Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2017 with funding from
Getty Research Institute
https://archive.org/details/materialsforhistOOdahl
TRAHSSCTIOHS OF THE
CONNECTICUT ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Incorporated a. D. 1799
VOLUME 20, PAGES 1-131 MAY, 1915
The Materials for the
History of Dor
BY
GEORGE DAHL, PH.D.
Assistant Professor of Old Testament Literature,
School of Religion, Yale University
YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
1915
SOME OF THE ABBREVIATIONS USED.
Baed. (4):
C.I.S.:
C.O.T.:
Guer., Sam.:
K.H.A.T.:
O. S.:
P. E.F.Q.:
R. :
S. B.O.T.:
S.W.P.:
Tab. Pent.:
Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, 4th edit. 1906.
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum.
E. Schrader, The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old
Testament, trans. O. C, Whitehouse, 1885.
H. V. Guerin, Description de la Palestine, II Samarie,
1874-5.
Kurzer Hand - Commentar zum Alten Testament (ed.
Marti).
Onomastica Sacra, ed. Lagarde; 2nd ed. 1887.
Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statements.
Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia,
I — V (1861-84), IV (2) (1891).
Sacred Books of the Old Testament (ed. P. Haupt).
Survey of Western Palestine. Palestine Exploration Fund.
Tabula Peutingeriana (ed. E. Desjardins, 1869-74).
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Topography of Dor
The Name Dor
The Name Naphath Dor
The Name Tantura.
The Golenischeff Papyrus
Dor in Assyrian Literature. .
Dor in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha
The Eshmunazar Inscription and Dor
Early Greek Writers
History of Dor during the Greek, Maccabean and Roman
periods .
Dor in the Talmud
The Coins of Dor
From Claudius Iolaus to Hierocles
The Bishops of Dor
Later Geographers
The Period of the Crusades
The Arab Geographers
The Visits of the Chevalier d’Arvieux
Later Visitors at Dor
Page
ty
i
16
21
28
34
39
41
58
62
65
88
90
94
102
109
113
121
123
130
DOR AND ITS ENVIRONS.
FOREWORD.
There seems to be room for a careful and critical examination
of the sources for the history of the little-known city of Dor.
This work presents the results of an investigation which has
aimed to take into account all the extant literature bearing on
the subject. So far as possible the testimony of sources has been
carefully sifted and weighed. It is to be hoped that the evidence
of excavations on the site of the city may sometime be available
to increase our knowledge gained from the literary remains.
To Professor C. C. Torrey of Yale University, my sincerest
apjn’eciation and most grateful thanks are due for many helpful
suggestions and for inspiration gained through conference with
him. I wish also to extend my thanks to Professor W. Max
Muller of the University of Pennsylvania for information regard-
ing the Egyptian form, D-Ira. To Professor A. T. Clay of Yale
University I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness for assistance
in the preparation of the chapter on “Dor in Assyrian Literature.”
TOPOGRAPHY OF DOR.
Beginning at the headland of Mount Carmel, the great Maritime
Plain of Palestine extends southwards for a distance of about one
hundred miles. This plain naturally divides into three portions 1 .
The north corner, lying between Mount Carmel and the Mediter-
ranean, begins as a narrow pass some two hundred yards wide be-
tween the Carmel headland and the sea, gradually broadening until
at its southern extremity, the Crocodile River (mod. Nahr el-
Zerka), it is eight miles wide. Its length from Carmel to the
Zerka is nearly twenty miles. From the Crocodile River the
second portion of the Maritime Plain, the Plain of Sharon, widen-
ing from eight miles to twelve, rolls southward some forty-four
miles to the Nahr Rubin and a line of low hills to the smith of
Ramleh. To the south of the Plain of Sharon, the last division,
the Plain of Philistia, extends a distance of forty miles to the River
of Egypt (the Wady el-‘ArIsh).
In the southern part of the first of these divisions lies the village
Tantura, successor to the ancient city of Dor 2 . Tantura lies in
northern latitude 3 32° 36' 35", in eastern longitude from Green-
wich 34° 54' 40". The ruins of Dor, known as el-Burj or Khurbet
Tantura 4 5 , are located about one-half mile directly north of the
modern town. Dor proper lies therefore in latitude 32° 36' 50",
longitude 34° 54' 40". Its distance from the headland of Carmel
and from Haifa is about fourteen and one-half miles south. It is
about six and one-half miles south of ‘Athllt, which was the chief
city of the district during the Crusades 6 . Caesarea 6 , built by
1 G.A.S., Hist. Geog.. pp. 147 f.
2 C. R. Conder, in Hast. D.B. s. v. Dor, seems now inclined to reject
his earlier identification of Tantura with Dor ( P.E.F.Q. , 1874, p. 12; S.
W.P. Mem. II, p. 3). The location of the town, however, agrees so well
with the data at hand that nearly all writers accept the identification as
practically certain.
3 P.E.F. , Map of Palestine, Sheet 7, I j ; Ptolemy (Nat. Hist. V, 15, 5)
locates Dor in 66° 30', 32° 40'.
* S. W.P. Mem., II, p. 7.
5 Then called Castellum Peregrinorum (Buhl, Geog., p. 211); P.E.F.Q.
1874, p. 12.
6 Anciently Irparovog nvpyoe (G.A.S., Hist. Geog., pp. 13Sff.).
8
George Dahl,
Herod the Great in time to become the capital of the Roman prov-
ince of Judea, lies eight miles south of Dor 1 2 .
Tantura, the modern town, an unimportant village of a few hun-
dred Moslem inhabitants', lies along the coast. South of the vil-
lage stretches a fine open sandy beach ; northwards the shore is
rocky as far as the Jeziret el-Mukr 3 . To the east and southeast lies
a swamp 4 5 . A short distance to the south of the town is the Nahr
el-Dufleh 6 , a stream some five to ten yards across and apparently
perennial; still farther south, on the way to Caesarea, one crosses
the Nahr el-Zerka, the Crocodile River of the ancients. In the
sea, opposite the town, are several small islands; these combine
with a slight curve in the beach to form a sort of harbor for the
small coasting craft. On the north this little bay is protected by
a rocky point that juts out into the sea in the form of a promon-
tory 6 . North of this promontory is another ancient port; evidently
there was here a double harbor 7 . The buildings of the town itself
are for the most part mud cabins one story high, lying along the
beach 8 9 ; stones taken from the ruins to the north have been used in
building the better houses". To the east is a square stone build-
ing 10 used as a medafeh , or “guest house,” for passing travelers.
1 According to the Tab. Peut. the distance from Cesaria to Tbora (sic) is
VIII (Roman miles); Eus. and Jerome ( O.S . 283:3; 142:13-15) make it nine
Roman miles.
2 Baed. (4) (1906) p. 231 ; Enc. Bib. s. v. ; S. W.P., Mem. II, p. 3; Buck-
ingham ( Trav . in Pal., p. 123; so von Raumer, Palastina (3), p. 154, in
1850) in 1823, estimated the population at 500 souls, with 40 or 50 dwellings;
Guerin {Sam. 2, 305 f.) in 1874 says 1200 inhabitants (but Guerin seems to
overestimate the population of several towns in this district). According
to the Population List of the Liva of ‘Akka (reported by G. Schumacher,
P.E.F.Q., 1887, p. 181, no. 38) there were in 1887, 154 Moslem men between
16 and 60 years of age ; this would give an estimated total of about 770
souls ; the town at that time was growing {Ibid. p. 84).
3 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 1 ; Buhl, Geog., p. 32 ; see map.
4 Baed. (4), pp. 231 f ; Pal. F.xpl. Map , Sheet 7; Buhl, Geog., p. 211.
5 G.A.S., Hist. Geog., Map VI, opp. p. 379, errs in making Wady el-Duf-
leh tributary to the Nahr el-Zerka. The Nahr el-Dufleh is also called Nahr
el-Karajeh (.S'. TP. P. , Name Lists, p. 140).
6 Guer., Sam. 2:305 f ; P.E.F.Q., (1887), p. 84 ; Ibid. (1873), p. 100.
1 G.A.S., Hist. Geog. p. 130 ; see page 11 below.
8 Buhl, Geog., p. 211 ; S W.P. Mem. II. p. 3.
9 P.E.F.Q., 1887, p. 84 ; Guer., Sam. 2:305.
10 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 3.
History of Dor.
9
Guerin 1 mentions two mosques, both partly in ruins in his time,
one of which contained several ancient granite columns. With the
increasing prosperity of the town, a number of good-looking gran-
aries have risen near the seashore 2 . There is a well northeast of
the village 3 . Many of the inhabitants are sailors and fishermen;
for the rest, the industries of the town are mainly agricultural and
pastoral. In the fields to the east and the south grain is raised,
part of which is exported in small coastwise sailing vessels 4 . As is
usually the case in Palestine, the property of the natives of Tantura
consists chiefly in herds of cattle and goats 5 . The inhabitants share
the greedy avarice and the thieving propensities so universal in
that land 6 . On the whole, Tantura is a typical Palestinian coast
town.
A few minutes to the north of the modern village lie scattered
about the ruins of ancient Dor. These ruins 7 consist of a mound
covered with debris, with a fallen tower to the south; the remains
of a double harbor and of a colonnaded building adjacent to the
more northerly port; a large cistern now called El-Hannaneh; and
an ancient causeway leading north and south to the east of the
town. Rock-cut tombs are also to be found in the neighborhood.
The most conspicuous object to former travellers was the ruined
tower, visible at every point from Carmel to Caesarea, perhaps
dating from the period of the Crusades 8 , which stood on a low
rocky promontory to the south of the mound. South of this pro-
montory, in the direction of the modern town, is a sandy beach and
1 Sam. 2:305 f. (1874-75); the Chevalier d'Arvieux, c. 1700 (in Labat. Merk-
wurdige Nachrichten, II. pp. 11-13), states that the inhabitants had no
mosques; so Buckingham (Trav. in Pal., 2>- 123) in 1821; writers after
Guerin (e. g., Pal. Ex. Fund. Mem., Baed., etc.) make no mention of a
mosque.
2 Schumacher in P.E.F.Q., 1887, p. 84.
3 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 3.
4 Sir C. Wilson, Picturesque Palestine, pp. 115 f. ; S.W.P. Mem. II, pp. 3,
35 ; P.E.F.Q., 1887, p. 84.
6 Sir C. Wilson, ibid.
6 Van de Velde, Narrat. I, 333; Buckingham, Travels, p. 123; the Cheva-
lier d’Arvieux (in Labat, Merkwurdige Nachrichten, III, pp. 74-82).
1 & W.P. Mem. II, p. 7; Guer., Sam. 2:306 ff.
8 Murray, Handbook (1875), p. 358; Enc. Bib. s. v. Bor; S. W.P. Mem. II,
p. 8; P.E.F.Q.. 1873, pp. 99 f. — It is easily possible that most of these ruins
are from a period later than that of the Crusades.
10
George Dahl,
bay. On the north the chief ruins of ancient Dor line the shore.
