, it is of some significance
here to note that ‘Syria retains its identity and traditions longer than
neighbouring regions’.14
Moshe Hartal’s excavations at Khirbet Zemel revealed a total of
twenty-seven coins, of which only nine were identifiable.15 Those
coins which were identified date from 159/158 BCE through to 144/
143 BCE. Thus, the coins would seem to indicate a settlement in the
second century BCE, the Seleucid period. Although the isolated site
of Khirbet Zemel is identified by Hartal as an Ituraean settlement on
the basis of a pottery type, no Ituraean coins were found.
During the surveys and excavations at Har Sena‘im a total of
seventy-one coins were found. They were catalogued into three differ-
ent groups: from the temple, the settlement and the cult enclosure. Of
a mere sixteen coins from the temple site, none were Ituraean. In
Kindler’s view the coins from Har Sena‘im provide evidence for an
unbroken numismatic continuity of some 700 years, and show that
the ‘cult place was continuously visited by pilgrims, up to the 5th
century C.E.’16 This supports similar evidence of occupation from
pottery finds, but does not offer anything further in terms of ethnic
and cultural background for the site. A coin of Agrippa II was found
in the temenos of the temple corresponding in time period to one
found at Qal‘at Bustra during the first Hermon survey. In the upper
cult enclosure were coins from the second century BCE through to the
first century CE. Included was a coin of John Hyrcanus (135–104
BCE), noteworthy as it is the first Hasmonean coin found in excava-
tions on the Hermon. Dar interpreted the finding of this coin as an
archaeological indication of Hasmonean activity in what he identifies
as Ituraean territory. For Dar, this single coin find lent credence to the
idea that the Hermon was a ‘meeting ground for the Hasmoneans and
Ituraeans’.17 This is speculation which perhaps stretches beyond any
13
Seyrig 1950b: 33. 14 Burnett 2002: 115. 15 Ariel 2002: 118–21.
16
Dar 1993b: 83 n. 85; and the table on p. 84. 17 Dar 1993b: 83.
Coins 107
evidence, and reaches an ill-conceived conclusion. The settlement site

of Har Sena‘im revealed thirty-nine coins in total, dating from the
second century BCE to the fourth century CE, the most noteworthy a
coin of Agrippa II from the temenos. Unfortunately, the coins from
Har Sena‘im cannot shed any light on Ituraean identity, nor provide
evidence to support Dar’s theory of Ituraean occupation. They
merely confirm human occupation, or at least visitation to the site.
Other sites on the Hermon have been surveyed and partially exca-
vated, and offer some evidence for habitation during the Seleucid
period up to as late as the third century CE. At Qal‘at Bustra eleven
coins dating from the third century BCE to the third century CE were
found in the temenos of a small temple. At Kafr Dura the coins
indicate a later settlement, while at Hurvat Hawarit coins date from
the second century CE to the Ottoman period. Mazra‘at Jabel Siri, a
military enclosure, had coins from the fourth century BCE through to
the Mamluk period, and at Nebi Hazuri, a large number of coins were
found from the third century BCE to the fifth century CE. Notably
most of these coins were not found in situ, ‘but in surveys carried out
after the site was damaged in building operations’.18 To date Bir an-
Sobah is the only site on the Hermon in which an Ituraean coin has
been found. This single Ituraean coin is one of Ptolemy Mennaeus
(85–40 BCE), the first of the Ituraean tetrarchs. In total, twenty-six
coins were recovered during surveys and excavations carried out at
Bir an-Sobah. However, these coins found on the Hermon offer no
information as to who occupied these sites. At best, they attest to
movement of coinage, and a possible time period for occupation. The
sites themselves remain independent of whatever coinage has been
found, and a single Ituraean coin discovered on the Hermon does not
support an assumption of Ituraean occupation in the region. This is
affirmed by Jacobson, who suggests the need to demonstrate a far
greater distribution of the pottery, especially in the Biqa‘ and Anti-
Lebanon, before one can make a firm identification for the site. At the
same time he emphasizes that finding an Ituraean coin does not
provide proof of Ituraean dominance within the Hermon region.19
Some years after de Saulcy described the Ituraean coinage of
Chalcis, Seyrig discussed the coin eras of Cleopatra and Antony.20
Burnett argues that Seyrig’s ‘brilliant attribution of Cleopatra’s
coins’, along with the large number of coins of Chalcis that have
18
Dar 1993b: 131. 19 Jacobson 1994–1995: 66–9.
20
De Saulcy 1870: 1–34; Seyrig 1950a: 44–6.
appeared in the coin trade, has allowed for a tentative reconstruction

of this coinage.21 The first are two autonomous coins, one listed in
BMC Galatia 279 no. 1, and one mentioned in the Kadman Collection,
Kindler 285 no. 1. On the obverse of both is the head of Zeus to the
right, laureate, and without legend. The reverse is of particular interest
as each has a distyle temple, and within it a conical stone bound with a
fillet.22 The distyle temple is one with a porch and two columns in front.
Depiction of the stone is reminiscent of an ancient Mesopotamian
belief in the sacredness of trees to which round metal bands were
fastened with fillets attached. Each coin bears the legend ΧΑΛΚΙ
ΔΕΩΝ on the reverse, and both are dated to the first century BCE.23
Coins of Ptolemy son of Mennaeus, contained in older collections,
again depict the head of Zeus on the obverse.24 The Kadman
Collection, however, with its more recent acquisitions has coins por-
traying Hermes (nos. 4, 6a), a bust of Artemis (no. 8), a bust of Pallas
Athene (no. 9), along with three depicting a head of Zeus (nos. 2, 5, 7)
on the obverse, with all but one (no. 9) without legend. The legend
identifying Ptolemy as tetrarch and chief priest appears on the reverse
of coin no. 5 and reads ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΑΙ
ΑΡΧΙΕΡ, whereas coin no. 7 is inscribed as ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ
ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ ΑΡΧ.25 Three coins, nos. 5, 6 and 6a, are dated to
the Pompeian era (63/62 BCE) which, according to Kindler, indicates
Pompey’s submission to the political circumstances prevailing.26 The
others are dated to the Seleucid era. All the coins are bronze.
In his assessment of Ituraean coins, Herman grouped those of
Ptolemy into three types: the obverse depicting the head of Zeus,
the head of Artemis, or the head of Hermes. As the divinities are
Greco-Roman who possess traits in common with local deities, he
suggests further that these deities depict a form of triad. The triad –
Zeus, Artemis, Hermes – is then compared to those from Phoenicia
and central Syria.27 In developing his argument, Herman proposes
Heliopolis as the central place of worship for Ituraeans, the triad on
the coins paralleling many other forms of the cult of the triad found
throughout Syria/Lebanon. He states, ‘Heliopolis was a religious
center for the Itureans as well’, and referring to Strabo 16.2.18 asserts,
21
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 662. 22 BMC Galatia: pl. 33:10 and p.lxxiii.
23
Head 1887: 655, under Chalcis sub Libano.
24
BMC Galatia: 279–80, nos. 2, 3, 4, 5; and Hist. Num. (1911): 783.
25
Kadman Collection nos. 5, 7; Hist. Num. (1911): 783; (1887): 655; BMC Galatia:
279 nos. 2, 3, 4, 5.
26
Kindler 1993: 283. 27 Herman 2000–2002: 85–6.
Coins 109
‘in the days of Ptolemy, son of Mennaios, the Itureans ruled

Heliopolis’.28 The difficulty in accepting this is that Strabo does not
mention Heliopolis in the passage, or in passages that come directly
before and after. The text cannot substantiate Herman’s assumption,
nor does the archaeology provide any evidence for the sanctuary at
Heliopolis being a major cult centre during the reign of Ptolemy. The
coins themselves may simply reflect the diversity of public worship at
a time when various cultures came into contact within the region of
the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon: Greek, Roman and Semitic.
A change occurred through the coins of Lysanias (40–36 BCE),
although these coin types are consistent with Seleucid coinage as a
whole.29 In excavations at Tel Anafa, one Ituraean coin of Lysanias
was found in a modern stratum, with the obverse bearing the head of
Lysanias, diademed. The reverse depicts Athena standing left, holding
Nike.30 Another coin bearing a diademed head on the obverse and dated
to 40 BCE is also attributed to Lysanias, although Burnett suggests that
the monogram behind the head is ‘a posthumous portrait of Ptolemy’
rather than Lysanias. In his comment regarding this coin he expresses
surprise at the portrait being depicted with diadem, as neither Ptolemy
nor Lysanias had the rank of king.31 The assertion that Lysanias was not
king contradicts statements made by Herman. In his discussion on the
Ituraean coins Herman contends that Antony had acknowledged the
status of Lysanias as king. In emphasizing this point he speaks of
Cleopatra as having been presented with the ‘head of their king’ referring
to War 1.248–9, even though Josephus makes no mention of Cleopatra
in this passage.32 Once again, it is difficult to know just what is intended
here. The title of tetrarch did not bestow the same power or prestige as
that of king, and Hermon’s references are puzzling.33 Another coin with
28
Herman 2000–2002: 90. See Butcher 2003b: 93. 29 Sullivan 1990: 207.
30
Meshorer 1994: 249. A parallel can be found in BMC Galatia: 280 no. 6; Burnett,
Amandry and Ripollès 1992: Part I, 662, no. 4768. Other examples are in Hist. Num.
(1887): 655; (1911): 784; and Kadman Collection 287, nos. 10, 12, 13. Number 11
attributed to Lysanias depicts the bust of Artemis to the right on the obverse.
31
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 662, in commentary on coin no. 4768.
32
Herman 2000–2002: 85.
33
Herman 2000–2002: 85. Herman refers to Antony as having imposed a ‘heavy
tribute’ upon the Ituraean king, when in fact Appian records that a ‘heavy tribute’ was
the same for all parts of Syria, not just the Ituraeans; see Appian, Bella Civilia 5, 7. Ant.
15.88–95 merely records the cunning ways Cleopatra managed to persuade Antony to
have Lysanias put to death; War 1.248–9 does not appear to have any bearing on this
issue. Plutarch in Antonius 36 makes no mention of Lysanias. The only reference to
Lysanias as ‘king’ is in Cassius Dio, where he states: ‘for he executed Lysanias, whom he
himself had made king over them’, Rom. Hist. 49.32.
the head of Lysanias diademed, though undated, bears the legend:

ΛΥΣΑΝΙΟΥ ΤΕΤΡΑΡΧΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΡΧΙΕΡΩΣ.34
Kadman coin no. 12 displays one of the most unusual features on
the coins of Lysanias. The reverse bears the legend in ‘barbaric type’
ΛVCANIOV TETPAP K APXI and in the right field what appears to
be the letters ‫ בם‬but written in the ‘Palmyrene script’.35 Kindler
suggested that the letters could stand for ‘Ben Ma’anai’ – son of
Mennaios – although this would not be applicable to our Lysanias,
son of Ptolemy. In the end, Kindler saw it merely as ‘an interesting
novelty’.36 More recently this coin was reconsidered by another
scholar who agrees with Kindler’s translation and confirms the two
letters as being Aramaic. However, she sees no reason to qualify the
script as Palmyrene, and suggests a more satisfactory qualification as
‘Ituraean Aramaic’.37 These two small letters on a coin, along with an
inscription found at Yanouh in the Lebanon, may well be the first
inklings in helping to revise our accepted understanding of Ituraeans.
The inscription in question is discussed in the following chapter.
The last of the Ituraean rulers was Zenodorus, who followed a
similar pattern in the legend on the reverse: ZHNOΔOPOY
TETPAPXOY KAI APXIEPEΩΣ, with the bare head of
Zenodorus. Significantly, there is also an issue depicting the imperial
portrait with the bare head of Octavian on the obverse.38 The date of
issue is according to the Seleucid era (32/31 BCE) shortly after the
battle of Actium. Possibly Zenodorus felt compelled to acknowledge
the new imperial rule, as at this same time Octavian had just restored
his territories, lands that had previously been taken away and given to
Cleopatra. Another coin bearing the legend ZHNOΔΩPOY depicts
Athena standing, holding victory with spear and shield on the reverse,
and a diademed head on the obverse.39 Zenodorus’ tenure as tetrarch
would seem to have been fragile, yet the presence of the imperial
portrait may be seen also as a trend in southern Syria where both
Chalcis and Damascus adopt the portrait of Augustus straightaway,
contrasting as it does with northern Syria where it does not appear
34
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 662, coin no. 4770, and Kadman Collection
287 no. 13.
35
Kindler 1993: 284 and 287 no. 12.
36
Kindler 1993: 284; see also Aliquot 1999–2003: 190, and n. 97.
37
Briquel Chatonnet 2005: 8.
38
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 662–3 nos. 4774 and 4775; Kadman
Collection 289 no. 14, plus 15, 16 both undated; Hist. Num. (1887): 663; BMC
Galatia: 281 no. 7; Sawaya 2002: 127, and n. 63.
39
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1998: 46 and pl. 10, coin no. S-4776A.
Coins 111
before 5 BCE. It might also be seen as in keeping with the gradual

Romanization of coins, and in particular those of the ‘Herodian kings
who were the clients of Rome’.40 Burnett points to a similar contrast in
the coins of Antony and Cleopatra, where as early as the 30s BCE their
portraits appeared on coinage. ‘These portraits occurred promptly for
both Antony and Cleopatra, presumably at their instigation like that of
Antiochus IV a century earlier, and make the contrast with Augustus
more emphatic.’41 It has also been suggested that the portrait heads of
Lysanias and Zenodorus on their coins were the example which Herod
Philip (Philip the Tetrarch) followed in his early issues. As early as 1–2
CE Philip issued coins bearing his own effigy on the reverse with legend
and the bust of Augustus on the obverse. Philip retained the title
TETPAPXOY and the L preceding the date.42
For a brief period between the rule of Lysanias and Zenodorus,
Cleopatra controlled parts of Ituraean territory. The coins depict her
portrait, sometimes with Antony on the reverse, but give no indica-
tion of the city in which they were minted.43 Her legend reads
BACIΛICCHC KΛEOΠATPAC ETOYC KA TOY KAI [ ]
ΘEAC NEWTEPAС.44 Another feature on coins of Cleopatra is
the use of ἐτους and its abbreviations, which according to Seyrig is
always a late appearance on coins, and is first found under Cleopatra
at Chalcis ad Libanum.45 Dating on the coins of Cleopatra uses eras
according to her Egyptian year 21, and her Phoenician year 6, equiv-
alent to 32/31 BCE.46
Excavations lasting from 1994 to 1996 were undertaken in and
around the Souks of Beirut. Two sites, BEY 006 and BEY 045,
produced over 7,000 coins, most of which were illegible or too cor-
roded for identification. Out of this total just under half were identi-
fied and assigned to a period. Of those classified under Syria were two
coins of Chalcis issued under Lysanias and Zenodorus, with a possi-
ble unidentified third.47 The coin of Lysanias follows the same pattern
of diademed head on the obverse, with Athena standing left on the
reverse, and the familiar legend ‘tetrarch and chief priest’.48 A similar
40
Burnett 2002: 115.
41
Burnett 2002: 1231 and n. 59 in particular referring to Markholm.
42
Kindler 1971: 161–3. 43 Jidejian 1975: 21.
44
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 662, nos. 4771, 4772, 4773. Note here that
the omega is written as depicted.
45
Seyrig 1950b: 34. 46 Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 662, nos. 4771–3.
47
Butcher 2001–2002: 21–289, 297–304 containing full report and catalogue of coins.
48
Butcher 2001–2002: 141; catalogue coin no. 280, BEY 045, with parallel to
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: no. 4770.
pattern occurs in a coin of Zenodorus: the imperial portrait, head of

Octavian, on obverse, head of Zenodorus with legend on reverse.49
A third coin, tentatively identified as that of Lysanias, again depicts
the diademed head. The reverse is illegible.50
‘It is not only as a means of economic exchange that coins are
important. Their issuing also constitutes a declaration of political
power, or at least a pretension to political power.’51 Hoyland’s state-
ment reflects an attitude which may well have existed in the minds of
the Ituraean rulers. That Chalcis issued coins lends a degree of
credibility to both its wealth and status, an indication of economy
and trade, and probably, as Hoyland has suggested, a pretension to
political power. At the time Chalcis first issued coins, Tigranes con-
trolled Syria. It was after his occupation in 83 BCE that the Greek
cities who had sided with him were given autonomy and coinage
rights.52 Usually the coins of Chalcis are classified as autonomous
and follow the Ptolemaic pattern of displaying L before the date. In
another sense, the early coins of the tetrarchs are considered pseudo-
autonomous, meaning without the imperial portrait. This fine dis-
tinction is clearly stated by Burnett: ‘Imperial coins without portraits
are generically known today as “pseudo-autonomous”, a convenient
(although misleading) term used to distinguish them from “autono-
mous” coins, coins of the cities produced before the imperial
period.’53
In Syria the adoption of the imperial portrait on coinage was, in
general, late. Although Antony’s portrait had appeared on the coin-
age of Cleopatra before the empire, here he is depicted as consort and
not ruler. Only coins of Zenodorus bore the imperial portrait, with the
head of Octavian/Augustus on the obverse and the head of Zenodorus
on the reverse. This contrasts with a general reluctance on the part of
northern Syria, where portraits do not appear on coins until as late as
4/3 BCE, and at Laodicea even as late as the reign of Caligula.54
Among the deities, Zeus is particularly well represented, not unex-
pectedly, as he was the Greek equivalent of the Semitic storm god,
Hadad. Artemis, Hermes, Athena and Nike were all deities that the
Semitic world adopted and incorporated into their own. As Athena
49
Butcher 2001–2002: 141; catalogue coin no. 282, BEY 006, parallel in Burnett,
Amandry and Ripollès 1992: no. 4774.
50
Butcher 2001–2002: 141; catalogue coin no. 281, BEY 006, identification uncer-
tain but parallel to Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: no. 4768?
51
Hoyland 2001: 193. 52 See ‘Tigranes’, OCD: 1525.
53
Burnett, Amandry and Ripollès 1992: 41. 54 Burnett 2002: 121.
Coins 113
was the principal deity for many of the cities, again it was a common
feature to have her depicted on city coins. The Ituraean coins reflect
the fact that ‘Syria was generally slower to adopt Roman forms’, and
indicates a self-identity among the cities that was much more tradi-
tional than in other parts of the empire.55
Butcher is cautious to remind us that eliciting meaning from coins
still remains problematic. Questions as to why coins were minted,
how many, in what circumstances, and the process of issue and supply
often remain unknown, as in the coins of Chalcis. ‘The civic bronze
coins produced in the Hellenistic and Roman East may have been
produced independent of the concerns of the Hellenistic kingdoms
and the Roman state, and instead reflect interests at work within the
cities that made them.’56 In all likelihood, such a situation could have
existed for Chalcis. The very fact that they were initially producing
autonomous issues and following a Ptolemaic pattern of dating indi-
cates a sense of independence from the governing power to which they
were subject.
Ituraean coins supply names and dates for rulers of their territory
and conform to Seleucid standards, thereby suggesting they were a
people well acquainted with current established patterns. In light of
the fact that Dar puts such emphasis on the Hermon, considering it to
be Ituraean territory, the lack of significant coin evidence from the
area helps to maintain this assertion as tenuous. The place of minting
for Ituraean coins is usually accepted as Chalcis; however, there is no
certain answer to this question. In a short study on some of the dated
inscriptions relating to the Hermon region, it was determined that
several different coin eras were used. The most prevalent is the
Seleucid era, with the era of Paneas common to the southern slopes
of the Hermon, and that of Sidon to the west. Di Segni, who studied
the inscriptions, concluded that the difference in eras used, or even the
occurrence of two at some sites, seemed to be a result of economic and
cultural factors, and not political. There was no reason to suspect the
presence of a Pompeian era or of the era of Provincia Arabia.57 The
significance for the use of different eras on coins would indicate more
an influence from the cities of the Phoenician coast and the Syrian
hinterland, than any strong presence of Ituraeans. The known
Ituraean coins are all consistent in having eras either Seleucid or
Pompeian, and all come from Roman Syria.
55 56 57
Burnett 2002: 122. Butcher 2001–2002: 23. Di Segni 1997: 280.
In his article, Herman is mainly concerned with the cult as por-

trayed through Ituraean coins. Considerable discussion is given to the
various deities as illustrated on the coins, with much emphasis on
comparison with the Heliopolitan triad, and its centre at Baalbek-
Heliopolis. Initially, he admits there is little agreement among archae-
ologists in regard to Ituraean material culture or religious practices.58
This is an extremely important point, and I would stress that the
archaeological record presents us with more evidence, and at the
same time raises further questions. As mentioned above, the fact
that Ituraeans issued coins offers some indication of their political
power, economic strength and cultural/religious sensibilities, but
gives no clear indication of who they were. In the greater picture,
their adherence to accepted Seleucid standards helps to confirm
Syria’s resistance to immediate change. Romanization came only
gradually. As Syrian coinage maintains a secure dating, those of the
Ituraean tetrarchs enable scholars to use this coinage to support the
relevant historical sources. Although we cannot determine ethnicity,
the coins do confirm the existence of a people more cohesive than
simply mere robbers. That we have Ituraean coins provides a far more
positive picture of an unknown people than the misconception that
they were simply brigands.
58
Herman 2000–2002: 85.
5
INSCRIPTIONS
Greek and Latin inscriptions

Monimus. ⁄ Ierombali. f[ilius]. ⁄ mil[es]. c[o]hor[tis]. 1. ⁄
Ituraeor[um].
⁄⁄ ann[orum]. L stip[endiorum] XVl ⁄ h[ic]. s[itus]. e[st].
Monimus, son of Ierombalus, soldier of the First Cohort of
Ituraeans, age 50, served 16 years, lies here.
CIL XIII 7041 = ILS l 2562 (Dessau) = CIL XIII 12451
The Greek and Latin inscriptions presented in this chapter offer an
important insight into quite another aspect concerning Ituraeans, even
though they cannot satisfy the question of ethnicity. Considered as a
complete corpus, these inscriptions preserve the name of a people and
allow a glimpse into the relationship between Ituraeans and the Roman
military. They do not, unfortunately, present us with any clear infor-
mation as to the identity and origins of the Ituraeans. Regardless of this
factor, the information provided by Strabo, Josephus and Cicero, and
those primary texts which mention Ituraeans as skilled archers, can only
be enhanced. The criteria remain the same, however, that both context
and content be fully appreciated before any conclusions are drawn.
Funerary inscriptions
The few inscriptions considered funerary are found on gravestones set
up in memory of individual soldiers who were recruited into the
auxiliary units of the Roman army. Monimus, formerly a soldier in
the cohort of an Ituraean auxiliary unit, is known only through the
above inscription, dated to the first century CE. Inscribed on a grave-
stone, it was discovered in Mainz, Germany in 1795. Sculptured in
relief above the inscription is the head and torso of a soldier, beard-
less, with hair cut short, and wearing a broad heavy cloak with
hood. Arched over his head and within a niche is the scallop shell
115
decoration, the key toward the top in typical Roman style. Under his
coat the soldier wears a tunic which is visible around his neck; on his
left hand can be seen a ring on the little finger; he holds a bow with a
sheaf of arrows held tightly in his right hand. From the inscription we
know that he belonged to a unit of archers garrisoned at Mainz in the
first half of the first century CE. The Semitic names of both the soldier
and his father are recorded within the inscription. The soldier would
have been a local recruit from a village or town, possibly within the
principality of Ituraea, although the unit designation does not neces-
sarily indicate his ethnic identity. Archers from Ituraea served with
Caesar during the Civil Wars and within the Roman army from the
time of Pompey’s eastern campaigns. Along with the Syrians, the
Figure 7 Monimus, the Ituraean archer, from his gravestone now in the
Mainz Museum (photograph by Jürgen Zangenberg)
Inscriptions 117
Ituraeans came to be known for their skill with the composite bow,
and the Roman army continued to recruit specialists (archers) from
their original homelands. This particular unit was stationed at or near
Mainz in the early Julio–Claudian era, though its later movements
remain unknown. Although unconnected to our Ituraean archer, the
name Monimus also appears in a Greek inscription found at
Capernaum, on one of the interior columns of the synagogue, where
it indicates this Monimus as the father of two sons, Herod and Justus.
Two more gravestones, both attesting to the presence of soldiers in
Ituraean auxiliary units, were also found at Mainz. These auxiliary
soldiers were members of the ex coh(orte). I. Itu / raiorum. In trans-
lation CIL XIII 2,1 7040 reads:
Caeus the son of Hanel, soldier of the First Cohort of the
Ituraeans, 50 years old, 19 years of service, was buried here.
The stone was set up by his brother Iamlicus.
The oldest of these gravestones is of particular interest. The soldier
named is from the same cohort as Monimus, a relief similar to the first
depicts him with short hair, wearing a tunic and cloak. This soldier,
however, holds a musical instrument in his right hand and is called a
tubicen, the name given to a military musician. The instrument he is
holding was common in Asia Minor, and appears to be a tuba or military
trumpet. It was used on the battlefield as a means of communication, an
auditory signal to draw attention to the visual ones which were the
standards.1 Under the portrait the soldier’s personal name is given as
Sibbaeus. The inscription as recorded in CIL XIII 2,1 7042 reads:
SIBBAEVS • ERON
IS • TVBICEN•EX
COHORTE • I •
ITVRAEORUM
MILES • ANN • XXIV
STIPENDIORVM
VIII • H • S • E
Sibbaeus, the son of Eron, the trumpeter of the first cohort of
the Ituraeans, soldier, 24 years old, 8 years of service, was
buried in this place.2
1
See ‘Hierarchy and Command-Structure in the Roman Army’, in Isaac 1998: 396.
2
CIL XIII 2, 1 7042. See Schottroff 1982: 126 for Tubabläser.
Another gravestone discovered in the quarry at Mainz-Weisenau,

also dated to the first century CE, reads:
Molaecus/ Samuti. f(ilius). /an(norum).
L. ex. co(horte). III/ Ituraius. //
stip(endiorum). XIII/ h(ic). e(st).
Molaecus, the son of Samuti, 50 years old, from the third
cohort, an Ituraean with 13 years of service, was buried here.3
Mention of the third cohort of Ituraeans is important as this unit also
appears in a military diploma from Upper Egypt (CIL XVI 29).
According to Pflaum, ‘La première mention de la presence de cette
unite se lit dans le texte du diplòme militaire de 83, CIL, XVI, 29.’4
Information given in a papyrus fragment indicates the unit was long-
serving. It provides a partial list of decurions and centurions with
their unit and rank, given in the order of their seniority. The place of
origin for the papyrus is unknown, but as it was one of many frag-
ments coming from the Fayum, and in particular Tebtunis, it is
assumed to be from Egypt.5 A more recent transcription and com-
mentary on this fragment establishes the date of the event recorded as
most probably being between April 243 and April 244 CE.6 Although
the papyrus fragment implies that Ituraean units continued to serve
until well into the third century CE, we can only surmise whether
there were by that time still individuals who identified themselves as
Ituraean.
Ituraean auxiliary troops also served in Mauretania, which had
been annexed by Claudius in 40 CE. A funerary stele from Tipasa
dated to 147 CE records the name of one, Beliabo.7
D(is) M(anibus) | Iulius Galianus eq(ues) | Alae I Aug(ustae)
Itur
(aeorum) (sagittariorum vix(it) a(nnis) XXXXV mil(itavit)
an(nis)
XXIII | C( ) Beliabo heres et | M( ) Intaeius sec(und)us |
her(es)
Exer(citus) Panon(iae) Inferior(is) |
To the spirit (lit. spirits) of the departed. Julius Galianus
knight of the first unit ‘Augusta’ of Ituraean archers lived
45 years, served 23 years.
3
Schottroff 1982: 127. 4 Pflaum 1967: 354. 5
Winter, Papyri, 2, pp. 145–7.
6
Fink 1971: 137. 7 Baradez 1954: 115.
Inscriptions 119
C(aius) Beliabo (his) heir, M(arcus) Intaeius (his) second

heir. The Army of Lower Pannonia.
According to Baradez, this is ‘la première prévue incontestable
trouvée en Afrique de la venue en Maurétanie de l’Aile I des
Archers Ituréens’.8
A gravestone, dated to the second half of the first century CE and
found in Hungary, records the career of Acrabanis, a soldier of the ala
Augusta Ituraeorum. Acrabanis apparently served for twelve years,
having died at the age of forty-five years. On the gravestone above the
inscription is carved the scene of a cavalryman, with bow and arrow,
shooting at a target on the right-hand side of the stone.9
Military diplomas
Tomb and grave inscriptions form just a small part of the epigraphic
material that records names of Ituraean auxiliary soldiers, the major
corpus consisting of Roman military diplomas (diplomata). From the
late Republic onwards the army drew on local tribes to augment their
legions. Named for the tribes or districts in which they were originally
raised, the auxiliary units were, by the Claudian period, recognized as
full members of the Roman army. This new element of raising local
units gave rise to the diplomata or discharge certificates. Consisting of
two bronze plates, they were engraved with an accepted discharge
formula: a list of units receiving discharges at that time in that
particular province, name of the recipient, unit commanding officer
and date, and names of witnesses.10 Ultimately they provide docu-
mentary evidence of the soldier’s status, proof of service and con-
ubium. By the end of the first century CE it was not uncommon for an
auxiliary soldier to be awarded Roman citizenship after twenty-five
years of service. Monimus, however, died before he could receive this
privilege having served only sixteen years.
It is worth considering these diplomas as being a significant part of
the inscriptional evidence in the light of the detailed record they
preserve. Names of the alae (cavalry) and cohortes (infantry) for
auxiliary units were taken originally from the tribal leader, or from
the tribe in which the men were initially recruited. Usually these men
served in lands some distance from their home, a tactic initiated to
ensure loyalty to Rome, although in the early days of this recruitment
8
Baradez 1954: 115. 9
CIL III 4367 = RIU 2 53. 10
Webster 1985: 142.
Augustus tended not to send the units too far away. The ethnic
character of the auxiliary units was gradually diluted over time,
except perhaps in specialist units such as archers and slingers. Only
in the case of some eastern regiments, and especially archers from
Syria and the Levant, is it possible to ‘detect a continuing flow of
recruits from their native districts’.11 Monimus could have been just
such a recruit. By the time of the Roman emperor Claudius (41–54
CE), the units were regularized with many still maintaining their
tribal name, or place of origin. After 69–70 CE local links were
decisively broken, yet units such as the oriental archers retained
their name along with their traditional equipment. As one scholar
of the Roman Army expresses it, ‘The chief strength of the oriental
armies were their bowmen, especially in the late periods, so much so
that one has to regard the Syrian and Arab archers as elite soldiers of
the Roman empire second only to the Illyrians.’12 What is meant here
by the term ‘Arab archers’ is not explained, but the Ituraean archers
can well be considered part of those called ‘Syrian’.
A military diploma of an auxiliary soldier belonging to a unit of the
II Ituraeorum cohors gives the name of this ex pedite as
M • SPEDIO • M•F • CORBVLONI13
The information written within the diploma indicates that this auxil-
iary soldier had apparently come originally from HIPPO. This is the
spelling as it appears on the diploma, the commonly accepted trans-
lation being Hippos, one of the Decapolis cities east of the Sea of
Galilee, on the Golan escarpment. Geographically it brings Corbulo
within close proximity to Ituraeans of the Biqa‘. The diploma records
the unit as having served in Egypt as late as September 105 CE. In this
particular case the name of the recruit is of some significance. As the
name Corbulo is relatively rare, through a series of military inscrip-
tions it has been possible to trace the family.14 The dating of the
diploma is too late for the Ituraean principality to still be a significant
factor in the region, but it does illustrate the length of time this
particular unit existed as well as the survival of a family name.
It is not an uncommon feature to find Semitic names recorded for
individual soldiers, and even those of family members, but as often
11
Keppie 1991: 185. 12 Speidel 1977: 722.
13
See Roxan 1978: no. 9 = AE 1968: no. 513 and Pflaum 1967: 339–62. Note the
variation in the spelling of Ituraeorum as it occurs in different inscriptions.
14
‘Military Diplomas and Extraordinary Levies’, in Isaac 1998: 428–30. The
inscriptions mentioned are: CIL XVI 33; RMD 3; CIL XVI 35, 42; RMD 9.
Inscriptions 121
repeated, these names do not give any indication of ethnic identity for
the individual soldier. Occasionally there has been a tendency for
scholars to make assumptions regarding identity, or to vaguely hint
at possibilities for ethnicity. Typical of diplomas in which Semitic
names are mentioned:
CIL XVI 57 – from Dacia (110 CE) with the name Thaemo
ALAE • I AVG ITVRAEOR • CVI PRAEST
C • VETTIVS PRISCVS
EX GREGALE
THAEMO HORATI F ITVRAEO
CIL III 4371 = ILS 2511 – from Pannonia Superior men-
tioning Bargathes son of Regebalus
BARGATHES
REGEBALI • F •
EQ • ALAE • AVG •
ITYRǼORVM • DO
MO • ITYRAEVS • AN
XXV • STIP • V • H • S • E
A third example is the inscription already mentioned above: CIL XIII
7040 – on a gravestone near Mainz mentioning Caeus and Iamlichus
sons of Hanelus.
These diplomas represent only a few of many which record
Semitic names for Ituraean soldiers, and offer clear examples of
how easily inscriptions can be misconstrued. In and of themselves,
the names cannot establish ethnicity of the recruit. Macdonald
clearly emphasizes the danger of attributing too much importance
to names when he reminds us of how names can go on being used for
centuries, can be carried far from their place of origin, yet not
necessarily give any information on those who bear these names,
and more significantly the language they spoke. He continues by
saying that ‘if language is an insecure guide to ethnicity, how much
more so are names’.15
Many of the Ituraean auxiliary units serving in the Roman military
found themselves serving in the northern territories of the empire. A
diploma found in a small village in Pannonia details the honourable
discharge, along with Roman citizenship, given to a member of the
Cohort I Augusta Ituraeor(um). The date of his discharge is 98 CE.16
Another is the oldest military diploma issued for the province of
15
Macdonald 1999: 256. 16
CIL XVI 42; see Sherk 1988: 111 for the translation.
Dacia, dated to 14 October 109 CE.17 Apart from its evident signifi-
cance in terms of dating, this particular diploma adds to a limited
body of knowledge regarding the Dacian wars. According to
Garbsch, a list of the auxiliary units active in Dacia between 109
and 110 CE include the coh. I Ituraeorum, the coh. I Aug. Ituraeorum
(sag.) and the ala I Aug. Ituraeorum.18 As noted previously, coh. III
Ituraeorum is well attested in Egypt, the first unit beginning in 83 CE,
and the last until 243/244 CE.19
Preserved is a copy of an original Latin letter from the praefect in
Egypt, C. Minucius Italus, dated to 103 CE. It provides information
concerning recruits of a cohort either II or III Ituraeorum and about
the units named in the diplomas.20 The last two lines of the letter
record:
(Docketed) Received on February 24, in the sixth year of our
Emperor Trajanus through Priscus, orderly.
I, Avidius Arrianus, adjutant of the third cohort of the
Ituraeans, state that the original letter is in the archives of
the cohort.21
The III Itura[eorum] along with the II Ituraeorum are also mentioned
in a fragment of an Egyptian diploma found in Bulgaria. This frag-
ment adds to one of only four Egyptian auxiliary diplomata having
been published.22 Taking into consideration the location of where the
fragment was found, it is generally accepted that the recipient of the
diploma came from Thrace or Moesia Inferior. Another important
aspect to this diploma, however, is mention of the III Itura[eorum], a
unit already known as serving in Egypt over a long period. These
same units are also known to have served in Roman North Africa,
with the coh. III Ityraeorum listed in a diploma from Numidia.23
None of the above inscriptions allow us to ascertain the origin or
ethnicity of the soldiers recorded. In this regard the soldiers them-
selves are unknown apart from a name. That the auxiliary units in
which they served bore the title Ituraean sheds no light on their
17
Garbsch 1991: 281–4. 18 Garbsch 1991: 284.
19
CIL XVI 29, and P. Michigan III 161 = RMRP 20.
20
A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri II no. 421; see also Fink 1971: 352,
no. 87; = CPL III = POxy. VII 1022.
21
Translation A. S. Hunt and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri II, p. 575.
22
MacDonald 2000: 271–4. Other four published are: CIL XVI 29, RMD I 9, CIL
XVI 184, RMD III 185.
23
CIL VIII supp. 2 no. 17904.
Inscriptions 123
personal identity. Nor is it safe to say, as one scholar has stated, that
‘ethnic Ituraeans’ are detected through personal names, whether the
names are Arabic or Aramaic.24 Writers in the ancient world felt
compelled to praise the skills and abilities of Ituraean archers, as
shall be demonstrated in a following chapter. One can perhaps
agree with Knauf, that Ituraean auxiliary units gained a reputation
as ‘elite soldiers’, and as such the name and reputation was preserved
‘well into the 3rd century CE’.25 All that can be said with certainty is
that the name itself survived over many years as individual soldiers
travelled great distances, and perhaps even occasionally marked the
descendant of an original recruit.
Inscriptions by or about members of units

