tians and Muhammedans; not excepting even the Bedawîn. On this ground we were everywhere well received.' Here at Beit Jibrin the people were kind and communicative. The Sheikh of the village was understood to be absent, and we did not now see him.

Beit Jibrîn is a village of moderate size, the capital of a district in the province of Gaza, beginning just west of Beit Nettif, called the district of the 'Azazeh. It takes this name from an ancient family of Sheikhs, formerly hereditary lords of Beit Jibrin, and of great power in these parts, being one of the three chief families of the Keisîyeh. Having been leaders in the rebellion of 1834, some of the family were beheaded, and the rest compelled to remove to Tell es-Safieh. Another family, called the house of 'Amleh, resides at Beit Ûla; and a third, the house of Ibn 'Omar, at Dûra in the mountains of Hebron. The two former families were head Sheikhs of the lower Keis (el-Keisiyeh et-Tahta) in and near the plain.-These families of Sheikhs form a species of hereditary nobility; but they are here less ancient and less exclusive than those of the Druzes in Mount Lebanon. There are also smaller families of less powerful Sheikhs.

Such was the result of our inquiries and observations at Beit Jibrin on this our first visit. The question now naturally arose, Whether all this presented any ground for regarding this spot as the site of the ancient Eleutheropolis? The ruins certainly seemed to be sufficiently important to warrant such a conclusion; ruins worthy of the Roman name, and of a powerful city. Further, in travelling hither from the well where we had halted, we had by a winding road passed over the anticipated distance of two and a half hours within which we had supposed Eleutheropolis must lie. Still, this distance might apply just as well to some place lying more to the northwest; and I had in some way received the groundless impression, that the city in question lay actually in the plain itself, and not among the hills. We concluded therefore to make still further examination; and as notwithstanding all our inquiries, we could hear of no spot where there could be the slightest hope of finding the object of our search, unless perhaps at Tell es-Sâfieh, we determined to bend our steps that way. We felt ourselves constrained to push our researches further, because the site of Eleutheropolis could not be fixed at this place, without making it identical with another ancient city, whose name has been preserved; an identity of which, as yet, no one had ever dreamed.

་

Indeed, whatever might be the fact in regard to Eleutheropolis, there could be no doubt upon our minds, that in Beit Jibrin was to be recognised the Betogabra of Ptolemy and the 1 See also at Ma'în, above, Vol. I. p. 495.

1

Peutinger Tables and the Beigeberin, (an episcopal city) of the ecclesiastical Notitiae of the subsequent centuries. This place is marked in the said Tables at sixteen Roman miles from Askelon, a distance considerably too small; since from the construction of our maps it appears, that the actual distance cannot be less than about twenty geographical miles. An early legend of the life of Ananias names it "Betogabra of Eleutheropolis;" which, however the phrase may be regarded, implies at least that these places were not far remote from each other. Such is the amount of all the notices respecting the ancient city under this name, down to the time of the crusades.

2

3

4

In the twelfth century, the crusaders found on this spot an ancient site in ruins, called by the Arabs 'Bethgebrim ;' here they built up again a fortress upon the former foundations, to guard against the incursions of the Muhammedans from Askelon. This took place about A. D. 1134, under king Fulco. William of Tyre describes the fortress as having impregnable walls, with a mound and bastions and other advanced works. The defence of this position was intrusted to the knights Hospitalers. The Arabic name became corrupted among the crusaders into "Gibelin ;" and they and the Christian writers of that age, held the place to be the ancient Beersheba.5 It is not unfrequently mentioned by Arabic authors; who write the name almost indiscriminately Beit Jibrîn and Beit Jibril, the latter signifying the 'House of Gabriel ;" and they speak of it also as including the surrounding district. Benjamin of Tudela visited the spot, and found here three Jews." After the decisive battle of Hattîn and the capture of Askelon by Saladin, in A. D. 1187, the fortress of Beit Jibrîn also fell into his power; but it seems to have re1 Ptolemy BaιToyáßpa. Tab. Peut. Be- Kreuzz. II. pp. 595, 615. Brocardus c. 10. togabri. See Reland Palæst. pp. 461, 421, p. 186. Marin. Sanut. pp. 163, 165. Adri222, 627.-Josephus mentions a large vil- chomius p. 133. Yet before the days of lage Býrapis (Betaris) in this region, which the latter writer, the true Beersheba had Rufinus read Bnyaßpis (Begabris) in his been visited by several travellers ; see copy. Reland suggests that this may have above, Vol. I. p. 205. G. Vinisauf seems been the same place, which is not im- to allude to the church of Santa Hanneh, probable; p. 626. Joseph. B. J. 4. 8. 1. when he speaks of Ybelin (meaning Gibelin) as being near the valley in which St. Anne was born; see in Gale's Scriptores Historia Anglic. Tom. II. p. 395.