A deep moat separated the tower from the town. The height of
the tower was about 40 feet; its top was 58.8 feet above the sea-
level. The tower formed the northeast corner of a square fortress;
the foundations of another corner tower can be seen near by.
The whole was built of rubble and small stones, faced with well-cut
stones about two feet six inches long and two feet high. The
mortar was very thickly laid around the stones, and contained
pieces of red pottery. The style and material of construction and a
pointed arch in the east wall would seem to indicate that the tower
was Crusading work. The foundations, however, are evidently
much older 1 . On the 15th of January, 1895, the tower collapsed,
leaving nothing of this important landmark but a heap of debris
and the foundations 2 . It is safe to assume that the tower stones
suitable for building purposes have long since been carried oft’ to
near-by Tantura or to other towns along the coast 3 .
The mound, covering the site of the city itself, is about two
hundred yards long, and comprises an area of several acres adjacent
to the sea 4 . Broken masonry and fragments of glass and pottery
cover it. Of the larger stones only a few pillar shafts remain, the
greater part of the fallen blocks having been dug up and removed.
The mound extends as far as the promontory on which the towfcr
stands. Its Hat top is about twenty to thirty feet above the level
of the shore. On the edge of the mound near the sea, east of the
debris of the tower, the mutilated remains of a colonnade may be
seen. The bases and capitals are of a rude Byzantine character,
resembling those found east of the Jordan and elsewhere, which
are dated as of the fifth century 5 . The shafts are three feet in
diameter. East of this colonnade is the moat mentioned above
near which a number of drums of columns lie scattered about
on the ground 6 . The city walls can no longer be clearly traced.
1 Guer., Sam. 2:306.
2 Dr. G. Schumacher in P.E.F.Q., 1895, p. 113.
3 P.E.F.Q., 1883, p. 99; ibid . , 1887, p. 84.
4 P.E.F.Q., 1873, pp. 99 f; S. W.P. Mem. II, p. 8; Guerin (Sam. 2:308)
gives the dimensions of ancient Dor as 1200 meters long and about 670
meters wide; this evidently includes the various ruins, graves, etc., outside
the city proper.
5 S. W.P. Mem. II, p. 8.
6 Ibid.; Guer., Sam. 2:307.
History of Dor.
11
Like nearly all of the Syrian ports, Dor seems to have had a double
harbor, facing north and south, whose two basins insured protec-
tion against winds from all directions 1 . This is the only kind of
port practicable along the almost harborless coast. Both Sidon and
Tyre had double ports 2 . Here at Tantura the tower promontory
separated the two harbors. The harbor south of the promontory
contains the ruins of artificial moles in the sea 3 , built to increase the
size and security of the harbor. North of the promontory are the
remains of a more considerable port. In the sea here is a peculiar
scarped reef, through which a narrow passage has been cut to form
an entrance to the harbor. Apparently this jjassage was curved,
about fifty yards long with sides from eight to ten feet high. As
at Tyre, the entrance to this passage was probably closed at one
time by a chain or boom 4 5 . For the small boats of ancient times
this double harbor, protected as it was by the promontory and by
moles, offered fairly safe shelter.
Near the shore of the northern harbor a number of columns lie
on the ground, each about one foot six inches in diameter, with
simple square base 6 . The material of which these columns are
made is the same coarse limestone as that of which the tower was
built and is evidently taken from the quarries in the neighborhood.
They seem to be the remains of a building close to the water, per-
haps the temple of some maritime deity 6 . Just north of these
columns there are four rock-cut tombs in the cliff 7 . One of these
tombs has two loculi, the second a square chamber, and the third
and fourth have three loculi each.
On the north harbor shore itself are three retaining walls, the
remains of a maritime building. The southern wall is built against
the north face 8 of the promontory on which the tower formerly
1 G.A.S., Hist. Geog., p. 130.
5 F. C. Eiselen, Sidon. p. 4; Hast., D.B. s.v. Zidon and Tyre.
3 Guer., Sam. 2:306; Murray, Handbook (1875) p, 358.
4 S.W.P. Mem. II, pp. 8, 9; Baed. (4) pp. 231 ff.
5 P.E.F.Q., 1874, p. 12; S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 8; Guer., Sam. 2:307. These
columns were ten in number as reported by P. E. F. Survey and Guerin;
doubtless some have been taken away since then.
6 P.E.F.Q. , 1874, p. 12.
7 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 8.
8 P.E.F.Q., 1873, pp. 99 f. ; ibid., 1874, p. 12; S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 8; Guerin
{Sam. 2:307) describes these as the remains of two adjoining buildings.
12
George Dahl,
stood. The work seems to be Roman 1 . The walls are built of
perfectly-shaped blocks of coarse limestone, the stones measuring
five feet six inches in length, two feet six inches in breadth, and
two feet two inches in height. The total height of the walls is
about fifteen feet, the thickness six feet. The masonry is laid, like
brickwork, in alternate courses of headers and stretchers; an excel-
lent cement is used. North and south the original building
measured thirty paces; the side-walls are about eleven paces in
length, the northern projecting nearly to the water. In front of
this building there are a number of large flat slabs of the same size
as the stones in the walls. These formed the pavement of what
was apparently a wharf 2 . In the water a small jetty is visible.
This large building was probably for the accommodation of sailors
and traders, used doubtless as a storehouse and a market 3 .
Continuing north from this building one finds on the shore the
debris of several buildings. There are also a couple of small bays
protected from the west winds by small islands. In one of these
bays a long wall juts out into the water, evidently a pier of some
sort; on the shore is a wharf paved with large stones. These ruins
extend beyond the limits of the mound itself, making a total shore
line of some 1200 meters in length 4 .
The ruins of El-Hannaneh 5 , an ancient cistern just east of the
causeway, are connected with the town by the remains of a road.
The cistern is built of stones measuring from two feet to three feet
six inches in length, and is about ten paces square. The interior
is lined with rubble coated with a hard white cement. The mortar
behind this cement is thickly bedded and contains large pieces of
pottery. There is a shallow round well of ashlar close to the north
wall of the cistern. The work, resembling as it does that of the
1 P.E.F.Q., 1873, pp. 99 f.
2 At the present time, however, the level of the water is by no means
high enough to reach this wharf. (Ritter, Die Erdkunde, XVI, West.
Asien, p. 608). Outlie (Palastina, p. 27) shows that even within historical
times a change in the relative level of the Palestinian coast and the Mediter-
ranean has taken place. He maintains that the land has gradually risen,
while the level of the water has at the same time been sinking.
3 Guer., Sam. 2:307; P.E.F.Q., 1874, p. 12,
4 Guer., Sam. 2:307 f. ; Murray (Handbook, 1875, p. 358) says one-half mile.
5 Baed. (4), pp. 231 ff.; S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 9; P.E.F.Q., 1873, pp. 99 f.;
written aoLli! “hydraulic machine,” or “waterwheel.”
History of Dor. 13
walls of Caesarea, probably belongs to the twelfth or thirteenth
century.
The causeway 1 , lying east of the town ancl running north and
south, is traceable here for about a quarter of a mile. This was
the great coast highroad to Egypt; here and there, as for example
at ‘Ayun Heiderah, the ruts of the light chariot wheels are still
visible on the rock. At the time when this road was in general
use this region was doubtless covered with villages and as prosper-
ous as any other part of Palestine. On one side of the causeway,
just south of El-Hannaneli, there were nine 2 granite columns; three
were planted perpendicularly touching one another; south of these
were three more, also touching; the remaining three were fallen and
scattered about. Their diameter was one foot six inches ; they
were without base or capital, having only a simple fillet at the
upper end of the shaft; they were partly sunk in rubbish. Inas-
much as the arrangement of these shafts is similar to that of some
of the milestones on Roman roads, it is quite likely that they had
been taken from an older building and used to mark the ninth
Roman mile from Caesarea 3 4 .
East of this coast road and parallel to the sea stretches a rocky
ridge, forty to fifty feet high and some three hundred yards broad 1 .
This ridge, commencing in sand dunes about three miles southwest
of Mt. Carmel, gradually increases in regularity and hardness of
rock, until, between ‘Athllt and Tantura, it is about fifty feet
high. Its southern limit is a few miles south of Caesarea. It
serves to separate the narrow coast plain, about a mile wide, in
which Dor is situated, from the inland plain to the east. The
ridge seems to have formed a protection against hostile incursions,
for the stone has been quarried in such manner as to leave a nar-
row crest on the summit, which makes a protecting wall of living
stone. In at least four places passages have been cut through the
ridge, and show traces of having been closed by gates. Numerous
tombs, dating probably from the eai’ly Christian centuries, have
been cut in the ridge.
©
1 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 9; P.E.F.Q., 1874, p. 12.
2 Whether all these columns are still in place is questionable. Probably
part or all have been carried away.
3 O.S., 142:18-15; 283:3,
4 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 1; P.E.F.Q., 1873, p. 99; Guer., Sam. 2:308; van de
Velde, Narrat. 1:333; Buhl, Geog. des alt. Pal., p. 32.
14
George Dahl,
Almost directly east of ancient Dor, near the ruins called
Dreihemeh 1 , is one of the rock-cut passages, leading to the plain
to the east 2 . This is the most southern of the passages cut through
the ridge. It is apparently of considerable antiquity, with rock-
cut tombs and guard houses in the sides. The average breadth of
the passage is fifteen feet, its height ten feet and its length about
two hundred feet in all. Near the entrance to this cutting is a
semi-circular apse cut into the rock 3 . The radius of this apse is
thirteen feet five inches; two steps lead up from the present floor
to the surface of the rock. At each end and in the middle of the
semicircle are square holes, evidently intended for pillars. The
presence of a quarry to the west containing stones not quite broken
out of the rock lends weight to the suggestion that the work is an
unfinished basilica.
The whole ridge near Dor seems to have been extensively used
as a quarry for the ancient town. In some places considerable
quantities of stone have been removed. Here, too, was the princi-
pal necropolis of the city 4 . A large number of the tombs are still
preserved, though all have been plundered. Some of them are
single, while others contain a number of “koklm” or burial cham-
bers. In many of the koklm the stone has been left higher at one
end, to form a sort of stone pillow.
Between the modern city and the ruins of ancient Dor there has
been discovered a large and interesting tomb 5 . It is a chamber
fourteen and one-half feet wide by nineteen and one-half feet
long. There are on the left five koklm, each measuring seven feet
by three feet; at the back there are three, and at the right four.
In the four corners of the chamber are four smaller chambers, ap-
parently double kokim, for receiving two bodies each. The en-
trance to the tomb is a long passage descending by steps to the
door. The door is square, with an arch above it outside. On the
left of the entering passage is another koka, also measuring seven
by three feet. Bones and skulls were found in the tomb. In the
1 Arab, (diminutive form), meaning a small silver coin ; Greek
dp a XM-
2 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 11.
3 Dr. G. Schumacher in P.E.F.Q., 1889, p. 191; is this the “excavation
resembling a small theater” mentioned by Murray (Handbook, 1875, p. 358)?