As demonstrated, the dispersal of Ituraean auxiliary units throughout
the Roman Empire can be traced through the inscriptions. Along
with the gravestones and diplomas are those inscriptions that refer to
the units and their activities, and occasionally inscriptions left by
individual soldiers. From Galatia comes a long Greek inscription,
which according to Saddington confirms the participation of the coh.
I Ituraeorum in Judea during the time of Vespasian (inscription IGRR
III 230). The inscription concerns A. Ti. Claudius Heras, who was a
member of this unit during the principate of Vespasian, and ‘probably
served in the Jewish War’.26
Occasionally there is a brief glimpse into the life of an individual
soldier. A Latin inscription reveals that a vexillatio alae Ituraeorum
made a dedication in Rome to Jupiter Heliopolitanus as recorded in
ILS 2546 = CIL VI1 421
I. o. m. Heliopolitano, vexillatio alae Iture⎟orum,
praebe⎟ntibus
Cla. ⎟ Rufino et Ur⎟sione, decuriones posuerunt.27
To Jupiter optimus maximus Heliopolitanus (or, of
Heliopolis) the auxiliary cavalry detachment of Ituraeans.
Paid for by their excellencies Rufinus and Ursio, erected by
the officers.
This inscription obviously reflects a continued commitment to the
popular Heliopolitan cult of the time. It seems reasonable to speculate
24
Knauf 1998: 275–6. 25 Knauf 1998: 275. See also Aliquot 1999–2003: 183–4.
26
Saddington 1982: 72 and n. 107; and Dabrowa 1986: 227 n. 52.
27
Schürer 1973: 570 and n. 53. 1; Schottroff 1982: 148.
that individual soldiers, as members of the vexillatio, were acquainted

with the great cult at Baalbek or associated centres. The vexillatio
comprised a detachment of soldiers numbering a century or less. It is
perhaps even safe to assume that being familiar with the Heliopolitan
cult, some of the soldiers were originally from the eastern provinces.
Some of the most varied inscriptional material originates in Egypt,
where ‘from the time of Augustus to at least the mid-second century
three cohorts were consistently stationed at Syene and Pselchis,
cohorts that provided the garrison for the forts and stations in
Nubia’.28 One unit already discussed, which appears frequently, is
the III cohort Ituraeorum. The largest garrison was at Syene in Upper
Egypt. A long inscription dated to 99 CE comes from the principia of
the camp and provides information about the command, and accord-
ing to Speidel ‘shows that almost 130 years after Augustus’ initial
deployment of such a force at Syene, the garrison there still consisted
of three cohorts’ (see CIL III supp. 2 no. 14147² = AE (1896) no.
40 = ILS III 8907).29 Another of the units mentioned is the cohors II
Ituraeorum equitatae, known at Syene from as early as 39 CE, which
may have stayed on the southern frontier throughout the history of
Roman Nubia. As other cohortes tended to be replaced, it appears
that the cohors Ituraeorum provided continuity at the garrison.
Without revealing any information on individual soldiers, these
inscriptions still offer some insight into the long history of the units,
their activities and areas of operation.
A great majority of the inscriptions are in Latin, the language of the
Roman army, yet Greek does not disappear entirely. Perhaps the
most impressive is an epigram of Iunius Sabinus, carved into a victory
relief on the South Pylon of the Isis temple at Philae, described by one
scholar as ‘boastful’.30
Ἰούνιος ἔνθα Σαβι ̑νος, ἔχων Ἰτυραΐδα κόρ<τ>αν,

̑
ἱκτο, Συηναίας ἑσμὸν ἄγων στρατια̑ς,
ἅ παν(εο)ρτεύουσα νέοις ἐγάνωσεν ἰάκχοις
εἶσιν ἐκσώζειν κόσμον ἐπισταμέναν.
[Αἰθιόπων γὰρ? ø]υ̑λα μεμηνότα Ῥωμυλίδαισι
[νικάσα πολλ?]ὰς ἡ̑κεν ἔχων ἀγέλας.
[ ––––––– κατὰ?] μω̑ λον, ἐρει ̑ς, τότε Kαίσαρος ἀνήρ,
[ ––––––– κ]αὶ στέϕας ἁρμόσατο.
28 29 30
Speidel 1988: 784. Speidel 1988: 776 and n. 27. Speidel 1998: 778.
Inscriptions 125
Iunius Sabinus commander of the Ituraean cohort(?) came

here leading the multitude of the Syene forces, solemnly
celebrating with new chants Isis who knows how to save
the world. Having conquered the Nubian tribes that raged
against the sons of Romulus, he came here with his troops.
[– – – ] in the fray, you will say, then, Caesar’s man [– – – –]
put on the crown.31 REG 89 (1976) no. 772 = Bernand (1969)
no. 15
Numerous dedicatory inscriptions found in Egyptian temples, all in
places along the borders of Upper Egypt, provide evidence for indi-
vidual soldiers stationed at Talmis and Pelchis as having concern for
religious sensibilities.
IGR I 1303; IGR I 1348 = SB V 8521 from a temple
IGR I 1363 = SB V 7912 mentions Ituraeans
IGR I 1370 = SB V 8537 the cohors II Ituraeorum at Hieran
Sykamion
CIL III supp. 2 141477 provides an Aramaic name
CIL III pars I 4367 mentions the ala Augusta Ituraeorum
On a cippus from Philae is a soldier’s dedication to Isis, dated

135 CE.
Λιβερα̑ρις Σαραπίων στρατιώτ- ης σπείρη[ς] β’ Ἰτουραί-

ων (κεντουρίας) Oὐα- λεντῖνος ἀνέθηκε ὑπὲρ εὐχα-
[ρι]στείας χάρ-
[ι]ν ἐπ̕ ἀγαθω̑ (ι) [π]αρὰ τη̑ς κυ- [ρί]ας Ἴσιδος [ἔ]τους κ’ ζ’ μη-
[ν]ὸς ‘Aδριανοῦ
Liberaris Sarapion, soldier of the second cohort of the
Ituraeans. Centurio Valentinus dedicated for thankfulness
for good by the Lady Isis. In the year 20, at the sixth day in
month Hadrian (= 4 December 135).32
Also from Philae, Σαβίνος ἔχων Ἰτυραιίδα̣, mentioned in the reded-
ication of a temple.33
The epikrisis of a Roman veteran, Valerius Clemens, dated to 188
CE and written in Greek, records his wish to reside at that time in the
31
Speidel 1998: 778–9 for text and translation.
32
A. Roccati: BIFAO suppl. 81 (1981) 437–8 no. 1 pl. 65a = BE 1983, no. 475 =
SEG 31, 1981 (1984) no. 1532; see also Speidel 1988: 786. Translation Hanswulf
Bloedhorn.
33
IGR I 1299; Saddington 1982: 227 n. 103.
Arsinoite nome. The purpose of the epikrisis before a delegate of the

praefect was to obtain a certificate of legal status as a Roman citizen,
which would then be useful if the veteran intended to change his
residence. This particular individual was a veteran of the second
cohort of Ituraeans, and presented a letter from Pactumeius
Magnus, his former praefect. The epikrisis provided proof of his
service in the cohort, and of his official discharge on 31 December
188 CE, in the consulship of Aurelius Commodus Antoninus
Augustus Pius and Quintillus. There are three witnesses, all veterans
who have sworn a declaration to say that the information given was
true.34
Insight into one of many activities in which auxiliary soldiers were
involved during their periods of active duty is shown in another brief
inscription. The cohors III Ituraeorum based in Upper Egypt appa-
rently provided guards at the quarries:35
ILS I 2611 = CIL III 12069 – from Ptolemais Hermiu, Egypt
omnibus / commilitonibus / qui hic fuerunt ad / custodias felic.! /
coh. scut. c. R. feliciter! / coh. III Itur. felicit.!
To all the comrades-in-arms who have been on guard duty
here: Good luck!
The cohort of heavy-armed troops (c.R.): Good luck! The
third Ituraean cohort: Good luck!
From an ostracon
Further evidence of auxiliary units maintaining a presence in Egypt
comes from an ostracon found at the Imperial quarries and mining
centre of Mons Claudianus. Ostracon no. 7363 contains a dedication
by a ‘Cohors II Ituraeorum to Zeus Helios Great Sarapis and the gods
who share the temple in gratitude to the emperor Severus
Alexander’.36 This establishes a dating for the cohors II Ituraeorum
at the garrison as late as 225–235 CE. The quarries at Mons
Claudianus were an important source of granodiorite used in the
front columns of the Pantheon, for Trajan’s column in Rome,
Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli and Diocletian’s palace at Split. The cohors
II Ituraeorum would likely have been part of the Syene command,
34
Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri II no. 315, pp. 346–7; = SB IV 7362 = Daris
1964: no. 97.
35
ILS I 2611 = CIL III 12069. See Schürer 1973: 571 n. 53.6.
36
Cockle 1996: 27 n. 24.
Inscriptions 127
where, along with Alexandrian units, they remained throughout the

principate. Maxfield comments, ‘It is notable that half of all the
auxiliary units known to have been based at any time in Egypt appear
on duty in quarries both in the desert and in the Nile Valley.’37
Military correspondence was not always recorded on ostraca, as
occasionally papyri was used. Such is the case when the centurion
Cassius Victor, of the cohors II Ituraeorum, wrote of events that took
place at the fort of Patkoua on 17 Phamenoth 118. The fort was
‘attacked by 60 barbaroi and fighting took place over several hours
on that day and the next, resulting in several casualties including
women and children’.38
Ambiguous inscriptions
A number of inscriptions that mention or refer to Ituraeans, once
again, do not necessarily offer a clear insight into Ituraeans as an
ethnic group. Because of their ambiguity, they do not support any
claims for understanding the Ituraean principality, or its culture,
religious identity, or ethnicity. Yet occasionally scholars refer to
these inscriptions to support or explain the presence of Ituraeans.
North of the Hauran, between the eastern edge of the Leja (ancient
Trachonitis) and the northern edge of the Jebel al ‘Arab is the village
of al-Hit/Eitha. During the Herodian period Eitha served as the main
military base for a region known by some scholars as the ‘lava lands’.39
Here, in the interior of a house, was found the fragment of a memorial
inscription ‘dedicated to a man named Praxilaus, commander (?) of a
cohors Ituraeorum which had once done a tour of duty in Moesia’.40
The dating, according to Waddington in his commentary (IGL p. 498)
of the inscription, is considered to be from the time of Agrippa,
although there is no indication as to which Agrippa is intended.
Inscriptions connected to Ituraeans because of provenance

Har Sena‘im is, in Dar’s estimation, an Ituraean site. During the years
in which the site was surveyed and excavated, nine fragmentary
Greek inscriptions were discovered, all coming from the courtyard
37
Maxfield 1996: 18. 38 Bowman 2007: 635–8.
39
The term ‘lava lands’ is used by both Macadam (1986) and Peters (1980: 110–21).
40
IGR III 1139 = IGL 2120 (Waddington) = IGR III 1139. See Macadam 1986: 62
and n. 59; Schürer 1973: 571 and n. 53.10; and Aliquot 2003: 183–4.
of the lower cult area. Because of their fragmentary state, any reading
remains speculative. Through palaeography, however, the inscrip-
tions were found to belong to the Roman period, the earliest being
dated to the mid-second century CE.41 Most of the inscriptions are
inscribed on stone altars and appear to be dedications. Inscription no.
2 (Locus 91) is among the longest, incised on hard limestone, and now
in two fragments:
‘Yπὲρ σωτηρίας τω̑ ν κυρα[κ]–
ω̑ ν αύτοκρατόρων κὲ ν{ε}ίκα[ς]
κης
μνησθη̑ Νέτιρας Σαχού[ου]
[τεταγμένος] ἐπὶ τὰ ἄκτ[α]
For (the) safety and victories/ry of the Lor[d]s
Emperors – may Netiras son of Sachou[os] be
remembered (by the deity), [placed?] in charge of
the (military?) recor[ds].42
The inscription has been dated to c.161–9 CE, and the name Netiras
(Νέτιρας) noted as being of Semitic origin. The name was not uncom-
mon within this region and appears under various spellings. Josephus
even speaks of a Galilean Netiras (Νετείρας), one of two brothers
from the village of Ruma who had fought bravely to defend Jotapata
against the Roman legion (War 3.233). Speculation on the possibility
that the Netiras of Har Sena‘im was a Roman auxiliary soldier of
Ituraean origin is perhaps overstating the case. Dar’s surveys and
partial excavations at sites in the Hermon region led him to conclude
that these settlements flourished in the first to third centuries CE. The
Har Sena‘im inscriptions go some way to support this conclusion, the
earliest (no. 3) being dated to 148/149 CE, yet they reveal nothing in
terms of Ituraean identity. Dar’s suggestion that these inscriptions
indicate a cultic importance for Har Sena‘im, enough to attract
pilgrims from far and near, might well be considered, albeit with
caution, but we cannot yet say with any great assurance just who
these pilgrims were or where they came from. These sites may have
served only the local settlements, as the evidence seems to show the
Hermon settlements thriving at this period. Although the evidence,
both archaeological and inscriptional, appears to support Dar’s
41
Dar and Kokkinos 1992: 23; and Dar 1993b: 76.
42
Inscription and translation: Dar and Kokkinos 1992: 13; Dar 1993b: 77.
Inscriptions 129
theory regarding the period of occupation, it cannot as yet provide us

with any direct link to the Ituraeans as a people or their origins.
This inherent difficulty in the interpretation of inscriptions, of too
readily assuming identity/ethnicity, can be further demonstrated by
an inscription considered ‘too fragmentary for any meaningful resto-
ration’, which by this very statement leads one to believe that little can
be gained.43 In a very obscure line within inscription no. 6 there is
what appears to be a name, first translated with a suggested reading of
the name Anias. The translator makes claim that Anias (which, it
must be remembered, is not clear enough to be without doubt) is an
‘Ituraean name widespread among Ituraean enlistees in the Roman
army’.44 It was simply a popular name, but it offers no more. Another
reading of the same inscription suggests this obscure line might make
reference to an empress, possibly Julia Domna, since palaeographic
evidence dates it to the end of the first century CE.45 It is well worth
reflecting on Macdonald’s warning on the use of names and of mak-
ing too hasty a conclusion. In a personal comment to the translators
of these inscriptions, Millar summed it up well when he stated, ‘The
fact that we cannot understand everything about these fragmentary
inscriptions is less important than the fact they are there, at almost
1200 m height, in Greek, paralleling those from the villages of the
Hauran.’46 There is much truth to this, and a consideration of the
implications stated here might be well worth pursuing.
The cumulative evidence from both texts and coins supports
Strabo’s statement that the Ituraean principality was centred within
the southern Biqa‘. Although until recently little had been published
that might throw more light on Ituraean occupation of the region, a
few years ago an inscription was found within the temple at Majdal
‘Anjar. Inscribed on a column drum made from local limestone, it
appears within the foundation of a staircase leading to the cella of the
great temple. Determination of the era is problematic; is the inscrip-
tion to be dated to the Seleucid era beginning in 312 BCE, to
the Hellenistic Sidon era beginning in 111/110 BCE, or to the
Hellenistic Berytus era beginning in 81 BCE?47 To date the question
is unresolved, although Aliquot’s preference for the latest dating may
43
Dar and Kokkinos 1992: 20. 44 Dar 1993b: 78.
45
Dar 1993b: 78; and Dar and Kokkinos 1992: 20.
46
Dar and Kokkinos 1992: 23 and n. 9.
47
Aliquot 2003: 234–5; SEG 37 (1987): 453 no. 1446, the commentary dates it to the
Seleucid era 312/311 = 69/68 BCE; for an earlier publication on the inscription, see
Ghadban 1985: 300–301, with inscription.
be the most likely. The inscription, however, is difficult to read, and

makes no mention of Ituraeans. Its significance is understood more
readily in terms of the cult practised at the various temple sites located
along the slopes of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountains.
Without a thorough archaeological excavation at the temple site of
Majdal ‘Anjar any hypothesis regarding the inscription, particularly
in context of a discussion of the Ituraeans, is inconclusive.
Aramaic inscriptions
During an archaeological survey carried out by Israeli archaeologists
after the October 1973 war, an Aramaic inscription was found in the
village of El Mal, now in southern Syria, to the east of Quneitra.
Carved into a basalt block, it is partly damaged and now in secondary
use within the arch of a modern building. The inscription is consid-
ered to be of special interest for two reasons: it is similar, but not
identical, to the Palmyrene script, but almost identical to an archaic
inscription from Dura Europos, dated to 32 BCE. As the inscription
provides a date of 305 in the Seleucid era corresponding to 7/6 BCE,
this allows for a firm time frame in terms of when the inscription was
written. Joseph Naveh (who was asked to provide a transliteration of
the text), in offering several reasons as to why it could not be
Palmyrene, posited the idea that it might have been written by an
Ituraean. In forming his hypothesis he considered the geographical
location of El Mal, which by the late first century BCE was inhabited
by Nabataeans, and that two of the names in the inscription occur in
Nabataean as well as Safaitic. As he accepted that the Ituraeans were
an Arab peoples, he supported his thesis by making reference to the
biblical name Yetur, the German edition of Schürer’s outline of
Ituraean history, and Littman’s recording of Nabataean inscriptions
from Umm el Jimal.48 This, of course, brings into question once more
the use of names for any type of identification, and although interest-
ing, the El Mal inscription cannot offer any real insight into Ituraean
identity.
Perhaps far more significant is the recent second publication of an
Aramaic inscription first discovered during the 1960s excavations at
the site of Yanouh in the northern Lebanon range, and within the
hinterland of Byblos. The inscription was originally carved into a
sandstone block, found in secondary use. The block was removed
48
Naveh 1975: 117–23.
Inscriptions 131
before the Lebanese war and eventually lost. Fortunately, photo-

graphs had been taken and proved clear enough for a reading and
translation to be made. This Aramaic inscription is comprised of two
incomplete lines; however, enough is evident to determine its purpose
as a dedication of a temple. After the first publication, a study of its
palaeography concluded that the script was not identical to any
already known writing, but could be compared to the El Mal
inscription.
The inscription has been tentatively dated to the year 203 BCE, its
dating most probably in reference to the Seleucid era. This would put
it within the Hellenistic period, a hypothesis strengthened by the fact
that it was inscribed on sandstone as opposed to the later use of
limestone. Considering factors indicating Phoenician as still being
spoken and written in this general area during this same period, the
translator has posited a new hypothesis – that it was engraved by
Ituraeans. The implications within this hypothesis are significant:
‘This supposes the presence of another political authority, if not
population, not subjected to the authority of Byblos.’49 In presenting
such a proposal, however, the translator takes pains to emphasize that
we still have little and incomplete information in regard to the
Ituraeans. Nonetheless, her argument is compelling. The site being
excavated at Yanouh is a sanctuary site, one of many within the
Lebanon range. If we accept the possibility that this early, second-
century sanctuary was established by Ituraeans, it then requires us to
consider the possibility they were in the region at an earlier date than
previously thought. Textual information, along with coins, points to
the early first century BCE for their political beginnings. This consid-
ered, she concludes with a statement of even greater significance: ‘It
also reveals that they were sufficiently settled and politically organ-
ized to build and dedicate a temple in this region. They cannot have
been the wild population of plunderers that some ancient authors
describe.’50 It is perhaps the most stimulating suggestion yet, and I
would agree, a quite dramatic revision of just how we view the
Ituraeans.
A rather different picture must be drawn from our coins and
inscriptional evidence when compared to the primary textual mate-
rial, as will be seen in the following chapter. There is nothing in the
numismatic evidence that characterizes an Ituraean as a robber or
49
Briquel Chatonnet 2005: 3–10; and Briquel Chatonnet and Bordreuil 2001: 148–52.
50
brigand, or supposes a livelihood of raiding and threat. The issuing of

coinage indicates a sense of independence, a declaration of wealth and
power, or as phrased by one scholar, ‘a sure sign of political maturity
and sophistication’.51 The coins and inscriptions offer vague hints of a
community, or even an ἔθνος, but provide no clear picture of identity.
In terms of the apparent disparity between how the primary texts have
been interpreted, and what the coins and inscriptions might suggest,
the following chapter will reconsider the difficult question of Ituraean
identity.
51
6
ITURAEANS AND IDENTITY
Identity isn’t given once and for all: it is built up and changes
throughout a person’s lifetime.
Amin Maalouf1
Perhaps these words, written by Amin Maalouf in his book On
Identity, will help to remind us of the complexities involved in deter-
mining identity, whether it be of those in antiquity or those in the
present. It is a reminder that in our efforts to ascertain identity those
same principles, concerns and deliberations that exist today are as
valid as when attempting to determine the same for the past. How we
make these decisions, what myriad factors come into play are no less
significant for conclusions about the past than they are about the
present. Whether an ethnic identity can be determined for a people
called ‘Ituraean’ remains inconclusive, and for lack of clear evidence
remains fraught with difficulties. Conclusions drawn mainly on the
basis of epigraphic evidence can be misleading, offering no precise
information for origins or ethnic identity. Some of the soldiers named
in military diplomata may well have identified themselves as Ituraean,
but the visible record before us provides only a name, rank and
military history and says nothing about the individual soldier’s ethnic
origin. There is some certainty in assuming that a people known as
Ituraean were recruited initially into the ranks of the Roman auxiliary
forces whose units bore their tribal name, but this is all that is known.
The epigraphic material considered is crucial, as occasionally it has
been used to support statements about Arabs and/or Ituraeans for
which there is no corroborative evidence. Assumptions are made on
the basis of specific texts/inscriptions which help to formulate an
interpretation of the early source material. This is exemplified in the
way scholars have, in the past, interpreted the writings of Strabo,
1
Maalouf 2000: 20.
133
Josephus and Cicero, and those inscriptions that mention Arabic

names. This chapter will reconsider these pitfalls and subsequent
confusion, and what might be learned afresh about Ituraeans.
In a cogent and well-considered article, Michael Macdonald offers
some reflections on epigraphy and ethnicity when he writes:
like the historian, the epigraphist must always be aware that
his material may be being economical with the truth, or even
presenting an entirely false picture. Thus, epigraphy, when it
is not balanced by literary sources, can produce an extremely
distorted picture of a society; more so, in some ways, even
than archaeology without the written word.2
This illusion of direct contact challenges the scholar to go beyond the
script and to attempt some understanding of the nature and context of
the material, though there is always the danger of too readily accept-
ing prior judgements and merely adding to what is possibly a mis-
taken conclusion.
The following two passages from the genealogical lists in the
Hebrew Bible, and their transliteration in the LXX, are generally
accepted among scholars as indicating origins for the Ituraeans.3
The ‫( יטור‬traditionally transliterated as Jetur/Yetur in translations
of the Hebrew Bible) are named among the lists of tribes as descend-
ants of Ishmael.
Gen. 25.15 ‫ – יטור נפיש וקדמה‬Ἰετοὺρ καὶ Ναɸὲς καὶ Κεδμά
1 Chron. 1.31 ‫ – יטור נפיש וקדמה‬Ἰεττοὺρ Ναɸὲς Κεδμά
Not withstanding the writers’ purpose in both Genesis and
Chronicles, the sources and their use in the past, the information
provided here is misleading and possibly inaccurate. The genealogies
contained within the Hebrew Bible, although generally considered to
preserve an ancient oral tradition, lack sufficient data from which to
trace origins. It remains uncertain whether they can actually be
proved to preserve an oral tradition. Genealogies are not an uncom-
mon feature in the ancient Near East, where they appear in
Mesopotamian king lists, in Safaitic inscriptions and in the genealog-
ical lists from Ugarit and Egypt. However, within scholarship there
has been a long tradition of identifying Yetur, son of Ishmael in the
2
Macdonald 1998: 178.
3
See Dar 1993b: 15; Knauf 1992b: 821–2; Saunders 1976: 773; Pauly-Wissowa, RE
IX: 2378–9; Schürer 1973: 561; Dussaud 1927: 176–8; Trimingham 1979: 19 n. 23.
Ituraeans and identity 135
Hebrew Bible genealogies, with one of the Arab tribes said to have
inhabited the Syria/Lebanon region. In an extensive article that
addresses the issues of language, among much else, Aliquot rejects
the association of the biblical Yetur with the historical Ituraeans,
along with Dar’s hypothesis (1988: 20) that the Druze are descendants
of the Ituraeans.4 His conclusions are well considered and contrast
strongly with an opposing view, which offers little in the way of
constructive analysis: ‘There is no reasonable doubt that the
Ituraeans (Greek Ἰτουραι̑οι, Latin Ituraei) entered history under the
tribal name of Yetūr, which in turn is nothing but the Aramaic form
of their native Arabic self-designation, Yazur.’5
In 1 Chron. 5.19 the writer mirrors the shifting situation of his time
with differences that appear in names of the tribes, reflecting political
and geographical changes. That the Yetur are mentioned here has
supported a claim that they were a North Arabian nomadic tribe later
known as the Ἰτουραίων, but an important technical point needs to
be considered in regard to this particular passage. Myers reminds us
that the Chronicler is a ‘Midrashist’ and not a historian in the modern
sense, and here Yetur is translated in the LXX, not transliterated as in
the first two examples.6 In perhaps a more radical view, one scholar
has suggested that 1 Chron. 5.19 ‘shows signs of having been com-
posed as Hasmonaean propaganda’.7 The problem is twofold: how
reliable are the genealogies for making such identification and, sec-
ondly, how clear is the distinction between Arab and Aramaean
within the text, if indeed there is any difference? In the Assyrian
sources, both Arabs and Aramaeans are mentioned as being tribal
groups, each having migrated into the region of Syria-Palestine. The
earliest datable biblical reference to Arabs is in Isa. 13.20, from the
second half of the eighth century BCE, in which the Arab is pictured
as a tent dweller – the nomad.8 Similarly Jer. 3.2 harkens to the
nomadic Arab: ‘By the waysides you have sat awaiting lovers like
an Arab in the wilderness.’ But this is not the only portrait drawn, as
other writers describe encounters with Arab kings with great wealth at
their disposal, or pastoralists trading their lambs, goats and rams.9 In
the case of the biblical genealogies, it must be remembered that these
were first an oral, fluid tradition, and only later became transformed
4
Aliquot 1999–2003: 161–290. 5 Knauf 1998: 269. 6 Myers 1965: 38.
7
Ma‘oz 1997: 279. 8 Eph‘al 1976: 227.
9
For reference to the kings of Arabia, see 1 Kgs 10.15, 2 Chron. 9.14, Jer. 25.24; for
the Arab as pastoralist, see 2 Chron. 17.11, Ezek. 27.21.
into the written word. In so doing they took on a fixed form, in which
the writer’s own understanding of history is reflected, but possibly the
immediate context in which it was written was also reflected. Wilson
puts it quite succinctly: ‘This fact has important implications, not
only because writing has a tendency to modify somewhat the informal
characteristics of oral genealogies, but also because the literary con-
trol of the Old Testament modifies the purposes that the genealogies
can serve.’10 Although 1 Chronicles mentions various nomad tribes,
details of their histories remain obscure. The information it provides
reflects a period from the ninth century BCE to the first half of the
eighth century BCE, although the generally accepted date for the
composition of 1 Chronicles is the fourth century BCE.11 In other
words, the author is looking back to his own history as he understands
it. There is nothing in the genealogies to confirm the ethnicity of the
Yetur as either Arab or Aramaean, or even Syrian. Yet there has been
a predisposition within the study of the ancient Near East to assume
an Arab identity for Ituraeans.
Josephus, at the beginning of Antiquities, repeats the history of
Abraham and Isaac and lists among the sons of Ishmael the Jetur,
written as Ἰετου̑ρος.12 Along with other tribes of the region, the Jetur
are designated as descendants of Ishmael. In reflecting on this same
passage from Josephus, Millar comments on its ultimate consequence
where its designation for contemporary Arabs as the descendants of
Ishmael is of momentous significance.13 The idea of the Arab has
taken on many diverse meanings, and is often captured in descriptions
of Ituraeans. They have been described as an ‘old Arab people’ or as
‘an Arab tribe’ who emerged as a political power during the latter part
of Seleucid rule.14 As a land/region Ituraea is said to be a ‘region NE
of Galilee in the Anti-Lebanon country settled by Arab people of
Ishmaelite stock’, or Ituraeans described as a ‘community of Arabian
stock speaking Aramaic’.15 These typify the general interpretation
given for Ituraea/Ituraeans. In her study of the Jews under Roman
rule, Smallwood has perhaps one of the most strongly expressed
viewpoints when she states: ‘Beyond Samarites lay the Ituraeans,
a turbulent and warlike race, originally of the Lebanon and
10
Robert R. Wilson, ‘Genealogies’, ABD, II: 931.
11
See ‘Chronicles’ in ABD, I: 995.
12
Ant. 1.220. See also Mason 2000: 83.
13
Millar 1993: 8, in reference to the fifth-century CE writer Sozomenus.
14
Shahid 1984: 5 for the first quote; and Grainger 1990: 183 for the second.
15
The first quote from Saunders 1976: 773; the second from Hitti 1968: 246.
Antilebanon area, who by this time had extended their power over
Galilee, over Abilene north of Damascus, and to the coast of Botrys
and Arca.’16
Linked in with an appreciation of the difficulties involved when
interpreting the use of the term ‘Arab’ is the complementary issue of
how to understand the history of a people acknowledged as Arabs. It
is known from the historical material that the first contact between
Arabs and Assyrians was made in Syria on the borders of the terri-
torial state of Damascus, and not in Arabia proper. It was from here
that caravan routes from all directions converged.17 Potts stresses the
fact of a ‘profound geographical difference between Assyria’s first
contacts with the Arabs, and the frequent incursions into Arabia’.18
These early contacts are attested from the mid-ninth century BCE,
during the reign of Shalmaneser II (c. 854 BCE). The oldest document
that mentions Arabs (Aribi) by name is the Assyrian Kurkh Monolith
Inscription of Shalmaneser III concerning the Battle of Qarqar in 853
BCE. Among the names of the coalition leaders who opposed the
Assyrian army is Gindibu, the man of Arabia.19 It is the only doc-
umentation of the battle providing names for most of the leaders and
their allies. Not only does it mention the Aribi, the inscription also
throws light on the alliances that had been made in order to challenge
Assyrian aggression. It has been suggested that these leaders were
probably united by their interest in the trade which passed through
Syria from Arabia, Egypt and Anatolia, which Assyrian expansion
was apparently disrupting.20 The territory of Gindibu is thought to
have been in the northern part of the Syro-Arabian desert. Mention of
Ba‘śā following immediately after Gindipū suggested to Lipiński that
the Arab Gindipū was ‘most likely moving with his tribe between
summer pastures in the Orontes valley or the Antilebanon and winter
quarters to the east and southeast of the mountain range’. Ba‘śā is
thought to have been in the central part of the Biqa‘; the name could
even possibly be Ancient North Arabian. Lipiński further suggests
that the previous phrases mentioning Arabs who come and go seem to
confirm the close relationship between the Arabs and the region of
Soba in the eighth century BCE.21 In the following century the Arabs
are mentioned frequently in the Assyrian documents, always in
16
Smallwood 1976: 14. 17 Potts 1988: 128–9.
18
Potts 1988: 128. See also Macdonald 1995: 355–69.
19
Luckenbill 1926: 223, col. 611: ii 90–96 (94); A. Leo Oppenheim, ANET: 277–9;
Eph‘al 1982: 21.
20
Macdonald 1995a: 364. 21 Lipiński 2000: 343–4.
reference to tribes and tribal confederations. Along with the biblical