2 It would seem probable that an X may have been dropped in the Peutinger Tables; the original reading having been perhaps XXVI Roman miles.

3 Acta Sanctor. Jan. Tom. II. pp. 613,

6 Edrisi par Jaubert p. 360. Ibn elWardi in Abulf. Tab. Syr. ed. Köhler p. 170. See especially Schulten's Index in Vit. Salad. art. Beit-Sjebrinum.-Still, as the interchange of land n is not unfrequent in Arabic, it may after all be a question, whether Jibrin may not be the ancient Hebrew form, meaning perhaps "House of Men." The Greek form BaιToyáßpa accords better with this supposition. Benj. of Tudel. p. 77. 8 Bohaed. Vit. Sal. p. 72.

3

verted into the hands of the Franks, perhaps with Askelon, and is mentioned in A. D. 1192, as a station in the march of one part of king Richard's army from the south towards Beit Nûba.1 In A. D. 1244, it was captured by the troops of Bibars." I find no further notice of Beit Jibrîn or its fortress, excepting in Marinus Sanutus, who merely copies William of Tyre; but the inscription already mentioned, shows that it continued to be a place of strength even under the later Turkish dominion; being kept up perhaps in order to hold in check the turbulent spirits of the ancient Arab families of Sheikhs, the former lords of Beit Jibrîn and the adjacent territory. Since the time of the crusades, I am not aware that this place has been visited by any Frank traveller; unless perhaps by Breydenbach and Fabri in A. D. 1483, on their way from Hebron to Gaza; who however make no mention of Beit Jibrîn.a

We now left Beit Jibrîn at 22 o'clock, for Tell es-Sâfieh. A man from Ramleh, returning from Hebron, fell into our train, and continued with us; although Tell es-Safieh was out of his direct course. The way led at first down the same broad valley by which we had approached, and then more to the left. In half an hour, after crossing obliquely the low western slope, we emerged from the hills upon the wide rolling plain which extends to the sea; it is here not very fertile nor very well cultivated; though as we advanced, we found much of it covered with a crop of wheat. At 4.10 we passed the large village of Dhikrîn, to which name our guide added the epithet el-Bŭradân. It stands on the left slope of a Wady, which I suppose to be that coming down from Beit Jibrîn, and here sweeping round towards the Wady Simsim in the plain. Near the village are excavations, said to be like those we had seen at Deir Dubbân; but being in a low situation, the water of a small Wady is in winter turned into them, and they are used as cisterns.

This village of Dhikrîn is mentioned by Tucher of Nurnberg in A. D. 1479. He travelled from Bethlehem to Gaza, passing by St. George and lodging at Thikrin (Dhikrîn), where he also speaks of cisterns. His route down the mountains must therefore have been in general the same with ours.

5

We reached Tell es-Sâfieh at a quarter past 5 o'clock. It is an isolated oblong hill or ridge, lying from north to south in the plain; the highest part being towards the south. The village lies near the middle; lower down. We pitched our tent just

1 Bohaed. Vit. Sal. p. 229. Wilken ibid. IV. p. 508.

2 Makrizi in Wilken Comment. de Bell. Cruc. p. 204.

3 De Secr. Fidel. Cruc. p. 165.

* Volney heard the name, as of an in

habited village in this quarter; Vol. II. p. 310. Poujoulat professes to have found the fortress (not the name) four hours southeast of Askelon on his road from Gaza to Yafa! Correspondence d'Orient, V. p. 448. 5 Reissb. des h. Landes p. 677.

above the village, and immediately repaired to the summit of the hill, in search of the ruins of which we had been told. They proved to be merely the indistinct foundations apparently of a castle on the highest part, constructed of large hewn stones. On the western side of the hill, are also the remains of a terrace built of like materials. There is no fountain here nor in the vicinity; but in the western plain, near the foot of the hill, is a well of living water, which was said to overflow during a part of the year. Upon the hill is seen a solitary palm tree.-Safieh we were told is the name of a ruin in the plain towards the northeast, and this is its Tell or hill.

The hill itself is not high; but rises sufficiently above the surrounding country to be seen at the distance of some hours in every direction, especially towards the north and west. Here it overlooks the plain, which extends north to Ramleh and west to Esdûd (Ashdod). The tower of Ramleh was distinctly visible; the distance was said to be five hours. Nearer the mountain, in the northeast, we could also distinguish Lâtrôn upon a conical hill. A large number of villages and sites were visible on every side, with many of which we had already become acquainted; though not a few were also new. They are recorded in the note below.2

The people of the village flocked around us with kindness; and at evening our tent, as usual, was filled with visitors, conversing and drinking coffee. The Sheikh, Muhammed Sellim, was a young fine looking man, of prepossessing manners and quite intelligent. He belonged to the family of the 'Azazeh, the hereditary lords of Beit Jibrîn; but they having taken part in the rebellion of 1834, his uncle and brother were beheaded, and the rest of the family ordered to take up their residence in this place.