4 Guer., Sam. 2:308.
5 S.IF.P. Mem. II, p. 10.
History of Dor.
15
double corner koka at the back on the left there is a niche eighteen
inches high and nine inches across, probably intended for a lamp.
This tomb is of the same general type as the others found in the
neighborhood, and apparently dates from at least as early as the
beginning of the Christian era.
Among the more important ruins near Dor, Dreihemeh 1 deserves
mention. It lies east of the mound, commanding the entrance to
the rock-cut passage through the ridge 2 . There are here ruins of
buildings, several columns and a number of tombs. Guerin speaks
of an ancient well here, Bir Drimeh cu f i n the 1 - ock,
square in shape, and with holes dug in its side to permit one to de-
scend to the bottom 3 . North of Dreihemeh lie the ruins and tombs
of Khhrbet Heiderah 4 5 . There is here a shaft ten feet deep and
sixteen feet wide at the top, with a staircase and small recesses in
its side. At the springs called ‘Ayun Heiderah 6 there are deep
ruts in the stone three feet, three inches apart and about six inches
wide each, made, probably, by the carts of the Crusaders. Here
are also tombs cut in the rocky ridge. A foot-path crosses the
coast plain diagonally from Tantura to Ivefr Lam 6 , a small village
of mud hovels crowded within the walls of an ancient Crusading
fort; the distance is about two and one-half miles. Farther north
the village of Surafend 7 , a small collection of mud cabins with
ruins to the north, stands upon the ridge.
1 S. W.P. Mem. II, p. 11; Guer., Sam. 2:309.
2 See p. 14.
3 Guerin (Sam. 2:309) finds in the name Drimeh the Greek name A pvpoq of
Strabo (Geog. XVI, 2:28) and Josephus ( B.J.I. , 13:2; Ant. XIV. 13:3), de-
scribed as being the region adjacent to Mt. Carmel. The Greek word
signifies “ oak-coppice.” On the other hand, the form of the name as given
by the p.e.f. (see note 1, p. 14) is Dreihemeh, apparently a diminutive
form from the Greek Spaxpv and denoting “ a small silver coin.” It is quite
possible that the Greek A pvp6g has in popular use been changed to Dreihe-
meh as a form more easily understandable.
4 S. W. P. Mem. II, p. 30; Guer., Sam. 2:308.
5 S. W.P. Mem. II, p. 6, =“ declivity,” “descent,” or possibly
“lion.” (S.W.P., Name Lists, p. 140; Lane's A rab. Diet.)
6 Wilson, Piet. Pal., pp. 114 If.; S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 3.
7 S.W.P. Mem. II, p. 4; Ritter, Die Erdkunde, XVI, p. 113.
THE NAME DOR.
Dor appears in the Old Testament under the two forms: “)NT
and “1H 1 2 . In the Eshmunazar 3 inscription “IN"! is used. The
Assyrian 4 * 6 inscriptions witness to the form Du-’-ru (or Du-’u-ru) ;
the Egyptian Papyrus Golenischeff writes D-ira\ Among Greek
writers Awpos and Ac opa are the forms in which the name most fre-
quently occurs ; but Ac opa and Aonpa 7 8 are also found. Pliny“ uses
Doron (or Dorum), and the Tabula Peutingeriana 9 gives the name
as Thora. The form Auipos is found mainly in the earlier writers;
Ac opa later becomes universal. Nevertheless Stephan of Byzantium,
writing as late as the fifth century A. D., prefers the older form
Acopos. The following authors give the name of this town as Ac upos:
Scylax (c. 500 B. C.), Apollodorus (c. 140 B. C.), Alexander of
Ephesus (c. 50 B.C.) and Charax (c. 150 A. D.) 10 II . To this same
category belongs Pliny’s Doron or Dorum”. Ao>pa (variants Atopa
and Acopa), the second and later of these two forms, appears in 1
Macc. 15: 11, 13, 25; it is used by Artemidorus 12 (c. 100 B.C.), by
Claudius Iolaus 13 (c. 50 A. D.), by Josephus, by Ptolemaus 14
(between 127 and 151 A. D.), in the Clementine Recognitiones 15
(prob. c. 225 A. D.), by Eusebius (O. S. (2) 250 5C ), Jerome (ibid.
115 22 ), Hierocles 16 (6th century ?), in the list of Bishops in Le Quien 17 ,
1 Josh. 17:11 ; 1 Kings 4:11.
5 Josh. 11:2 ; 12:23 ; Jdg. 1:27 ; 1 Cliron. 7:29.
3 Line 19 ; C.I.S., I, 3 ; Lidzbarski, Tcif. IV' 2 .
4 II R. 53, no. 1, rev. line 40 ; ibid. no. 4, line 57.
6 M tiller, Asien u. Eur., p. 388.
6 1 Macc. 15:11, 13, 25.
I Polybius, Historiae, V : 66.
8 Natural History , 5:17.
9 Ed. Desjardins, Segment IX.
J0 The three last named in Steph. Byz. s.v. Aopof.
II Nat. Hist. 5:17.
12 Steph. Byz. s.v. Awpof.
13 Ibid.; for the correct form of the name (i. e. Iolaus), see C. Muller,
Fragm. Hist. Graee., IV, 362-364.
14 V, 15:5 = Ed. Didot, V, 14:3.
15 Clem. Recogn., IV: 1.
16 Synecdeme, ed. Partly, p. 43.
n Oriens Christianus III, 574 if.— of the 5th and early 6th centuries.
History of Dor.
17
by Geographus Ravennas 1 , by Guido 2 , by Georgius Cyprius
($1000) 3 and on coins 4 5 . To this list must be added Polybius (V 60 :
A ovpa) and the Tabula Peutingeriana (“ Thora ”)\ First Macca-
bees makes Acu pa an indeclinable noun ; usually it is treated as a
neuter plural 6 ; occasionally it is regarded as a feminine singular 7 .
How are we to account for the variations in the Greek form of
the name ? To the Hebrew "IK"! (or early Greek writers
would most naturally attach the masculine ending -os, partly
influenced perhaps by the name of the Greek hero Doros 8 . Thus
the earlier Greek form of the town’s name arose. As the Aramaic
language, however, began to supplant the Hebrew, the Aramaic
determinative ending 9 was added to the original name, giving
the form *01*1 (or The translator of 1 Maccabees was
T ' T
well acquainted with the Aramaic language and therefore used Aa >pd
as an indeclinable noun. Most Greek writers, on the other hand,
would represent this ending either as a feminine singular or a neuter
plural form. There would naturally be no fixed rule for the accent
of the Greek form of this Aramaic name; and, as a matter of fact,
we find that in various writers and different manuscripts of the same
writer, the accents vary widely. Stephan of Byzantium 10 prefers as
the ethnic form of the name of this town, Aa >piry<;. This form is
derivable from either Awpci or Aujpos, as he proves by analogies
drawn from the ethnics of other towns. He mentions, however,
1 Edd. Pinder et Parthey, pp. 89, 357.
3 Geographic a, §94.
3 Ed. Gelzer, p. 51.
4 G. F. Hill, Coins of Phoen., pp. LXXV, 118. — Hecataeus (c. 500 B. C.) in
Steph. Byz. S. v. Aojpof reads : yera (ie y TraTiat Awpof, vvv de A upa KaAeirat. This
statement in its present form can hardly be original with Hecataeus. For
this change in the form of the name probably did not take place until
several centuries after Hecataeus wrote. The interpolator states the fact
as evident in his own time.
5 Ed. Desjardins. Seg. IX.
6 Josephus usually ; Eusebius, O.S. m 280:40, 283:3 ; the list of bishops in
Lequien.
7 Jos., Ant. XIII, 7:2 in several MSS.; Clem. Recog. IV:1.
8 See Claudius Iolaus in Stepli. Byz. s.v. A upog.
9 Possibly to distinguish the proper name Dor, as “ the walled city” (see
p. 19) from other cities to which the term “ dor” (= walled town) might be
applied. There was besides in the later Aramaic a tendency to use the
determinative ending freely.
10 S.v. A upog.
Trans. Conn. Acad., Yol. XX.
2
1915.
18
George Dahl,
the use by Pausanius of the ethnic Ampieis, the plural of Awpuvs, as
though built on a form Aojptor. On coins of Dor 1 the forms
AOPITON and AOPEITON are found, corresponding to the forms
AwpLT-rjs and A« >paTii<;. Thus we have witnesses for two forms of the
ethnic, viz.: AwptV^? (or Awpetr^s) 2 and Awpievs; of these the former
is the better attested.
The variation in the middle consonant in the Hebrew name Dor
finds its parallel in the* case of En-dor. For in 1 Sam. 28: 7 En-dor
is written “111 pjp* : but in Ps. 83:11 the form "){<"] pjp appears 3 .
In the name of the town Ilammath-dor of Josh. 21:32 we have
the form “IN'1 ■ T he transliteration of all these names in the
Greek Old Testament throws no light upon the question as to what
was originally the middle consonant 4 . IsTor does the single occur-
rence of the name in Egyptian documents furnish any information
in this regard 5 . But the use of the form “INH in the Eshmunazar
inscription and of Du-’-ru (or Du-’u-ru) in the Assyrian inscrip-
tions 6 indicates that ’Aleph was originally the middle consonant.
is doubtless, therefore, the older writing of the name. Both
forms are, however, correct. In the Hebrew language ’Aleph in
many cases early lost its consonantal value. The Biblical writers
were therefore at liberty to write either "1^"] or "Vi"] .
What does the word Dor mean ? Greek writers regarded the
Palestinian coast cities as Greek settlements; this is indicated by
the legends they give of the founding of these towns’. Oftentimes
basing their statements on mere chance resemblances in names,
they represent Greek gods or heroes as founders and thus surround
1 Hill, pp. LXXV, 113-118. The form AfiPIPITON on one coin is due to
dittography.
2 hupdrr/c is the same as A uphyg, either n or i having been used formerly
to represent the sound I.
3 Another slight modification in the writing occurs in the *■)>] pjp of
Josh. 17:11. The town Endor, however, probably does not belong here.
See below, pp. 51 f.
4 The Peshitto version writes the name ic i . This may represent either of
the Hebrew forms.
5 Prof. W. Max Midler informs me that the Egyptian form D-ira (better
Da-Ira) of the Papyrus Golenischeff does not show the ’Aleph. In this
form, furthermore, the vowels are worthless.
6 See pp. 39 f .
1 Steph. Byz., p>assim ; Schiir., G.J.V., 2:55, 56.
History of Dor.
19
the cities with the nimbus of ancient Greek origin. The name Dor
is accounted for by this word-play method. Claudius Iolaus 1
declares : kcu rives laropovcn Awpov rov IlocreiSaivos oiKurryv avrfjs yeyoveVai.
Evidently this is mere legend, invented to explain the name, and
has no basis beyond verbal similarity 2 .
The Hebrew TiT means ordinarily “period”, “generation” 3 .