and Assyrian sources are the Babylonian and Achaemenid records,
adding to the primary textual material and providing a fragmentary
and often disconnected history. Descriptions by the Greek and Latin
writers, who often relied on earlier sources, and the inscriptions by the
people themselves together constitute this complex written material
on the Arabs.
Under Sargon II (721–705 BCE) Assyria dominated half the civi-
lized world. The texts and fragments of text that constitute the
correspondence of Sargon II number approximately 1,300 making
it ‘the most extensive political correspondence of a major ruler extant
from ancient Mesopotamia and probably from ancient times’.22
Among this corpus are letters from Damascus, Hamath and Zobah
(or Sobah), with many referring to Arabs. These letters from the
extensive Assyrian correspondence illustrate interaction between
Arabs and Assyrians with a sense of regularity and sobriety. In
other words, there is from the Assyrian view a record of daily
observance and business in which the Arabs are perceived as
unthreatening. Evidence for Arabs within the Biqa‘ valley is illus-
trated in Letter no. 175, detailing a raid having taken place.23
Lipiński describes the possible location and route taken by the
Assyrians when attempting to respond to the raid, a route still used
by pilgrims in the Middle Ages. The events portrayed from these
Assyrian documents paint scenes of commercial trade, of merchants
moving with their goods through mountainous passes to centres of
trade along the coast. However, apart from the presence of Arabs in
this region, there were Aramaeans who also inhabited the fertile
Biqa‘ valley, having established the kingdom of Soba (transcribed
into Greek as Σουβα) in the early years of the tenth century BCE.24
Although Aramaeans occupied the Biqa‘ and the mountainous
regions from an early period, they have not been much discussed
relative to the Ituraeans, the emphasis always being on the assump-
tion that the Ituraeans were Arab. Aliquot has recently challenged
this proposition, suggesting the possibility that the Ituraeans were of
Aramaean origin.25 The sources, however, offer no confirmation for
22
Parpola and Reade 1987: xl.
23
Parpola and Reade 1987: 136 for the letter; and Lipiński 2000: 332 and n. 69.
24
Lipiński 2000: 319–45, where he discusses the kingdom of Soba.
25
Aliquot 1999–2003: 190–1.
ethnicity, and it remains a topic in which most scholars have tended

to repeat earlier assumptions.
The Aramaeans
The oldest datable portrait of an Aramaean appears on bronze gates
erected by Assurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE). The first written referen-
ces, however, are found in the Assyrian Annals of Tiglath-pileser I
(1115–1077 BCE), and from this time through to the ninth century
BCE the Assyrian documents remain the only written source for the
Aramaeans.26 The annals list names of Aramaean political units, cities
and states, and record from the Assyrian viewpoint battles fought and
victories won. Considered to be originally a tribal group of nomadic
flock herders, by the end of the second millennium BCE they had
infiltrated and settled into regions of what is now Lebanon, Syria,
Iraq and Jordan. They carried with them their old tribal forms, their
religion and language, a west Semitic dialect that was to prove the most
enduring of all their contributions. In considering the geographical
landscape and physical environment associated with the Aramaeans,
one scholar has suggested they had an economy related to nomadic
pastoralism.27 Over time they were to have a profound influence on the
indigenous populations. Aramaean dominion of the land was manifest
by the first millennium when the Biqa‘ valley was divided into northern
and southern districts under their control. By the tenth century their
kingdom extended to Damascus, the Hauran and the Golan, establish-
ing it as the most significant Aramaean power in the region. The origins
of the Aramaeans are thought to be in the Late Bronze Age, as by the
first millennium they were well established throughout inner Syria, and
along the shores of the Tigris and Euphrates, having gained control
over vast areas of Mesopotamia.28 As another scholar has aptly
phrased it, it was an ethnic movement ‘unparalleled in the ancient
Near East until the arrival of the Arabs more than a millennium and
a half later’.29 It has been suggested that Aramaean wealth and power
came from their large numbers as well as their activity in long-distance
trade made possible through the domestication of the camel.30
Notably, the Aramaeans appear not to have had any association
26
Dion 1995: 1281–94. 27 Schwartz 1989: 281.
28
Lemche 1995: 1209. 29 Snell 1985: 326.
30
Suggested by Snell 1985: 327. For further discussion on the significance of the
camel at this time see Schwartz 1989: 282–3. Mazar 1986a: 155.
with the use of the camel within a military context. As Schwartz states,
‘The Assyrian evidence indicates that the only Assyrian opponents who
made extensive military use of camels were Arabians (Aribi).’31
The Aramaean culture was eclectic, easily absorbing Phoenician,
Syrian and Neo-Hittite as well as Assyrian elements. Among the
many states formed by the Aramaeans was that of Aram-Zobah,
which included within its boundaries Damascus, the Anti-Lebanon,
and the Biqa‘. The name Zobah (Sobah) is preserved in the Hermon
settlement of Bir an-Sobah, the site where a coin of the Ituraean
tetrarch Ptolemy was discovered.32 That the territory of Aram-
Zobah covered much of what was later to be associated with the
Ituraeans merely substantiates the span of time over which this hinter-
land was occupied. This raises the possibility of an Aramaean origin
for Ituraeans as opposed to an Arab one. The names of Arab tribes
are also included in the Assyrian documents from this period
onwards, without any mention of Ituraeans.
Safaitic inscriptions
One of the main sources used to claim that Ituraeans were Arabs is the
corpus of Safaitic inscriptions. Safaitic inscriptions, as Macdonald
succinctly suggests, provide ‘information on a section of the popula-
tion which is otherwise largely ignored in the available sources, they
are brief, enigmatic and difficult to handle’.33 The vast majority of
well over 20,000 inscriptions known so far are virtually all graffiti,
and written in an ancient North Arabian dialect. The first graffiti were
discovered by Europeans in an area next to the lava fields south-east
of Damascus; because this region is referred to as the Safa, the
inscriptions were named Safaitic. They are found almost entirely in
the basalt desert of south-eastern Syria, across north-eastern Jordan,
and into northern Saudi Arabia. Only a few hundred are known from
as far away as Dura Europos to the east, Palmyra in the north, and
one from the coast of Lebanon. Very rarely have any been found in or
around settled areas. Macdonald emphasizes this point when he
argues that some scholars have recently claimed that the authors of
these texts may well have been sedentaries rather than nomads.34
A particularly unique find comes from a field in the foothills of the
31
Schwartz 1989: 283.
32
Dar 1993b: 114–33. The spelling of Bir an-Sobah is according to Dar.
33
Macdonald 1993: 303. 34 Macdonald 1993: 311.
Hermon. It is a basalt stone incised with a Safaitic inscription that

Dar has interpreted as ‘interesting evidence of an Arabic nomad
population in the Hermon foothills’.35 Macdonald underlines the
importance in acknowledging that, at present, all the evidence we
have points to the vast majority of those who used these scripts as
being nomadic. It does not mean, however, that it was not used by
people who were settled, but simply that there is very little evidence
that it was. Hoyland supports this belief when he considers that from
both the content and distribution of the graffiti, it is clear the writers
were nomadic pastoralists.36 The brief messages incised in stone
speak of many subjects, all revolving around their daily lives: herding
and pasturing, raiding and hunting, prayers and sacrifices, sorrows
and loves, hardships and comfort, genealogies and tribal affiliations,
summer and winter migrations.
The term ‘Safaitic’ is itself a misnomer and bears no relation to
what the authors of these inscriptions actually called themselves. The
confusion arising from taking the name Safaitic and assuming an
ethnicity is thoroughly discussed by Macdonald. The word Safa
relates to a small distinctive region north-east of the volcanic area
of the Leja, and to the north-west of the Ruhba, where to date no
inscriptions have been found, hence the name is totally inappropri-
ate.37 Furthermore, it has led to a labelling of the authors of these
inscriptions as ‘Safaites’, providing an ethnic identity for an unknown
group supposedly living within the Safa and Hauran regions. This
hypothesis cannot be accepted, though there are still scholars who use
the term, a fact that merely confuses the issue.38 Macdonald has
attempted to clear up this confusion by reminding us, ‘There were
no ancient people who went by this name, and there is no indication
that all those who used the Safaitic script were members of one
distinct community, which is what these terms suggest. A script is
not the exclusive property of one particular group.’39 After a well-
considered argument, Macdonald refutes the claims of other scholars
who support the idea of the authors as being sedentary and contends
that those who wrote the Safaitic inscriptions were nomads, finding
no evidence to support the idea that they lived among the sedentary
populations of the Jebel Hawrān.40
35
Dar 1993b: 17, and 248, pl. 7. 36 Hoyland 2001: 65.
37
Macdonald 1993: 305–8; and also 1998: 183. 38 See Sartre 2005: 69, 233, 359.
39
Macdonald 1993: 307. 40 Macdonald 1993: 322–39.
Since several scholars have claimed that the Safaitic ʾl yẓr refers to
Ituraeans, it is necessary to consider the Safaitic inscriptions and their
possible relationship to Ituraeans. More importantly, these inscrip-
tions must be understood within ‘les études historiques et philologi-
ques sur le Proche-Orient hellénistique et romain’.41 The formula
these inscriptions generally follow is another essential consideration.
Macdonald states:
References to events in the Safaitic take two forms: those in
which an author says he was involved and those by which he
dates his inscription. This distinction is extremely impor-
tant … References in dating formulae, therefore, are evi-
dence for the spread of news, or rumour, but not
necessarily for contact or involvement.42
The relevant inscriptions are:43
CIS V 784
I mġ/.yr bn ʿmm bn ʾd/-nt d/- ʾI yz/.r w- ʾs2rq …
By Mġ/.yr son of ʿmm son of ʾd/-nt of the lineage of Yz/.r and
he migrated to the inner desert …44
According to Macdonald this is the only inscription by someone
claiming to be a member of the ʾl yz/.r, the other inscriptions refer
to their activities.45
CIS V 2209
I gd bn frs1 d/- ʾI gfft w qyz/. s1nt h/.rb yz/.r
By Gd son of Frs1 of the lineage of Gfft. And he spent dry
season [here] the year of the war of Yz/.r [or, less likely
(because grammatically more difficult), ‘the year in which
Yz/.r made war’]
Knauf claims that CIS V 784 and CIS V 2209 were written in Safaitic
by Ituraeans, and that CIS V 2209 refers to ‘the year when the
Ituraeans waged war’.46 Macdonald, however, refutes this claim as
there is no basis for this speculation.
41
Aliquot 1999–2003: 179. 42 Macdonald 1993: 329.
43
The inscriptions as recorded in CIS are in Hebrew. All the above transliterations
and translations of the Safaitic inscriptions are by Michael Macdonald using the
standard fonts.
44
On this translation, see also Macdonald 1992b: especially 4–6.
45
Macdonald 1993: 336 n. 216. 46 Knauf 1998: 272; see also ABD, III: 583.
CIS V 4677
I ks1t/. bn rnh/. bn ʿIq w dt/.ʾ h- ʿrd/. s1nt h./. wI ʾI yz/.r
By Ks1t/. son of Rnh/. son of ʿlq and he spent the season of
the later rains in this valley, the year of the removal of the ʾl
Yz/.r47
Knauf considers this Safaitic inscription as one of three (CIS 784,
2209 and Ox 58) written by Ituraeans. In the same article he identifies
the ‘predatory bedouin’ who inhabited the regions of the Huleh,
Paneas and Trachonitis as being the ‘same people who left the major-
ity of the Safaitic inscriptions’.48 This is refuted by Macdonald as
there is no evidence that those who wrote the Safaitic inscriptions
were the robbers of Trachonitis.
CIS V 2156
I d/.hd bn ʿdY bn mt{.}y w wgdʾ t/-r gs2-h qbrn d/-w ʾI yz/.r f-ngʿ
By D/.hd son of ʿdy son of Mt{.}y and he found the traces
[probably graffiti] of his raiding-party, members of the ʾI Yz/.r
having performed the burial, and so he was grieved.49
The inscriptions CIS V 784, 2209, 2156, and 4677 come from a
relatively small area in the midst of the lava desert approximately
100 km east of the eastern most village of al-Rushayda on Jebel
Hauran. This area is, without doubt, a very long way from regions
normally associated with the Ituraeans, and clearly demonstrates the
difficulties which can arise in conclusions derived from these inscrip-
tions. At best these conclusions are tenuous, and misleading, or even
incorrect. The graffiti of a predominantly nomadic people of the
eastern deserts contributes to a larger picture of nomadic tribes;
however, the Ituraeans cannot be considered as necessarily part of
these tribal groups. Strabo’s account of placing Ituraeans within the
Biqa‘ and the regions of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon forces us to
concentrate more on this area where, it is hoped, the future might
reveal inscriptions from this region.
In reviewing the difficulties posed by the Safaitic inscriptions, the
pitfalls which lurk in translation/transliteration and interpretation of
the primary material become evident. As we are so frequently
reminded, our terminology must first be accurate and concise, deter-
mined by broad parameters rather than too narrow. By conceiving of
47
Macdonald 1992a: 2–3 on the translation of d-tʾ.
48
Knauf 1992: 583–4. 49 See also Macdonald 2004: 508, 527.
a people, ‘the Safaites’, and giving an ethnic identity to a name of a

script (or region) scholars have been led to make incorrect observa-
tions and conclusions. Having said this, we are now better able to
understand these inscriptions in terms of where they are found and
those who wrote them. This in turn should make us aware of other
dangers in handling texts, whether they be historical or inscriptional.
Assumptions made about the Yetur can also be misleading. There
appears to be a readily accepted view they were a nomadic Arab tribe,
identified with the Ituraeans, and associated with the yz/.r as men-
tioned in the Safaitic graffiti. This leads to an understanding of the
Ituraeans as being one of many nomadic Arab tribes who infiltrated
the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon in the ninth and eighth centuries
BCE. There is a tendency to accept these early textual sources in
which accounts are given of Arabs living in the hinterland of the
mountainous regions as defining Ituraeans, a people then generally
described as brigands and robbers or, as Knauf so succinctly claims,
‘predatory Bedouin’.50 Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate these
perceptions.
Table 2 outlines the development of this long-standing view on
Ituraeans, considered both Arab and brigands, assumed to speak
Aramaic, and even acknowledged as being Hellenized.
Hoyland’s recent statement on the dearth of information with
regard to our knowledge of Arabia and Arabians in antiquity is
worth reflecting upon: ‘The many centuries of Arabian history that
precede the death of Muhammad are little studied and little known in
the West.’51 There are two main reasons he gives for this lack: the
Greco-Roman sources are only fragments of their writings, and the
majority of Muslim sources tend not to focus on the period before
Muhammad. In the past western scholarship has been concerned with
the Greco-Roman impact on the Near East to the exclusion of its
Semitic origins. The impact of Arab and Aramaean incursions into
this region has often been misunderstood both in geographical as well
as historical terms. However, as stated earlier, there are inherent
difficulties in understanding the term ‘Arab’ as it was used in antiq-
uity. Our modern term comes with a ‘rather emotive modern nation-
alistic sense’, yet it should not deter a pursuit of the Arabs’ place in the
history of the ancient Near East, if only to ‘counterbalance the
“Greek character” which is so often imparted to the region through-
out the Roman period by modern scholarship’.52
50 51 52
Knauf 1992: 584. Hoyland 2001: 1. Ball 2000: 31.
Table 2 Development of opinions regarding the Ituraeans
Quote Source
They were wild border men … The Ituraeans were Smith 1902: 544–5
Arabs
an unruly people, given to brigandage … an Arab Jones 1971: 254
people …
the Ituraeans, of Arabian stock … Hitti 1957b: 171
The former [Ituraeans] were a predatory Arab Wacholder 1974: 134
tribe …
the Ituraeans, who terrorized caravan trade from Ragette 1980: 16
strongholds in the mountains.
Ptolemy, a Hellenized Arab … Greenhalgh 1980: 161
the pacification of Ituraean brigands Marfoe 1982: 77
Hellenized Arabs … Schottroff 1982: 145
rugged and predatory Ituraeans Bowersock 1983: 25
Ituraean Arabs of the Biqa‘ Valley … those MacAdam 1986: 50
mountain Arabs …
known for their bellicose nature. Isaac 1990a: 60
In the Lebanon mountains the Ituraean Arabs Grainger 1990: 183
emerged as a political power …
The Ituraeans pursued an expansionist policy. Sullivan 1990: 71
the Ituraeans, an Arab tribe … Schwartz 1991: 19
Ituraea … founded by an Arab tribe … Knauf 1992: 583
an Arab nomad tribe … Kindler 1993: 283
Arab extraction Dar 1993b: 42
the Ituraeans, a semi-nomadic Arab people … S. Freyne in Meyers
1997, II: 372
The Ituraeans, a tribe probably of Aramean stock Z. Ma‘oz in Meyers
1997, II: 421
Ituraeans, who were notorious brigands Isaac 1998: 91
the Ituraeans preferred robbing … Knauf 1998: 273
Belligerent Ituraeans … Knauf 1998: 275
Ituraean Arabs … Macadam 1999: 280
Aramaic speaking … Mannheim 2001: 581
The Ituraeans were an Arab tribe based primarily to Chancey 2002: 44
the north and northeast of Galilee, on or around
Mount Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon
had come from the south of Arabia Sommer 2001: 77
Arabian Ituraeans … Sommer 2001: 83
the local Arab Ituraeans … van Ess 2003: 110
Two Ituraean Arab principalities … Reynolds 2003: 125
seemed originally to be nomadic or semi-nomadic … Wilson 2004: 7
Ituraean Arabs in Lebanon made the central Beqaa Sartre 2005: 33
a true principality
It is apparent that the question of Ituraean origins and ethnic

identity remains both enigmatic and problematic. Established pre-
conceptions are always difficult to change, and attempting to under-
stand sources afresh merely adds to the uncertainty. The fact that
earlier assumptions are being challenged may assist in helping to
bring Ituraeans more clearly onto the historical map. The basic ques-
tion remains: who were the Ituraeans? Is it even possible to answer
this question? A past tendency to simply place them into the historical
record as mere robbers/brigands offers nothing in regard to identity,
culture, religion or social structure. The historical record, sparse as it
appears to be, does suggest rulers capable of forming a principality,
who fought and interacted with Hasmonean, Seleucid, Arab and
Roman rulers of their time. Their tribal name, associated as it is
with the Roman auxiliaries, remained within the public realm over
a period of at least two centuries. Along with the Syrians, their skill as
archers was enough for even the poets to acknowledge. In the end, the
question of their ethnicity may remain unresolved, but the important
issue is to reconsider the current assumptions made about them.
7
T H E I T U R A E A N S IN H I S T O R Y
In the Lebanon mountains the Ituraean Arabs emerged as a

political power during the last fifty years of the Seleukids.
They were an Arab tribe who began by raiding from the
mountains into the Biqaa Valley and towards the west, and
then moved into those areas as conquerors.1
History, as in the Greek ἱστορία, has the meaning of inquiry, or of
knowledge so obtained. It acquires a more nuanced sense when refer-
ring to a written narrative, which constitutes a continuous methodical
record in order of time, of important or public events especially those
connected with a particular country, people or individuals.2 It is then a
matter of inquiry, to seek knowledge, to interpret and record, and then
to write without prejudice. Influenced as we are by our own experi-
ences, both past and present, the objectivity required is often difficult to
achieve. As suggested in previous chapters, any pursuit in an attempt to
construct an unbiased ‘history’ of the Ituraeans is fraught with
obstacles, and in fact may never be fully achieved.
The quotation above testifies to a long-accepted view of the
Ituraeans, an understanding of their history as interpreted from the
written documents. That they emerged as a political power beginning
in the mid-first century BCE, that they were an Arab people known
mainly for their raiding, and that they conquered the region of the
Lebanon/Anti-Lebanon, the Biqa‘ valley and areas to the east and
south are commonly held perceptions. Such impressions and state-
ments are difficult to disassemble, and when repeated over time tend
to become accepted as fact. There is nothing factual with regard to
Ituraean ethnic identity, only speculation and assumption. Facts are
rare and even then do not display an entire picture, and so the images,
provided by writers of long ago, become filtered down and in part
1
Grainger 1990: 183. 2
See the OED for this meaning.
147
reconstructed through modern scholarship, and begin to take on an

even greater immediacy. What might we know about the history of a
little-known people; how much can we know without distorting it
through the lens of our own preconceptions and prejudices?
When Susan Sherwin-White and Amélie Kuhrt wrote From
Samarkand to Sardis, it was to express a ‘firmly held view’ that the
Seleucid empire as it extended over a vast territory was essentially an
‘eastern empire’. It challenged the long-established belief of many
scholars who continued to perceive the ancient Near East only in
terms of its encounter with Greeks and Romans. The ‘Hellenization’
of the land and its people became the focal point on which most
presuppositions rested. According to Sherwin-White and Kuhrt, the
view required serious modification, particularly when one realizes
‘that the area conquered by Alexander included places with a recon-
structable history stretching back over three thousand years, which
had experienced immense political and social changes and develop-
ments within that time’.3 In other words, Hellenistic Syria did
not suddenly appear, but was a product as much from Greek/
Macedonian occupation as from the indigenous cultures it encoun-
tered. Their work, and the research of others, made evident the
importance that for a greater understanding of the Near East we
should appreciate the significance of the Achaemenid Empire, and
that it be fully realized and accepted. It was during the Achaemenid
period that for the first time a diverse state and a people under ‘one
imperial system’ was created.4 It was this creation Alexander and his
successors first conquered and then adapted. As a result, this
approach has also emphasized the need to remember the extent to
which the Achaemenid kings adopted and restructured the rich her-
itage of Assyrian and Babylonian kingdoms they had conquered. It is
upon this greater background that the Ituraeans were to later gain
some prominence.
Not usually mentioned by scholars when considering Ituraean
origins are the Aramaeans. Both Aramaean and Arab tribes were
an integral component in the mosaic of politics and power that
characterized the ancient Near East, but it is the Aramaeans who
were to bequeath a heritage of language that survives to this day.
A tribal people, the Aramaeans appear in cuneiform records of the
twelfth century BCE, and by the eleventh century BCE had attained
considerable power and influence. The scattered evidence indicates
3 4
Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 1. Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 1.
The Ituraeans in history 149
they were active players in Near Eastern history for some 200 years
before they emerged as a threat against which Assyria and Babylon
had to defend themselves.5 Yet, as much as we know about the
Aramaeans, there is much that remains unknown, and we are
reminded that the ‘nature of their takeover’ of Syria and northern
Mesopotamia remains largely undetermined.6
In the following centuries the land and its people saw the end of the
Neo-Assyrian Empire, first through victory by the Achaemenids,
followed with victories by the Macedonians, and eventually the
Romans. Recently scholars of the ancient Near East have acknowl-
edged that during this long period of upheaval and change, and with
the introduction of new cultures, the indigenous populations retained
much of their tradition, religion and language. This initial freedom to
remain ‘independent’ was allowed by both the Achaemenids and the
Seleucids respectively. In particular, it is the Seleucids who have often
been perceived as having imposed Hellenization on an ancient
Semitic culture, and by so doing created a new Hellenistic Syria,
whereas the Achaemenids are left unrecognized for their enduring
legacy. The need to reconsider has been strongly asserted by Sherwin-
White and Kuhrt when they state: ‘The old image of Alexander the
Great and the Greeks resuscitating a moribund and bankrupt “ori-
ental” despotic state by introducing new forms of economic and social
life, such as cities, markets, slavery and coinage, which still lingers in
some approaches to the Hellenistic world, can now be seen to be
untenable.’7 It is a powerful statement well worth acknowledging,
and by so doing may help us to discover the hidden hinterland of
Syria-Palestine so often forgotten. Alexander governed his empire in
accordance with Persian traditions, one factor which helped to main-
tain its Semitic roots. The conflicts and complexities of controlling an
empire, particularly beginning in the second century BCE, were to
involve the Seleucids in political struggles with Parthians, Romans,
Arabs and the emerging client states which included the Hasmoneans
of Judea. The historical record gives no direct mention of Ituraeans at
this stage, but doubtless they were part of a mixed population at large.
The Aramaeans by now had been absorbed into the greater commun-
ity, and it is the Arabs who are often mentioned in the classical
sources.
5 6
Lipiński 2000: 50. See also Schwartz 1989: 275–91. Schwartz 1989: 275.
7
Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 1–2.
The principal sources for the history of the Hasmoneans and their
interaction with the Seleucids are 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Josephus’
Antiquities, although it is important to remember that Ant. 12.137–361
‘is almost exclusively derived’ from 1 Maccabees.8 Both sources are
highly subjective with the central text of 1 and 2 Maccabees
‘extremely hard to analyse because of their highly emotive, biased
and even, at times, fictitious character’.9 2 Maccabees was written
originally in Greek, whereas 1 Maccabees is a Greek translation
from an Aramaic original. Although it has been emphasized that
each book in its own way is ‘highly tendentious’, it has also been
recognized that each retains information of such value it ‘hardly
needs underlining’.10 Against this backdrop Josephus presents a
history of the Hasmonean dynasty and its emergence as a client
state within the Seleucid Empire. However, Sherwin-White and
Kuhrt have a notable point to make regarding Maccabees, for
‘[a]lthough the latter provide very useful information about the
Seleucid state, their vision tends to be bounded by the comparatively
narrow interests of the tiny region of Judaea, which was not a part of
the Seleucid empire until the end of the third century’.11 The
Ituraeans are never mentioned in Maccabees, and it is Josephus
who brings them dramatically into the picture, usually in opposition
to the Hasmoneans. The Arabs appear as powerful allies or at times
forceful enemies. 1 Maccabees 2.15–20 recounts the confrontation
between the Seleucid Alexander Balas and Ptolemy Philometor,
which resulted in the flight of Alexander Balas to Arabia. Josephus
(Ant. 13.118 ) offers a parallel description, the main difference being
in the name of the Arab chieftain to whom Alexander had fled for
safety. Maccabees has Zabdiel and Josephus has Zabeilus. No fur-
ther details are given concerning him, nor any information as to the
location of the battle or the geographic location of the ‘Arabia’
mentioned. Dar assumes that Alexander Balas died in the Biqa‘
valley, as he makes a connection with the Ituraeans, suggesting
they were related to the same tribe as that of the Arab Zabeilus/
Zabdiel.12 According to Strabo 16.2.8 the battle took place on the
plain of Antioch:
Now below Pagrae lies the plain of the Antiocheians, through
which flow the Arceuthus and Orontes and Labotas Rivers;
8
Habicht 1989: 346. 9 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 226.
10
Rajak 1994: 277. 11 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 3.
12
Dar 1993b: 19 with reference to Kasher 1988: 37.
and in this plain the palisade of Meleager, as also the

Oenoparas River, on the banks of which Ptolemy Philometor
conquered Alexander Balas but died from a wound.
The next mention of an Arab leader comes almost immediately.
Alexander Balas left a young son, later known as Antiochus VI
(Theos Epiphanes Dionysos), who had been given into the care of
Malchus, the Arab.
one of Alexander’s generals Diodotus … he went to Malchus
the Arab, who was bringing up Alexander’s son Antiochus,
and after revealing to him the army’s dissatisfaction with
Demetrius, persuaded him to give Antiochus over to him,
saying that he would make him king and would restore to
him his father’s throne (Ant. 13.131–2).
Josephus repeats the information given in 1 Macc. 2.38–40.13 It has
been suggested that Malchus could have been the successor to Zabdiel
and that he was an Ituraean.14 If one assumes that Ituraeans were
Arabs, this would fit well into the picture, though it would also have
to be assumed that the Arabia mentioned by both the writer of 1
Maccabees and Josephus is indeed the Biqa‘ valley; no other writer
from antiquity makes this association. Strabo is quite specific that the
Ituraean territory is the Massyas Plain, between the Lebanon and the
Anti-Lebanon. Arabia is beyond the Anti-Lebanon, to the east and
south where the landscape is desert and/or volcanic plateau.
Considering the emphasis that Josephus later puts on the Ituraeans
as an unruly people, it seems unusual at this point that he does not
make any connection, if in fact there really was one to make. A third
mention of Arabians comes when Jonathan the Hasmonean ‘turned
aside against the Arabs who are called Zabadaeans, and he crushed
them and plundered them. Then he broke camp and went to
Damascus, and marched through all that region.’15 In Josephus’
reporting of this event there is a slight change. Jonathan is said to
have ‘turned back from there to Arabia and made war on the
Nabataeans, driving off many of their cattle and taking captives,
and then went to Damascus, where he sold them all’ (Ant. 13.179).
The change in name here remains unclear. Did Josephus under-
stand a different tribe from that reported in Maccabees or, as Kasher
13
1 Macc. 2.38–40 has the name Imalkue; Diodorus 33.4 has Iamblichus.
14
Kasher 1988: 38. 15 1 Macc. 12.31–2.
believes, are the Zabadaeans related to Zabdiel, which puts them

within the area of the Biqa‘ valley and possibly related to the
Ituraeans?16
Having served as high priest for ten years, an honour bestowed upon
him by the Seleucid ruler Alexander Balas, Jonathan died in 143/2
BCE. He had ruled since the death of his brother Judas Maccabaeus
in 161 BCE. The Seleucid king Alexander Balas presented Jonathan
with the purple cloak along with his protection (1 Macc. 10.62), secur-
ing his safety against those who seemed ready to ‘accuse him’, and at
the same time allowing Jonathan to return to Jerusalem ‘in peace and
gladness’ (1 Macc. 10.61, 66). ‘And so great was the friendly interest in
Jonathan shown by King Alexander that he even inscribed him as his
First Friend (τω̑ ν ϕίλων).’17 This naming of ‘first friend’ conveys the
impression of a Seleucid ruler who, apparently, was intent on main-
taining cordial relations with the Hasmonean ruler or, as Rajak con-
tends, it was by favour of the Seleucids that the Hasmoneans were able
to govern Judea.18 The sources offer no mention of the Ituraeans for
this same period.
Upon the death of Jonathan he was succeeded by his brother
Simon, who ruled for a mere eight years. Although short, Simon’s
rule was marked by one significant change: in 140 BCE he was
declared High Priest by the people as well as governor (στρατηγός)
and leader (ἡγούμενος) of the nation (1 Macc. 14.41–2). This change
came as a confirmation of the titles now being ‘internally sanctioned’;
they required no external approval, giving Simon all the powers of a
king without using the name.19 The event was a great public occasion
before the assembled people. Hinted at in Josephus’ eloquent descrip-
tion (Ant. 13. 213–14) is the growing prominence of the Hasmonean
dynasty in the political affairs of the Seleucid Empire.
And Simon, after being chosen high priest by the populace,
in the first year of his high-priesthood liberated the people
from servitude to the Macedonians, so that they no longer
had to pay tribute to them …
The Hasmoneans were to make their largest territorial gains under
Simon’s successors.20 Simon’s third son, John Hyrcanus, assumed the
High Priesthood on the death of his father and ruled for thirty-one
years (135–104 BCE). During this long period he issued his own
16
Kasher 1988: 36. 17
The scene is repeated in Ant. 13.83–5.
18 19
Rajak 1994: 282. Rajak 1994: 285. 20 Rajak 1994: 287.
bronze coins, of which one was found at the site of Har Sena‘im.21 He
introduced the practice of hiring mercenaries and as a result the
dynasty’s military capacity grew, as did the extension of Jewish
territory. Although his exploits brought him into contact with
Seleucids, Romans, Parthians and Nabataeans, as both friend and
enemy, there is no mention of any confrontation with the Ituraeans.
His activities have been described as being restricted to ‘carefully
judged campaigns’ with ‘limited targets’ perhaps motivated as a
way to increase resources or protect trade.22 In one of these cam-
paigns Josephus tells of his ‘subduing all the Idumaeans’ and permit-
ting them ‘to remain in their country so long as they had themselves
circumcised and were willing to observe the laws of the Jews’ (Ant.
13.257). This particular passage has no parallel in War but it is a
foretaste of the analogous passage later in Antiquities where the
Ituraeans are said to have met a similar fate (Ant. 13.318).
The circumcision passage presents us with another dilemma, as
mentioned previously. If we take Josephus at face value, then we
also accept the Ituraeans as being either forcibly circumcised or
choosing to do so voluntarily. Either way it assumes the Ituraeans
were occupying the northern Galilee at this time, or at the very least
were in the general vicinity. The archaeological evidence does not, at
present, support this claim nor do we know and cannot know what
actually happened. I have taken this position particularly because of
the second issue raised here, that of assuming Ituraeans occupied this
territory, which rests on another assumption, that of conflating Ant.
134.318–19 with War 1. 76 and concluding that the Ituraeans were in
the northern Galilee. The debate on the circumcision issue continues,
with scholars taking differing views, and will likely continue for some
time to come. This parallel passage fits more into Josephus’ literary
construct and his emphasis on Hasmonean expansionist goals. The
importance of a careful, well-considered approach to the historical/
literary texts is clearly elucidated by Rajak, who reminds us of the
inherent dangers in making assumptions that go beyond the evidence:
We are not entitled to assume, as modern writers are inclined
to do, that destruction and expulsion were the preordained
lot of all those who, unlike the Idumaeans, would not con-
vert; still less to imagine that Hyrcanus, and perhaps others
21 22
See Dar 1993b: 83. Rajak CAH 9: 291–2.
of the later Hasmoneans, were seeking to ensure for every