We here came again in contact with the genuine hospitality of the east. The Sheikh sent two men to keep watch by our tent all night; and when we left in the morning, the people re1 1 This was incorrectly reported to us at 12° E. el-Kustîneh N. 36° W. el-Mesthe time as 'Amwâs (Nicopolis); and so mîyeh N. 45° W. Ustâs N. 50° W. Tell stood in the former edition. See Vol. III. et-Turmus N. 55° W. Berkûsieh S. 53° Sec. III, under April 27th, 1852. W.-Among these places, Kesla might suggest the Chesalon of Josh. 15, 10; it lies northeast of Beth-shemesh. Compare the Chaslon of the Onomasticon.-El-Mesmîyeh seems to be the Mesmié mentioned by Volney between Ramleh and Gaza, four leagues from the former; Vol. II. p. 310. In that case, the Tell of which the same writer speaks, a league east of Mesmîyeh, was probably Tell et-Turmus; but he confounds it in part with Tell el-Hasy; see under May 22.

2 We took at Tell es-Safieh the following bearings, beginning at the south and proceeding towards the left: Dhikrîn S. 10° E. Santa Hanneh S. 20° E. Kudna S. 34° E. Deir Dubbân S. 50° E. 'Ajjûr S. 72° E. Jeb'ah S. 77° E. Tell Zakarîya S. 85° E. Kefr Zakarîya S. 87° E. Beit 'Atâb N. 87° E. Kesla N. 84° E. el-Kheishûm N. 80° E. Deir el-Hawa N. 80° E. el-Bureij N. 70° E. Sur'ah N. 67° E. Râfât N. 64° E. el-Mughŭllis N. 55° E. Lâtrôn N. 49° E. er-Ramleh N.

fused to receive pay for the articles which they had furnished to us; saying it would be a disgrace to do so, and the Sheikh would be angry and beat them if they did. They were simple-hearted and kind; and the refusal to take money, seemed to be the unaffected and conscientious observance of ancient national custom.

It had needed but a short survey of this spot to convince us, that the site of Eleutheropolis never could have been at Tell esSâfieh. One of the places, Zorah, said to be ten Roman miles from Eleutheropolis on the way to Nicopolis, lay in sight before us E. N. E. upon the hills, about three hours distant; while Lâtrôn, which lies near Nicopolis was distinctly visible in the northeast not more than an hour or two more remote. It was evident that Zorah and Beth-shemesh could never have been said to lie near the road from Tell es-Sâfieh to 'Amwâs, and especially not at the distance of ten miles on that road, without attributing to Eusebius and Jerome a greater absurdity than any of which they have yet been accused. Indeed Tell es-Sâfieh lies obviously quite too far westward within the plain, to accord with any of the ancient accounts respecting Eleutheropolis. Besides, there was nothing here to mark the site of an ancient place; which we know to have been a large and flourishing city so late as the sixth century.

I know of nothing to connect Tell es-Sâfieh with the history of the Bible or of the early centuries; unless perhaps the name may have some relation to that of the valley of Zephathah near Maresha, where king Asa defeated the hosts of Zerah the Ethiopian. Maresha, as we know, was near Eleutheropolis; 2 and the valley, as well as the Tell, might well take its name from an adjacent city. It may perhaps have been the broad Wady coming down from Beit Jibrîn towards Tell es-Sâfieh.

1

In the middle ages this Tell became somewhat celebrated; although, as we had with us no history of the crusades, we were not aware of the fact at the time. It appears that about A. D. 1138, several years after the rebuilding of the ancient fortress at Beit Jibrîn, the crusaders under king Fulco erected upon Tell es-Sâfieh, described as eight Italian miles from Askelon, another castle as a further check upon the excursions of the Muhammedans from that city. It was built of hewn stones with four towers; and became known among the Franks by the name of Blanchegarde. It afterwards came into the possession of Sala

1 2 Chron. 14, 10.

3

Kr. II. pp. 615, 616. But the true distance

2 Euseb. et Hieron. Onomast. art. Ma from Askelon is not much less than eightsera, Mapnoá. Reland Pal. p. 888.

"Ab Ascalona octo distans miliaribus nomen Arabice Tellesaphi, quod apud nos interpretatur Mons sive Collis clarus; Will. Tyr. 15. 25. See Wilken Gesch. der See Wilken Gesch. der

"

een geographical miles; and the reading in William of Tyre ought probably to be octodecem instead of octo.

p. 1071.

4 Will. Tyr. 15, 25. Jac. de Vitr. 41, p. 1071. The Latin name of the castle