In the verse Isaiah 38:12, however, it is translated “dwelling”, or
“habitation” 4 . In Ps. 84:11 the corresponding verb TlT signifies
“to dwell”. The Hebrew noun is evidently related to that
other Hebrew noun TlT , “ circle” or “ ball”. The Hebrew nouns
and verb are doubtless connected with the Arabic verb , to
“move in a circle”, “go about”, “surround”. From this root is
s.-
derived the Arabic noun “house”, “group of buildings around
s '
a court ”, related to “circle”, “circuit”.
The Assyrian sign for Du-ru is borrowed from the Sumerian,
where it is given the value BAD 5 . Du-ru signifies “Avail” or
“fence”, and then “rampart” or a “place or fortress surrounded
with a rampart” 6 . It is a common and early Babylonian place
name 7 . Apparently the name Du-ru is related to the Hebrew T*lT
and Tjl and to the Arabic ^<3, and 8 . In all these forms
there is the idea of something round, a circle, hence in the case of
the nouns, a court, or a surrounding Avail, a fortress or place sur-
rounded by a wall 9 . A common Semitic root T|T Avith the idea of
1 Steph. Byz. s.v. Acjpo? ; Muller, Fragm. lust, graec. VI, 363.
5 So Schiir., loc. cit.; Guer., Sam. 2:310.
3 Brown, Driver and Briggs, Heb. Lex., s.v.
4 Ibid. ; Marti on the passage.
5 Strassmeier, Assyr. und Akkad. Worter of Cun. Inser. of West. Asia,
vol. II, no. 2107 ; Ungnad in Beitr. z. Assyr., vol. VI, Heft 3, pp. 27, 28 ;
Delitzsch, Handworterbuch.
6 Muss-Arnolt, Diet, of Assyr. Lang.; Delitzsch, Handivorterbueh ; C.O.T.
on Dan. 3: 1 ; ibid. II, 224 ; Clay, Amurru, p. 130.
7 C.O.T. on Dan. 3: 1 ; Marti on Dan. 3:1.
> . 5-
8 In the Aramaic of the Talmud, etc., Ave have the form son (905 ? P°?),
from TH, “ to dwell” with the meaning “village” or “town”. This
word likewise has the idea of something round (Levy, Neuhebr. Worter-
buch) and goes back to the same root as these other forms.
9 From the idea of a surrounding wall comes the meaning “ court” and
then “ dwelling ”, as in the Hebrew.
20
George Dahl,
“ moving in a circle,” “ surrounding,” etc., is doubtless tbe basis
of the Hebrew, Arabic and Babylonian forms. The name Dor
undoubtedly antedates the Hebrew occupation of Palestine 1 2 . The
same element ‘dor’ occurs also in the town names “Endor” and
“ Hammoth-Dor Evidently the name Dor in Palestine is the
same word as the Babylonian Du-ru, and like it signifies eventually
“a place or fortress surrounded by a wall or rampart” 3 .
1 It was not until a late period that the Hebrews secured possession of
Dor (Josh. 17: 11, 12). They certainly did not give the name to the city.
2 At the present time (see S. W.P. Mem. II, 294) there is a small village
Durah about ten miles due east from Bethel, i. e., northeast from Jerusa-
lem. Probably this name ought to be added to the list of Palestinian names
containing the element ‘ dor ’.
3 Prof. Fritz Hommel ( Grundriss , pp. 27 f.) propounds the ingenious but
far-fetched theory that the name Dor is derived from the name Teucri ;
these were, he holds, among the sea-peoples who invaded Palestine c. 1300
B. C. But it is only by doing violence to the laws of etymology that he can
obtain even the most insecure foothold for his hypothesis. The mere state-
ment of the equation he must make is enough to rule out his theory from
the realm of probabilities. This is the equation : Dor = Do’or = Dokor =
Takkar = Zakkalu = Teucri. A far cry from Dor to Teucri ! Hitzig {Phil-
istder, pp. 135 ff. ; cf. Schenkel, Bib. Lex. s.v. Dor) compares Dor with
Endor lying on the same parallel, and propounds the theory that the names
are Indogermanic and given by the Philistine settlers. Dor then would
mean “pass’’, “entrance”, “door”. Endor would be “the other” Dor.
The two would resemble the front and rear doors of a house. This theory
is too refined and lacks support. The town doubtless had the name Dor
long before the Philistine invasion. Hitzig’s derivation of Dor from the
Sanskrit dvar is improbable.
THE NAME NAPHATH DOR.
The Old Testament seems to distinguish between Dor and
Naphath (or Naphoth) Dor. AVhereas in Judg. 1:27 and in 1
Chron. 7:29 the simpler form “Dor” alone is used, the other
passages employ the compound name. Thus, in Josh. 11:2 the
name is given as in niDJ - and in 1 Kings 4 : 11 as “INI n£)J • In
Josh. 12:23 the reference is to “ii“i “Til; here the two names
are clearly distinct the one from the other. In the obscure phrase,
D£)3!7 > of Josh. 17: 11 (end) it is probable that r03i"7 (the
form of the word is corrupt) has reference to the preceding "INI '■
The most likely explanation of the meaning of the word j“l3J is
the one which connects it with the old Semitic root “ to be
high ”. Thus in Arabic the verb is used for that which is “ long and
high” JLta |j>l Oj.Jj oLi), and we find Yanuf (also written
Yanufa, Tanuf, etc.) as the ancient proper name of a mountainous
region in North Arabia; see Yaqut s.v. Similarly the fourth stem
q >
participle, l_oaa/o 5 signifies “high”, “ lofty ”, and is used especially
of buildings or mountains, also as the proper name of a mountainous
district, a lofty fortress, and the like. The word for the oyertop-
s ■;
ping hump of a camel, , comes from this root; as does also the
Q ^ *
form ^-ayj , “surplus”, used in the sense of “over and above”.
Cp. also , “His Eminence”, used as the title of cardinals 1 2 .
In the Hebrew 3 the original meaning, “be high”, seems to have
been retained in the qu ns; - “beautiful in elevation”, of Psalm
48 :3 4 . Parallel with this meaning, however, and almost entirely
supplanting it, arose the use of the verb, principally in the Hiphil,
to mean “ move to and fro ”, “brandish”. Doubtless this signifi-
cation of the root arose from the fact that the brandished object,
1 See the discussion of the passage on pp. 45 £f.
2 Dozy, Supplement aux Dictionnaires Arabes, 738.
3 B.D.B., Heb. Lex., I, II fp .
4 So Engl. Rev. Version, Briggs, Baethgen, Duhm (who connects it with
Kak'A.Lono7iuv7j = Fair-hill). Wellhausen, however, characterizes the word as
“suspicious ”, having “ no appropriate meaning which can be established”.
22
George Dahl,
whether spear or offering, was held on high in the act of brandish-
ing or waving it. Related to the sense of the verb is the meaning
of the noun H2J - “sieve”, which is a “brandishing instrument”,
being held high and waved to and fro. Thus in the Hebrew two
distinct meanings of the root developed together, one contain-
ing the idea of height, the other that of brandishing.
In the Aramaic 1 the verb comes to mean “wave, blow, fan”,
corresponding to the “brandish” of the Hebrew. The Aramaic
noun qiJ denotes “tree-top” “bough”. There is here an evident
fusion of the two meanings of the Hebrew, for the ideas of height
and moving to and fro are both applicable to the top branches of a
tree. But of the noun in the direct sense of “ height” we find
no trace in the Aramaic language.
The Syriac has in like manner partially obscured the direct
sense of “height,” though it has retained suggestions of the idea.
Thus in the Syriac of Ex. 20:25; Deut. 23:26, etc., the Afel of
the verb signifies “ lift up”. The Ethpeel is used in the sense “to
be brandished ”. The Ettafal form is evidently to be interpreted
with the idea of elevation in the passage 2 : “The hammers of the
Evil One, which were lifted up (oa*.JZZ]) against them, did not
shatter them”. Brockelmann also cites P. Lagarde’s Analecta
Syriaca 2:146, 24 for the use of the Ettafal to mean “surrexit”
^ 7
(rose) 3 4 . The noun has among other meanings that of “ nutus
manus”. This beckoning with the hand is a motion evidently con-
nected with the verb idea “to brandish”. All this evidence shows
that the Syriac has partially retained the idea of “height” origi-
nally contained in the word.
From the foregoing discussion it is evident that the primitive
sense of the root contained in the Arabic, viz., “ be high ”, has
been partially retained in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac. In the
North Semitic dialect used at Dor, however, this original signifi-
cance of the root seems to have been preserved, at least so far as
the name of the heights inland from the coast city is concerned.
A feminine nominal form nay from the middle weak root
1 Levy, Neuhebr. u. Cliald. Worterbuch.
2 Ephraemi Syri (Overbeck), 115, 19 f.
3 1 have not the volume at hand to verify this reference. Payne Smith
has failed to mention this passage.
4 B.D.B., Heb. Lex., p. 632.
History of Dor.
3
would seem to be the basis for the construct singular form and
for the construct plural JTiDj \ The reference in the passages cited
would then be to the “height” or “heights” of Dor 1 2 , probably in
the hilly and rolling country east of the town proper 3 . The pres-
ence of guard houses cut in the sides of the passage through the
ridge near Dreihemeh 4 would indicate that a garrison was kept
there. Without doubt the strategic heights behind the city were
also fortified; in connection with this outpost of the harbor town a
settlement would naturally grow up 5 . To this settlement on the
heights, and to the district in which it lay, the name “IN“T J”)DJ
seems to have been given. The use of the name in the Old Testa-
ment, and the occurrence of the plural JTiD.il - suggest that a con-
siderable territory was included in the term. In the Oftl UfoW
( — “High Heavens”) district of Sidon, referred to on the stones of
the temple of Esmiin excavated near that city, there seems to be a
sort of parallel to the term "l^T J"lDJ . This “High Heavens” of
the Sidonian inscription seems to be the designation of a district or
suburb of the city located, like Naphath Dor, in the hilly region to
the East 6 . The existence of a town on the mainland at Tyre, called
naA.e08top (B, emeSSa> p). It may be
that Symmachus’ ets ryv irapaXlav immediately preceding Dor was
suggested to him by the almost equivalent ets tov s irapaXlovs imme-
diately following Dor in the old Greek. That he may have been
influenced by the Greek in this manner is shown to be quite possi-
ble by his procedure in verse 3. Here he follows the example of
the Greek in disregarding the 1 of the and reads: «at doro
Svo-pwv tov ’Apoppalov. It seems quite possible, therefore, that we
owe Symmachus’ mistranslation of flS.3 as y impaXla to the inaccu-
rate rendering of D'p by the Greek. It is also possible that Sym-
machus was influenced in his rendering by the fact that the Dor
known in his day was actually situated iv rrj irapaXla. In any case he
is apparently the first to propound the theory that the name means
irapaXla , and stands almost alone in his interpretation. The proba-
bility remains that the name j“0J does not refer to the coast town,
but to the strategically far more important heights above the
town. With this hypothesis the form of the name agrees.