part of their holdings a purely Jewish occupation.23
Once again the important point being made here is not to assume
what we cannot know. After the death of Hyrcanus in 104 BCE, the
eldest of his five sons Aristobulus ‘saw fit to transform the govern-
ment to a kingdom, which he judged the best form’, and was the ‘first
to put a diadem on his head’ (Ant. 13.301). Josephus’ description of
the character of Aristobulus is brief but telling. Of his four brothers
Aristobulus ‘loved only Antigonus’ while the others were kept ‘in
chains’ and his mother ‘imprisoned’ until his cruelty ‘caused her to
die of starvation in prison’ (Ant. 13.301–2). This comment is in stark
contrast to the picture both Strabo (on the authority of Timagenes)
and Josephus draw in their lament over the untimely death of
Aristobulus. One cannot help but wonder at the transformation;
someone who was willing to plot the death of his mother and brothers
not long afterwards is eulogized as being a ‘kindly person’ and a man
‘wholly given to modesty’ (Ant. 13.319). Even modesty is question-
able for someone who previously has acted without consultation and
then been the first to put the diadem upon his head. We are, however,
reminded by Josephus that these are comments made by Strabo, on
the authority of Timagenes. Added to this is the enigma presented by
the passages in Ant. 13.317–19, and the question of which geo-
graphic region was the Ituraean territory that Aristobulus is said
to have acquired. As both Strabo and Josephus are ultimately
dependent on Timagenes, the question also needs to be asked as to
what Timagenes means when he speaks of an ‘Ituraean nation’
(̕Ιτουραίων ἒθνους). There is no clear answer to these queries, and
we can only speculate as to what Timagenes means when he speaks
of an Ituraean ἒθνους except to understand it as being a group
separate from the Hasmoneans. At the very least it would seem
the Ituraeans exist as a cohesive, identifiable group which
Timagenes has identified as an ἔθνους. Strabo and Josephus merely
repeat the sources at hand, which in this case can be traced back to
Timagenes. Equally significant, it is worth considering, in light of
recent archaeological reports, that it is perhaps spurious to assume
Antigonus campaigned in the Galilee against the Ituraeans from
which he returned ‘with glory’ (Ant. 13.304) .
23
Rajak 1994: 292–3.
Alexander Jannaeus, assuming the titles of High Priest and king

upon the deaths in quick succession of Aristobulus and Antigonus,
ruled for twenty-seven years (103–76 BCE). During this period the
dynasty’s military force grew and the extension of Jewish territory
continued. The policies Jannaeus pursued have been seen as being
‘unequivocally aggressive’ with the motivation for his campaigns, for
the most part, lost.24 This was an era when Seleucid rule was being
challenged by a multiplicity of varying groups, small principalities
and client kingdoms, Arab tribes and Roman interests, with the
Seleucid dynasty becoming ever more weakened by its own internal
struggles. The emergence of the Ituraean principality during the same
period is not documented in any detail, and can only be speculated
upon. The instability of the Syria-Palestine region would likely have
contributed, allowing strong leaders to gain power and challenge any
perceived authority.
The Seleucid king Antiochus XII Dionysus launched two separate
campaigns against the Arabs c. 86/85 BCE, in the second of which he
was defeated and died in battle (84 BCE). Earlier, Alexander
Jannaeus had failed in an attempt to stop Antiochus outside Joppa.
During this brief time Damascus had been left without a ruler, Philip
the brother of Antiochus having been driven outside the gates. With
the death of Antiochus XII, it was Aretas, king of the Nabataeans,
who was eventually ‘called to the throne’ (Ant. 13.392 = War 1.103)
and took control of Damascus. The reason Josephus gives for the
Damascenes’ appeal to Aretas was their hatred of Ptolemy, son of
Mennaeus. This is the first mention of Ptolemy, who was at that time
(it is presumed) tetrarch of the small principality of Ituraea.
Confirmation of this can be found in the issue of coins of Ptolemy,
with the legend bearing his name and title. Josephus does not elabo-
rate or provide any details as to why the people of Damascus hated
Ptolemy, although it is easy to assume his unpopularity may have had
something to do with the way he ruled his territory. Josephus may
well be expressing an opinion he has heard from other sources, or one
he has formed on his own. Since Josephus is the only one who gives
any information, there is nothing to either deny or confirm the
reasons for Ptolemy’s unpopularity. This difficulty is compounded
by the fact that Josephus relied on sources relating to events that had
taken place in the century previous to his writing.
24
Rajak 1994: 291.
Circumstances in Seleucid Syria at this time would have undoubt-

edly created an uncertain atmosphere; with Tigranes having entered
Syria in 83 BCE the leadership of the empire was once again under
threat. Those Greek cities that had sided with Tigranes were given
autonomy and coinage rights. In this same period, Ptolemy the son of
Mennaeus must have gained authority and consent from Tigranes for
permission to issue coins that bore his legend: ΠΤΟΛΕΜΑΙΟΥ
ΤΕΤΡΑΧΟΥ.25 According to Kindler, some coins are dated to the
Seleucid era, others later to the Pompeian. Bowersock contends it was
the decline of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies that was a factor in
emboldening the smaller states of the Near East to mint their own
autonomous coins.26 There is nothing in the coins to indicate a
digression from the accepted Seleucid order, with the head of Zeus a
common feature on the obverse. Similarly, when Aretas III succeeded
in taking control of Damascus, his issue took on the familiar pattern
of Greek legend and the Seleucid era.27
The Seleucid Near East during this period was in fact on the brink
of changes that were to continue down to the end of the century. The
Armenian king Tigranes, having occupied Syria with his forces in 83
BCE, on reaching Antioch was offered the Seleucid throne, which he
accepted. An apt description of Tigranes’ entry into Syria is recorded
in Appian’s Syrian Wars 8.48.
Tigranes, the son of Tigranes, king of Armenia, who had
subdued many of the neighbouring nations which had kings
of their own, and from these exploits had acquired the title of
King of Kings, attacked the Seleucidae because they would
not acknowledge his supremacy … Tigranes conquered all
the Syrian peoples this side of the Euphrates as far as Egypt.
At this same time, and once in control of Damascus, Aretas ‘felt
strong enough to launch an offensive of his own against Alexander
Jannaeus and he invaded Palestine’.28 Having defeated Jannaeus in
Palestine, Aretas returned to Damascus only after losing some of his
territory in the Transjordan to Jannaeus. A digression from the
accepted inherited succession by the eldest son occurred when, upon
Jannaeus’ death in 76 BCE, his widow Alexandra succeeded him.
This event is considered by some scholars to reveal a Hellenistic
25
Head 1887: 655; Wroth 1899: 279 no. 2; Kindler 1993: 283–6.
26
Bowersock 1983: 22. 27 Bowersock 1983: 25 and n. 49.
28
Bowersock 1983: 25; Ant. 13.392.
influence among the ruling Hasmonean dynasty.29 By 72 BCE, some

twelve years after taking control, Aretas lost Damascus to Tigranes.
Almost immediately ‘Tigranes took over the coinage at Damascus
from Aretas and thereby took upon himself the mantle of the
Seleucids’.30 The issue of coins by Tigranes continues down to 69
BCE, and, whether through coincidence or design, dating on the coins
of Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, begins in 73/2 BCE, the same year as
those of Tigranes.31 During his siege of Ptolemais-Ake in 69 BCE,
Tigranes was compelled to recall his army after hearing that Lucullus,
commander of the Roman army, had invaded his homeland and
captured the city of Tigranocerta.
It is in this somewhat confused period that Alexandra sent her son
Aristobulus II with an army to Damascus (War 1.115; Ant. 13.418),
and it may well have been an attempt on her part ‘to make capital of
this crisis’.32 In War Josephus suggests it was done on the pretext that
Ptolemy had been putting constant pressure on the city, where in
Antiquities it is less clear as to when the event takes place, though
Josephus repeats the same formulaic statement that it was an action
taken against Ptolemy the son of Mennaeus, who was a troublesome
neighbour. We are left to speculate once again as to why Ptolemy was
such a troublesome neighbour, although it fits into an overall picture
whereby one group is constantly contrasted with another. At the same
time it had much to do with the ongoing power struggles between
various dynastic groups, the Hasmoneans, Arabs, Romans and
Seleucids, as well as Josephus’ own interpretation of his sources. As
a literary device used by Josephus, it reflects his own subjective under-
standing of Ptolemy and the Ituraeans. The Hasmoneans were only
one group among several struggling to regain power and control of
territory, and inevitably came into contact with the Ituraeans.
Ptolemy, as a tribal ruler of a rival principality, would, at the same
time, be attempting to maintain a tenuous grip on territory, and
without further information it is difficult to fully understand the com-
plexity of his rule. It is little more than an unfortunate presupposition
of some scholars to simply take Josephus at his word, and conclude
that Damascus once again fell ‘to the ravages of the Ituraeans’.33
The years between 69 BCE and 66 BCE left Damascus without any
direct rule and the rest of the land equally troubled. The Hasmonean
29
Rajak 1994: 296. 30 Bowersock 1983: 26.
31
Kindler 1993: 283–6 and coins nos. 2, 3, 4, all of the Seleucid era.
32
Bowersock 1983: 26 and n. 55. 33 Bowersock 1983: 26.
Alexandra died in 67 BCE while the bitter rivalry between her two sons
continued, with opportunistic moves by Aretas attempting to take
advantage of the rift. In 66 BCE Rome was finally moved to give
Pompey Lex Manilia, command to sort out the difficulties in Asia.34
The Lex Manilia originates with the tribune Manilius Gaius who in 66
BCE conferred on Pompey the command against Mithradates VI and
Tigranes II, including imperium over all the provinces of Asia Minor.
This move abrogated all powers given to Lucullus to resolve the enmity
between Tigranes and Mithradates in Armenia; they were now super-
seded by Pompey’s. Tigranes surrendered to Pompey at Artaxata, the
formulation of Pompey’s response being ‘the normal phraseology of
the Hellenistic world, avoiding the cruder Roman style of a demand for
deditio, or unconditional surrender’.35 Pompey claimed for Rome all
the provinces of the former empire of Tigranes allowing for the central
kingdom to survive as a dependent state, and at the same time revealing
Pompey’s intention in the Roman East. It was to initiate the method by
which Rome gradually took control.36 Pompey’s actions at this time
had as much to do with his personal ego as with politics, nonetheless,
these actions had a longlasting effect on Rome’s control over the East.
As Holland so eloquently says, ‘When Pompey raised Tigranes from
the dust, he did so as the stern protector of the Republic’s interest.’37
It was in the late summer of 64 BCE that Pompey began his move
southward into Syria. At Antioch Pompey was met by Antiochus
XIII, the last of the Seleucid kings, who had come to claim the throne.
Recognizing his kingship, Pompey then proceeded on to Damascus.
The route taken by Pompey is described by Josephus (Ant. 14.38–40),
and lends much support to a claim by scholars of Ituraean expansion
and aggression within Syria:
And on the way he (Pompey) demolished (κατέσκαψεν) the
citadel at Apamea, which Antiochus Cyzicenus had built,
and he also devastated (κατεπόνησεν) the territory of
Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus a worthless fellow, no less
than was Dionysius of Tripolis, a relative of his by marriage,
who was beheaded … He also destroyed the fortress of
Lysias, of which the Jew Silas was lord. And passing the
cities of Heliopolis and Chalcis, he crossed the mountain
34
See OCD: 917; also Sartre 2001: 441–7. 35 Sherwin-White 1994: 253.
36
See Sherwin-White 1994: 253, for these assessments; also Green 1990: 658;
Holland 2003: 177–9.
37
Holland 2003: 179.
that divides the region called Coele-Syria from the rest of

Syria, and came to Damascus.
From this description it is clear Pompey marched south through the
eastern hinterland to Apamea, then moved on to Lysias, a site
which remains unknown but must have been to the north of
Heliopolis and likely somewhere in the northern Biqa‘. In another
description of Pompey’s march south it is claimed that Pompey
suppressed the Arabs of the Libanus and eventually visited the
Ituraean cities of Heliopolis and Chalcis, which contradicts
Josephus in Ant. 14.38–40.38 The only other information Josephus
reveals is that Lysias was controlled by a Jew named Silas (Σιλας ὁ
̕Ιουδαι ο̑ ς) whom Josephus actually refers to as τύραννος (tyrant).39
In the same passage Josephus refers to Dionysius as being a ‘rela-
tive’ (by marriage) of Ptolemy, which has occasionally been taken
to mean that Dionysius was Ituraean. This would be to stretch the
evidence, as there is nothing particularly unusual in Dionysius
being a relative since dynastic marriage was a common occurrence,
no doubt intended to solidify control over a particular region. It
had been an accepted fact among monarchies of the Near East for
over a millennium, and was later to be exploited by Augustus.40 In
this case it appears to have been ineffective in offering any protec-
tion against an invading power. Josephus gives no indication that
Heliopolis and Chalcis posed any immediate threat and describes
Pompey as merely passing them by. Pompey’s route across the Anti-
Lebanon is likely to have been through the Zebdani pass, and
following the Barada River to Damascus (Suk Wadi Barada), the
same route used throughout antiquity and still used today.
Strabo’s description of the Massyas Plain and the robbers who
inhabited the mountainous parts of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon
clearly suggests the presence of Ituraeans in this region (Geog. 16.2.18).
As stressed previously, Strabo distinguishes between Ituraeans and
Arabians, and however he understands these groups they are at least
to be interpreted as distinct from each other. In comparing Strabo’s
description with the above passage from Josephus, it is safe to conclude
that the Ituraean territory was centred in the southern Biqa‘. As he
continues his description of the Massyas Plain, harassed as it was by
robbers, Strabo (Geog. 16.2.18) names towns and fortresses in the
38
Greenhalgh 1980: 140–1 and 161–2.
39
Ant. 14.40, where Marcus has translated τύραννος as ‘lord’.
40
Jacobson 2001: 23.
Lebanon region and along the Phoenician coast which were later
destroyed by Pompey:
These robbers use strongholds as bases of operation; those,
for example, who hold Libanus possess, high up on the
mountain, Sinna and Borrama, and other fortresses like
them, and, down below, Botrys and Gigartus and the caves
by the sea and the castle that was erected on Theuprosopon.
Pompey destroyed these places … Now Byblus, the royal
residence of Cynyras, is sacred to Adonis; but Pompey freed
it from tyranny by beheading its tyrant with an axe;
Although Strabo does not state specifically that any of these partic-
ular towns were Ituraean strongholds, it has long been assumed they
were on the basis of the preceding passages. It is plausible that
Ituraeans and Arabians controlled strongholds in the mountains of
the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon, but it does not necessarily follow
that the robbers who overran Byblos and Berytus were Ituraeans.
Since brigandage and robbery were endemic to the region, and diffi-
cult to suppress at this time, as well as a constant threat to travelling
merchants and the sedentary population, it is not unreasonable to
speculate the existence of many disparate groups of brigands operat-
ing in the region. Only with Roman military strength and governance
was brigandage gradually brought under control, and this not until
the early part of the first century CE, although even then not entirely,
as can be seen in the inscription of Q. Aemilius Secundus.41 In all
likelihood Pompey’s destruction of cities as described by Strabo and
the ensuing chaos and instability of the region would have done more
to enable brigandage than alleviate it. Many years later the Romans
restored Berytus after it was ‘razed to the ground by Tryphon’, and
Agrippa settled two legions there. It was at this same time that ‘Much
of the territory of Massyas, as far as the sources of the Orontes River’
was added to that of Berytus (Strabo 16.2.19). This implies that the
source of the Orontes, as it emerges in the Biqa‘ valley north of
Heliopolis, was within Ituraean territory, and supports evidence
already mentioned of Ituraean territory being incorporated into the
environs of Berytus at the time Augustus made it a colony.
The textual and archaeological evidence for the hinterland of the
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon region and its inhabitants is limited for
the Persian and Hellenistic periods. As a result of his surveys in the
41
ILS 2683.
region, Marfoe believed that under the Ptolemies and the Seleucids
the hinterland had remained largely neglected. In the Biqa‘ valley the
expanse of wooded hill slopes survived until the later centuries of the
first millennium BCE as cultivation was confined to a long band of
alluvial and colluvial plain roughly 700–800 km2 in area. In his assess-
ment Marfoe concluded that ‘the first appearance of the modern
pattern as an effective ecosystem does not appear to have taken
place until after the Roman annexation of Surai’.42 Any clear defi-
nition of where boundaries lay in antiquity between the various
territorial regions is difficult to assess. The extent of territory consid-
ered to be part of Ituraean lands, and under their control, by the latter
part of the first century BCE has been determined mainly on the
limited information Josephus records. Any details as to how this
tetrarchy functioned have been lost. Although the presence of robbers
and bandits in the area was not an uncommon occurrence, to claim
they were in fact all Ituraeans is far too general and cannot be verified.
Both Strabo and Josephus would have us believe these assumptions,
their descriptions concentrating only on the disruptive aspects of the
region and its people. We are compelled to consider a much broader
picture.
As the historical record for this time period is silent on Ituraean
society, their numbers and strength, any definitive conclusions cannot
be made on such limited evidence. Yet statements in a recent publi-
cation appear to contradict this, and a far different theory for the
Biqa‘ in the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods has been
proposed. This suggestion comes as a result of recent surveys con-
ducted in the southern Biqa‘, and in particular the ongoing excava-
tions at Kamid el-Loz. Archaeologists who work at these sites now
claim that when the Romans eventually took control of the Biqa‘ they
found a ‘flourishing and stable settlement-system’, and furthermore
suggest that this settlement system had been established under the
Ituraeans. It is an exciting proposal, for until now we have had little
evidence or opportunity to fully understand the Biqa‘ during this
period. It may yet be some time before any definitive conclusions
can be made, but it opens the way to possibly seeing the Ituraeans in a
more positive light. Their suggestion that Heliopolis-Baalbek was the
religious centre for the Ituraeans as it ‘reflected the prosperous state of
the area’ is still open to question.43 At this time I believe it is too early
to draw such a firm conclusion.
42
Marfoe 1982: 467. 43
Heinz et al. 2007–2008: 179.
Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, seemingly had access to enough funds to

pay 1,000 talents to Pompey, thus enabling him to retain his tetrarchy,
and possibly his life as recorded by Josephus (Ant. 14.39). In the
political game of the period this was not an unusual manoeuvre, and
certainly lends credence to the wealth that Ptolemy apparently had at
hand. Pompey’s personal objectives and motivations at this point
appear to support the idea that his intentions were ‘to secure as much
by military diplomacy as by naked force’.44 Several years later (c. 49/48
BCE) Ptolemy is known to have made another significant move by
taking in the sisters and brother (Antigonus) of Aristobulus II who, on
the orders of Pompey, was executed at Antioch. Shortly thereafter the
Hasmonean dynasty and the Ituraean principality were bound together
through the marriage of Ptolemy to one of the sisters. The consequences
of this union are never fully revealed in terms of attrition of land or
power gained, yet in considering the need for client kingdoms to con-
stantly reinforce their autonomy it could not have gone unnoticed. In
relating the incident, Josephus describes Ptolemy as ‘prince of Chalcis
at the foot of Mount Lebanon’ (Ant. 14.126), with a slightly different
emphasis in War: ‘Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, prince of Chalcis in the
Lebanon valley’ (1.185). The statement in War appears to support
Strabo’s assertion of Chalcis being located in the Lebanon valley (or
the Biqa‘), and it being the acropolis of the Ituraean principality.45
By the spring/summer of 41 BCE Herod and his brother Phasael
gained recognition in affairs of the Roman Near East when Antony
acknowledged each as tetrarch. Antony had toured the eastern prov-
inces, imposed further levies, and begun his reorganization of the
administration. The implications for the Ituraeans would be played
out in future years. Events escalated when in 40 BCE the Parthians
invaded Syria, Ptolemy died and was succeeded by his son Lysanias,
and Herod was recognized as king of Judea. In recording the death of
Ptolemy, Josephus provides further significant information.
At the same time Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, died, and
his son Lysanias on succeeding to his throne made a pact of
friendship with Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, in which
matter he found the satrap useful, for he had great influence
with him (Ant. 14.330).
44
Sherwin-White 1994: 252.
45
The inscription PIR2 I 467 indicates that under Lysanias I, son of Ptolemy,
Chalcis was the capital of the Ituraean territory.
The passage reveals the ongoing close association between Ituraeans

and Hasmoneans, a friendship that in the end was a possible contrib-
utory factor in their later contact with Antony. The passage is made
even more revealing as Josephus continues:
And Antigonus promised to give the Parthians a thousand
talents and five hundred women if they would deprive
Hyrcanus of power and give it over to him (Ant. 14.331).
In War, however, Josephus gives a quite different picture and appears
to contradict the above.
Lysanias … induced the satrap, by the promise of a thou-
sand talents and five hundred women, to bring back
Antigonus and raise him to the throne, after deposing
Hyrcanus (War 1.248–9).
Yet a short time later Josephus once more changes the emphasis and
here is in agreement with what he states in Antiquities.
There they heard of the promise of the thousand talents, and
that the five hundred women whom Antigonus had devoted
to the Parthians included most of their own (War 1.257).
The episode is significant in that it illustrates the political intrigues
of both the Ituraeans and Hasmoneans during the early days of the
Parthian incursions. The confusion that Josephus brings to these
passages is difficult to understand. Regardless of who offered the
bribe, it is reasonable to assume that both Antigonus and Lysanias
were involved in some type of negotiation with the Parthians. As
the Parthian war dragged on for the next two years without Antony
in the region, by the spring of 37 BCE, Herod had returned to
successfully take Jerusalem and become king. Antigonus was cap-
tured, and when Antony eventually returned to the East he yielded
to Herod’s pressure and had Antigonus publicly executed at
Antioch.
When the Parthians invaded Syria in 40 BCE, Antony was in
Rome. He had spent the winter of 41–40 BCE in Alexandria with
Cleopatra, and in the following year he left Rome never to return. By
37 BCE he arrived back in the East to spend the winter with
Cleopatra, this time in Antioch. As part of Rome’s triumvirate, and
now in control of the East, he was involved in a desperate power
struggle to maintain and expand his authority. The policies that he
undertook in the East inevitably helped in the creation of a number of
client kingdoms.46 Some of those policies and decisions were a possi-

ble result of his close relationship with Cleopatra. Opinions vary as to
whether Antony was completely under the spell of Cleopatra or if in
fact he conceded to her demands for his own purpose. Cleopatra’s
request for land in 40 BCE came at a period when Rome had not yet
gained full control of the region, and many other petty tyrants/rulers
were still vying for territory. Antony had, by now, given Cleopatra
Coele Syria rather than the territory she had asked for, which accord-
ing to Marcus was Chalcis in Lebanon.47 Cleopatra was not one to
forget, as Josephus states that she was a woman who was enslaved by
her appetites, clearly illustrated in the lines ‘when she passed through
Syria with him [Antony], she thought of ways to get it into her
possession’ (Ant. 15.92).
In the year that Ptolemy died, Lysanias and Antigonus pledged
their friendship, and one would assume mutual support. In 36 BCE,
several years after her initial request for territory, and with Antigonus
now dead, Cleopatra succeeded in accusing ‘Lysanias, the son of
Ptolemaeus, of bringing in the Parthians against the interests of the
(Roman) government, and had him killed’ (Ant. 15.92).48 It is inter-
esting to speculate as to what really motivated Antony in his decision
to execute Lysanias. The execution of Antigonus was likely the result
of the many intrigues surrounding Herod, the Hasmonean dynasty
and the apparent popularity that Antigonus held among his own
people.49 That Antigonus and Lysanias died within a year of each
other enabled Cleopatra to gain land and power at their expense, but,
as one scholar has suggested, through his support of Cleopatra,
Antony also gained recognition in Egypt.50 This could well have
been a strong factor in the ultimate demise of Lysanias. The innova-
tion that Lysanias introduced onto his coinage perhaps indicates his
presentiment to power. Placing the diadem on the obverse of his
coinage expresses the self-definition of his own aspirations at that
time. As mentioned previously, another remarkable feature in his
coinage is the appearance of the letters ‫בם‬, on which we might
speculate two possibilities: what has already been suggested, that it
is Aramaic reflecting an Ituraean association; or that it reflects a close
46
Pelling 1996: 28. 47 Ant. 15.79 and note ‘a’, p. 38.
48
See also Dio, Roman History 49.32.5.
49
Ant. 15.8–9 and note ‘b’ p. 7 where it is suggested that the beheading probably
took place after the fall of Jerusalem in 37 BCE; see also War 1.357; and Bowersock 1983:
40–1.
50
Pelling 1996: 30.
association with the Hasmoneans, and Lysanias being influenced by

that friendship. This is mere speculation, and to date the reason for
these letters has not been resolved. From the scant textual references
in Josephus and others, and without making too specious a statement,
the Ituraean principality at this time seems to have held a position
crucial in the manipulations of power.
By 34 BCE Cleopatra had managed to acquire large tracts of land,
‘her ambitions extending to Judaea and Arabia’ (War 1.360). Upon
the death of Lysanias she took control of his territory, and her coinage
provides proof of her status. Antony gave her parts of lands belonging
to Herod and Malchus, the cities between Eleutherus and Egypt with
the exception of Tyre and Sidon, along with ‘the palm-grove of
Jericho where the balsam grows’ (War 1.361–2 = Ant. 15.96).51
Somewhat later both Herod and Malchus leased back these lands at
an annual fee of 200 talents apiece, a considerable sum to be added to
the coffers of Cleopatra. Rather than see this in the light of Antony’s
weakness at the demands of Cleopatra, Pelling contends that ‘the
grants still fitted Antony’s policy of strengthening loyal monarchs,
and so far nothing suggests that Antony was favouring her unduly’.52
The fortunes of both Antony and Cleopatra changed dramatically,
however, when in 31 BCE Octavian defeated Antony at Actium.
Herod, a past supporter of Antony and in Rome during this crucial
stage, quickly changed sides and went in haste to greet the new Caesar.
Since the death of Lysanias, and during the period of Cleopatra’s rule,
there had been no apparent strong leadership to govern the Ituraean
principality. Although technically the territory had been under
Cleopatra, it is not without some doubt that she did anything to
maintain its cohesiveness, nor is there any evidence to support such
actions. The region as a whole was fraught with internecine struggles,
and the evident rise in the problems of robbery/banditry at this time can
be better understood in the light of this backdrop.
It has been generally accepted that Zenodorus, who succeeded
Cleopatra as tetrarch of the Ituraean principality, was the son of
Lysanias, although this remains open to question. A fragmentary
inscription from an elaborately carved architrave found at Baalbek/
Heliopolis mentions a ‘Zenodorus, son of the tetrarch, Lysanias’.53
51
These grants were probably given in 37–36 BCE; see Pelling 1996: 29 and note
133. See Bowersock’s comment (1983: 40–1).
52
Pelling 1996: 30.
53
IGLS VI 2851 = IGR III 1085 = Waddington IGL III 1880 = CIG 4523; and PIR2
VL 467. See also Gatier 2002–2003: 120–7; Seyrig 1970b: 251–4.
The inscription, broken as it is into four sections, is incomplete.

Schürer considered the inscription to refer to the son of Lysanias,
the same Lysanias executed by Antony, but also supporting a theory
that ‘there were several dynasts by the name of Lysanias’.54 Seyrig
agrees with Schürer in accepting this Zenodorus to be the son of
Lysanias, former tetrarch of Ituraea. However, Butcher is more
cautious when he states that Zenodorus was ‘probably, but not cer-
tainly, a relative of Lysanias’.55 Coins issued with his name and
legend as tetrarch and chief priest testify to the rule of Zenodorus.
There is no specific text that states when Zenodorus took over the
tetrarchy, but it is assumed that it was by 30 BCE, after the death of
Cleopatra. In all likelihood it was Caesar (Octavian) who formally
gave Zenodorus back his inherited lands, which may explain the
appearance of the imperial portrait on his coinage. During his ten-
year rule he gradually lost control over certain territories. In 23 BCE
Caesar (Octavian) had added Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis to
Herod’s realm. We learn of the reasons from Josephus (War 1.398)
who describes quite clearly:
Zenodorus, who had taken on lease the domain of Lysanias,
was perpetually setting the brigands of Trachonitis to molest
the inhabitants of Damascus. The latter fled for protection to
Varro, the governor of Syria, and besought him to report
their sufferings to Caesar; on learning the facts Caesar sent
back orders to exterminate the bandits. Varro, accordingly,
led his troops, cleared the district of these pests and deprived
Zenodorus of his tenure.
This is paralleled in Ant. 15.343–4:
There was a certain Zenodorus who had leased the domain of
Lysanias, but not being satisfied with the revenues, he
increased his income by using robber bands in Trachonitis.
For the inhabitants of that region led desperate lives and
pillaged the property of the Damascenes, and Zenodorus did
not stop them but himself shared in their gains.
From what Josephus reports it appears that all the territory granted
to Herod had previously been under the realm of Zenodorus. This
would seem to indicate that lands under Ituraean control had
54
Schürer 1973: 566; also Rey-Coquais, IGLS VI 2851: 150 n. 1.
55
Butcher 2003: 93.
been expanded beyond the Biqa‘ into territory south and east –
Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis. In what sense are we to
understand ‘the domain’ of Lysanias? Does it have the meaning of
exacting more than revenues (if indeed they did so) from the indig-
enous population? Are we to accept that large numbers of Ituraeans
have gone into these regions to settle and establish homes and
villages? Since to date there is no cultural material identifiable as
Ituraean, to assume that all the lands were heavily settled by
Ituraeans is perhaps presuming more than is known. Through
Josephus we learn of the difficulties the people around Damascus
experienced in dealing with the endemic brigandage. To make
matters worse, the leader of the neighbouring territory, the tetrarch
Zenodorus, had not made any effort to stop it, and in fact appears
to be heavily involved in promoting the affairs. There is little doubt
that Zenodorus took advantage of the situation in order to gain
profit for himself, but whether or not his misdeeds involved the
whole of his nation is quite another matter. As considered in a
previous chapter, banditry in antiquity was a complex and multi-
layered phenomenon.
The territory Herod inherited after the death of Zenodorus
included the area between Trachonitis and Galilee, containing
Ulatha (the Huleh), and Paneas/Banias (later Caesarea Philippi),
and the surrounding country (Ant. 15.360). Unfortunately, we know
very little about its composition or who the indigenous peoples were,
nor do we have the material evidence which explicitly indicates the
presence of Ituraeans actually living in these regions, unless we agree
that Golan pottery was Ituraean. It is perhaps reasonable to assume
that these lands were, and had been, occupied by any number of
different tribes at the time Ituraean rulers took control. There is
every reason to assume that the indigenous peoples continued to
inhabit these areas without necessarily being overrun or expelled. In
fact there is no mention by the early writers of an aggressive Ituraean
occupation in any of these territories, merely that the rulers took
control of land and thereby gained the power to exact tax. Lack of
any evidence to support active Ituraean aggression in terms of con-
quering another people must be considered when making assump-
tions that need not be appropriate. In part this lies at the root of the
dilemma regarding the renaming of the Golan Ware pottery as
Ituraean Ware. That this region of the northern Golan came under
the domain of the Ituraean rulers does not provide confirmation that
the indigenous population was in fact Ituraean. As argued earlier, the
designation of an ethnic identity to a pottery type simply stretches

credibility. The absence, therefore, of material evidence on which a
cultural identity for Ituraeans might be constructed remains a prime
obstacle to any complete and thorough understanding of their
history.
8
C O N C L U S IO N S
Our knowledge of the Ituraeans as a people/nation, their language,

ethnicity, religion and culture is obscured still, through past assump-
tions and the fallibility of the historical textual material in which they
are presented. The centuries that have passed since the Ituraean
principality had its existence have clouded what little information
can be known, and along with misconceptions inherited from the past
the Ituraeans are all but relegated to the realm of Arab brigands and
troublemakers. In the political world of today this becomes seriously
problematical and highly charged. Although the intent here was not
to discuss this issue in light of today’s world politics it is, nonetheless,
essential to reassess such a subjective, derogatory label. In dealing
with inquiry, hence history, the notion cannot be dismissed entirely as
we keep in mind that terms common in antiquity take on quite differ-
ent meanings in the modern world. Such is the diversity of language
over long periods of time and between cultures that the reader’s
interpretation of the written word is of paramount importance.
It can be stated with some certainty that the Ituraeans were a small
yet notable component of the Semitic world of ancient Syria-
Palestine. In all probability the region they inhabited was of mixed
culture and language, in fact a complex society, as it remains so
today – Aramaean, Arabian, Armenian, Syrian, Greek and Roman.
Their identification as skilled archers in the Roman auxiliary units
contrasts sharply with that of brigands/robbers living in the moun-
tainous regions of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. Yet the inquiry
must search beyond these narrow categories in order to place a people
within the larger context of the cultural milieu in which they lived, and
the varied geographical landscape that would have helped to shape
them. Concurrent, however, must be an approach whereby the area as
a whole is seen as multilayered, with assimilation and reinterpretation
part of its broader history. What the Greeks and Macedonians con-
tributed simply added to what had come before, and Roman rule
169
extended it while underneath remained the foundations of a Semitic

world that never entirely disappeared.
As previously stated, our first knowledge of the Ituraeans as a people
comes through the writings of the ancient authors and the texts they
bequeathed to us. From a brief mention by Eupolemus to the later
references of Strabo a picture is formed of a people who constitute a
small fraction of a mixed, multicultural society within what was later to
become Roman Syria. Strabo’s hints elude any clearly detailed descrip-
tion; the Ituraeans are simply named alongside Arabians as inhabiting
the mountainous regions of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. Strabo’s
affirmation of two groups here is often overlooked, yet the fact that
each is mentioned as distinct from the other leads us to surmise there
was a difference, or at least that Strabo saw each as independent of the
other. Strabo does not extend his mention of these two groups, only
placing them in contrast to those who are settled along the lower slopes
of the mountain ranges and the plains below. Strabo’s almost off-hand
comment on the first-century BCE Biqa‘, a region he had never visited,
seems to forecast the present-day research of German archaeologists.
Directing their study towards reconstructing the local, regional and
supra-regional history of the Biqa‘, they hope to gain some knowledge
of settlement patterns in the Hellenistic through to the early Roman
periods.1 The unique geography of the Biqa‘ plain allowed it to be both
protected and separated from its neighbours, yet at the same time it
served as a main north–south passage route for both economic and
political reasons. Even if Strabo’s understanding of the Arabians is
somewhat enigmatic, and the picture he presents is conflicting, he
leaves us wondering about the nature of the settlements, their numbers
and identity. Since all that has been said about this passage, both in
classical literature and modern scholarship, is to repeat a belief in the
Ituraeans as being an Arab tribe, it is to the future we must look for
change.
The basic challenge in discerning information the early texts offer is
always apparent: what is the writer attempting to say? What does he
mean when he uses a particular term and how does he understand it in
the context of his own situation? How is the text to be understood and
interpreted? And is the writer’s knowledge first-hand or otherwise?
1
This is the work of the German team directed by Prof. Dr Marlies Heinz, Albert-
Ludwigs University, Freiburg, which is concentrating on the site of Kamid el-Loz. The
groundbreaking work of Leon Marfoe is also significant. Both are listed in the
bibliography.
Conclusions 171
These questions are particularly significant when attempting to sift

through the historical information provided by Josephus. The com-
plexity of his works only adds to the many layers already covering a
distant history in his mention of Ituraeans. His somewhat negative
attitude in any reference to Ptolemy, the first of the Ituraean tetrarchs,
leads one to ask on what basis is he making his judgement? Later
writers and scholars have taken Josephus at his word when they take
for granted events that may not have occurred, as seen in the question
of whether or not Ituraeans occupied the northern Galilee, and the
Ituraeans were later confronted with the possibility of forced circum-
cision. It is also necessary to consider how the words of Cicero, in a
speech castigating Mark Antony, have been alluded to in support of
Ituraeans as barbarians. Foremost, it is necessary to ask what Cicero
is really saying in the immediate context at this point, and secondly,
how scholars have viewed and interpreted this material. In drawing
attention to the problems that arise in reading these early writers, it is
evident that any understanding of Ituraeans requires a reassessment
of these early texts, and of the way this material has been adapted in
later scholarship. From the information provided by Strabo and
Josephus, to the brief mention of Ituraeans by Cicero and others, it
is incumbent upon us to fully assess these writings in the context of
when and why they were originally written. The wholly negative
views that are disseminated through these works require a thorough
reappraisal. Only then can we begin to appreciate the Ituraeans in a
more balanced light.
In a far more positive vein, the Ituraeans were recognized as skilled
archers, well known throughout the East. Along with the Syrians they
were recruited by Caesar, praised in the poetry of Virgil and Lucan,
and hired by Mark Antony to be his personal bodyguard. It is worth
noting that in the account of Caesar’s African Wars they are mentioned
as a separate group alongside the Syrians. Josephus’ detailed history of
the Hasmoneans’ rise to power and their interaction with Rome
emphasizes the apparent unrest the Ituraeans created within the region
of Syria. However, he also offers glimpses of co-operation between
Ituraeans and Hasmoneans, even intermarriage, all played out on the
larger stage of politics and power within the ancient world. Antony’s
skill in establishing and exploiting the client kingdoms to his advan-
tage, and his ready acceptance to employ the Ituraean archers for his
personal protection, would have been in keeping with such interaction.
The details are innumerable in terms of what events shaped the first-
century BCE region of Syria-Palestine. It was complex, multilingual,
multicultural and fraught with internal struggles for power. What

glimpses are given by the early writers who mention Ituraeans must
be seen against this backdrop as well as the writer’s own intentions.
Although the information given is critical to an understanding, how-
ever fragile, of a people from antiquity, it remains information too
often misinterpreted.
The Greek and Latin inscriptions add to this body of written
material that mentions Ituraeans, and support a more favourable
aspect. Although they cannot resolve the fundamental issues of eth-
nicity, the inscriptions from the Roman diplomas provide an endur-
ing legacy of Ituraean auxiliary units lasting well into the third
century CE. Those recruits who ventured into the Roman world,
whether serving in Asia Minor, North Africa or Egypt, took with
them the title of their unit, and bore the legacy of what originally
would have been units of Ituraean tribesmen and their leaders. It is
not without some interest that we read of soldiers from Ituraean
auxiliary units making a dedication to the Semitic deities of the
Heliopolitan triad, and speculate as to whether or not they had ever
visited the cult site at Heliopolis, or even one of the other temples
scattered throughout the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. What we can-
not do, however, is to assume ethnicity through their personal names.
Those names that are found in military, funerary or dedicatory
inscriptions tell us nothing about the ethnic and cultural background
of the individual. As emphasized earlier, the common occurrence of a
name and its appearance in an inscription at Har Sena‘im does not
prove that the individual was an Ituraean, or that the site was occu-
pied or settled by Ituraeans. In spite of the lack of specific informa-
tion, the Ituraeans as a people are still made visible because the name
endured within these inscriptions.
The coins also provide a distinctive legacy, giving names and dates of
individual rulers of the Ituraean tetrarchy. They affirm a cohesiveness
that allowed for coinage to be minted, an assertion of autonomy and
political power, they are evidence for economic wealth, and they
provide insight into cultural and religious tendencies. Deities repre-
sented on the coinage reflect Greek, Roman and Semitic religious
ideas, with the Greek language predominant in the legend. Ituraean
coins follow the accepted Seleucid pattern and, as with the coinage of
most of Syria, were slow to change. The appearance of the imperial
portrait on coins of Zenodorus presents a significant change, and as
previously mentioned it may well have been the result of Octavian’s
victory and new role as Caesar. Zenodorus required at this time all the
Conclusions 173
support he could get. Although provenance for the bulk of Ituraean

coins remains unknown, as does the location they were minted at, it
does not diminish their importance in establishing a body of evidence
that serves to strengthen our knowledge of the Ituraean principality.
That the coins exist is significant. However, it is unreasonable to
suggest that a site was Ituraean based on the evidence of one coin
find. A single coin cannot tell us anything more than that it had
evidently been carried there and dropped or placed in a particular spot.
It is worth repeating the importance of archaeology in the twentieth
century, and how it has both enhanced and challenged the textual
evidence. Strabo’s description of the Massyas Plain (the Biqa‘),
bounded by the mountains of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, indi-
cates this region as an area of Ituraean settlement by the first century
BCE. Yet to date there is no clearly defined archaeological evidence
for Ituraeans to support this claim. The proliferation of temples on
these mountainous slopes is unique, and reflects a mixed culture of
Semitic, Greek and Roman. The ready acceptance of Heliopolis-
Baalbek as the main cult centre for the Ituraeans is unproven, and
might well be challenged by considering the site of Majdal ‘Anjar, or
even Yanouh. Yet this must also be counter-balanced by acknowl-
edging that the temples are all dated to the first to second century CE,
even Baalbek, a period long after the Ituraean tetrarchy had ceased to
exist. Whatever cult centre the Ituraeans did utilize, there is as yet no
evidence to confidently identify a site as Ituraean. The same questions
asked of a text might be asked of a site: how do we know and under-
stand the information we have before us; how do we interpret this
within its context?
The archaeological excavations and surveys conducted in the regions
of the Hermon and Golan have brought these questions into focus.
With both these areas now accepted as having Ituraean sites/settle-
ments based on the very tendentious naming of a pottery shard, it has
merely added to the often vague and confusing historical record. The
renaming of Golan Ware to Ituraean Ware is unfortunate and ill-
judged, a too insecure basis for the consequent naming of sites. It has
made for even further unproven assumptions, which can only cloud
what is already a murky issue. Our evidence for the Ituraeans perhaps
lacks any specific details of their language, culture, religion or origins.
However, in considering this apparent lack of substantial evidence, it
can be confidently assumed that the Ituraeans were of Semitic origin,
one of many tribal groups who inhabited the world of Syria-Palestine
during the first century BCE, and played a significant role within the
politics of Roman Syria in the first century BCE. It is only in recent

scholarship that the Ituraeans are being seriously considered in terms of
archaeological research, and perhaps this is now the time to explore the
Ituraeans as a parallel study to that of the Nabataeans.
The question must be asked: what does Josephus mean when he
speaks of various tracts of land coming under Ituraean control? Are
we to assume that large groups of Ituraeans were settled into these
areas in order to claim this land as Ituraean, or was this merely land
with arbitrary boundaries being assigned to a particular ruler of the
moment? Control implies payment of taxes from the indigenous pop-
ulation to whomever was in power, it does not necessarily indicate the
ethnicity of those who were being taxed. The ambiguities remain and
obscure any clear understanding of just who was living where and at
what time, nor can the pottery tell us anything specific about the
Ituraeans. At the present time, what the Hermon and the Golan have
revealed adds to our knowledge of these regions in a broader sense. It is
perhaps prudent to consider a return to the Biqa‘ region, to concentrate
on securing through archaeology an identification for ancient Chalcis,
or even evidence for an Ituraean culture. Continuing excavations at
Yanouh and Kamid el-Loz are likely to offer new information in the
future.
It has been stressed how the interpretation and re-interpretation of
the early texts by scholars over the past century has often repeated an
accepted belief that Ituraeans were Arabs/Arabians, known only for
their brigandage. The language applied is colourful and long-lasting:
predatory, belligerent, wild, backward, ferocious, troublesome.
Unfortunately, particularly in the present context of the twenty-first
century, these words are always used in association with Ituraeans as
being Arabs or an Arab tribe. Such a subjective approach to an
unknown people is unacceptable, especially in light of modern-day
attitudes. Strabo speaks of Ituraeans and Arabians and considers
them all in terms of being ‘robbers’. Josephus says the tetrarch
Ptolemy is ‘troublesome’, and speaks of Ituraean brigands causing
chaos in the region of Trachonitis. Yet a clear understanding of what
these writers from antiquity meant when they spoke of Arabs/Arabians
is never explicitly clarified. Experience in the world of today tells us
more clearly than ever that to speak of a few is not to speak of the
whole. There is little doubt that some Ituraeans were involved in
brigandage – it was endemic to the region and the time – but to label
all Ituraeans as nothing more than brigands is to go beyond what we
can know, or even assume. Modern scholarship needs to reassess these
Conclusions 175
very volatile descriptions and terms, otherwise, one is inevitably caught

up in the circular argument of assuming Ituraeans were Arabs and also
notorious robbers, and hence all Arabs at this period were robbers.
These same circular arguments were made when the Greeks named
anyone from Arabia as Arabian, with all Arabians coming from
Arabia without any clear and definitive knowledge of where Arabia
was situated geographically. In making and accepting these assump-
tions, scholars have also assented to the belief that the Arabians known
to have harassed the Macedonians during Alexander’s long siege at
Tyre were likely Ituraeans.
Our attempt to gain further knowledge and insight into Ituraean
origins and ethnicity may, in the end, be too focussed on what might
be called a ‘red herring’. This is expressed in regard to the difficulties
encountered in defining terms such as ‘Arabs’ or ‘Aramaeans’, both
terms having been used by present-day scholars to identify Ituraeans.
The written primary sources mentioning these groups are both unre-
liable and imprecise, offering no assurance as to how the terms were
defined by the early writers of these documents. The implied negative
connotations given in modern scholarship to an ancient peoples offer
little to advance our knowledge of the Ituraeans. This is made more
problematic with the added terms of ‘brigand’, ‘robber’ and ‘trouble-
maker’. Such subjective language merely enhances the unfortunate
prejudices of the modern world, and offers nothing that might
enlighten our knowledge of the Ituraeans. The role of the brigand/
robber in antiquity was complex and at times, under certain circum-
stances, unavoidable. Where it might be safe to say there were
Ituraeans involved in such activity for a variety of reasons, we cannot
know or assume that all Ituraeans were involved.
In light of what has been discussed, it would be a fairly simple
matter to consign the Ituraeans to the role of a minor player on the
historical playing field. However, this would be both negligent and
unjustified. Because we cannot at this time determine anything of
their culture or ethnicity does not permit us to ignore their presence
within the ancient world, nor does it justify any misleading assump-
tions and conclusions. The fact that they were capable and powerful
enough to form a principality, organized enough to mint their own
coinage, and strong enough to threaten various other groups justifies
a more open appreciation, and an effort for continued investigation.
Most significant is the need to address the old and misused assump-
tions of past scholarship which has, unfortunately, tended to label the
Ituraeans in such a negative light. There is more to be learned.
APPENDIX 1: TWO SMALL FINDS
AND THE ITURAEANS
Although the two small finds discussed here are in themselves unable to affirm
or support Ituraean identity, each in its own unique way offers some insight
into the cultural milieu Ituraeans inhabited. One find is from the designated
Ituraean site of Har Sena‘im, the other is from a site several hundred
kilometres to the north-west, within a strikingly different context. Each of
these small finds has its own ‘story to tell’, albeit a tenuous one relative to the
Ituraeans.
Kulullû: the Assyrian fish-man

Excavations conducted at Har Sena‘im from 1983 to 1989 investigated four
areas where two cult enclosures were identified, one upper and one lower.
Within the lower cult enclosure were the remains of two small temple
structures. From excavations at the lower temple area, in the lower cult
enclosure, an intact ornamental brass ring was found. At its widest point
the ring has a diameter of 19 mm, is 1.5 mm wide at its narrowest, with the
face 9 mm at its maximum. Described as ‘lentil-shaped’, the face is engraved
with what ‘appears to be an erect fish with a triangular head from which a
hand extends leftward and upward, while a right hand extends to the bottom
of the image and ends in two intersecting lines resembling a star’.1 On closer
examination of the photograph in Dar’s book (p. 74) the ‘right hand’ in fact
would appear not to be connected as it comes down from the triangular ‘head’.
For the purposes of this brief section I have accepted Dar’s interpretation.
Above the head are two dots, with three dots below indicating a ‘face’, with the
body outlined in ‘paired dots’. The exact location of the find was near the
threshold of the lower temple, in Locus 90.
The small brass ring with its iconographic image of a ‘fish-human’ is not
unusual in the art and mythology of ancient Mesopotamia. From the
Old Babylonian period onwards the fish-man was named Kulullû by the
Assyrians, and along with the ‘carp-goat’ was ‘known among the apotropaic
figurines and named in the appropriate rituals’.2 Kulullû or the fish-man/
merman figure has the head, arms and torso of a human with the lower
body and tail of a fish. The fish-man depicting a human above the waist and
1
Dar 1993b: 75.
2
Green 1985/86: 25, with a reference to S. Dalley in Dalley and Postgate 1984: 162.
176
Appendix 1 177
fish below occurs on seals, and Late Assyrian reliefs in art of the first
millennium.3 It is thought by some to have a special relationship to the
water god Ea (Enki), although not all would agree with this designation.4
The most expansive texts prescribing the types of figurines for apotropaic
ritual come from Assur.5 Having defined the purpose of the ritual intended to
avert evil from the house, the text prescribes types of figures to be fashioned
and buried at set locations. Along with protection against illness, the figures
were also used as foundation figurines. In Neo-Assyrian art they were for the
purpose of protective magic, in both monumental palace and temple
sculpture, and as small figurines.6 Such figurines have been found at Assur,
Nineveh and Nimrud.
Similar to Kulullû both in content and context is the fish-garbed figure: a
bearded human figure with a human face and a fish-head drawn over the
scalp, the full body of a fish hanging down the back complete with caudal
and dorsal fin. It is a common feature within the glyptic art of Mesopotamia,
the figure first appearing in the Kassite period.7 As with Kulullû, the fish-
garbed figure is known to have an apotropaic function, and by the seventh
century BCE was a popular motif on Neo-Assyrian seals, often depicted in
association with the sacred tree. There is, however, a significant difference
between the fish-man and the human figure wearing a fish-cape.8 The fish-
man has been considered the only composite creature that does not
appear in scenes of conflict, suggesting that he is unsuited to conflict. The
main attributes endowed upon the fish-man of Assyrian glyptic art are as
protectors against evil, a quality which it shared with almost all supernatural
beings.9 From the fourteenth to the tenth century BCE the human figure was
represented as clothed in a fish-skin reaching to the ground, which by the
ninth century BCE had been shortened to form a cape terminating in a fish-
tail just below the waist. By the eighth century BCE it had reverted to
its longer form, known and copied by both the Persians and Seleucids.
Excavations at Karmir-blur, a Urartian site, revealed several figurines,
some with ‘heads and backs covered with fish-skins’.10
Locus 90, the find spot for the brass ring, is just inside the enclosure of
the lower temple. Supported by the numerous small finds, the excavators
concluded that the lower temple was a cult sanctuary site; what remains
unclear is the nature of the cult practice and a precise dating for its use. In
Dar’s estimation, most of the ceramic material from the lower temple at Har
Sena‘im seems to date from the early and late Roman periods, the first to the
fourth centuries CE. Evidence from a fragmentary Greek inscription suggests
that the temple was constructed at the end of the second century CE, but on
the site of a much earlier cult centre, although the dating of the temple was
according to its ‘classical decoration’ rather than the plan.11 It is possible the
3
Lambert 1980–1983: 324. 4 Black and Green 1995: 131.
5
For the script, see Ebeling 1923: KAR no. 298; and also Rittig 1977: 151–62.
6
Green 1983: 87–8.
7
Teissier 1984: 38. See also Porada 1981/82: 53; Porada 1948: 63–5, and Kawami
1972: 146 n. 25.
8
Lambert 1980–1983: 324. 9 Frankfort 1939: 202.
10
Barnett 1959: 4. 11 Dar 1988: 35.
brass ring belonged to someone who frequented the sanctuary, though

whether it was lost or given as an offering remains a mystery. The wearer
may well have believed in its apotropaic attributes, its fish-like design fitting
well within the ancient mythology of the ancient Near East.12 Although this
find has come from what has tenuously been named an Ituraean site, it is
unclear whether it should be considered to reflect any aspect of Ituraean cult
or belief. It tells us a little about the site itself, yet reflects well within the
mythology of the ancient Near East, and perhaps in more general terms the
religiosity of those who came to worship at the site.
The archer
The second small find, which may have some bearing on Ituraeans, is still
highly speculative. Yet, even with this in mind it offers an intriguing glimpse
into one individual’s artistic creativity. The Roman army drew on local tribes
to augment their legions from the late Republic onwards, with these men
being eventually regularized into auxiliary units of cohortes and alae under
Augustus. Ituraeans, known for their skill as archers, along with the Syrians,
were among those recruited from the East.
Through evidence recorded on military diplomas of auxiliary soldiers, it is
sometimes possible to trace the movements of these regiments. It is known
that Ituraean auxiliary archers were stationed at Mainz in the first century
CE. During the 1960s, while work was being carried out in the area of the
Roman camp at Mainz, a fragment of a Neo-Babylonian seal was found in a
trench on the south-east side of the camp.13 Dated to the thirteenth century
BCE, the seal is made of chalcedony (broken), and depicts two figures, one
with bow and arrow. Between these two figures is depicted a lion attacking a
stag, while above the animals is a crescent moon, and at the base on each side
of the scene is a plant. The original seal has apparently been reworked, as the
human figures appear to be a later addition.
A close parallel scene, of two animals with a plant/tree on each side, is
found depicted on a Middle Assyrian cylinder seal of the thirteenth century
BCE.14 In this particular scene the lion is shown attacking a stag, the Mainz
seal repeating the positioning of the animals along with the plant/tree on each
side. The addition of the two figures on the Mainz seal, and in particular the
figure of the archer, prompted Schottroff to consider the possibility of the seal
having belonged to an auxiliary soldier garrisoned there in the early 70s CE.15
Perhaps an auxiliary archer had the two figures inscribed onto an already
existing scene? The bow which the archer on the seal is holding appears to be a
double convex bow, also known as the ‘B-shaped’ bow or composite bow. Its
very distinctive profile is the result of ‘the combination of different materials
or the use of fire to shape the body’.16 The Persians were known to have
adopted this type of bow, though its origin is uncertain, as the Persians used
12
On the sacredness of fish in the ancient Near East, see Smith 1894: 165–84.
13
Schottroff 1982: 128–30. Also Von Klumback Moortgat-Correns 1968: 36–40 in
which the seal is discussed; and Collon 1987: 138 no. 578 and n. 2.
14
Porada 1948: 69 no. 603, pl. LXXXV. 15 Schottroff 1992: 128–30.
16
Zutterman 2003: 120–2.
Appendix 1 179
and adopted bows from both the Scythians and Cimmerians. The Medes are
also known to have used the B-shaped bow, although it is not certain ‘if the
Medes used the Scythian double convex bow or adopted it and modified it to
their own needs’.17 It appears that the Achaemenid army used successfully the
Median/Scythian B-shaped bow, whereas the more conservative Assyrians
and Babylonians continued to use their triangular composite bow. Known in
the Near East and Egypt from very early times as a weapon of hunting and
warfare, the bow also functioned as an ‘extremely important symbol of
monarchial power’, and appears in the glyptic art of Mesopotamia down to
the Persian period.18
Along with the military diplomas (diplomata) mentioning Ituraean
auxiliary units are the gravestones, occasionally inscribed with names of
those buried and the units under which they served. Monimus, an archer
from the cohors I Ituraean, holds a B-shaped bow in his left hand with quiver
containing arrows in his right.19 Although Monimus is wearing a different
garment from the figures on the small seal, the bows are remarkably similar.
Schottroff’s suggestion that the seal was refashioned at the request of an
Ituraean auxiliary soldier serving his tour of duty at the Mainz garrison is
enticing, but elusive. It is impossible to know if this is the correct explanation
of the seal, and all that can be derived from these two figures is a confirmation
of the long tradition in the use of archery within the ancient Near East.
Perhaps the archer can be more closely associated with the Ituraeans, as
their reputation as skilled archers is documented in the texts.
While these two small finds are unable to offer any direct information
on Ituraeans, they provide some texture to an almost barren landscape;
each illustrates a long history of cultural artifacts and weaponry within the
Near East.
17
Zutterman 2003: 141. 18
Wilkinson 1991–1993: 83. 19
CIL XIII 7041.
APPENDIX 2: INSCRIPTIONS RELEVANT
TO THE ROMAN AUXILIARY UNITS
Cohors I Augusta Ituraeorum (sagittaria)

The title Augusta was, on occasion, given to an auxiliary regiment as an
honorary epithet by the emperor. Those regiments with this title were
therefore ‘prestigious’. According to Holder, more than half the units
having Augusta have an early origin.1 The cohors I Augusta Ituraeorum
were in Pannonia during the first century CE, and then transferred to Dacia
at the time of the creation of the province.
CIL XVI 26 – based in Pannonia, 80 CE, raised at the same time as
ala I Augusta Ituraeorum
CIL III 27 – based in Pannonia, 98 CE
CIL XVI 47 – in Pannonia, 102 CE
CIL XVI 123 – Pannonia Inferior, 167 CE
CIL XVI 57 – in Dacia, 110 CE name Thaemo Horati f.
CIL XVI 158 – in Dacia, 158 CE
CIL XVI 108 – Dacia Superior, 158 CE
CIL XVI 107 – Dacia, 157 CE?
CIL XIII6 12451 [XX] – Dacia, 110 CE
CIL XIII2,1 6278 – fragmentary
CIL XIII 6817 – second century CE
AE (2000) 1237 – re Ituraean troops in Dacia
RMD (1978) 123 – Dacia Superior, 79 CE
RMD (1985) 81 – 98 CE? (restoration problematical)
RMD (1985) 107 – 161 CE
RMD (1994) 148 – I Ituraeorum and I Augusta Ituraeorum, 109
CE = ZPE 70 (1987), 189–94.
Alae I Augusta Ituraeorum

CIL XVI 42 – based in Pannonia, 98 CE, records the commander of
this unit as L. Callidius L. f. Ste. Camidienus de Vettona2
CIL XVI 99 – 150 CE, in the 140s the unit was seconded
temporarily to Mauretania; between 150 CE and 167 in Pannonia
1 2
Holder 1980: 14. Sherk 1988: 111 for translation.
180
Appendix 2 181
AE (1955) 31 – Dessau ILS 9056; stele of an Ituraean soldier; from

Tipasa3
CIL XVI supp. 163 – in Dacia, 110 CE I Augusta Ituraeor
CIL XVI 107 – Dacia, 157 CE?
CIL XVI supp. 175 = AE (1960) 19 – in Pannonia, 139 CE
CIL XVI supp. 179/180 – 148 CE
CIL XVI 112/113 – 151/160 CE
CIL VI 421 = ILS I 2546 – a dedication in Rome to Jupiter
Heliopolitanus by a vexillatio alae Ituraeorum
CILIII1 4367 = RIU 253 – ala Augusta Ituraeorum – grave inscription
from Pannonia Superior; second half of first century CE
CIL III 4368
CIL III 4370 – Pannonia Superior
CIL III 4371 = ILS 2511 – from Pannonia Superior; name Bargathes
CIL III 11083 – fragmentary
CIL III 1382
CIL III 3446
CIL XIII 6278, 12451 – Germany Superior
CIL III 15171 – m(i)l(e)s a(lae) p(rimae) E(turaeorum) Seve[r]i
an(a)e?4
CIL III 10222
RMD (1985) 102 – 157 CE
RMD (1985) 103 – 157 CE
RMD (1985) 110 – 154/161 CE
Cohors I Ituraeorum (sagittaria)

CIL XVI 35 = AE (1939) 126 – based in Syria, 88 CE = Syria 9
(1928): 25–31 – nouveau diplôme militaire relatif à l’armée de
Syrie; mentions the Coh. I Ituraeorum
CIL XVI 57 – based in Dacia, 110 CE (see above)
CIL XVI 90 = AE (1978) 691 – in Dacia Superior, 144 CE, mentions
cohors I Ituraeorum sagittariorum
CIL XIII2,1 7040 = AE (1901) 86; (1929) 131 – gravestone at Mainz
first century CE name Iamlicus
CIL XIII2,1 7041 = ILS I 2562 – gravestone Monimus inscription,
first century CE; Mainz
CIL XIII2,1 7042 = AE (1901) 86 – gravestone at Mainz, first
century CE with the name Sibbaeus the tubicen
CIL XIII 7043 – gravestone
CIL XIII 12451 – in Germany Superior
CIL XIII 12451 – mentions cohors I Ituraeorum sagittariorum
CIL XIII 7515 – troops in Germany in reign of Augustus
CIL III 8176
AE (1907) 50 = IGR I 1462 – from Thrace
AE (2003) 1223 – fragment of military diploma from Dacia; 136 CE
mentioning I Itur(aeorum) sag(ittariorum)
3 4
Baradez 1954: 89–126. Schottroff 1982: 148.
RMD (1994) 157 – 13 CE

RMD (1994) 185 = ZPE 82 (1990): 137–53 – probably found in
Egypt, 179 CE
I and III Ituraeorum – oldest military diploma from Dacia, 109 CE –
mentions I Ituraeorum; same witnesses appear on CIL XVI 1615
[see also RMD 184, 123]
IGR III 230 – confirms coh. I Ituraeorum in Judea at time of
Vespasian6
AE (1901) 86 = RA 38 (1901): 59, 62 – mentions I Cohorts Itur.
IGL III 2120 (Waddington) – fragmentary; from el-Hit in the
Hauran, reference to despatch of Ituraean troops to Moesia;
name of praefect for this unit: Praxilaos
Cohors I Ituraeorum (c)ivium (R)omanorum ‘civium romanorum – an

honorary title’
CIL XVI supp. 161 = AE (1960) 103 – first recorded in province of
Mauretania Tingitani in 109 CE; last record in Not. Dig. Oc.
XXVl 16 – mentioned as being at Castra Bariensi = Banasa;
cohorts registered in Notitia Dignitatum7
Oc. XXVl 16 – cohors I [I]tyraeorum in Mauretania Tingitani –
Comes Tingitaniae … Tribunus cohortis primae [et] Ityraeorum,
Castrabariensi8
CIL VIII 11176 – second century CE; name of [Fl] avius Quadratus
Laet[-] mentioned in an inscription from Segermes; praefectus of
the coh. I I[t]u[rae]or. in the province of Mauretania Tingitani9
CIL XVI supp. 165–114/117 CE
CIL XVI supp. 169, 170 – 122 CE
CIL XVI 173
CIL XVI supp. 181, 182 – 156 CE – troops in Mauretania Tingitani
100–160 CE
RMD (1978) 53 = CIL XVI 38 = AE (1960) 103 – 159 CE
Egyptian garrison – cohors II and III Ituraeorum (equitatae)

The main outline seems clear insofar as from the time of
Augustus to at least the mid-second century three cohorts were
consistently stationed at Syene and Pselchis, cohorts that pro-
vided the garrison for the forts and stations in Nubia. Speidel
1988: 784.
5
Garbsch 1991: 281–4. 6 Dabrowa 1986: 227 n. 52.
7
Roxan 1976: 59–79; ‘True and False: Order of Battle in the Historia Augusta’, in
Birley 1988: 44–52.
8
Schottroff 1982: 151. 9 Pflaum 1978: 143, no. 3; Dabrowa 1986: 223.
Appendix 2 183
II and III Ituraeorum

The cohors II Ituraeorum was always part of the Egyptian garrison.
CIL III2 141471 = AE (1896) 39 = ILS 8899 (Dessau) – cohorts
without number; at Syene garrison by 39 CE; cohors Ituraeor
(um) cui prae‹e›st L. Einus L. f. Fal. Saturninus10
CIL XVI 29 = PMich. III 164 = RMRP 20 = CPL 143 = Daris Doc.
27 – at Syene in 83 CE; cohors II and III Ituraeorum, served in Upper
Egypt (Coptos) until 243/244 CE – in Notitia Dignitatum Or.
XXVIII 44 (Late Roman Empire)
IGR I 1348 = SB V 8521 = CIG 5050 – from Talmis, 146–147 CE,
mentions cohors Ituraeorum
AE (1978) 562 – ex co(horte) III Ituraius; served in Germany
Superior then transferred to Egypt with cohors III Ituraeorum
REG 89 (1976) 772 = Bernand (1969) no. 159 – re inscription of Iunius
Sabinus commander of a unit of Ituraean cohort without number11
CIL III2 141472 =AE (1896) 40 = (Dessau) ILS III 8907 – from the
principia of the camp at Syene, with information about the
command on the Nubian frontier in 99 CE; mentions the coh
(ortis) II Ituraeor(um) equit(atae)12
IGR I 1249 – name Gabinius Thaemus
IGR I 1236 – name Mammogais Bataei
BGU XI 20242 – from the Thebaid, November 204 CE, receipt for
barley received by a centurion sent by the prefect of cohors II
Ituraeorum which would suggest the length of time the cohors II
Ituraeorum served in Egypt
RMRP (1971) 81 = POxy IV 735 = CPL 134 – from the Fayum, 4
September 205 CE: receipt written by an optio recording wheat
given to fifty horsemen of the Syene garrison, implies more than
one unit was stationed at Syene during these years; these are likely
the same troops as mentioned in the above inscription13
RMD (1978) 9 = AE (1968) 513 = Syria 44 (1967) – 105 CE,
provenance uncertain; Egyptian diploma; name of ex pedite
M. Spedio M F Corbuloni of Hippo[s] (Qal‘at el-Höṣn)
CIL XVI supp. 184 = AE (1952) 236 = PMich. 441 – Egyptian
diploma from Karanis; 157–161 CE; cohors II and III
Ituraeorum, and cohors V, VII Ituraeorum; dubious restoration14
SB IV 7362 = PMich. 2930 = Select Papyri II 315 – from Karanis, in
the Fayum, 156/161 CE – epikrisis of Valerius Clemens; name
10
Schottroff 1982: 151; M. P. Speidel, ‘Nubia’s Roman Garrison’, ANRW II 10.1
(1988), 786.
11
Speidel 1988: 779, who suggests that Iunius Sabinus was likely the prefect of
the unit.
12
Speidel 1988: 772 n. 13 and 776; the units were stationed at the head of navigation
on the Nile.
13
Speidel 1992: 781.
14
Henry A. Sanders, ed., Latin Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection,
Henry A. Sanders, ed., vol. II: 47–55.
also appears in CIL III 141477 – in late empire unit based in