In all the versions and translations the name D£3J seems to have
proved a stumbling-block. The Vulgate, with a different render-
ing each time the name occurs, is completely at a loss. In Josh.
11:2 it reads “ in regionibus Dor iuxta mare ” 2 ; in Josh. 12 : 23, “ et
provinciae Dor”; in Josh. 17:11, “ et tertia pars urbis Napheth ’ 1 ’’ ;
and in 1 Kings 4:11, “omnis JVephat Dor The Targum 3 evi-
dently comes from the same source as Jerome’s Vulgate renderings
“regionibus” and “provinciae”, for it represents j“l3^ in Josh.
11:2; 12:23 and 1 Kings 4:11 by the construct plural
1 For the Hebrew and Greek texts see the discussion of the passage on pp.
41 ff.
2 Like the Greek the Latin here fails to understand the phrase Q’Q •
T '
3 Walton’s Polyglot.
History of Dor.
25
(— Bezirk, Kreis 1 ) ; in Josh. 17:11 the absolute p 1 ?*? sn’yri
occurs. This native Jewish tradition cannot be relied upon in its
interpretation of the meaning of the word Napbatb ; it is valuable,
however, in that it indicates that must signify a district
(“Bezirk, Kreis”) adjoining Dor.
In the Peshitto of Joshua 11:2; 12:23; 1 Kings 4: 11 the name
> *
is reproduced with no attempt at interpretation as ’®? LaJ . The
form LaJ represents a Hebrew segholate noun. But from a middle
weak root no such segholate form is permissible. The penulti-
mate vowel of construct must of necessity be long and
T T - T v O
its omission in the Syriac is therefore incorrect. It is quite proba-
ble that the Septuagint renderings Na<£e0Sa >p, Na<£eSSu>p, Nac^eScop,
Nae0a, QeweSSwp, etc. (with e in the second syllable) 2 with good
reason suggested to the Syriac punctuator 3 that the form was
a Hebrew segholate noun of the qatl type. Hence he used the
equivalent Syriac form q e tel 4 .
In its «^®1 b^zZ in Joshua 17 : 11, the Peshitto departs from pre-
<3
cedent in regard to the word Naphath, in that an attempt is made
to translate the troublesome of that verse. The
numeral “three” before naan must have seemed to demand a
rendering of the noun. This is the plural of 1^-®] which
a
is defined 5 as meaning primarily “angulus”; metaphorically it may
1 Levy, Neithebr. u. Chald. Worterbuch, s. v. ; Dalman, Aram.u. Neuhebr.
Worterbuch.
2 It appears that the e in the second syllable was the vowel used by the
Greek translator to indicate the short construct vowel ~ of Com-
pare the rendering Vayed (L) for °f Josh. 13:26— see also Josh. 19:8. —
“ T
Only in Ne^aiMyp of I Kings 4: 11 (A) do we find a in the second syllable.
3 It is quite certain that the Syriac translator or translators also used the
Greek for comparison. Inasmuch as the Hebrew text was unpointed, it
was quite natural for the punctuator to adopt in case of doubt the vowels
supplied by the Greek.
4 In Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus 5o?LaJ is not given at all. This
omission should be supplied, and the word listed under both As.J and ^.saJ
with the observation that the Syriac punctuation is due to a mistake. —
Another evident oversight in Payne Smith is the omission of any reference
to the town name ?c?.
5 Payne Smith, Thes. Syr. I, Col. 1093, under root jo] .
26
George Dahl ,
signify “plagae caeli ”, and is used “ de 7 terrae zonis sive elima-
tibus”; the word is also employed in the sense of “principes”.
Quite a difference in meaning between ns: , “height” and ,
“anguli”! The probable explanation of is the following: In
the Hebrew the word for “corner ” is n:s ; the plural is n:s •
T ’ 1
The preceding nS:n would seem to the translator to indi-
cate that the latter was plural 1 . Evidently the Syriac translator
interpreted the singular nS: in the unpointed Hebrew text as the
plural jlJQ , by the easy transposition of : and Q . This n:S
Q. Ci
would then in the Syriac be translated ^•*=1 , “angles” or “cor-
ners”. In the <&evve88ojp of Josh. 11:2; 12:23 (B text) the transla-
tor may have found warrant for transposing the first two conso-
nants. Moreover, the five towns he mentions in this verse (i. e.
Bethshean, Jibleam, En-dor, Taanach and Megiddo — Dor is omitted
in the Syriac), might easily have seemed to him, with his probably
rather hazy idea of the relative positions of the palaces, to form a
rough triangle, a “three corners” (^■*°1) 2 3 . This supposedly tri-
angular shapae of the district might have confirmed his faith in the
correctness of his rendering. But when Dor is substituted, as it
should be, for Endor 8 , this argument from the shape of the district
would be weakened. The interpretation of Haphath as “height”,
we must conclude, best fits the facts and the verses in which the
name occurs.
The peculiar and parobably impossible form nS:n in rwfrp
ns:n (in the Hebrew of Joshua 17 : 11) requires some explanation.
Evidently nS: is in the construct state in the other instances where
it is used (viz. in Joshua 11:2; 12:23; 1 Kings 4: 11), and is there-
fore to be ti’anslated “height of” or “heights of” Dor. As will
be shown in the discussion of the verse, ns: in Josh. 17:11 was
likewise originally a construct form. It seems probable, that is,
that we have to do with a marginal gloss, ns: T\nunW’ whose
O - T T ‘
purpose it was to record a variant and superior reading of the
name of the third city in the enumeration: “IJO nS: instead of
1 See the discussion of Joshua 17:11 on pp. 45 if.
5 Cp. Trinacria.
3 See the discussion of Joshua 17: 11.
History of Dor.
27
simply “INI . When the gloss strayed into the text, the H became
of necessity the article, and was attached to the following word, while
was pointed as a segholate noun (jlipj) > with the first vowel
becoming v in the pause). But no such form would be possible
from the root qu, nor does there seem to be any way of account-
ing for the form, other than the one just suggested. The proposal
to pronounce the name as plural, jliDJn is quite fruitless. The
supposed segholate noun should be omitted from our Hebrew
lexicons.
1 Budde, Holzinger, Kittel, et al.
THE NAME TANTURA.
The name of the modern town is given by travelers under the
three forms: Tantura 1 , Arabic 2 , Tartura 3 , Arabic 5^j..tayb ,
c ’
and Tortura 4 , Arabic, In reality these are variant forms
of the same name 5 6 ; the letters r and n belong to the same organ and
are therefore, especially in borrowed words, easily interchanged.
The words tantur, tartur and tortur (also tontur) all denote a
pointed or peaked cap, formerly worn by the Bedouin of Egypt,
and still in use among the dervishes of Egypt and Syria. They
also signify the horn of bone or metal used as part of the head-dress
by Maronite and Druse women in Syria 0 .
Dozy derives the word from the verb , “gloriatus fuit”
't ° r
or “in altum sustulit, elevavit.” But does not seem to be a
native Arabic verb at all, and Fraenkel 7 rightly rejects this deriva-
tion. It is, on the contrary, extremely probable that is a
s ’ t ° t
denominative verb from the noun yyAsyio . In the Arabic language,
therefore, no derivation can be discovered for the nominal form.
In all probability the word is quite foreign to the language and has
1 Van de Velde, Narrat. 1:833 (1854); Wilson, Lands of the Bible, 11:249 ;
Wilson, Picturesque Pal., pp. 114ff.; Guerin, Sam. 2:305f.; S.F.P. Mem.
II, p. 3 ; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog., p. 128 ; Baedeker (4), pp. 231 f.
- P.E.F.Q. , 1887, p. 181, no. 38. Guerin writes \pyXk'S .
3 Chevalier d’Arvieux (c. 1700) in Labat, Merkwurdige Nachrichten, part
II, pp. 11-13 ; Buckingham, Trav. in Pal., p. 123 (1821).
4 Pococke, Description of the East , II, p. 57 (1745); Irby and Mangles,
Travels in Egypt, etc., p. 59 (1844); Munk, Palestine, p. 59(1845)— this writer
says the town is called by the Arabs Ras-el-liedjl (i. e. “ head of the plain ”).
— Instead of the feminine ending 5 , the three names are sometimes given
with the masc. s.
6 Dozy, Vetements, pp. 262 ff . , Suppl. 11:36 ; Fraenkel, Aramdische Fremd-
worter, p. 53, P.E.F.Q., 1896, p. 171 ; S.W.P., Name Lists, pp. 141, 117 ;
Arabic Dictionaries.
6 Dozy, loc. cit.
’ Loc. cit.
History of Dor.
29
been borrowed from without. This fact doubtless accounts for the
variations we find in the writing, both in its use as a common noun
and as a designation of ancient Dor.
Fleischer 1 , followed by Fraenkel 2 and Jastrow 3 , suggests that the
Aramaic ptp-lt? 4 . a plural noun meaning “ Ivopfbedeckungen, Miit-
zen ”, is connected with the Arabic (and its variants) of
Dozy 5 . He finds no Aramaic origin for !’£?“)£?• F raenkel raises
the question whether it be a genuine Aramaic word at all. Levy 6
suggests “teretes” 7 , Jastrow “turritum” (capitis ornamentum), as
the Latin original of the Aramaic word.
Thus the Arabic and the Aramaic pp"lp - both signifying
head-covering or cap, stand isolated in their respective languages
and yet in apparent connexion one with the other. Both seem to
be borrowed, and the original must be sought in some language
with which the people of Syria and Arabia came into contact. The
conquest of these lands by Alexander opened the way for Greek
influence upon the native languages, and the Roman settlers after
Pompey brought in many Latin words ; in either the Greek or the
Latin, then, the original word is probably to be sought.
The Latin “tentorium” (English “tent” — in Middle Latin it is
also used to signify an “ umbrella ” 8 ) seems to be the most probable
9 O s _
original of both G i G and f*p“)p • In borrowed words the ten-
dency is to conform at first rather closely to the original form; later
the word is changed to accommodate it more nearly to the language
into which it is taken. The Aramaic form as borrowed from the
Latin “ tentorium ” was probably "VlIOJD > the “ium” as usual drop-
! ping off. Metathesis in borrowed words is very common and fol-
1 In his supplementary notes in J. Levy, Neuhebraischesund Chalcldisches
Worterbuch, Vol. II, p. 210 (1879).
2 Die Aram. Fremdworter im Arab., p. 53 (1886).
3 Diet, of the Targumim, etc., p. 552b (1903).
4 Jastrow vocalizes rpnp •
5 S. Krauss (Grieeh. u. Lutein. Lehnworter im Talmud, etc., II, pp. 271 ff.)
questions, but without sufficient reason, this definition of .
6 Neuhebr. u. Chald. Worterbuch, s.v.
1 Plural of adj. teres, “rounded off”; fig. “smooth”.
8 Du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis, s.v.
30
George Dahl,
lows no fixed laws 1 . Consequently the transposition of J and *1 in
this word resulting in the form is not an unusual phe-
nomenon. The ending In was later regarded as plural.