Lower Egypt = Notitia Dignitatum Or. XXVIII 44
CIL III 12069 = ILS I 2611 – evidence that cohors III It. provided
guards for quarries at Ptolemais Hermiu
CIL III 1035 – cohors III Itur. – mentioned as being in Egypt in 83 CE
CIG I 1370 – Hieraskyaminos
CIG I 1340 – Pselchis
CIG I 1348 – Talmis
CIG I 1299 – Philae
CIL IX 1619 = ILS II 5502 – coh. III Ityraeor
CIL III supp. (XV 1962 Domitianus supp.) Coptos, 83 CE, cohorts
registered in Notitia Dignitatum15
Or. XXVIII 44 – cohors II It[u]raeorum at Aiy, Egypt, as early as
39 CE, or possibly earlier.
CIL VIII1 2394; 2395 – Provincia Numidia; coh. III Ituraeorum
CIL VIII2 17904 – Timgad; coh. III Ituraeorum
CIL IX 1619 = ILS 5502 – coh. III Ityraeor
RMRP 87 (Fink) = POxy VII 1022 = Daris Doc. 4 = Select Papyri
421 = CPL 11116 concerns enrolment of recruits to cohors III
Ituraeorum – c. 24 February 103 CE based in Upper Egypt; see
also CIL XVI 29
RMRP 20 (Fink) = Mich. Pap. III 164 = CPL 143 = Daris Doc. 27
unit in Egypt, 230 CE; list of decurions and centurions, dated
April 243 – April 244 CE; mentions coh. III Ituraeorum
RMRP 78 (Fink) – 157 CE or 217 CE, from Pselcis (modern
Dakkeh) – receipts for food and wine on ostraca
Bernand (1960) 26 = CIL III 59 – mention of cohors VII Ituraeorum
inscribed on statue of Memnon at Thebes – likely a mistake for
the It. III (see also AE (1952) 236)
Bernand (1960) 63 – between the legs of a colossus; [c]oh(ortis) II I
[tur(aeorum) eq(uitatae)]
AE (2000) 1850 = ZPE 133 (2000): 271–4; 98–105 CE, provenance
unknown; a fragment of an Egyptian diploma which lists II
Ituraeorum and III Ituraeorum17
AE (1976): 497 – stele from Mainz-Weisenau, Germanie Superior
mentioning ex coh(orte) II Itur(aeorum) this is corrected in AE
(1978): 562; see above.
IGR I 1339 – from Talmis
IGR I 1340 – from Talmis
Ostracon no. 7363 – from Mons Claudianus; a dedication by cohors
II Ituraeorum to ‘Zeus Helios Great Sarapis and the gods who
share the temple, in gratitude to the emperor Severus Alexander’
This establishes a dating for the cohors II Ituraeorum at the garrison as late
as 225–235 CE.
15
Roxan 1976: 59–79; ‘True and False Order of Battle in the Historia Augusta’, in
Birley 1988: 44–52.
16
Watson 1985: 42–3. 17 MacDonald 2000: 271–4.
Appendix 2 185
Military correspondence from Egypt’s eastern desert provides information

on security and difficulties experienced with the barbaroi. From the area of
Mons Claudianus come dossiers and related texts, one from Cassius Victor, a
centurion of the cohors II Ituraeorum, who reports that ‘on Phamenoth 17,
118 the fort of Patkoua was attacked by 60 barbaroi and fighting took place
over several hours on that day and the next, resulting in several casualties
including women and children’.18
Temple inscriptions in Greek from the time of Hadrian

and Antoninus Pius
SB I 4601, 4603, 4613 – from Talmis, 144 CE
SB I 4570 – undated, from Talmis
IGR I 1363 = SB V 7912.3 – from Pselchis, 136 CE; dedication
IGR I 1303 – Pselchis
CIL III2 141477 – from Pselchis, Egypt; c. first century CE; coh. II
Itur. – dedication of soldier with Aramaic name
IGR I 1370 = SB V 8537 = CIG III 5110 – Hiera Sykaminos, c. 132
CE, soldier’s dedication
SEG (1981) 1532 – cippus Greek dedication to Isis at Philae, Egypt,
135 CE
IGR I 1299 = CIG 4935 – Greek inscription from Philae, Egypt – a
re-dedication of a temple at Syene under Gaius
IGR 1236 = CIG 4716 = OGIS 660 – Greek inscription from
Hamamât, c. 18 CE
CIL III 135788 – rebuilding of camp at Euniko, Egypt, 150–152 CE
AE (1952): 249 = AE (2001): 2036 = I Pan 53 = BIFAO 96 (1996):
91–101 – from Wadi Samna; fragments; from 150 CE, with
proposed restitution mentioning II Ituraeor(um)
Bernand (1969): 159 = Bull. Epigr. (1976): 772 – Iunius Sabinus
inscription, commander of the Ituraean cohors at Syene19
OGIS 540 = IGR III 230 – from Phrygia; mentions the σπείρης
Ἰτουραίων
JRS XIV (1924): 188 no. 9 = AE (1926): 80 – found in 1914 at
Gemen, south-east of Antioch in Pisidia, on a bridge; a
gravestone erected by decuriones of the colonia to a soldier from
Antochia mentioning the cohors I Aug. Ituraeorum Sag.; unit
known in Pannonia about 80–98 CE, which was in Trajan’s
Dacian army in 110 CE – see IGL III 2120.20
Inscription from a rock near a watchtower, 1.5 km upstream from Talmis:21
coh(ortis) II Itur(aeorum) 7(centuria) Marini
Valeri(u)s Ammonian(us)
18
Bowman 2007.
19
Speidel, ANRW II 10.1 (1988): 776–83; 786–7 especially in regard to the Ituraean
units.
20
Ramsay 1924a: 188–9.
21
Speidel 1998: 791 for the transcription and translation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Early texts
Apocrypha of the Old Testament (RSV). London: Thomas Nelson & Son, 1957.
Appian. Roman History. Translated by Horace White. LCL. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913.
Arrian. Anabasis Alexandri. Translated by P. A. Brunt. LCL. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Caesar. The Civil War with the Anonymous Alexandrian, African and Spanish
Wars. Translated by J. M. Carter. LCL. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1997.
Cicero. Philippics. Translated by Walter C. A. Ker. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1991.
Cicero. Pro Lege Manilia. Translated by H. Grose Hodge. LCL. Cambridge,
Dio Cassius. Roman Histories. Translated by Ernest Cary. LCL. Cambridge,
Diodorus Siculus. The Library of History. Translated by C. H. Oldfather.
LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Eusebius. Onomasticon. Edited by Erich Klostermann. Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 1904.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A., S. J., and Daniel J. Harrington, S. J. A Manual of
Palestinian Aramaic Texts (Second Century B.C. – Second Century
A.D.). Biblica et Orientalia 34. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978.
Gifford, E. H., trans. Eusebius Pamphili Evangelicae Praeparationis. Oxford:
E. Typographeo Academico, 1903.
Hunt, A. S., and C. C. Edgar, trans. Select Papyri II. LCL. Cambridge,
Jacoby, Felix. Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (FGrHist). Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1926, 1958.
John Malalas of Antioch. Chronographia. Edited by J.-P. Migne. Patrologia
cursas completa … Series graeca CXVII. Paris: Petit-Montrouge, 1865.
Josephus. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by Ralph Marcus. LCL. Cambridge,
Jewish Antiquities. Translated by Ralph Marcus et al. LCL. Cambridge,
War. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.:
le Marmardji, R. P. A.-S., O. P. Textes géographiques arabes sur la Palestine.
Paris: J. Gabalda et Cie, 1951.
186
Bibliography 187
Lucan. The Civil War (Pharsalia). Translated by J. D. Duff. LCL.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.
Magie, David, trans. The Scriptores Historiae Augustae. LCL. Cambridge,
Mason, Steve, ed. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary. III. Judean
Antiquities 1–4. Translation and Commentary by Louis H. Feldman.
Leiden: Brill, 2000.
Mras, Karl, ed. Eusebius Werke achter Band: Die Praeparatio Evangelica.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1954.
Mukaddasi. Description of Syria Including Palestine. Translated by Guy
le Strange. Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society. London: PPTS, 1886.
Pliny. Natural History. Translated by H. Rackham. Vol. II. LCL.
Plutarch. The Age of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Gilbert.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
Polybius. Histories. Translated by W. R. Paton. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.:
Quintus Curtius Rufus. The History of Alexander. Translated by J. C. Rolfe.
Sanders, Henry A., ed. Latin Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection.
Michigan Papyri 7. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1947.
Seek, Otto, ed. Notitia Dignitatum. Berlin: Weidmannos, 1876.
Stephanus of Byzantium. Ethnika. Edited by A. Meineke. Graz:
Akademische Druck-und-Verlagsanstalt, 1958.
Strabo. The Geography. Book 16. Translated by Horace Leonard Jones.
Tacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome. Vol. III. Translated by John Jackson.
The Histories. Translated by Clifford H. Moore. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.:
Theophrastus. Enquiry into Plants. Translated by Sir Arthur Hort. LCL.
Virgil. Eclogues, Georgics, Aeneid I–VI. Translated by H. Ruston Fairclough.
Revised edition. LCL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1986.
Winter, John Garrett, ed. Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection.
Translated by H. A. Sanders. Michigan Papyri 2. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan, 1936.
Papyri in the University of Michigan Collection. Miscellaneous Papyri.
Humanistic Series 40. Michigan Papyri 3. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan, 1936.
Secondary works
Ahituv, Shmuel. 1984. Canaanite Toponyms in Ancient Egyptian Documents.
Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
Albright, W. F. 1942. ‘A Votive Stele Erected by Ben-Hadad I of Damascus
to the God Melcarth’. BASOR 87: 23–9.
1956. ‘The High Place in Ancient Palestine’. VT 4: 242–58.
188 Bibliography
Ali-Sami. 1971. Pasargadae the Oldest Imperial Capital of Iran. Translated by

Revd R. N. Sharp. 2nd edn. Shiraz: Musavi Print Office.
Aliquot, Julien. 1999–2003. ‘Les Ituréens et la presence arabe au Liban du IIe
siècle a.C. au IVe siècle p.C’. MUSJ 56: 161–290.
2008. ‘Sanctuaries and Villages on Mt. Hermon during the Roman Period’.
In The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Greco-Roman East. Edited
by Ted Kaizer. Religions in the Greco-Roman World Series 164. Leiden:
Brill, pp. 73–96.
Alston, R. 1995. Soldier and Society in Roman Egypt. London: Routledge.
Altheim, Franz, and Ruth Stiehl. 1964. Die Araber in der Alten Welt. Vol. 1.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Applebaum, Shimon. 1971. ‘Jews and Service in the Roman Army’. In
Roman Frontier Studies. 1967 Proceedings of the Seventh International
Congress held at Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, pp. 181–4.
1989. Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Applebaum, S., et al., eds. 1978. The Hermon and its Foothills: A Collection of
Studies and Articles. Tel Aviv: n.p.
Arav, Rami. 1989. Hellenistic Palestine. BAR/IS 485. Oxford: Tempus
Reparatum.
1992. ‘Hermon’. ABD 3: 158–60.
Ariel, Donald T. 2002. ‘The Coins from Khirbet Zemel’. In Eretz Zafon:
Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Edited by Zvi Gal. Jerusalem: Israel
Antiquities Authority, pp. 118–21.
Attridge, H., and R. Oden, eds. 1976. De Dea Syria. Missoula, Mont.:
Scholars Press.
Avi-Yonah, Michael. 1940–1942. ‘Oriental Elements in the Art of Palestine in
the Roman and Byzantine Periods’. QDAP 10.
1952. ‘Mount Carmel and the God of Baalbek’. IEJ 2: 118–24.
1959. ‘Syrian Gods at Ptolemais-Acco’. IEJ 9: 1–12.
1966. The Holy Land. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press.
Avi-Yonah, Michael, ed. 1976. Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations
in the Holy Land. 4 vols. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Avner, Uzi. 1984. ‘Ancient Cult Sites in the Negev’. TA 11: 115–31.
1993. ‘Mazzebot Sites in the Negev and Sinai and their Significance’. In
Biblical Archaeology Today 1990. Edited by A. Biran and J. Aviram.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 166–81.
1999–2000. ‘Nabataean Standing Stones and their Interpretation’. ARAM
11/12: 97–122.
2001. ‘Sacred Stones in the Desert’. BAR 27.3: 31–41.
Avni, Gideon. 1996. Nomads, Farmers and Town Dwellers: Supplement to the
Archaeological Survey of Israel. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Badre, Leila. 1997. ‘Baalbek’. In Myers 1997, I: 247–8.
Bailey, Donald M., ed. 1996. Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt: The
Proceedings of the Seventeenth Classical Colloquium of the Department of
Greek and Roman Antiquities British Museum, 1–4 December 1993. JRASS
19. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Journal of Roman Archaeology.
Baldus, H. 1987. ‘Syria’. In The Coinage of the Roman World. Edited by
A. M. Burnett and M. H. Crawford. BAR/IS 326. Oxford: Tempus
Reparatum, 146–8.
Bibliography 189
Ball, Warwick. 1994. Syria. Essex: Scorpion Publishing.

2000. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. London:
Routledge.
Baradez, Jean. 1954. ‘Les nouvelles fouilles de tipasa et les opérations
d’Antonin le Pieux en Maurétanie’. Libyca 2: 89–126.
Barkay, G., Z. Ilan, A. Kloner, A. Mazar and D. Urman. 1974.
‘Archaeological Survey in the Northern Bashan’. IEJ 24: 173–84.
Barnett, Richard D. 1959. ‘Further Russian Excavations in Armenia
(1949–1953)’. Iraq 21: 1–19.
Barrick, W. Boyd. 1975. ‘The Funerary Character of “High Places” in
Ancient Palestine: A Reassessment’. VT 25.3: 565–95.
Barton, I. M., ed. 1989. Roman Public Buildings. Exeter Studies in History 20.
Exeter: University of Exeter.
Beck, Pirhiya. 1990. ‘A Note on the “Schematic Statues” from the Stelae
Temple at Hazor’. TA 17: 91–95.
Beitzel, Barry. 2003. ‘Geography of the Levant’. In Near Eastern
Archaeology: A Reader. Edited by Suzanne Richard. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, pp. 3–9.
Ben-Dov, M. 1974. ‘A Lintel from the Bashan Depicting Three Deities’. IEJ
24: 185–6.
Berlin, Andrea M. 1997. ‘Between Large Forces: Palestine in the Hellenistic
Period’. BA 60/1: 3–51.
2003. ‘The Hellenistic Period’. In Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader.
Edited by Suzanne Richard. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, pp. 418–33.
Bernand, André. 1969. Les inscriptions grecques de Philae. II. Haut et bas
empire. Paris: Centre nationale de la recherche scientifique.
Bernand, André, and Étienne Bernard. 1960. Les inscriptions grecques et
latines du Colosse de Memnon. Cairo: IFAO.
Bieberstein, Klaus. 1998. ‘Ituraea’. Der Neue Pauly. Vol. V. Stuttgart:
J. B. Metzler, p. 1184.
Bienkowski, Piotr, and Alan Millard, eds. 2000. Dictionary of the Ancient
Near East. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Bilde, Per, et al., eds. 1990. Religion and Religious Practice in the Seleucid
Kingdom. Studies in Hellenistic Civilization. Aarhus: Aarhus University
Press.
1993. Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World. Aarhus: Aarhus
University Press.
Bingen, Jean. 1996. ‘Dumping and the Ostraca at Mons Claudianus’. In
Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt. Edited by Donald M.
Bailey. JRASS 19. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Journal of Roman Archaeology,
pp. 29–38.
Bingen, Jean, Adam Bülow-Jacobsen, Hélène Cuvigny, Lene Rubinstein and
Wilfried van Rengen. 1992. Mons Claudianus Ostraca Graeca et Latina I
(O. Claud. 1 à 190). Cairo: IFAO.
Biran, Avraham. 1994. Biblical Dan. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Birley, Eric. 1988. The Roman Army Papers 1929–1986. Mavors Roman
Army Researches 4. Amsterdam: J. C. Grieben.
Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. 1995. Gods, Demons and Symbols of
Ancient Mesopotamia. Austin: University of Texas Press.
190 Bibliography
Botterweck, E. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren and Heinz-Joseph Fabry, eds.

1997. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. III. Trans.
Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Bowersock, Glen. 1965. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
1971. ‘A Report on Arabia Provincia’. JRS 61: 219–42.
1973. ‘Syria under Vespasian’. JRS 63: 133–40.
1983. Roman Arabia. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
1986. ‘An Arabian Trinity’. In Christians among Jews and Gentiles. Edited
by G. Nickelsburg and G. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
1989. ‘Social and Economic History of Syria under the Roman Empire’. In
Archéologie et histoire de la Syrie ll. Edited by J. M. Dentzer and
W. Orthmann. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckere und Verlag.
1990. Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Bowman, Alan K. 2007. ‘Military Correspondence from Egypt’s Eastern
Desert’. Review of Cuvigny 2005. JRA 20: 635–8.
Bowsher, Julian M. C. 1987. ‘Architecture and Religion in the Decapolis: A
Numismatic Survey’. PEQ 119: 62–9.
Boyd, Thomas. 1978. ‘The Arch and the Vault in Greek Architecture’. AJA
82: 82–100.
Braund, David C., ed. 1988. The Administration of the Roman Empire (241
BC-AD 193). Exeter Studies in History 18. Exeter: University of Exeter.
Briquel Chatonnet, Françoise. 2005. ‘The Newly Published Aramaic
Inscription of Yanouh (Lebanon) and the Question of the Ituraeans’.
In Proceedings of Yarmouk Second Annual Colloquium on Epigraphy and
Ancient Writings. Edited by Omar al-Ghul. Yarmouk: Yarmouk
University of Jordan, 2005, pp. 3–10.
Briquel Chatonnet, Françoise, and Pierre Bordreuil. 2001. ‘Appendice: Une
nouvelle écriture araméenne au mont Liban?’ BAAL 5: 148–52.
Brooks, E. W. 1897. ‘A Syriac Chronicle of the year 846’. ZDMG 51.4: 569–88.
Brown, John Pairman. 1969. The Lebanon and Phoenicia. Beirut: American
University of Beirut.
Buckingham, J. S. 1825. Travels among the Arab Tribes. London: Longman,
Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green.
Bulliet, Richard. 1975. The Camel and the Wheel. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Burckhardt, John Lewis. 1822. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. London:
John Murray.
1972. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. New impression. London: Darf.
Burnett, Andrew. 2002. ‘Syrian Coinage and Romanisation from Pompey to
Domitian’. [English summary] In Les monnayages syriens: Quel apport
pour l’histoire du Proche-Orient hellénistique et romani? Edited by
Christian Augé and Frédérique Duyrat. Beirut: CNRS, pp. 115–22.
Burnett, Andrew, Michel Amandry and Ian Carradice, eds. 1999. Roman
Provincial Coinage. Vol. II (Parts I & II). London: British Museum Press.
Burnett, Andrew, Michel Amandry and Pere Pau Ripollès, eds. 1992. Roman
Provincial Coinage. Vol. I (Parts I & II). 2 vols. London: British
Museum Press.
Bibliography 191
1998. Roman Provincial Coinage Supp. I. London: British Museum Press.

Burns, Ross. 1992. Monuments of Syria. London: I. B. Tauris & Co.
Burrows, M. 1934. ‘From Pillar to Post’. JPOS 14: 42–51.
Burton, Richard F., and Charles F. T. Drake. 1872. Unexplored Syria. Vol. I.
London: Tinsley Bros.
Butcher, Kevin. 2001–2002. ‘Small Change in Ancient Beirut: The Coin
Finds from BEY 006 and BEY 045: Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, and
Byzantine Periods’. Berytus 45/46.
2003a. ‘Numismatics (Minting and Monetary Systems/Coinage) in the
Levant’. In Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Edited by
Suzanne Richard. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, pp. 210–17.
2003b. Roman Syria and the Near East. London: British Museum Press.
Butler, Howard Crosby. 1920. ‘Desert Syria, the Land of a Lost Civilization’.
Geographical Review 9.2: 77–108.
Buttrick, George Arthur, ed. 1962. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 4
vols. New York: Abingdon.
Canby, Jeanny Vorys. 1976. ‘The Stelenreihen at Assur, Tel Halaf, and
Massebôt’. Iraq 38: 113–28.
Cavenaile, Robert. 1958. Corpus Papyrorum Latinarum. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Chancey, Mark A. 2002. The Myth of a Gentile Galilee. SNTSMS 118.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chazan, Robert, William W. Hallo and Lawrence H. Schiffman, eds. 1999.
Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in
Honour of Baruch A. Levine. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Cheesman, G. L. 1971. The Auxilia of the Roman Imperial Army. New York:
Georg Olms Verlag.
Chehab, Hafez K. 1993. ‘On the Identification of ‘Anjar (‘Ayn Al-Jarr) as an
Umayyad Foundation’. Muqarnas 10: 42–8.
Chehab, Maurice. 1963. ‘The Umayyad Palace at ‘Anjar’. AO 5: 17–25.
Christides, V. 1969. ‘Arabs as “Barbaroi” before the Rise of Islam’. Balkan
Studies 10: 315–24.
Cichorius, C. 1894. ‘Ala’. RE I, cols. 1223–70.
1901. ‘Cohors’ RE IV, cols. 231–356.
Clermont-Ganneau, Charles. 1884. ‘Discoveries of Inscriptions in the
Lebanon’. PEFQSt 16: 191–2.
1903. ‘Mount Hermon and its God in an Inedited Greek Inscription’.
PEFQSt April: 135–40; July: 231–42.
Clifford, R. J. 1990. ‘Phoenician Religion’. BASOR 279: 55–64.
Cluzon, Sophie, ed. 1994. Syrie mémoire et civilisation. Paris: Flammarion.
Cockle, Walter E. H. 1996. ‘An Inscribed Architectural Fragment from Middle
Egypt concerning the Roman Imperial Quarries’. In Archaeological
Research in Roman Egypt. Edited by Donald M. Bailey. JRASS 19. Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 23–8.
Cohen, Getzel M. 1972. ‘The Hellenistic Military Colony: A Herodian
Example’. TAPA 103: 83–95.
Cohen, Shaye J. D. 1979. Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and
Development as a Historian. Columbia Studies in the Classical
Tradition 8. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
192 Bibliography
Colledge, Malcolm A. R. 1986. ‘Interpretatio Romana: The Semitic

Populations of Syria and Mesopotamia’. In Pagan Gods and Shrines of
the Roman Empire. Edited by M. Henig and A. King. Monograph 8.
Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology.
1987. ‘Greek and non-Greek Interaction in Art and Architecture’. In
Hellenism in the East. Edited by A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White.
London: Duckworth, pp. 134–62.
Collon, Dominique. 1983. ‘Hunting and Shooting’. Anatolian Studies 33: 51–6.
1987. First Impressions: Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
2001. Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum
Cylinder Seals. V. Neo Assyrian and Neo Babylonian Periods.
London: British Museum Press.
Conder, R. Claude. 1874. ‘Excursions from Bludan’. PEFQSt: 46–55.
1885. Our Work in Palestine. London: Richard Bentley & Son.
Conder, C. R., and H. H. Kitchener. 1881. The Survey of Western Palestine I.
London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
Cook, S. 1930. The Religion of Ancient Palestine in the Light of Archaeology.
London: British Academy.
Copeland, Lorraine, and Peter J. Wescombe. 1966. ‘Inventory of Stone-Age
Sites in Lebanon’. MUSJ 42.1: 1–174.
Crawford, Michael. 1983. Sources for Ancient History. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, K. A. C. 1968. A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture. New
impression. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
1969. Early Muslim Architecture: Umayyads A.D. 622–750. Vol. I part II.
2nd edn. Oxford: Clarendon.
Cumont, F. 1927. ‘Deux autels de Phénicie’. Syria 8: 163–8.
Curtis, Adrian. 1985. Ugarit. Cambridge: Lutterworth Press.
Cuvigny, Hélène. 2005. Ostraka de Krokodilô: La correspondance militaire et
sa circulation. O. Krok. 1–151. Praesidia du Désert de Bérénice, II.
Fouilles de l’IFAO, 51. Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale.
Dabrowa, E. 1986. ‘Cohortes Ituraerum’. ZPE 63: 221–4.
Dahood, M. 1958. ‘Ancient Semitic Deities in Syria and Palestine’. In
Le antiche divinita semitiche. Edited by J. Bottero, M. J. Dahood
and W. Gaskel. Studi Semitici 1. Rome: Centro di Studi Semitici,
pp. 65–94.
Dalley, Stephanie, and J. N. Postgate. 1984. The Tablets of Fort Shalmaneser.
London: The British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Dalman, D. Gustaf. 1925. Hundert deutsche Fliegerbilder aus Palästina 2.
Gütersloh: Druck und Verlag von C. Bertelsmann.
Dar, Shimon. 1986. ‘Mount Hermon – 1985/1986’. ESI 5: 78–82.
1987–1988. ‘Mount Hermon, Har Sena‘im – 1986/1987’. ESI 6: 84–5.
1988. ‘The History of the Hermon Settlements’. PEQ 120: 26–44.
1988–1989. ‘Mount Hermon Area – 1987/1988’. ESI 7–8: 135–8.
1989–1990. ‘Mount Hermon – 1989’. ESI 9: 1–3.
1993a. ‘Mount Hermon’. NEAEHL 2: 616–17.
1993b. Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount Hermon, Israel. Translated by
M. Erez. BAR/IS 589. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Bibliography 193
Dar, Shimon, and N. Kokkinos. 1992. ‘The Greek Inscriptions from Senaim
on Mount Hermon’. PEQ 124: 9–25.
Dar, Shimon, and I. Tepper. 1984. ‘Har Sena‘im – 1983/1984’. ESI 3:
39–43.
Daris, S. 1964. Documenti per la storia dell’esercito romano in Egitto.
Pubbicazioni dell’ Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore S.III, Scienze
Storiche 6. Milan: Milano Vitae Pensiero.
Dauphin, Claudine, and Shimon Gibson. 1992–1993. ‘Ancient Settlements in
their Landscapes: The Results of Ten Years of Survey on the Golan
Heights (1978–1988)’. BAIAS 12: 7–31.
Davies, Roy. 1989. Service in the Roman Army. Edited by D. Breeze and
V. Maxfield. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
De Forest, Henry A. 1853. ‘Notes on the Ruins in the Bŭka’a’. JAOS 3:
351–66.
Dentzer-Feydy, Jacqueline, Jean-Marie Dentzer and Pierre-Marie Blanc,
eds. 2003. Hauran II Les Installations de Si‘ 8. Beirut: IFAPO.
Dever, William G. 2003. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did they
Come from? Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company.
Devijver, Hubert. 1974. ‘The Roman Army in Egypt’. In ANRW 2.1:
452–92.
Dietrich, M. O. Loretz and W. Mayer. 1989. ‘Sikkanum “Betyle”’. UF 21:
133–9.
Diller, Aubrey. 1975. The Textual Tradition of Strabo’s Geography.
Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
Dion, Paul E. 1991. ‘Aramaean Tribes and Nations of First-Millennium
Western Asia’. In Sasson 1995, II: 1281–94.
Dion, Paul E. 1995. ‘Aramaean Tribes and Nations of First-Millennium
Western Asia’. In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Vol. II.
Edited by Jack M. Sasson. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
pp. 1281–94.
Di Segni, Leah. 1997. ‘On a Dated Inscription from Rakhle and the Eras
Used on the Hermon Range’. ZPE 117: 277–80.
Dodge, Hazel. 1990. ‘The Architectural Impact of Rome in the East’. In
Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire. Edited by
M. Henig. University Monograph 29. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
pp. 108–20.
Downey, Susan. 1988. Mesopotamian Religious Architecture. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Drijvers, Hendrik J. W. 1984. East of Antioch: Studies in Early Christianity.
London: Variorum Reprints.
1990. ‘The Syrian Cult Relief’. Visible Religion Annual for Religious
Iconography: 69–82.
Dueck, Daniela. 2005. ‘The Parallelogram and the Pinecone. Definition of
Geographical Shapes in Greek and Roman Geography on the Evidence
of Strabo’. Ancient Society 35: 19–57.
Dussaud, René. 1907. Les Arabes en Syrie avant l’Islam. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
1927. Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale. Paris: Paul
Geuthner.
194 Bibliography
1955. La pénétration des Arabes en Syrie avant l’Islam. Bibliothèque

Archéologique et Historique 59. Paris: Paul Geuthner.
Ebeling, E. 1923. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts, Vol. II.
WVDOG 34. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
Efron, J. 1987. Studies on the Hasmonean Period. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Elayi, J. 1982. ‘Studies in Phoenician Geography during the Persian Period’.
JNES 41: 83–110.
Elitzur, Yoel. 2004. Ancient Place Names in the Holy Land. Jerusalem:
Hebrew University Magnes Press.
Engels, Johannes. 2003. Review of Nicola Biffi, Il medio oriente di Strabone.
Libro XVI della Geographia. Introduzione, traduzione e commento. Bryn
Mawr Classical Review (24 September).
Eph‘al, Israel. 1976. ‘“Ishmael” and “Arab(s)”: A Transformation of
Ethnological Terms’. JNES 35: 225–35.
1982. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent,
9th–5th Centuries, BC. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.
1998. ‘Changes in Palestine during the Persian Period in Light of
Epigraphic Sources’. IEJ 48: 106–19.
Eshel, Esther, and Hanan Eshel. 2002. ‘Toponymic Midrash in I Enoch and in
Other Second Temple Jewish Literature’. Henoch 24: 115–30.
Ess, Margarete van, et al. 2003. ‘Archaeological Research in Baalbek: A
Preliminary Report on the 2001–2003 Seasons’. BAAL 7: 109–44.
Fahd, T. 1993. ‘Nusub’. Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition Vol. 8
Bosworth, C. E., et al., eds. Leiden, E. J. Brill. 154–5.
Fink, Robert O. 1971. Roman Military Records on Papyrus. APA
Monograph 26. Cleveland: Case Western University.
Forest, Henry de. 1853. ‘Notes on Ruins in the Buka’a’. JAOS 3: 351–66.
Foss, Clive. 1995. ‘The Near Eastern Countryside in Late Antiquity: A
Review Article’. JRA 14: 213–34.
Frankel, Rafael. 1989–1990. ‘Har Mispe Yamim’. ESI 9: 100–2.
1993. ‘Mizpe Yammim, Mount’. NEAEHL 1061–3.
Frankel, Rafael, Nimrod Getzov, Mordechai Aviam and Avi Degani. 2001.
Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee.
IAA Reports 14. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority.
Frankfort, Henri. 1939. Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and
Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: MacMillan.
1970. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Freedman, David Noel, ed. 1992. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday.
Freeman, Philip, et al., eds. 2002. Limes XVIII: Proceedings of the XVIIIth
International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies …, I. BAR
International Series 184. Oxford: BAR.
Freyne, Sean. 2000. Galilee and Gospel: Collected Essays. Tübingen: Mohr Siebek.
2001. ‘Galileans, Phoenicians, and Ituraeans’. In Hellenism in the Land of
Israel. Edited by John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling. Notre Dame,
Ind.: University of Notre Dame.
Fyfe, T. 1936. Hellenistic Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gal, Zvi, ed. 2002. Eretz Zafon Studies in Galilean Archaeology. Jerusalem:
Israel Antiquities Authority.
Bibliography 195
Garbsch, Jochen G. 1991. ‘The Oldest Military Diploma for the Province of
Dacia’. In Roman Frontier Studies. Edited by V. A. Maxfield and
M. J. Dodson. Exeter: University of Exeter, pp. 281–4.
Gatier, Pierre-Louis. 2002–2003. ‘La principauté d’Abila de Lysanias dans
l’Antiliban’. Les Dossiers, December-January: 120–7.
Gawlikowski, Michal. 1982. ‘The Sacred Space in Ancient Arab Religions’.
SHAJ 1: 301–3.
1997. ‘The Syrian Desert under the Romans’. In The Early Roman Empire
in the East. Edited by Susan E. Alcock. Oxbow Monograph 95. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp. 37–54.
Gerardi, Pamela. 1992. ‘The Arab Campaigns of Aššurbanipal: Scribal
Reconstruction of the Past’. SAA Bulletin 6.2: 67–103.
Gersht, Rivka, and Shimon Dar. 1992–1993. ‘A Sculptured Right Foot
Wearing a Sandal from Qal‘at Bustra in the Hermon’. BAIAS 12: 45–51.
Ghadbân, Chaker. 1971–1972. ‘Un site safaïtique dans l’Antiliban’. ADAJ
16–17: 77–82.
1985. ‘Monuments de Hammara (Beqa’-Sud, Liban)’. Ktema 10: 300–1.
Gibson, Shimon, and Dan Urman. 1990. ‘Three Coins of Alexander
Jannaeus from El ‘Al in the Golan Heights’. BAIAS 10: 67–71.
Gichon, M., and M. Vitale. 1991. ‘Arrow-Heads from Horvat ‘Eqed’. IEJ 41:
242–57.
Gilliam, J. F. 1986. ‘The Appointment of Auxiliary Centurions (P.
Mich.164)’. In Roman Army Papers. Mavors Roman Army Researches
2. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.
Goldsworthy, Adrian. 1997. The Roman World 44 BC–AD 180. London:
Routledge.
2004. In the Name of Rome: The Men who Won the Roman Empire.
London: Orion Books.
Goodman, M. 1987. The Ruling Class of Judaea. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Graesser, Carl F. 1972. ‘Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine’. BA 35: 34–63.
Graf, David. 1989. ‘Rome and the Saracens’. In L’Arabie préislamique et son
environment historique et culturel (Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg
24–27 juin 1987). Edited by T. Fahd. Leiden: E. J. Brill, pp. 341–400.
1990. ‘Arabia during Achaemenid Times’. In Centre and Periphery:
Achaemenid History IV. Proceedings of the Groningen 1986 Achaemenid
History Workshop. Edited by Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg and
Amélie Kuhrt. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor het Nabije Oosten.
1992. ‘The Syrian Hauran’. JRA 5: 450–66.
1997. Rome and the Arabian Frontier: From the Nabataeans to the Saracens.
Ashgate: Variorum.
Graf, David F., and Salah Said. 2006. ‘New Nabataean Funerary
Inscriptions from Umm al- Jimæl’. JSS 51.2: 267–303.
Grainger, John D. 1990. The Cities of Seleukid Syria. Oxford: Clarendon.
1991. Hellenistic Phoenicia. Oxford: Clarendon.
1995. ‘Village Government in Roman Syria and Arabia’. Levant 27:
179–95.
1997. A Seleukid Prosopography and Gazetteer. Leiden: Brill.
Green, Anthony. 1983. ‘Neo-Assyrian Apotropaic Figures’. Iraq 45: 87–96.
196 Bibliography
1985/1986. ‘A Note on the Assyrian “Goat-Fish”, “Fish-Man” and “Fish-