In the Arabic a somewhat similar process took place. The oldest
form of the noun is very likely ' U : U , practically a transliteration
of tentor(ium). Next the n assimilated to the r of the last syllable
fj } o "* .
and the form U U came into being. Last of all the vowel of the
jjenultimate syllable was assimilated to the ’ of the ultima, and the
$ * O * ..
form ^ \n U was the result. This last is the most typically Arabic
form of the three 2 . This explanation of the probable history of the
word is confirmed by the fact that at the time Dozy wrote (in 1845)
the word was in different stages of its development in various coun-
tries 3 . In Syiia the form tantoura was used; in Egypt, tartour;
and in Algiers, tortora. This illustrates also the fact that in Syria
each of these forms was used at one time or another, and probably
more than one form was in accepted use at the same time. It
explains, too, the persistence or recurrence of the older form Tan-
tura in the name of the modern town, although Tortura is appar-
ently the more recent version of the name. These various forms of
the word seem to be used interchangeably, now one, now another,
being in current use.
The derivation from the Latin “tentorium” thus takes into
account the various changing forms tantur, tartiir and tortur.
Levy’s suggestion 4 5 that is derived from the rather far-
fetched “ teretes ”, as well as JastrowV proposal of “ turritum ”
must be rejected. The derivation from “tentorium” has also this
superiority to the other suggestions — we can see that the name
1 E. g. aKi’og becomes in the Talmud (S. Krauss, Griech. u. Lett.,
etc., I, pp. 113 ff.). Cp. also Syr. NTnp from Ka/idaptov, Arab, oi-ya.
from > jjw._ii.xiJ> from jwJsA-o (/^™fa), from apaevinov, and
many others.
2 The form tontura also cited by Dozy (loc. cit.) is simply a variant form in
which the assimilation of the vowel ’ preceded that of the consonant
3 Dozy, Vetements, pp. 262 ff.
4 Page 29.
5 Ibid.
)
History of Dor.
31
might quite easily be applied to a head-covering. The peaked
cap known under the name of tantur bears some resemblance
to a tent both in shape and in the open space within; like a tent it
is a covering. The Middle Latin use of the word “tentorium” to
denote “ umbrella” is a suggestive parallel.
Through what channels did this word make its way into the Ara-
maic and the Arabic respectively ? The Aramaic-speaking peoples
came into immediate contact with the Roman legions and colonists.
In all probability they took over their TlD^D directly from the
Romans, later changing the form to ■ The Arabs, however,
did not usually come into such direct relations with the Greek and
Roman settlers; it is a fact that most of their Greek and Roman
loan-words seem to have come by way of the Aramaic. It is
furthermore most improbable that the same word should have been
borrowed independently both by the Aramaic and the Arabic. The
most probable explanation is, therefore, that the Arabs took over
the word from the Aramaic-sjjeaking peoples of Syria; these in
their turn had borrowed it from the Romans.
The question of how this name came to be applied to the modern
village, successor to ancient Dor, must be considered. Two other
instances of the use of tantur as a proper name suggest a possible
answer. Tantur Fer’on is the name given by natives to a tomb
just outside Jerusalem which is distinguished by a pointed peak 1 2 3 * .
A natural mound outside Acre, said to have been used as a redoubt
in a siege of that city, bears the designation “Tell el-Tantur”
(“Mound of the Peak”) 5 . There was probably here at one time
some sort of a peaked or pointed structure from which this name
was derived. Is it not probable that in both these cases the name
Tantur was applied because of a real or fancied resemblance to the
peaked cap or horn (tantur)?
The application of the name Tantura either to the ruins or to the
town 5 was made in a similar way. Until January 15th, 1895 (when
1 This tomb is otherwise known as “Absalom’s Pillar”; (Fleischer zu
Seetzen's Reisen IV, 256 ; S. W. P. , Name Lists, p. 319).
2 S. W.P., Name Lists, pp. 117, 141.
3 It is quite possible that the ruins were called Tantura before the town
received that name, perhaps even before the modern town came into being.
The name does not seem to go back very far.
George Dahl,
o o
it collapsed) 1 , the most striking feature in the neighborhood of
Tantura was a high tower, partly in ruins, situated on a rocky
promontory north of the present town. This was clearly visible at
every point from Carmel to Caesarea 2 . The tower was called
el-Burj or Khirbet Tantura, and in shape resembled somewhat the
peaked cap or horn (tan tur). Doubtless this, the most character-
istic and dominating feature of the vicinity, gave to the place its
name, Tantura. With the changes in the name of the peaked cap
itself to tartur and tortur 3 , the name of the ruins and town changed
accordingly.
The ancient name of the town may have played a part in fixing
the modern name Tantura 4 5 . There is a marked resemblance in
sound between Tantura (or Tartura or Tortura) and Dora, the usual
Greek form of the ancient name. In the Semitic languages the
dentals d and t sometimes pass over into one another 6 , so that Dora
might become Tora 6 . In fact the Tabula Peutingeriana 7 actually
gives the name as Thora, which is equivalent to Tora. This would
indicate that at a very early period (4th Cent. A. D.?) the name was
sometimes pronounced with emphatic t. That the distinction
between and Jo is not always strictly observed in this very town
is proved by the fact that Dr. Barth plainly heard the natives pi - o-
nounce the name of the town as Dandora 8 . It appears quite prob-
1 Schumacher in P.E.F.Q., 1895, p. 118. A. W. Cook, Palestine, 2:172
(1901) refers to the tower as though it were still standing. Baed. (4) (1906),
pp. 231 f. makes the same error.
2 Murray, Handbook (1875), p. 358; P.E.F.Q., 1873, pp. 99 f.; Baed. (4)
(1906), p. 231.
3 See p. 30.
4 The theory of Gesenius (Thes, 331) that Tartura or Tortura is to be inter-
preted jjb , “mons Dorae”, is not at all probable. So Riehm, Hand-
worterbuch I, 285.
5 Wright, Com p. Gram., p. 53; Gesenius-Buhl, under , £ 3 , j") ; Lane
1819. In Turkish both C> and Jo can be pronounced either as d or t (Zenker,
Turk. -Arab. -Pers. Handworterbuch, pp. 418, 588.
6 Cf. = 0 r/piaita (Fraenkel, Aram. Fremdw., p. 240). See also
Ewald, Ausfuhrliches Lehrbuch (1870), §47 C.
1 Ed. Desjardins, Seg. IX. The Tabula Peut. is probably of the 4th Cent.
A.D.
8 Ritter, Erdkunde XVI, 607-612; Riehm, Handworterbuch I, 285. In
Germany the Saxons in like manner often substitute d for t.
History of Dor.
33
able, therefore, that the initial consonant of Dora was, occasionally
at least, changed to emphatic t, giving the form Tora. When later
the tantur-shaped ruined tower became the dominant feature of the
landscape, the chance resemblance between the words Tora and
tantur may have suggested to some native punster the appropriate-
ness of applying the name Tantura to the ruins of Tora. Subse-
quently the inhabitants of the native town adopted the new name 1 —
The feminine ending of is doubtless derived from the Ara-
maic determinative ending fr$T 2 .
1 Compare the adoption of the reproachful term “Christians” by the
early church.
2 Supra, p. 17.
Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XX.
3
1915.
THE GOLENISCHEFF PAPYRUS.
In that important and interesting document, named after its pur-
chaser and first publisher the Golenischeff Papyrus 1 , discovered in
1891 at Ivhibeh in upper Egypt, mention is made of the town of
Dor. Hrihor, the High Priest of Amon, although not called King,
seems to be in control at Thebes at the time (c. 1100 B. C.) 2 the
events narrated in this document occurred; while Nesubenebded
(Smendes), afterward the first king of the 21st dynasty, rules the
Delta from his seat at Tanis. In response to an oracle, Hrihor
despatches an official named Wenamon to Byblos to procure cedar
from Lebanon for the construction of a new sacred barge for
Amon. In addition to a meager supply of money and presents the
messenger is given an image of the God, called “ Amon-of-the-
Way ”, which is to serve as a passport with the kings on his
journey. Having encountered extraordinary difficulties in the ful-
fillment of his task, Wenamon upon his return makes out a long
report of the mishaps that had interfered with the success of his
mission. The Golenischeff Papyrus contains Wenamon’s authentic
report.
As first issued by Golenischeff the Papyrus seemed to indicate
that the greater part of W enamon’s transactions, including the pur-
chase of timber, took place at Dor 3 . According to the improved
arrangement of the Papyrus fragments by Erman 4 , however, the
major part of this story has Byblos as its scene of action.
On the 16th day of the 11th month, in the 5th year (probably of
Ramses XII) Wenamon left Thebes. At Tanis he was kindly
1 Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. IV, pp. 274 ff. ; Hist, of Egypt,
pp. 513 ff. ; W. M. Muller, Asien. und Eur., pp. 388 f. : Mit. Vorderasiat.
Ges. (1900), pp. 30 ff.; Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, p. 470 (note).
2 Breasted gives the date as the “fifth year of the last of the Ramessids
(= Ramses XII, 1118-1090 B. C.), when lie is but the shadow of a king”;
Muller dates Hri-hor “niclit spater als 1050, wahrscheinlich etwas fruher”.
3 On the basis of this incorrect arrangement Outlie in 1908 ( Paldstina , pp.
74 f.) argues that in Wenamon’s time the neighborhood of Dor was thickly
wooded. Inasmuch as Erman had rearranged the fragments of the
Papyrus in 1900 Outlie need not have made this error.
4 In Zeit. fur Agypt. Sprache (1900) no. 38, pp. Iff.; Breasted, Muller and
other scholars follow Ennan's improvement in the order of fragments.
History of Dor.
35
received by the ruling Nesubenebded, and sent on his way in a ship
under the command of a Syrian captain. To quote from Wena-
mon’s own account 1 : “Nesubenebded and Tentamon sent me with
the ship-captain, Mengebet, and I descended into the great Syrian
(H’-rw) sea, in the fourth month of the third season, on the first
day. I arrived at Dor a city of Thekel (T’-k’-r’), and Bedel
(B’-dy-r’) 2 , its king, caused to be brought forth for me much bread,
a jar of wine, and a joint of beef.
“Then a man of my ship fled, having stolen:
— (vessels) of gold (amounting to) 5 deben
4 vessels of silver, amounting to 20 deben
A sack of silver 11 deben
(Total of what) he (stole) 5 deben of gold
31 deben of silver.
(About 1^ lbs. of gold and about 7^- lbs. of silver — Breasted.)
“In the morning then I rose and went to the abode of the prince,
and I said to him: ‘I have been robbed in thy harbor. Since thou
art the king of this land, thou art therefore its investigator, who
should search for my money. For the money belongs to Amon-Re,
King of Gods, the lord of the lands; it belongs to Nesubenebded,
and it belongs to Hrihor, my lord, and the other magnates of
Egypt; it belongs also to Weret (W’rty), and to Mekmel 3
(M-k’-m-rw), and to Zakar-Baal (T’-k , -rw-B-‘-r’) 4 5 , the prince of
Byblos 6
“He said to me: ‘To thy honor and thy excellence! but behold
I know nothing of this complaint which thou hast lodged with me.
If the thief belonged to my land, he who went on board (Lit.,
descended into) thy ship, that he might steal thy treasure, I would
repay it to thee from my treasury, till they find thy thief by name;
but the thief who robbed thee belongs to thy ship. Tarry a few
days here with me and I will seek him
1 Breasted, Ancient Records, IV, pp. 278-9 ; cp. Erman in Zeit. fur
Agypt. Sprache, no. 38, pp. 6 ff.
2 Muller (Ms. und Eur., p. 388) transliterates the name Bi-d-ira.
3 There is here given first the Egyptians who sent the valuables, and then
the Syrians to whom it was to be paid.
4 =ty:>-“Dr-
5 This indicates the locality where Wenamon expects to buy the timber.
36
George Dahl,
“When I had spent nine days moored in his harbor, I went to
him and said to him: ‘Behold, thou hast not found my money
(therefore let me depart) with the ship-captain and with those
who go . . (four lines are lost here and an uncertain amount
more.)
(Some twenty -three additional lines are missing here) “ . . . the
sea. He said to me: ‘Be silent . . . (three lines containing but
a few broken words; among them a reference to searching for the
thieves. The jonrney from Dor to Tyre is somewhere in these
lacunae.)
On his way from Tyre to Byblos, Wenamon in some way meets
some of the Thekel with a bag (?) of silver weighing 30 deben.
He seized this as security for the 31 deben of silver he had lost.
Four months and 12 days after his departure from Thebes, he
arrives at Byblos. Having come in an ordinary merchant ship
without rich gifts, Wenamon is ordered by Zakar-Baal to leave.
But after 19 days one of the noble youths attendant upon Zakar-
Baal falls into a prophetic ecstasy and demands that Wenamon be
summoned and treated with honor. The king in conversation with
Wenamon asserts his independence of Egypt and requires Wena-
mon to send to Egypt for part payment of the timber he wishes to
secure. After the return of Wenamon’s messenger with gold and
silver and other valuables, the desired logs are delivered by the
king. Upon promising to pay the balance Wenamon is permitted
to embark. But to his despair he discovers eleven Thekel (Tak-
kara) ships outside the harbor, waiting to arrest him, doubtless
because of his seizure of silver from the Thekel he had met between
Tyre and Byblos. Zakar-Baal on the following day calls the
Thekel fleet to an interview, during Avhich Wenamon embarks and
escapes. Contrary winds, however, drive him to Cyprus (Alasa),
where he barely escapes being killed by the populace. He manages
to secure an audience with the Queen and is protected by her. The
report here breaks off and we do not know how Wenamon finally
managed to reach Egypt.
The Thekel (or Takkari), whom Wenamon finds settled at Dor,
had begun entering Syria under Ramses III (1198-1167 B. C.) 80
years or more before. In his eighth year Ramses met and deci-
sively routed in Syria by land and sea a number of maritime
tribes who had made common cause with the invading Libyans.
History of Dor.
B7
According to the Medinet Habu inscriptions', these tribes consisted
of the Peleset (Pw-r’-s’-t), the Thekel (T’-k-k’-r’), the Shekelesh
(S’-k-rw-I’), the Denyen (D’-y-n-yw) and the Weshesh (W’-s’-s’).
Papyrus Harris 1 2 adds to this list the Sherden, These sea-peoples
seem to have come from the coast and islands of Asia Minor 3 .
Muller 4 rejects the etymological identification of the name Takkari
with Teucri 5 , on the ground that the double k makes this impos-
sible. Maspero 6 * and Breasted 1 are inclined to see in them the
Siculi (or Sikeli).
Apparently these invading tribes received only a temporary set-
back in their defeat by Ramses III. In the reference in Wena-
mon’s account to the presence of Takkari at Dor we have proof
that within less than a hundred years Ramses’ temporarily defeated
opponents have firmly established themselves in Syria 8 . Their
realm seems to have extended along the entire coast from Carmel to
the Egyptian border. In the north were the Takkari; farther
south were settled the Philistines and the remaining tribes 9 .
Whether they came as a genuine “ Volkerwanderung ” 10 II , or simply
as mercenaries and robbers" who afterward settled down to agri-
cultural and commercial life, there is hardly sufficient evidence to
decide.
Under the weak successors of Ramses III these tribes seem to
have established their complete independence. It has been shown
that the Egyptian messenger, Wenamon, is treated with scant cere-
1 Breasted, Anc. Rea., IV, pp. 36 ff. ; Muller, As. u. Eur., pp. 359 ff.
2 Breasted, Anc. Rec., IV, § 403.
3 Muller, As. u. Eur., pp. 360 f.; ibid., Mit. Vorderasiat. Ges., V(1900), p.
4 ; Hommel, Grundriss, pp. 27 f. ; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog., p. 197.
4 Mit. V. A. Ges., V (1900), p. 1.
6 Hommel, Grundriss, pp. 27 f.
6 Struggle, p. 464.
I Anc. Rec., IV, p. 33.
8 Maspero’s theory (Struggle, p. 470) that Ramses III planted his captive
Pulusati, etc., along this coast to safeguard the Egyptian frontier is improb-
able and lacks confirmation. More pi’obably he was unable to keep them
back.
9 Baton, Early Hist, of Pal. and Syria, p. 148; W.M.M. in Mit. V. A.
Ges. (1900), p. 1 ; Ed. Meyer, in Enc. Bib. Ill, 3735.
10 So Breasted, IV, p. 33 ; Ed. Meyer, 1. c.
II W.M.M. , As. u. Eur., p. 360.
38
George Dahl,
mony both at Dor and at Byblos 1 . The king of Dor pays little
attention to the complaint about the robbery, and later the Takkari
fleet has no hesitation in pursuing Wenamon.
Dor seems to be at this period a town of some importance. A
fleet is maintained and the king carries himself with apparent dig-
nity and confidence. He seems to have very little fear before the
accredited representative of Egypt. The tribal name of the inhabi-
tants of Dor (i. e. Takkara) does not again appear either in the Old
Testament or in other literature 2 . Probably they were absorbed
into one stock with the more important and powerful Philistines 3 .
1 We must, however, make due allowance for the probability that Wena-
mon’s story is colored by his desire to justify his failure to fulfill his mis-
sion. By picturing the kings as unfriendly he would more easily excuse
his failure.
2 Unless “ alu Zak-ka-lu-u ” of 4R34, No. 2 refers to them. See below,
pp. 39 f.
3 Erman, Zeit. fur Agypt. Spraelie, 38: 1 ff.
DOR IN ASSYRIAN LITERATURE.
The town Dor is mentioned, together with other cities of Syria,
in an Assyrian geographical list (2R53, No. 1, Rev.). Unfortu-
nately this list is only a fragment and we are unable to determine
its exact context. Probably it is the enumeration of conquests or
tributary cities of some Assyrian ruler 1 . The transliteration of
lines 35 to 41 follows 2 :
line 35
al " Di-mas-ka
alu Kar-ni-ni
alu Ha-ma-at-(ti)
alu Ha-ta-rik-(ka)
al u Man-su-a-te
line 40 alu Du-’-ru
al u Su-bat, al u Ha-ma-a-tu
Dor is written :
( Damascus )
(?)
(Hamath)
(Hadrach)
(Mansuat)
(Dor)
(Zoba; Chamath)
Again in a similar fragmentary list of Syrian cities, whose exact
purport is unknown, Dor occurs, this time between Damascus and
Megiddo (2R53, No. 4) 3 :
line 55 alu Sa-me-ri-na
a - lu Di-mas-ka
alu Du-’-ru
alu Ma-gi-du-u
alu Man-su-a-tu
line 60 alu Si-mir-ra
(Samaria)
(Damascus)
(Dor)
(Megiddo)
(Mansuat)
(Zemar) 4
Here again Dor is written with medial ’ (={$).
1 G. Rawlinson (Anc. Monarchies II, p. 397 f.) evidently with this list and
the one next to be discussed in mind, names Tiglath-Pileser III as the ruler
in question ; he adds that “Dor was even thought of sufficient consequence
to receive an Assyrian governor ”. The information contained in the two
references to the town does not furnish material on which to base either of
his deductions.
2 Following Schrader’s transliteration in Keilinschriften und Geschichts-
forschung. p. 122.
3 Ibid., p. 121.
4 The balance of the fragment (lines 61, 62) is broken off.
40
George Dahl ,
As in Josli. 12:23; 17:11; Judg. 1:27; 1 Chron. 7:29; Doris
mentioned in this latter list in close connection with Megiddo. It
would seem that these cities were connected in a way that led
naturally to their being mentioned together. The fact that Dor
appears in the list with these other cities of northern Syria makes it
practically certain that the city is the one we are discussing, and
not some other of the numerous cities with that name. The writ-
ing with a medial breathing ’ corresponds to the more cor-
rect 1N'“1- A P parently Dor is at the time of this inscription
(sometime before 605 B. C.) a town of enough importance to be
worth enumerating among the principal cities of the West. The
town is not unknown in the land of Assyria.
Hommel 1 is inclined to identify the city Zakkalu (Zak-ka-lu-u) of
4R34, No. 2 with Dor. This document is a letter written by a
high Babylonian official to an Assyrian 2 . In it mention is twice
(lines 41, 45) made of “ alu Zak-ka-lu-u,” where one of them had
waited (in vain ?) a whole day for the other. The identification of
Dor with Zak-ka-lu-u is, however, very precarious. The name as
we have it in Egyptian references 3 4 is written with simple k (3) and
not as here, with k (p). Furthermore, we have no evidence that Dor
was ever called Zakkara or the “ Zakkalite town.” Hommel’s con-
tention' 1 that the name Dor is derived from Takkar might, if true,
indicate that Dor is the town referred to in this letter; but it has
been shown that his derivation of the name lacks all semblance of
probability. Until we find good evidence that Dor was also called
Zakkara or “the Zakkalite town”, we must omit 4R34, No. 2 from
the list of references to Dor in Assyrian or Babylonian literature.
1 Geschichte, pp. 432 f.: Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology,
(1895) 17:203: Anc. Heh. Trad., pp. 233 f.
2 Tiele ( Bab-Assyr . Geschichte, p. 145), however, holds that the letter is
from an Assyrian to a Babylonian prince.
3 Breasted, Anc. Rec. IV, p. 278 (T’-k'-r), pp. 86 ff. (T’-k-k’-r’); Muller, As.
u. Eur., p. 388 ; Hommel, Grundriss, pp. 27 ff.
4 Grundriss, l. c. ; see above p. 20.
DOR IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE APOCRYPHA.
joshua 11:2.
The first Biblical reference 1 to Dor is in Joshua 11:2, in connec-
tion with the conquest of Canaan by Joshua. In chapter 10 the
subjugation of the southern portion of the land has been described.