Woman”’. Iraq 47/48: 25–30.
1995. ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Religious Iconography’. In Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East. Vol. III. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. New York:
Simon & Schuster Macmillan, pp. 1837–55.
Green, Peter. 1990. Alexander to Actium: The Hellenistic Age. London:
Thames & Hudson.
Greenhalgh, Peter. 1980. Pompey: The Roman Alexander. London:
Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Greenidge, A. H. J., and A. M. Clay. 1960. Sources for Roman History 133–
70 BC. Revised by E. W. Gray. Oxford: Clarendon.
Grenfell, Bernard P., and Arthur S. Hunt. 1904. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri IV.
London: Egypt Exploration Fund.
Gruen, Erich. 1976. ‘Rome and the Seleucids in the Aftermath of Pydna’.
Chiron 6: 73–95.
1984. The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. 2 vols. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Guérin, M. V. 1880. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de
la Palestine – Galilée II. Vol. II. Paris: Ernest Leroux.
Haag, Michael. 1995. Syria and Lebanon. London: Cadogan Guides.
Habicht, C. 1989. ‘The Seleucid Monarchy 187–162 B.C.’ In Rome and the
Mediterranean to 133 B.C. Edited by F. W. Wallbank, A. E. Astin,
M. W. Frederiksen and R. M. Ogilvie. CAH 7. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 324–87.
Hachlili, Rachel. 2000. ‘Torah Shrine and Ark in Ancient Synagogues: A Re-
evaluation’. ZDPV 116/2: 146–83.
Hachmann, Rolf. 1970. Kamid el-Loz. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur
Altertumskunde 4. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
1989. ‘Kamid el-Loz 1963–1981 German Excavations in Lebanon’.
Berytus 37: 7–187.
Hackett, John, ed. 1990. Warfare in the Ancient World. New York: Facts on file.
Hajjar, Youssef. 1990. ‘Dieux et cultes non Héliopolitains de la Béqa‛, de
l’Hermon et de l’Abilène à l’époque romaine’. ANRW II. 18.4: 2509–604.
Handbook on Northern Palestine and Southern Syria. 1918. Cairo:
Government Press.
Hanson, R. 1980. Tyrian Influence in the Upper Galilee. Cambridge, Mass.:
ASOR.
Harding, L. 1971–1972. ‘Safaitic Inscriptions from Lebanon’. ADAJ 16–17:
83–5.
1975. ‘Further Safaitic Inscriptions from Lebanon’. ADAJ 20: 99–102.
Hartal, Moshe. 1987. ‘Khirbet Zemel 1985, 1986’. IEJ 37.4: 270–2.
1989. Northern Golan Heights: The Archaeological Survey as a Source of
Regional History. English summary of MA thesis. Qazrin: Israel
Department of Antiquities and Museums.
2002. ‘Excavations at Khirbet Zemel, Northern Golan: An Ituraean
Settlement Site’. In Gal 2002: 74–117.
Head, Barclay. 1887. Historia Numorum: A Manual of Greek Numismatics.
Oxford: Clarendon Press [new and enlarged edn, 1911].
Healey, John F. 1989. ‘Were the Nabataeans Arabs?’ ARAM 1.1: 38–44.
Bibliography 197
Heinz, Marlies. 2001. ‘Kamid el-Loz in the Beqa‘a plain of Lebanon:

Continuity and Change in the Settlement of a Region’. BAAL 5: 5–91.
Heinz, Marlies, et al. 2007–2008. ‘Kamid el-Loz, A Reloading Point in the
Long-Distance Trade during the Hellenistic Period?’ AHL 26/7
(Autumn 2007–Spring 2008): 168–81.
Herbert, Sharon. C., ed. 1994a. Tel Anafa I, i. Final Report on Ten Years of
Excavation at a Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel. JRASS
10. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan.
1994b. Tel Anafa I, ii: Final Report on Ten Years of Excavation at a
Hellenistic and Roman Settlement in Northern Israel. JRASS 10. Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan.
1997. Tel Anafa II, I: The Hellenistic and Roman Pottery. (The Plain Wares
by Andrea Berlin. The Fine Wares by Kathleen Warner Slane.) Ann
Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of the University of Michigan.
Herbert, Sharon C., and Andrea M. Berlin. 2003. ‘A New Administrative
Center for Persian and Hellenistic Galilee: Preliminary Report of the
University of Michigan/University of Minnesota Excavations at
Kedesh’. BASOR 329: 13–59.
Herman, Daniel. 2000–2002. ‘Certain Iturean Coins and the Origin of the
Heliopolitan Cult’. INJ 14: 84–98.
Hill, G. F. 1910. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Phoenicia. London: British
Museum.
Hitti, Philip K. 1957a. History of Syria including Lebanon and Palestine. 2nd
edn. London: Macmillan & Co.
1957b. Lebanon in History. London: Macmillan & Co.
1968. History of the Arabs. 9th edn. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hobsbawm, E. J. 1985. Bandits. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1985.
Hoffman, Adolf. 1998. ‘Terrace and Temple: Remarks on the Architectural
History of the Temple of Jupiter Baalbek’. In Baalbek: Image and
Monument 1898–1998. Edited by Hélène Sader, Thomas Scheffler and
Angelika Neuwirth. Stuttgart: Steiner.
Holder, Paul. 1980. The Auxilia from Augustus to Trajan. BAR/IS 70.
Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Holland, Tom. 2003. Rubicon: The Triumph and Tragedy of the Roman
Republic. London: Abacus.
Hooff, Anton J. L. van. 1998. ‘Ancient Robbers: Reflections behind the
Facts’. Antiquity 19: 105–24.
Hopkins, Clark. 1942–1949. ‘The Parthian Temple’. Berytus 7–9: 1–18.
Hornblower, Simon, and Antony Spawforth, eds. 1996. Oxford Classical
Dictionary. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1998. The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Horsley, Richard A. 1979. ‘Josephus and the Bandits’. JSJ 10: 37–63.
1995. Galilee History, Politics, People. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press
International.
1996. Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee. Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity Press.
Horsley, Richard, and John S. Hanson. 1985. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs:
Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus. Minneapolis: Winston Press.
Hoyland, Robert G. 2001. Arabia and the Arabs. London: Routledge.
198 Bibliography
Hunt, Arthur S. 1910. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri VII. London: Egypt

Exploration Fund.
Hunt, P. N. 1991. ‘Mount Saphon in Myth and Fact’. In Phoenicia and the
Bible. Edited by E. Lipiński. Louvain: Peters Press, pp. 103–15.
Hurowitz, Victor. 1997. ‘Picturing Imageless Deities: Iconography in the
Ancient Near East’. BAR 23/3: 46–69.
Isaac, B. 1984. ‘Bandits in Judaea and Arabia’. HSCP 88: 171–203.
1990a. The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East. Oxford:
Clarendon.
1990b. ‘Roman Administration and Urbanization’. In Greece and Rome in
Eretz Israel. Edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport and G. Fuks. Yad
Izhak Ben-Zvi: The Israel Exploration Society.
1992. ‘Roman Colonies’. ABD 5: 798–801.
1996. ‘Eusebius and the Geography of Roman Provinces’. JRA 18: 153–67.
1998. The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers. Leiden: Brill.
1999. ‘Inscriptions and Religious Identity on the Golan’. In The Roman and
Byzantine Near East. Vol. II. Edited by J. H. Humphrey. JRASS 31.
Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 179–88.
Isaac, B., and I. Roll. 1982. Roman Roads in Judaea. I. The Legio-Scythopolis
Road. BAR/IS 141. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Jacobson, David M. 1994–1995. Review of S. Dar, Settlement and Cult Sites
on Mount Hermon. BAIAS 14: 66–9.
2000. ‘Decorative Drafted-margin Masonry in Jerusalem and Hebron and
its Relations’. Levant 32: 129–54.
2001. ‘Three Roman Client Kings: Herod of Judaea, Archelaus of
Cappadocia and Juba of Mauretania’. PEQ 133: 22–38.
Jidejian, Nina.1969. Tyre through the Ages. Beirut: Dar el-Mashreq.
1973. Beirut through the Ages. Beirut: Dar el-Mashreq.
1975. Baalbek Heliopolis ‘City of the Sun’. Beirut: Dar el-Mashreq.
Jones, A. H. M. 1931–1932. ‘The Urbanization of the Ituraean Principality’.
JRS 21–22: 265–75.
1937. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Oxford: Clarendon.
1971. The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces. Revised 2nd edn. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Kaizer, Ted. 2003. ‘The Near East in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods
between Local, Regional and Supra-Regional Approaches’. SCI 22:
283–95.
Kaizer, Ted, ed. 2008. The Variety of Local Religious Life in the Near East in
the Hellenistic and Roman Periods. Religions in the Greco-Roman
World 164. Leiden: Brill.
Kalayan, H. 1969. ‘The Engraved Drawing on the Trilithon and the Related
Problems about Constructional History of Baalbek Temples’. BMB
22: 151–5.
Kapitan, Thomas, ed. 1999. Archaeology, History and Culture in Palestine
and the Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert E. Glock. Atlanta, Ga.:
Scholars Press.
Kasher, Aryeh. 1988. Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs. Tübingen: Mohr
(Siebeck).
Bibliography 199
Kasher, A., U. Rappaport and G. Fuks, eds. 1990. Greece and Rome in Eretz
Israel. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi: The Israel Exploration Society.
Kawami, Trudy S. 1972. ‘A Possible Source for the Sculptures of the
Audience Hall, Pasargadae’. Iran 10: 146–8.
Kempinski, A., and M. Avi-Yonah. 1980. Syrie – Palestine II. Paris: Les
Éditions Nagel.
Kempinski, A., and R. Reich, eds. 1992. The Architecture of Ancient Israel.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Kennedy, David. 1992. ‘Roman Army’. ABD 5: 789–98.
1997. ‘Baalbek’. In Myers 1997, IV: 438.
1999. ‘Greek, Roman and Native Cultures in the Roman Near East’. In
The Roman and Byzantine Near East. Vol. II. Edited by J. H. Humphrey.
JRASS 31. Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman Archaeology,
pp. 76–106.
Kennedy, David, and Derrick Riley. 1990. Rome’s Desert Frontier from the
Air. London: B. T. Batsford.
Keppie, L. 1984. The Making of the Roman Army. London: B. T. Batsford.
1991. The Making of the Roman Army from Republic to Empire. London:
B. T. Batsford.
Killebrew, Ann E. 2005. Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological
Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300–1100
B.C.E. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9. Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature.
Kindler, Arie. 1971. ‘A Coin of Herod Philip – The Earliest Portrait of a
Herodian Ruler’. IEJ 21: 161–3.
1982–1983. ‘The Status of Cities in the Syro-Palestinian Area as Reflected
by their Coins’. INJ 6–7: 79–87.
1993. ‘On the Coins of the Ituraeans’. In Proceedings of the XIth
International Numismatic Congress. Organized for the 150th Anniversary
of the Société Royale de Numismatique de Belgique Brussels, September
8th–13th, 1991. Edited by Marcel Hoc. Louvain-la-Neuve: n.p.
Kirkbride, Diana. 1969. ‘Ancient Arabian Ancestor Idols’. Archaeology 22:
116–21; 188–95.
Klengel, Horst. 1972. The Art of Ancient Syria. New York: A. S. Barnes & Co.
Klumbach, Hans Von, and Ursula Moortgat-Correns. 1968. ‘Orientalisches
Rollsiegel von Mainzer Legionslager’. Germania 46: 36–40.
Knappert, Jan. 1993. Middle Eastern Mythology and Religion. Shaftsbury:
Element.
Knauf, Ernst Axel. 1990a. ‘Dushara and Shai ‘Al-Qaum’. ARAM 2. 1, 2:
175–83.
1990b. ‘The Persian Administration in Arabia’. Trans 2: 201–17.
1992a. ‘Ituraeans’. ABD 3: 583–4.
1992b. ‘Jetur’. ABD 3: 821–2.
1998. ‘The Ituraeans: Another Bedouin State’. In Baalbek: Image and
Monument 1898–1998. Edited by Hélène Sader, Thomas Scheffler and
Angelika Neuwirth. Beiruter Texte und Studien 69. Beirut: Franz
Steiner, pp. 269–77.
Kochavi, Moshe, ed. 1972. Judaea Samaria and the Golan Archaeological
Survey 1967–1968. Jerusalem: The Archaeological Survey of Israel.
200 Bibliography
Kokkinos, Nikos. 1998. The Herodian Dynasty. JSPSS 30. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Krencker, Daniel, and Willy Zschietzschmann. 1938. Römische Tempel in
Syrien. 2 vols. Denkmäler Antiker Architektur 5. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Kuhrt, Amélie. 1990. ‘Alexander and Babylon’. In The Roots of the European
Tradition. Achaemenid History V. Proceedings of the 1987 Groningen
Achaemenid History Workshop. Edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and
J. W. Drijvers. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut Voor het Nabije Oosten,
pp. 121–30.
Kuhrt, Amélie, and Susan Sherwin-White. 1991. ‘Aspects of Seleucid Royal
Ideology: The Cylinder Seal of Antiochus I from Borsippa’. JHS 3: 71–86.
1994. ‘The Transition from Achaemenid to Seleucid Rule in Babylonia:
Revolution or Evolution?’ In Continuity and Change. Achaemenid
History VIII. Proceedings of the Last Achaemenid History Workshop
April 6–8, 1990 – Ann Arbor, Michigan. Edited by Heleen Sancisi-
Weerdenburg, Amélie Kuhrt and Margaret Cool Root. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut Voor het Nabije Oosten, pp. 311–27.
Kuhrt, Amélie, and Susan Sherwin-White, eds. 1987. Hellenism in the East.
London: Duckworth.
Lambert, W. E. 1980–1983. ‘Kululla’. RA 6: 324.
Lane-Fox, Robin. 2006. The Classical World: An Epic History of Greece and
Rome. London: Penguin.
Langdon, S. H. 1964. The Mythology of All Races: Semitic. Vol. V. New
York: Cooper Square.
La Rocca-Pitts, Elizabeth C. 2001. ‘Of Wood and Stone’: The Significance of
Israelites’ Cultic Items in the Bible and its Early Interpreters. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Le Bas, Philippe, and William Henry Waddington. 1972. Inscriptions grecques
et latines recueilles en Asie Mineure. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.
Le Bohec, Yann. 1994. The Imperial Roman Army. London: B. T. Batsford.
Legrain, Leon. 1925. The Culture of the Babylonians from their Seals in the
Collections of the Museum. Publications of the Babylonian Section 14.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Leick, Gwendolyn. 1988. A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Architecture.
London: Routledge.
Lemche, Niels Peter. 1995. ‘The History of Ancient Syria’. In Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East. Vol. II. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 1195–218.
Lent, J. van. 1997. ‘Glossary and Index of Technical Terms to Vol. I–III’. In
Encyclopedia of Islam. Edited by P. J. Bearman. Leiden: Brill.
Le Strange, Guy. 1888. ‘Palestine According to the Arab Geographers and
Travellers’. PEFQSt January: 23–30.
1890. Palestine under the Moslems: Translated from the Works of the
Medieval Arab Geographers. London: Alexander P. Watt.
Levine, Lee, ed. 1981–1983. The Jerusalem Cathedra. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Yad
Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute.
Lewis, Peter. 1980. Syria: Land of Contrasts. Leeds: E. J. Arnold & Son.
Lifshitz, B. 1977. ‘Études sur l’histoire de la province romaine de Syrie’.
ANRW II/8: 3–30.
Bibliography 201
Lindsay, Lord. 1858. Letters on Egypt, Edom, and the Holy Land. London:
Henry G. Bohn.
Lipiński, Edward. 1971. ‘El’s Abode: Mythological Traditions Related to
Mount Hermon and the Mountains of Armenia’. OLP 2: 13–69.
2000. The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. OLA 100.
Leuven: Peeters Departement Oosterse Studies.
Littmann, Enno. 1914. Semitic Inscriptions. Syria: Publications of the
Princeton University Archaeological Expeditions to Syria in 1904–1905
and 1909. PPUAES Div. IV, Section A. Leiden: Brill.
London, Gloria. 2003. ‘Ethnicity and Material Culture’. In Near Eastern
Archaeology: A Reader. Edited by Suzanne Richard. Winona Lake,
Ind.: Eisenbrauns, pp. 146–9.
Luckenbill, Daniel David. 1926, 1927. Ancient Records of Assyria and
Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1961. Ancient Records of Assyria Vol. I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lynch, William Francis. 1849. Narrative of the United States’ Expedition to
the River Jordan and the Dead Sea. Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard.
Lyttelton, Margaret. 1974. Baroque Architecture in Classical Antiquity.
London: Thames & Hudson.
Maalouf, Amin. 2000. On Identity. London: The Harvill Press.
Macadam, Henry Innes. 1983. ‘Epigraphy and Village Life in Southern Syria
during the Roman and Early Byzantine Periods’. Berytus 31: 103–15.
1986. Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Arabia Northern
Sector. BAR/IS 295. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
1989. ‘Strabo, Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy of Alexandria: Three Views of
Ancient Arabia and its Peoples’. In L’Arabie préislamique et son environ-
ment historique et culturel. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg 24–27 juin
1987. Edited by T. Fahd. Leiden: E. J. Brill, pp. 289–320.
1999. ‘Strabo, Pliny, Ptolemy and the Tabula Peutingeriana: Cultural
Geography and Early Maps of Phoenicia’. In Archaeology, History and
Culture in Palestine and the Near East: Essays in Memory of Albert Glock.
Edited by Tomis Kapitan. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, pp. 267–99.
Macdonald, M. C. A. 1990. ‘Camel Hunting or Camel Raiding?’ AAE 1: 24–8.
1991. ‘Was the Nabataean Kingdom a “Bedouin State”?’ ZDPV 107:
102–19.
1992a. ‘The Distribution of Safaitic Inscriptions in Northern Jordan’.
SHAJ 4: 303–7.
1992b. ‘The Seasons and Transhumance in the Safaitic Inscriptions’. JRAS
3.2: 1–11.
1993. ‘Nomads and the Hawrān in the Late Hellenistic and Roman Periods:
A Reassessment of the Epigraphic Evidence’. Syria 70: 303–412.
1995a. ‘Herodian Echoes in the Syrian Desert’. In Trade, Contact and the
Movement of Peoples in the Eastern Mediterranean. Edited by Stephen
Bourke and Jean-Paul Descoucudres. MASupp 3. Sydney: Meditarch.
1995b. ‘North Arabia in the First Millennium BCE’. In Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East. Vol. II. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons.
1998. ‘Some Reflections on Epigraphy and Ethnicity in the Roman Near
East’. MA 11: 177–90.
202 Bibliography
1999. ‘Personal Names in the Nabataean Realm: A Review Article’. JSS

44.2: 251–89.
2000. ‘Arabs’. In Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. Edited by
P. Bienkowski and A. Millard. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Press, p. 25.
2001. ‘Arabians, Arabias and the Greeks Contact and Perceptions’. In
I greci storia cultura arte società. Turin: Guilio Einaudi, pp. 1–46.
2003. ‘Les Arabes en Syrie or la pénétration des Arabes en Syrie: A
question of perceptions?’ Topoi Supp. 4: 303–18.
2004. ‘Ancient North Arabian’. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the
World’s Ancient Languages. Edited by R. Woodard. Cambridge:
MacDonald, David. 2000. ‘A New Egyptian Diploma Fragment’. ZPE 133:
271–4.
MacDonald, W. L. 1986. The Architecture of the Roman Empire: An Urban
Appraisal. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mango, Marlia M. 1982. ‘The Continuity of the Classical Tradition in the Art
and Architecture of Northern Mesopotamia’. In East of Byzantium:
Syria and Armenia in the Formative Period. Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks, pp. 115–33.
Mann, J. C. 1983. Legionary Recruitment and Veteran Settlement during the
Principate. Edited by M. M. Roxan. Occasional Papers Pub. 7. London:
Institute of Archaeology, University of London.
Mannheim, Ivan. 2001. Syria and Lebanon Handbook: The Travel Guide.
Bath: Footprints Handbooks.
Ma‘oz, Zvi U. 1993. ‘Golan’. NEAEHL 2: 525–7; 534–46.
1997. Review of Shimon Dar, Settlements and Cult Sites on Mount
Hermon, Israel: Ituraean Culture in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods.
IEJ 47: 279–83.
Maraqten, Mohammed. 1996. ‘The Aramaic Pantheon of Tayma‘’. AAE 7:
17–31.
Marchese, R., ed. 1983. Aspects of Greco-Roman Urbanism. BAR/IS 188.
Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Marfoe, Leon. 1979. ‘The Integrative Transformation: Patterns of
Sociopolitical Organization in Southern Syria’. BASOR 234: 1–42.
1982. ‘Empire and Ethnicity in Syrian Society: “From Archaeology to
Historical Sociology” Revisited’. In Archéologie au Levant recueil à la
mémoire de Roger Saidah. CMO 12, Série archéologique 9. Lyon:
Maison de L’Orient, pp. 201–6.
1995. Kamid El-Loz. 13. The Prehistoric and Early Historic Context of the
Site. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 41. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
1998. Kamid El-Loz. 14. Settlement History of the Biqa‘ up to the Iron Age.
Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 53. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
1999. Between Qadesh and Kumidi: A History of Frontier Settlement and
Land Use in the Biqa‘, Lebanon. 2 vols. (Unpublished dissertation for
University of Chicago, 1978.) Ann Arbor, Mich.: UMI Diss. Services.
Markoe, Glenn. 1996. ‘The Emergence of Orientalizing in Greek Art: Some
Observations on the Interchange between Greeks and Phoenicians in the
Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.’ BASOR 301: 47–67.
Bibliography 203
Martin, Luther. 1987. Hellenistic Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mason, Steve. 1998. Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives. Edited by
Steve Mason. JSPSS 32. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
ed. 2000. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary. III. Judean
Antiquities 1–4. Translation and commentary by Louis H. Feldman.
Leiden: Brill.
2001. Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary. IX. Life of Josephus.
Translation and commentary by S. Mason. Leiden: Brill.
Matheson, Susan B. 1982. Dura-Europos. New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Art Gallery.
Mattingly, Harold. 1960. Roman Coins. 2nd edn revised. London: Methuen &
Co.
Maxfield, Valerie. 1996. ‘The Eastern Desert Forts and the Army’. In
Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt. Edited by Donald M. Bailey.
JRASS 19. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Journal of Roman Archaeology, pp. 23–8.
Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 10,000–586 BCE. New
York: Doubleday.
Mazar, B. 1986a. ‘The Aramean Empire and its Relations with Israel’. In The
Early Biblical Period: Historical Essays. Edited by Shmuel Ahituv and
Baruch A. Levine. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 151–72.
1986b. ‘The Phoenicians in the Levant’. In The Early Biblical Period:
Historical Essays. Edited by Shmuel Ahituv and Baruch A. Levine.
Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, pp. 213–30.
Meshorer, Y. 1994. ‘Coins 1968–1986’. In Tel Anafa II. Edited by
Sharon Herbert. JRASS 10. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Kelsey Museum of the
University of Michigan, pp. 241–60.
Meyers, Eric E., ed. 1997. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the
Near East. 5 vols. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mikesell, M. 1969. ‘The Deforestation of Mount Lebanon’. Geographical
Review 59: 1–28.
Milik, J. T., and J. Teixidor. 1961. ‘New Evidence on the North-Arabic Deity
Aktab-Kutba’. BASOR 163: 22–5.
Millar, Fergus. 1987a. ‘Empire, Community and Culture in the Roman Near
East: Greeks, Syrians, Jews and Arabs’. JJS 38: 143–64.
1987b. ‘The Problem of Hellenistic Syria’. In Hellenism in the East. Edited
by Amélie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White. Berkeley: University of
California Press, pp. 110–33.
1993. The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Millard, A. R. 1983. ‘Assyrians and Arameans’. Iraq 45: 101–8.
Mitchell, Stephen. 1987. ‘Imperial Building in the Eastern Roman Provinces’.
In Roman Architecture in the Greek World. Edited by S. Macready and
F. H. Thompson. London: Society of Antiquaries, pp. 18–25.
Mollett, J. W. 1994. Dictionary of Art and Archaeology. Reprint. London:
Bracken Books.
Monmarché, Marcel. 1932. Les Guides Bleus Syrie-Palestine. Paris: Librairie
Hachette.
de Moor, Johannes C. 1995. ‘Standing Stones and Ancestor Worship’. UF 27:
1–20.
204 Bibliography
Moorgat, Anton. 1960. Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien. Vol. XIV. Cologne

and Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Moscati, S. 1960. The Face of the Ancient Orient. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Mouterde, René. 1951–1952. ‘Antiquités de l’Hermon et le Beqa‘’. MUSJ 29:
21–89.
1957. ‘Reliefs et inscriptions de la Syrie et du Liban’. MUSJ 34: 203–38.
1959. ‘Sanctuaries de l’Hermon’. MUSJ 36: 78–84.
1959. ‘Cultes antiques de la Coele Syrie et de l’Hermon’. MUSJ 36: 53–87.
1964. ‘Regards sur Beyrouth phénicienne, hellénistique et romaine’. MUSJ
40: 145–90.
Murray, S. Butler. 1917. Hellenistic Architecture in Syria. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Myers, Jacob M. 1965. I Chronicles. AB. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Naveh, J. 1975. ‘An Aramaic Inscription from El-Mal – A Survival of
“Seleucid Aramaic” Script’. IEJ 25: 117–23.
Negbi, Ora. 1976. Canaanite Gods in Metal. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Negev, Avraham, and Shimon Gibson, eds. 2001. Archaeological
Encyclopedia of the Holy Land. New York: Continuum.
Neubauer, Adolphe. 1868. La géographie du Talmud. Paris: Michel Lévy
Fréres.
Newell, Edward T. 1938. The Coinage of the Eastern Seleucid Mints: From
Seleucus I to Antiochus III. Numismatic Studies I. New York: American
Numismatic Society.
Nickelsburg, Charles W. E. 2001. A Commentary on the Book of I Enoch,
Chapters 1–36; 81–100. Edited by Klaus Baltzer. Hermeneia,
Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Nyrop, R. F. 1971. Area Handbook for Syria. Washington, D.C.: American
University Foreign Area Studies.
Oden, R. A. 1976a. De Dea Syria. Attributed to Lucian. Edited by
H. Attridge. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press.
1976b. ‘The Persistence of Canaanite Religion’. BA 39: 31–6.
1977. Studies in Lucian’s De Syria Dea. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press.
Offord, Joseph. 1919. ‘A Nabataean Inscription Concerning Philip, Tetrarch
of Auranitis’. PEQ: 82–5.
Oliphant, Laurence. 1880. The Land of Gilead. London: Blackwood.
Orni, Efraim, and Elisha Efrat. 1966. Geography of Israel. 2nd revised edn.
Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translation.
Ottoson, Magnus. 1990. Temples and Cult Places in Palestine. Uppsala: Acta
Universitatis Upsaliensis.
2001. ‘In Quest of the Arameans in Northern Jordan’. SHAJ 7: 331–42.
Overman, J. Andrew. 2001. ‘Iturea and Galilee under the Flavians in Light of
Josephus and his Contemporaries’. Paper presented to the SBL Josephus
Seminar, 19 November 2001 (second session) in Denver, Colorado.
Palmer, E. H. 1871. ‘Notes of a Tour in the Lebanon’. PEFQSt 2: 107–18.
Parente, Fausto, and Joseph Seivers, eds. 1994. Josephus and the History of
the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith. Studia
Post-Biblica 41. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Parker, Barbara. 1955. ‘Excavations at Nimrud 1949–1953’. Iraq 17: 93–125.
Bibliography 205
Parpola, Simo. 1970. Neo-Assyrian Toponyms. Alter Orient und Altes

Testament 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer.
Parpola, Simo, and Julian Reade. 1987. The Correspondence of Sargon II,
Part I Letters from Assyria and the West. SAA 1. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press.
Pelling, Christopher. 1996. ‘The Triumviral Period’. In The Augustan Empire,
43 B.C.–A.D. 69. Edited by Alan K. Bowman, Edward Champlin and
Andrew Lintott. CAH 10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 1–69.
Peters, Francis E. 1970. The Harvest of Hellenism. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
1978. ‘Romans and Bedouin in Southern Syria’. JNES 37: 315–26.
1980. ‘Regional Development in the Roman Empire: The Lava Lands of
Syria’. Thought 55: 110–21.
1983a. ‘City Planning in Greco-Roman Syria: Some New Considerations’.
DaM 1: 269–77.
1983b. ‘Hellenism in the East’. BA 46: 34–9.
Pflaum, H.-G. 1967. ‘Un nouveau diplome militaire d’un soldat de l’armée
d’Égypt’. Syria 44: 339–62.
1978. ‘Afrique romaine’. Scripta Varia 1: 143.
Phillips, C. S., D. T. Potts and S. Searight, eds. 1998. Arabia and its
Neighbours: Essays in Honour of Beatrice di Cardi. Abiel II. Turnhout:
Brepols.
Poidebard, A. 1934. La trace de Rome dans le désert de Syrie. Paris: Paul
Geuthner.
1986. Art in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pollitt, J. J. 1972. Art and Experience in Classical Greece. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Porada, Edith. 1948. Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in North
American Collections. The Bollingen Series XIV. The Collection of the
Pierpoint Morgan Library. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.: Bollingen
Foundation.
1977. ‘A Cylinder Seal with a Camel in the Walters Art Gallery’. Journal of
the Walters Art Gallery 36: 1–6.
1981/82. ‘The Cylinder Seals Found at Thebes and Boeotia’. AO 28: 1–78.
Porter, J. L. 1855. Five Years in Damascus. 2 vols. London: John Murray.
Postgate, Nicholas. 1974. Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire.
Studia Pohl: Series Maior 3. Rome: Biblical Institute Press.
1989. ‘Ancient Assyria – A Multi-Racial State’. ARAM 1.1: 1–9.
2000. ‘The Assyrian Army in Zamua’. Iraq 62: 89–108.
Potts, Daniel T. 1988. ‘Trans-Arabian Routes of the Pre-Islamic Period’. In
L’Arabie et ses mers bordières. Edited by Jean-François Salles. Travaux
de la maison de l’Orient 16. Paris: Maison de l’Orient.
Pritchard, James, ed. 1950. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament. 2nd edn with supplement. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Ragette, Friedrich. 1980. Baalbek. London: Chatto & Windus.
Rajak, Tessa. 1982. ‘Josephus and the “Archaeology” of the Jews’. JJS 33:
465–77.
206 Bibliography
1984. Josephus the Historian and his Society. Philadelphia: Fortress.

1990. ‘The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism’. In A Tribute to Geza
Vermes. Edited by P. R. Davies and R. T. White. Sheffield: JSOT Press,
pp. 261–80.
1994. ‘The Jews under Hasmonean Rule’. In The Last Age of the Roman
Republic. Edited by J. A. Cook, Andrew Lintott and Elizabeth Rawson.
CAH, 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 274–309.
2000. ‘Jews, Semites and the Cultures in Fergus Millar’s “Roman Near
East”’. JSS 51.1: 63–8.
Ramsay, William Mitchell. 1924a. ‘Some Inscriptions of Colonia Caesaria
Antochea’. JRS 14: 188–9.
1924b. ‘Studies in the Roman Province of Galatia’. JRS 14: 172–205.
Raswan, C. 1930. ‘Tribal Areas and Migration Lines of the North Arabian
Bedouins’. Geographical Review 20: 494–502.
Reade, J. E. 1972. ‘The Neo-Assyrian Court and Army: Evidence from the
Sculptures’. Iraq 34: 87–112.
Reed, Jonathan L. 1999. ‘Galileans, “Israelite Village Communities”, and the
Sayings Gospel Q’. In Galilee through the Centuries: Confluence of
Cultures. Edited by Eric M. Meyers. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,
pp. 87–108.
Reifenberg, A. 1955. The Desert and the Sown. Jerusalem: The Publishing
Dept. of the Jewish Agency.
Reinhold, Meyer. 1988. From Republic to Principate: An Historical
Commentary on Cassius Dio’s Roman History Books 49–52 (36–29
B.C.). American Philological Association Monograph Series 34.
Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press.
Rengstorf, Karl Heinrich, ed. 1975/1979. A Complete Concordance to Flavius
Josephus. Vols. II and III. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Retsö, Jan. 2003. The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to
the Umayyads. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Rey-Coquais, Jean-Paul. 1964. ‘Notes de géographie syrienne antique’.
MUSJ 40: 289–312.
1976. ‘Heliopolis’. In Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Edited by
Richard Stilwell. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p. 380.
Reynolds, Joyce. 1988. ‘Cities’. In The Administration of the Roman Empire
241 BC – AD 193. Edited by David Braund. Exeter Studies in History 18.
Exeter: University of Exeter.
Reynolds, Paul. 2003. ‘Amphorae in Roman Lebanon 50 BC to AD 250’.
AHL 17: 120–30.
Richard, Suzanne, ed. 2003. Near Eastern Archaeology: A Reader. Winona
Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.
Richardson, Peter. 1996. Herod. Columbia, S.C.: University of South
Carolina Press.
Ringgren, Helmer. 1973. Religions of the Ancient Near East. Translated by
J. Sturdy. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Rittig, Dessa. 1977. Assyrisch-babylonische Kleinplastik magischer Bedeutung
vom 13.-6. Jh. v. Chr. Munich: Uni-Druck.
Robertson, D. S. 1969. Greek and Roman Architecture. Cambridge:
Bibliography 207
Robinson, David. 1946. Baalbek Palmyra. New York: J. J. Augustin.

Robinson, Edward, and Eli Smith et al. 1856. Later Biblical Researches in
Palestine. (Journal of Travels in the Year 1852.) Boston: Crocker &
Brewster.
Roll, I. 1983. ‘The Roman Road System in Judaea’. Jerusalem Cathedra 3:
36–60.
Römer, C. 1990. ‘Diplom für einen Fußsoldaten aus Koptos vom 23. März
179’. ZPE 82: 137–53.
Römische Steindenkmäler Mainz in Römischer Zeit. 1988. Katalog zur
Sammlung in der Steinhalle von Wolfgang Selzer. Mainz: Philipp von
Zabern.
Roxan, Margaret. 1973. ‘The Auxilia of Mauretania Tingitana’. Latomus 32:
838–55.
1976. ‘Pre-Severan Auxilia Named in the Notitia Dignitatum’. In Aspects
of the Notitia Dignitatum. BAR/IS 15. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
1978. Roman Military Diplomas 1954–1977. London: University College
London Institute of Archaeology.
Roxan, Margaret, and Paul Holder. 2003. Roman Military Diplomas IV.
Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supp. 82. London:
Institute of Classical Studies, University of London.
Rushbrooke, E. G. N., ed. 1943. Syria. Geographical Handbook Series Great
Britain. London: Naval Intelligence Division.
Ryckmans, G. 1951. Les religions arabes préislamiques. Louvain: Publication
Universitaires.
Saddington, D. B. 1975. ‘The Development of the Roman Auxiliary Forces
from Augustus to Trajan’. ANRW II 3: 176–201.
1982. Development of Roman Auxiliary Forces from Caesar to Vespasian.
Harare: University of Zimbabwe Press.
1988. ‘The Administration and the Army in Judaea in the Early Roman
Period (From Pompey to Vespasian, 63 BC – AD 79)’. In The Holy Land
in History and Thought. Edited by Moshe Sharon. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
1996. ‘Roman Military and Administrative Personnel in the New
Testament’. ANRW II 26.3: 2410–35.
Sader, Hélène, and Margarete Van Ess. 1998. ‘Looking for Pre-Hellenistic
Baalbek’. In Baalbek: Image and Monument 1989–1998. Edited by
Hélène Sader, Thomas Scheffler and Angelika Neuwirth. Beiruter Texte
und Studien 69. Beirut: Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, pp. 247–68.
Saggs, H. W. F. 1955. ‘The Nimrud Letters, 1952’. Iraq 17: 126–54.
Said, Salah. 2006. ‘Two New Greek Inscriptions with the name YWR from
Umm Al-Jimæl’. PEQ 138: 125–32.
Sartre, Maurice. 2001. D’Alexandre à Zénobie: Histoire du Levant antique IVe
siècle av. J.-C. – IIIe siècle ap. J.-C. Poitiers: Fayard.
2005. The Middle East under Rome. Translated by Catherine Porter and
Elizabeth Rawlings with Jeannine Routier-Pucci. Cambridge, Mass.:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
208 Bibliography
Sasson, Jack M., ed. 1995. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New
York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
de Saulcy, Félix. 1870. ‘Recherches sur les monnaies des tétrarques
héréditaires de la Chalcidène et de l’Abilène’. Wiener Numismatische
Monatshefte 5: 1–34.
1874. Numismatique de la Terre Sainte. Sala Bolognese: Arnaldo Forni
Editore [1976].
1877. Dictionnaire topographique abrégé de la Terre Sainte. Paris: F. Vieweg.
Saunders, E. W. 1976. ‘Ituraea’. IDB 2: 773.
Sauvaget, J. 1939. ‘Les ruines Omeyyades de ‘Andjar’. BMB 3: 5–11.
Savignac, M. F. 1912. ‘Texte complèt de l’inscription d’Abila relative à
Lysanias’. RB 9: 533–40.
Sawaya, Ziad. 2002. ‘Les monnaies d’Octave au dauphin et au trident,
témoignage d’une installation de vétérans romains à Bérytos dès 30 av.
J.-C.’. In Les monnayages syriens: Quel apport pour l’histoire du Proche-
Orient hellénistique et romani? Edited by Christian Augé and
Frédérique Duyrat. Beirut: CNRS, pp. 123–39.
Schottroff, Willi von. 1982. ‘Die Ituräer’. ZDPV 98: 149–52.
Schumacher, Gottlieb C. E. 1888. The Jaulan. London: Richard Bentley &
Son.
1897. ‘Notes from Jedûr’. PEFQSt: 190–5.
Schumacher, Gottlieb C. E., Laurence Oliphant and Guy Le Strange. 1886.
Across Jordan. London: Richard Bentley & Son.
Schürer, Emil. 1874. Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi.
3 vols. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung.
1973. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Revised
and edited by Geza Vermes, Fergus Millar and Matthew Black. 3 vols.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Schwartz, Daniel R. 1994. ‘Josephus on Hyrcanus II’. In Josephus and the
History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith.
Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Seivers. Studia Post-Biblica 41.
Leiden: E. J. Brill, pp. 210–32.
Schwartz, Glen. 1989. ‘The Origins of the Aramaeans in Syria and Northern
Mesopotamia: Research Problems and Potential Strategies’. In To the
Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Maurits N.
van Loon. Edited by O. M. C. Haex, H. H. Curvers and
P. M. Akkermans. Rotterdam: A. A. Balkema, pp. 275–91.
Schwartz, Seth. 1990. ‘Georgius Syncellus’s Account of Ancient Jewish
History’. In Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies
Jerusalem, August 16–24, 1989. Vol. II. Jerusalem: World Union of
Jewish Studies, pp. 1–8.
1991. ‘Israel and the Nations Roundabout: I Maccabees and the
Hasmonean Expansion’. JJS 42.1: 16–38.
1994. ‘Josephus in Galilee: Rural Patronage and Social Breakdown’. In
Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory
of Morton Smith. Edited by Fausto Parente and Joseph Seivers. Studia
Post-Biblica 41. Leiden: E.J. Brill, pp. 290–306.
Schwarz, Joseph. 1969. Descriptive Geography and Brief Historical Sketch of
Palestine. Translated by Isaac Leeser. Reprint. New York: Hermon Press.
Bibliography 209
Seager, Robin. 1979. Pompey: A Political Biography. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.
Sear, F. 1982. Roman Architecture. London: B. T. Batsford.
Segal, Arthur. 1988. Town Planning and Architecture in Provincial Arabia.
BAR/IS 419. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
1998. ‘The Temple at Musmiyeh in Relation to the Religious Architecture
in Roman Palestine’. ASSAPH 3B: 109–130.
2000. ‘Colossal Enigmas: The Ancient Stone Temples of Baalbek’.
Archaeology Odyssey Sept./Oct.: 51–61.
2001. ‘The “Kalybe Structures” – Temples for the Imperial Cult in
Hauran and Trachon: An Historical-Architectural Analysis’. ASSAPH
6: 91–118.
2008. ‘Religious Architecture in the Roman Near East: Temples of the
Basalt Lands (Trachon and Hauran)’. In Kaizer 2008: 97–132.
Seyffret, Oskar. 1957. A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Revised and
edited by Henry Nettleship. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Seyrig, Henri. 1937. ‘Helipolitana’. BMB 1: 95ff.
1939. Review of Krencker and Zschietzschmann 1938. Gnomen 15: 438–43.
1950a. ‘L’Ère de Cléopatre’. Syria 27: 46–7.
1950b. Notes on Syrian Coins. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 119.
New York: American Numismatic Society.
1953. ‘Chalcis du Liban’. Antiquités Syriennes 4: 113–16 (= ‘Chalcis du
Liban’. Syria 27 (1950): 46–9).
1954. ‘Baalbek et les tétrarques de Chalcis’. Syria 31: 89–92.
1961. ‘Nouveaux monuments de Baalbek et de la Beqaa’. BMB 16:
109–35.
1963. ‘Une idole bétylique’. Syria 40: 17–19.
1970a. ‘Les dieux armés et les Arabes en Syrie’. Syria 47: 77–100.
1970b. ‘L’inscription du tétrarque Lysanias à Baalbek’. In Archäologie und
Altes Testament. Edited by Arnulf Kuschke and Ernst Kutsch.
Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, pp. 251–4.
1971. ‘Le culte du soleil en Syrie a l’époque romaine’. Syria 48: 337–73.
1976. ‘Un bas-relief Galiléen’. MUSJ 46: 203–5.
1985. ‘Altar Dedicated to Zeus Betylos’. In Scripta Varia: Mélanges
d’archéologie et d’histoire. Paris: Paul Geuthner, pp. 469–76.
Shahid, Ifran. 1984. Rome and the Arabs: A Prolegomenon to the Study of
Byzantium and the Arabs. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.
Shatzman, Israel. 1991. The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod. Tübingen:
J. C. B. Mohr.
1995. Review of Dar 1993 in SCI 14: 184.
1997. Review of The Roman Army in the East. Edited by D. L. Kennedy, in
SCI 16: 285–91.
1999. ‘The Integration of Judaea into the Roman Empire’. SCI 18: 49–84.
Shaw, Brent D. 1984. ‘Bandits in the Roman Empire’. Past and Present 105:
3–52.
1990. ‘Bandit Highlands and Lowland Peace: The Mountains of Isauria-
Cilicia’. JESHO 33: 199–233; 237–70.
1993. ‘Tyrants, Bandits and Kings: Personal Power in Josephus’. JJS 44.2:
176–204.
210 Bibliography
2000. Review of Thomas Grünewald, Räuber, Rebellen, Rivalen, Rächer:

Studien zu Latrones im römischen Reich. Bryn Mawr Classical Review 12
February: pp. 1–6.
Sherk, Robert-K., ed. and trans. 1988. The Roman Empire: Augustus to
Hadrian. Translated Documents of Greece and Rome 6. Cambridge:
Sherwin-White, A. N. 1984. Roman Foreign Policy in the East. London:
Duckworth.
1994. ‘Lucullus, Pompey and the East’. In The Last Age of the Roman
Republic. Edited by J. A. Cook, Andrew Lintott and Elizabeth Rawson.
CAH 9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 248–60.
Sherwin-White, S., and A. Kuhrt. 1993. From Samarkand to Sardis: A New
Approach to the Seleucid Empire. London: Duckworth.
Smallwood, E. M. 1976. The Jews under Roman Rule. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Smith, Eli. 1843. ‘Ancient Temple on Mount Lebanon’. Bibliotheca Sacra 1:
557–63.
Smith, George Adam. 1894. ‘Trachonitis and the Ituraeans’. The Expositor 9:
231–8.
1902. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. London: Hodder &
Stoughton.
1974. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land, new edn. Jerusalem: Ariel.
Smith, R. H. 1990. ‘The Southern Levant in the Hellenistic Period’. Levant
22: 123–30.
Smith, Robert W. 1992. ‘Coele Syria’. ABD: 1075–6.
Smith, W. Robertson. 1894. Lectures on the Religion of the Semites. London:
Adam & Charles Black.
Snell, Daniel. 1985. ‘The Aramaeans’. In Ebla to Damascus: Art and
Archaeology of Ancient Syria. Edited by Harvey Weiss. Washington,
D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Travelling Exhibition Service, pp. 326–9.
Sommer, Michael. 2001. ‘The Beqa‘a Valley in Antiquity: A Regional-
Historic Survey’. BAAL 5: 71–91.
Speidel, Michael P. 1971. ‘Arabia’s first Garrison’. ADAJ 16: 111–12.
1975. ‘The Rise of Ethnic Units in the Roman Imperial Army’. ANRW II 3:
202–31.
1977. ‘The Roman Army in Arabia’. ANRW II 8: 687–730.
1986. Roman Army Studies. Vol. I. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben.
1988. ‘Nubia’s Roman Garrison’. ANRW II 10.1: 767–98.
1992. Roman Army Studies. Vol. II. Mavors Roman Army Researches 8.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.
Steele, James. 1992. Hellenistic Architecture in Asia Minor. London:
Academy Editions.
Stern, Ephraim, ed. 1993. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in
the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
Stern, Menachem, ed. 1974–1984. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and
Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Stiehler-Alegria, Gisela. 2006. ‘Vom “Seebischof” zum Fisch-apkallu: Eine
Zeitreise aquatischer Mischwesen’. Alter Orient 7: 4–7, 20–1.
Stillwell, Richard, ed. 1976. Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bibliography 211
Stockton, E. D. 1971. ‘Petra Revisited: A Review of a Semitic Cult Complex’.

AJBA 1: 51–73.
1974–1975. ‘Phoenician Cult Stones’. AJBA 4: 1–27.
Sullivan, Richard D. 1990. Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100–30 BC.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Suter, David. 1979. ‘Fallen Angel, Fallen Priest: The Problem of Family
Purity in I Enoch 6–16’. HUCA 50: 115–35.
Symons, S. J. J. 1937. Handbook for the Study of Egyptian Topographical
Lists Relating to Western Asia. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Tadmor, Hayim. 1994. The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III King of Assyria:
Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary.
Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Tallon, Maurice. 1958. ‘Monuments mégalithiques de Syrie et du Liban’.
MUSJ 35: 213–14.
Taylor, George. 1967. The Roman Temples of Lebanon. Chicago: Argonaut.
Teissier, Beatrice. 1984. Ancient Near Eastern Cylinder Seals from the
Marcopoli Collection. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Teixidor, J. 1977. The Pagan God. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tomber, Roberta S. 1996. ‘Provisioning the Desert: Pottery Supply to Mons
Claudianus’. In Archaeological Research in Roman Egypt. Edited by
Donald M. Bailey. JRASS 19. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Journal of Roman
Archaeology, pp. 39–49.
Toon, Karel van der, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. 1999.
Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Leiden: Brill.
Tracey, Robyn. 1998. ‘V(otum) S(olvit) L(ibens) A(nimo) B(ene) M(erenti)
An Aspect of Romanisation in Syria’. In Ancient History in a Modern
University. Edited by T. W. Hillard. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.
Trimingham, J. Spencer. 1979. Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic
Times. London: Longman.
Tsafrir, Yoram, Leah di Segni and Judith Green, eds. 1994. TABULA
IMPERII ROMANI IUDAEA PALAESTINA. Maps and Gazetteer.
Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Turcan, Robert. 1996. The Cults of the Roman Empire. Translated by
Antonia Nevill. Oxford: Blackwell.
Urman, Dan. 1976. ‘Golan’. EAEHL, II: 453–67.
1982. ‘The Usage of the Toponym Golan in Josephus’ Writings’. English
summary in Flavius Josephus Historian of Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic-
Roman Period. Edited by Uriel Rappapost. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak ben
Zvi, pp. i–iii.
1985. The Golan. BAR/IS 269. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.
Wacholder, Ben Zion. 1974. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature.
HUC Monograph 3. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College.
Wagstaff, J. M. P. 1985. The Evolution of Middle Eastern Landscapes.
London: Croom Helm.
Walbank, F. W. 1993. The Hellenistic World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Ward-Perkins, J. B. 1985. Roman Imperial Architecture. London: Penguin.
1994. ‘The Roman West and the Parthian East’. In Studies in Roman and
Early Christian Architecture. London: Pindar Press, pp. 287–311.
212 Bibliography
Warren, Charles. 1869–1870. ‘Summit of Hermon’. PEFQSt: 183–210;

210–15, 239, 215–42, 328.
1890. ‘Our Summer in Lebanon’. PEFQSt 5: 215–43.
1890. ‘The Temples of Coele-Syria’. PEFQSt 5: 183–215.
Warren, Peter. 1990. ‘Of Baetyls’. Opscula Atheniensia 18.14: 193–206.
Watson, G. R. 1974. ‘Documentation in the Roman Army’. ANRW 2.1:
493–507.
1985. The Roman Soldier. London: Thames & Hudson.
Webster, Graham. 1985. The Roman Imperial Army. London: A&C Black.
Wheeler, Mostimer. 1957. ‘A Symbol in Ancient Times’. In The Scallop:
Studies of a Shell and its Influences on Humankind. Edited by Ian Cox.
London: Shell Transport and Trading Co., pp. 33–48.
Wilkinson, Richard H. 1991–1993. ‘The Representation of the Bow in the Art
of Egypt and the Ancient Near East’. JANESCU 20–22: 83–99.
Wilson, John Francis. 2004. Caesarea Philippi Banias: The Lost City of Pan.
London: I. B. Tauris.
Winnett, Fred V. 1957. Safaitic Inscriptions from Jordan. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
1970a. Ancient Records from North Arabia. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
1970b. ‘The Arabian Genealogies in the Book of Genesis’. In Translating
and Understanding the Old Testament: Essays in Honor of Herbert
Gordon May. Edited by Harry Thomas Frank and William L. Reed.
Nashville: Abingdon, pp. 171–96.
Winnett, Fred V., and G. Lankester Harding. 1978. Inscriptions from Fifty
Safaitic Cairns. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wiseman, D. J., ed. 1975. Peoples of Old Testament Times. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Wright, G. E., and D. N. Freedman, eds. 1961. The Biblical Archaeologist
Reader. Vol. 1. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Wroth, W. 1899. Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Galatia, Cappadocia, and
Syria. London: British Museum.
1964. Catalogue of the Greek Coins in the British Museum: Syria. Bologna:
Arnaldo Forni – Editore.
Zadok, Ran. 1981. ‘Arabians in Mesopotamia during the Late Assyrian,
Chaldean, Achaemenian and Hellenistic Periods Chiefly According to
the Cuneiform Sources’. ZDMG 131.1: 42–84.
1990. ‘On Early Arabians in the Fertile Crescent’. TA 17: 223–31.
Zahle, Jan. 1990. ‘Religious Motifs on Seleucid Coins’. In Religion and
Religious Practice in the Seleucid Kingdom. Edited by Per Bilde et al.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Zutterman, Christophe. 2003. ‘The Bow in the Ancient Near East, A Re-
evaluation of Archery from the late 2nd Millennium to the End of the
Achaemenid Empire’. Iranica Antiqua 38: 119–65.
INDEX
Abu-l Fidâ 85–6 Auranitis 35, 42

Achaemenid Empire 10, 21, 148 auxiliaries 3, 6–7, 116, 119–23, 171, 178
African wars 38
Agrippa II 44–5, 107, 160 B-shaped bow 178–9
re coin 106 Baalbek 84–5, 95–7
Alexander the Great 22–3, 148–9, 175 excavations 111–12
Alexander Jannaeus 30, 155–7 on the temple 97ff.
Alexandra 30–1, 156–8 Ball, Warwick 10, 100
Aliquot, Julien 57, 66–7, 92–3 banditry, re inscription 36–8
Ancient North Arabian 8, 137 bandits/robbers 33ff.
‘Anjar 83 Bashan/Batanaea 35, 42ff., 63, 166
Antigonus (brother of Aristobulus I) Berlin, Andrea 29, 89
26–8, 154 Berytus/Beirut 36–7, 99, 129, 160
Antioch 32, 102, 156–8, 162–3 re inscription 98, 165
Antiochus XII Dionysus 30, 155 Bir an-Sobah 107, 140
Antony (Mark) 38, 41, 107, 109, 162–5, 171 Biran, Avraham 51, 60
Appian 156 Biqa‘ valley 2, 14–15, 36, 81, 82ff., 90,
Apuleius 22 101, 120, 138–9, 150–1, 159–61,
Arab/Arabs/Arabians 3, 5, 7–8, 10–12, 170
14–15, 18ff., 135–8, 144, 148–50, 175 coins from Souk 111
according to Strabo 15ff. excavations 88ff.
geographical regions 16 name and physical geography 83ff.
in inscription 19, 137 Bowersock, Glen 156
mentioned by Arrian, Plutarch, brigandage 6, 21, 35, 160
Curtius Rufus 22–4 brigands/robbers 16–17, 20ff., 32–3,
as robbers and plunderers 20–1 55–7, 114, 144–5
Arabia 18 Burnett, Andrew 111
Aramaean/s 14, 41, 135–8, 139ff., 144, Butcher, Kevin 11, 41, 90, 93, 96, 99,
148–9, 175 102, 113
Aramaic 8, 136
inscriptions 110, 130–2, 136 Caesarea Philippi 45
archer/s 38, 116, 120, 178 Chalcis 14–15, 30, 44, 89, 99–100, 102,
Aretas III 30, 155–6 110, 113, 159
Aristobulus I (Hasmonean king) 24–30, on coins 105
154 Chalcis ad Libanum 82ff., 89, 104,
Aristobulus II (son of Alexandra) 31–2, 111, 162, 164
157, 162 Chehab, Hafez 85, 87
Arrian 22–4 chief priest 2–3, 32
Assyria/Assyrians 137–40, 148–9 1 Chronicles 134–6
Augustus (Caesar) 35, 44, 99, 110, 112, Cicero 38ff., 171
120, 124, 178 circumcision 26–7, 153
213
214 Index
Cleopatra 32, 35, 107, 109, 111, 163–5 Greek and Latin writers 12–13, 24
re coins 111 Gutman, Shemariah 48–9, 51
Clermont-Ganneau, Charles 65–6
client kingdom/s 164 Hachmann, Rolf 84, 87
Coele Syria 16, 84, 106, 164 Har Sena‘im 60–2, 64, 80,
coins of the Ituraeans 102ff., 172 172, 176–7
of Cleopatra 111 as cult sanctuary 77
of Lysanias 109–10 on surveys and excavations 70ff.
of Ptolemy 96, 107, 140 re coins 106–7
of Zenodorus 110–11 re inscriptions 127–9
re imperial portrait 112–13 Hartal, Moshe 7, 48, 50ff., 106
re Seleucid 50, 62, 102ff. Hasmoneans 24–32, 150ff., 163, 171
Heinz, Marlies 88–9
Damascus 30–1, 110, 155–7 Heliopolis/Baalbek 14–15, 96–7, 99ff;
Dar, Shimon 7, 22–4, 49–51, 57, 60–2, 109, 159, 161, 172–3
127, 135, 176 inscription 98, 165–6
on Hermon surveys and excavations on temple 97ff., 165
70ff. Herman, Daniel 108–9, 114
on pottery as a ‘separate group’ 81 Hermon, Mt. 26, 45, 62–5, 81, 101,
on temples 95 113, 173
re coin of Hyrcanus 106–7 on physical geography 68ff.
Dauphin, Claudine 48–9 on surveys and excavations 70ff.
decorations (military) 27–8 re Golan Ware 60–4
Dio Cassius 23–4, 25, 32, re inscription 65–6
diplomata/diplomas 119–23, 133, 179 Herod 34–5, 44, 162, 165–7
Dussaud, René 87 high priest 2–3
on topography of Syria-Palestine 6 hinterland 9, 23
Hoof, Anton van 33–4
Eph‘al, Israel 8–9, 24 Horsley, Richard 26
Epstein, Claire 48 Hoyland, Robert 19, 112,
ethnic identity 29, 81 141, 144
ethnicity 7–8, 17, 19, 52–3 Huleh Valley 51–2, 55, 58, 62,
ethnos 24–5, 30, 52–3, 55, 132, 154 64, 88
Eupolemus 13–15, 40, 170 Hyrcanus (son of Alexandra) 30–1
Eusebius 65
identity 17, 81, 133
Farj 49 Idumaeans 26
fish-man 176–7 inscription, re Arab/s 137
Freyne, Sean 23, 27 inscription, Aramaic 130–2
inscription, Latin 37
Galilean Coarse Ware (GCW) 55ff. inscriptions (Greek and Latin) 3, 37,
Galilee 26–9, 89, 153–4 115ff., 172
Gamberoni, J. 78–9 by individuals 123–6
garrison/s 124 from Biqa‘ 129–30
Gaulanitis 42 from Har Sena‘im 127–9
genealogies 134–6, 36 from ostracon 126–7
Gibson, Shimon 49 funerary 115–19
Golan 29, 42ff., 81, 101, 173 military 119–23
Golan Heights 43, 45ff. miscellaneous/ambiguous
Golan Ware 29, 47–9, 60, 167 127–30
on archaeological history 48ff. on pithoi 58–9
on renaming 63–4, 167, 173 re Arab 19
surveys and excavations 50ff. re Heliopolis/Baalbek 165–6
Grainger, John D. 147 Isaac, Benjamin 100
Index 215
Ituraea 2, 6, 12, 29–30, 54, 136, 166 Lipiński, Edward 40

Ituraean/Ituraeans 1ff., 12–13, 16, 52–3, on Arabs 137–9
100, 146–8, 150, 162–3, 170 on name Massyas 15
as an Arab tribe 26, 170 on Soba 14–15
as an ethnos 24 lower cult enclosure 80ff., 176
as bandits/robbers 33ff. Lucan 40, 171
as Hellenized Arabs 7, 15 Luke 3.1 6
as robber/brigands 20–1 Lysanias 32, 35, 54–5, 103, 109–11,
on identity 133ff. 162, 164–7
re auxiliary archers 38, 40, 115–19,
178, 180ff. Maalouf, Amin 133
re coins 102ff. Macdonald, Michael C. A. 8, 16, 18–19,
re Galilean coarse ware 55–7 23–4, 121, 134
re inscriptions 115ff. on Safaitic inscriptions 140ff.
re Ituraean territory 28, 89, 165–8 Mainz 7, 115–18, 121
re Secundus inscription 37 re seal 178
Ituraean Ware 29, 167 Majdal ‘Anjar 83, 87, 89–90, 100, 173
on temple 90ff., 100
Jacobson, David 77, 107 re inscription 129
Jetur/Yetur 24, 134–6 Ma‘oz, Zvi 48, 62, 81
John Hyrcanus I 26, 30, 152–4 Marfoe, Leon 37, 85–8, 161
re coin 106 Mark Antony (see Antony)
Jones, A. H. M. 6 Mason, Steve 20, 34
Josephus 12–13, 20, 24ff., 89, 136, 151, Massyas Plain 14–17, 30, 82, 84, 99, 151,
158, 171 159–60, 173
re bandits/robbers 33ff. as Marsyas 83
on use of λῃστεία 34–5 military diplomas 119–23
Jotapata/Yodefat 44, 55 Millar, Fergus 9–10, 23, 129, 136
Judas Aristobulus I 25–8 re Latin inscription 37
Judea 16, 150 Mizpe Yamin 55
Monimus inscription 115–16,
Kadman Numismatic Collection 119–20, 179
(Museum) 103ff., 108, 110 Mons Claudianus 126–7
κακου̑ργοι 20
Kamid el-Loz (Kumidi) 14–15, 87, Nabataeans 6, 13–14, 153, 155
161, 174 Nickelsberg, Charles 66
recent excavations 88ff.
Kasher, Aryeh 24, 27, 30, 151–2 Octavian 32, 110, 165–6, 172
Kennedy, David 99 Oliphant, Laurence 48
Kh. Nimra 49–51 Overman, Andrew 28
Kh. Zamal/Zemel 48–50, 54, 59–62
re coins 106 Parthia/Parthians 32, 149, 162–3
the pithoi 58ff. Persia/Persians 23, 177–8
surveys and excavations 57ff. pithoi 47–8, 50
Killebrew, Ann 53 from Kh. Zemel 58ff.
Kindler, Arie 103–4, 106, 156 Plutarch 22, 24
Knauf, Axel 28, 123, 142–4 Pompey 11, 31–2, 37, 99, 104–5, 116,
Kuhrt, Amélie 9, 148–9 158–60, 162
Kulullû 176–7 Polybius 82–6
Kurkh Monolith inscription 137 Posidonius 16, 21
Potts, Daniel 137
Lebanon Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus 30–2, 96, 103,
recent excavations 88ff. 155–7, 162
λῃστεία 20, 34–5 re coin 107–8, 140, 171, 174, 187
216 Index
Q. Aemilius Secundus inscription 36–7, 160 Tel Anafa 51, 55, 58, 60–2, 64,
Qal‘at Bustra 66, 70 88, 109
re coin 107 Tel Dan 51, 55, 62
Qasr ‘Antar 65 Tel Hazor 55, 78
Quintus Curtius Rufus 22–4, 58–9 Tel Kedesh 56
temples 57
Rajak, Tessa 153–4 at Baalbek/Heliopolis
Retsö, Jan 8 97–101
Rey-Coquais, Jean-Paul 85 at Majdal ‘Anjar 90ff., 101
robber/brigand 6–7, 20ff., 55–7, 144 on the Hermon, Lebanon, Anti-
Lebanon 67
Safaitic 8, 134 tetrarch/s 2, 35, 55, 104–9,
inscriptions 140ff. 165–6, 174
Sargon II, King 15 Theophrastos 85
Sartre, Maurice 10–11 Tigranes 30, 104, 156–8
de Saulcy, Félix 102, 107 Timagenes 24–9, 154
Scenitae 16–17, 20–1 Trachonitis 35, 42, 44,
Schottroff, Willi 178–9 166–7, 174
on Ituraean auxiliary units 6–7 Tyre 22–3, 42, 50, 102, 165, 175
Schumacher, Gottlieb 48
Schürer, Emile 5, 13, 28, 166 upper cult enclosure 71ff.
Schwartz, Seth 26 structure ‘7’ 73
Seleucid Empire 1, 9–10, 30, 150 Urman, Dan 44, 48–50
Seyrig, Henri 67, 106–7, 111
Shahid, Irfan 8 Valerian 38
Shaw, Brent 34–6 Virgil 40, 171
Sherwin-White, Susan 9, 148–9
Sibbaeus inscription 117 Wacholder, Ben Zion 14
Smallwood, E. Mary 136–7 Wadi et-Teim 67–8, 84–5,
Smith, George Adam 5–6 87, 90
Soba (Zoba) 14, 138, 140 Warren, Charles 65, 67, 84,
standing stone/s 77ff. 95–6
stele/stelae 72–4
as identified by Dar 78 Yanouh 110, 130–1, 173–4
or stone pillars 72–7 Yetur 130, 134–6, 144
Stern, Menachem 25–6 Yodefat 44, 55
Strabo 12–13, 15ff., 20–1, 25, 143, 150–1,
154, 159–60, 170–1 Zenodorus 32–3, 35, 54–5, 103, 110–11,
on brigands/robbers 20ff. 165–7, 172
re the Biqa‘ 86 re coins 110–11
Sullivan, Richard 31, 35 re inscription 165–6

Myers E. A.-The Ituraeans and The Roman Near East - Reassessing The Sources (Society For New Testament Studies Monograph Series) (2010) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Myers E. A.-The Ituraeans and The Roman Near East - Reassessing The Sources (Society For New Testament Studies Monograph Series) (2010) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This page intentionally left blank

THE ITURAEANS AND THE ROMAN NEAR EAST

The Ituraeans, a little-known people of late ﬁrst-century BCE Syria-

E . A . M Y E R S is an independent scholar and alumnus with the

General editor: John M. Court

Recent titles in the series

Cambridge University Press

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the

ISBN-13 978-0-511-67541-6 eBook (NetLibrary)

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy

List of illustrations page x

Appendix 1: Two small ﬁnds and the Ituraeans 176

Figure 1 The Golan Heights as seen looking to the south

This monograph is a result of research done for my PhD dissertation,

AAE Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy

CAH Cambridge Ancient History

JRS Journal of Roman Studies

SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan

There is a certain elusiveness about history; always contingent on

called ‘Ituraean’ and a territory named ‘Ituraea’ were known to have

speciﬁcally for Jerusalem. As well as conﬁrming the names and titles of

cultural and religious background. Together these various disci-

First published in German in 1874, Emil Schürer’s Geschichte des

auxiliary units recorded on Roman military diplomata.10 His article

perception. As one scholar framed it, ethnicity ‘can never be a single

Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship has tended to view

its inherent complexities. In his publication on the Roman East,

of Alexander’s arrival to the rule of Queen Zenobia.28 At over a

cultures. Compounding this are difﬁculties in translation of text,

Ναβδαίους9 (‘he also made expeditions against the Edomites, the

excavations have begun to provide more information on its long

is general agreement that Strabo used the writings of Posidonius,

(16.4.23), appearing to be less civilized than the Syrians but ‘having

confusion’.21 It remains unclear as to ‘how the word “Arabian” was

Strabo and brigands/robbers

16.1.24), and never in reference to Ituraeans where he uses the cognate

Apuleius and the later writers

Curtius Rufus and Plutarch both write of Arabians or Arabian

assumes that Ituraeans were Arab when he comments that land

Here I believe Josephus uses ἔθνος as it was understood in Hellenistic

opinion has been preserved in the main narrative of Josephus’.43

by Aristobulus.48 Recently Freyne has questioned the authority of

there is another argument which needs to be mentioned. In Antiquities

In regard to the above passages, one is reminded that ‘Timagenes

The works of Josephus remain an indispensable resource for infor-

previous century.60 Josephus, however, advances another reason for

The intervening years – fourteen all told – were years of continuous

Zenodorus is assumed to have followed the same policy of ‘holding

Josephus and the bandits/robbers

reference to bandits/robbers. As mentioned earlier, Josephus uses the

conceptual analysis of the Latin latro (Greek λῃστεία), the principal

has interpreted the inscription as demonstrating full-scale military

bodyguard, where even their very presence in the Senate was an

day, 1 September, at which time Antony challenged Cicero on his

it possible to postulate here a connection between Ituraeans and

The Golan and its Pottery

assigned ‘Philip’s former province, namely Trachonitis, Batanaea,

periods, with a ﬂourishing population during the Bronze Age, which

Golan Ware: early surveys and excavations

Stating the problem

Most archaeologists would readily admit that we cannot know

boundaries being indeterminate. Covering considerable distances,

Excursus on Galilean coarse ware