Chapter 11 continues the story by narrating the events connected
with Joshua’s conquest of the kings in the northern half of Canaan.
According to this account Jabin, King of Hazor 2 , forms a coalition
of these northern kings to oppose Joshua. He sends to .Tobab,
King of Madon, and to the Kings of Shimron and Aehshaph (Josh.
11:1); he also sends (Josh. 11:2):
rfrfltstti niU3 rrnjni “im ii wn (2)
t ” : - • v v t t : t t t • : • v ■ t : " v :
d»o nn n isai
t ■ t :
'*m ♦nrrni rn?op piprn ( 3a )
“And to the kings who were on the north, in the hill-country, and
in the Arabah over against 3 Chinneroth, and in the Shephelah and in
the heights of Dor on the west, to the Canaanites on the east and on
the west, and the Amorites, and the Ilittites, etc.” The Greek (B)
reads : (2) kou rrpos tovs (3acn\.eis tov s Kara 2iSu>ra Ti]V fieydXrjV, els ttjv
optLvrjv Kcil els rrjv 'Pa/3a aTrevavTi Xevepdd, Kal ds to TreStov kou els ‘PevaeSSdip,
(3) Kal els toii s irapaXiovs <:>! Xavavaiovs dnro avaToXwv, Kal els tovs napaXiovs
Ap.oppaiovs Kal ‘Evators, kt\. Variant : For QevaeSSdp, A* gives Nae8o>pi
A'F offer Nae08a>p. The form <3>evae8Sajp has clearly arisen from the
simple transposition of the syllables va and e in N ae6?>evveS8u>p of
Josh. 12:23. Apparently this Greek form is based, not on
as in the text here, but on as in the other passages 4 .
For fiSlifp in the Hebrew of verse 2 we should probably read
fiGVp - since there is no occasion for the use of the status con-
1 That is, first in order of book and chapter, not in order of composition.
‘ 2 Cf. Judges 4: 2, 17.
3 See below for change to .
4 The large number of variants in the writing of this name illustrates
how proper names change in transmission from one language to another.
42
George Dalil,
structus here 1 . The reading of the Greek: Kara SiSuW rip pe.ya.Xgv,
is certainly to be rejected. 2i8wv a arose from a misreading of
pflXD as pTs.D . It would seem tliat the Greek translator read
here IPO PD") |mD instead of “)PD p£)¥ 0 2 . Quite possibly he
was influenced by [iTV of verse 8. The Greek has airevavTL
for the hardly possible and points, therefore, to as the
original reading 3 . Q’Q is read by the Greek with the following
verse and mistranslated, kp tov d>£v-
veSSwp, fSaaiXea T eel rrjs TaAeiAatas.
Codex A is here, as usual, far superior to B. In verses 21, 22
•both the order and name-forms of the Hebrew are much more faith-
fully and more correctly reproduced by A. It has ©ava^, MayeSScov,
KeSes and Iexovap. In verse 23, A offers instead of ’EASwp the form
ASSiop. Evidently AS is the combination of the final vowel of (Saoi -
Xea with the initial consonant of Atop — a clear case of dittography.
A also offers in this verse the superior reading, Nac^eSStop. In this
form the SS instead of 68 is probably to be accounted for by the
fact that, in the cursive manuscripts, 6 and 8 are written so much
alike that they are easily confused 2 . For Tea, A reads TWip, and
for TaAetAatas it has DAyeu (i. e. IkAyeA, A in an uncial manuscript
1 See the discussion following, for departures from the usual rendering of
this passage.
2 Maunde Thompson, Hdbk. of Gk. and Lat. Paleography , Table opp. p.
148. There may also have been an unconscious assimilation in speech or
writing of the 0 to the <4 — For a fuller discussion of the word, see the chap-
ter on Naphath Dor.
44
George Dahl,
having been read A). In this last instance, IaXe lAatas of B is doubt-
less to be preferred to the readings of A and the Hebrew. In
agreement with the B-text the Hebrew here ought probably to be
emended so as to read w? 1 . It. is probable that, as in of
verse 22, in nw of verse 23 and in verse 18, a district is
referred to. We know of no district called but the name
t : •
is applied to the region on the northern border of Israel’s ter-
ritory 2 3 . Doubtless this is the district here meant.
The reference in verse 23 above is to Til no?? T)T • The
preposition 1-1 of nay? is rendered by the American Revised Ver-
sion (and usually) “in”. The same interpretation of p is generally
given in (verse 23) and (verse 22)\ In all these
cases, however, the preposition seems rather to be meant in the
sense of “namely”, “i. e.” This usage is exactly the same as that
found in classical Arabic 4 . An excellent illustration of this use of
*7 is found in Ezet. 44 : 5 : Vi-nirr^i nirrvva niprr 1 ?^
“ ISTamely, all the statutes of the house of Jehovah and (namely)
all its laws”. Again in Ezek. 44:9 the expression,
should be rendered: “namely (or “i. e.”) every foreigner”. This
use of 1-1 seems to have escaped the translators of our English
Bible.
In accord with this interpretation we must translate Joshua
12:22, 23 above:
(22) The king of Kedesli : One 5 6 .
The king of Jokneam (i. e., Carmel): One.
(23) The king of Dor (i. e., the Heights of Dor) : One.
The king of Nations (i. e., the District): One.
1 So Dillman, Kittel, Holzinger, Bennett, Steuernagel.
2 B.D.B. s.v. .
3 To these instances should be added in verse 18. This verse
must be emended to read IflN* “p? (So Bennett, Holzinger,
Steuernagel, et al.).
4 See especially Torrey, Ezra Studies, pp. 121 f., 273; Comp, and Hist.
Value of Ezra-Neh., p. 18; Wright, Gram. (3), II, 151 C ; Ges.-Bulil (13),
Handworterbuch, under ^ , §8b.
6 The numeral “ one” does not appear in the Greek, which is here quite
corrupt.
History of Dor.
45
Similarly the emended text of verse 18 is to be rendered:
(18) The king of Aphek (i. e., Sharon): One.
In ail these instances either the original compiler of the list or a
later glossator introduces by means of the preposition a more
comprehensive designation of the whole realm ruled by each king.
By the “King of Dor”, accordingly, is meant the ruler not only
of Dor proper but as well of the whole district above the city known
as Kaphath Dor 1 .
The list of kings in Joshua 12: 7-24 seems to come from a writer
of the Deuteronomic school 2 . It dates, therefore, from the Persian
period. Inasmuch as Dor can hardly have come under the domina-
tion of the Hebrews until a much later date 3 , it is most improbable
that Joshua really defeated the King of Dor. Consequently the
notice in verse 23 merely reflects the opinion of a Deuteronomic
editor writing in the Persian period as to the probable extent of
Joshua’s conquests.
joshua 17:11-13, judges 1:27, 28, 1 chronicles 7:29.
Following the account of the conquest of Palestine in the first
half of the book, Joshua 12-24 deals with the apportionment of
the territory. Chapters 16, 17 give a very confused description
of the borders of the “children of Joseph,” i. e., Ephraim and the
western half-tribe of Manasseh. After the south border of the two
tribes as a whole, and the borders of Ephraim have been described
in chapter 16, Joshua 17 continues with the borders of Manasseh.
Verses 11-13 then give a list of cities located in Issachar and Asker
ideally assigned to Manasseh, of w r hich the tribe was, however,
unable to secure possession.
1 The use here of Naphath Dor in parallel construction with the districts
Carmel, Galilee and Sharon (compare Josh. 11:2) is fairly conclusive
evidence that the term refers to a region dependent on or adjacent to the
city of Dor, and is not merely another name for the city itself. See the
chapter on Naphath Dor.
2 Bennett assigns it to D- ; Carpenter and Battersby to R 1 ’ ; Steuernagel to
the Deut. school. Holzinger is inclined to assign it to P», though perhaps
in dependence on JE.
3 It is open to doubt whether Dor itself ever came under Hebrew rule.
At least there is no satisfactory evidence to prove that it did.
46
George Dahl,
n\nijm TNtf-rvs “itston “DtW3 ntozzb »m au
n»niJ? ? i "n-p# ’3t?'n n’pijrn -wn ^cr-ruvn n»n 1 : 3*1
n3:n nw'-'w rrni::n i“r:xp ptpi rrni:3i “p^n ’3^'n
?nvi n^xn onyrrnN ^nm 1 ? ntsoo ’:3 to a*)
v • • t • t v v • : v - : • * : t :
: mrrr f"iN3 rto*? ♦jj^n
n't tom to *:y:3rrnN i:rm tob” >:3 iprn ’3 ’rrn as)
' ' ’tonin
(11) “And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher: Beth-shean
and its dependencies, and Ibleam and its dependencies, and the
inhabitants of Dor and its dependencies, and the inhabitants of
Endor and its dependencies, and the inhabitants of Taanach and its
dependencies, and the inhabitants of Megiddo and its dependencies
(Third in it is Napliath) 1 .
(12) Yet the children of Manasseh were unable to dispossess
those cities; but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that
region.
(13) And it came to pass, when the children of Israel became
strong enough, that they put the Canaanites in the working gangs,
but by no means dispossessed them.”
The Greek (B) reads:
(11) Kal earai Mai/acrcri) iv Icrcayap Kai iv A.arjp Kaidoav Kai at Kwpui
avToiv, Kai rows kultolkovvtqs Aoip ko. l ras Kiopas avn)s, Kai rows kutolkovvtus
May«S8io Kal ras Kiopas airr/s, Kal to TpiTOV tj)s Madera Kal ras k ( upas' a vttjs.
(12) Kal ovk i/6vvdjr9r/im}' ol viol Mavacrcri) i£o\e9pevcrai ras irokeis ravras
Kai ppytTO 6 Xu vavaios KaroiKeiv iv Trj yrj Tavrty
(13) Kal iyevrjOr) Kal iirex KaTiavvaav oi viol Icrpa?)A, Kal iiroiyjuav roi>s
Xava vaiovs virrjKoovs, i^oXeBpevaai Se avTovs ovk i^wXiOpevaav.
In v.ll instead of KaiOoav, B a mg A read more correctly BaiOaav.
For A«j p, B ab mg reads ’ESwp. A has the form MaycSSwp. A inserts
before Kal TO rpiTov the phrase : Kat tovs ko.toikovvtos Taray Kai ras
Kaipas avTT) s. For Madera, A has Na<)>e#a. V.12: A has r)8vvr}9r](rav.
For r/p^eTo, A reads r/piaro (Cp. Judg. 1:27). Y.13: A omits the
Second Kai. For iwel KaTia^vcrav B b A have €TnKaT (a^vaav- For
i^oXcOpevaai, A reads 6\e9pevcrai. In verse 11 the rendering of hi’)
in the Greek as a future, eo-rai, is probably due to the carrying over
1 See discussion below.
History of Dor.
47
into the narrative of the idea of divine command suggested by the
reference in verse 4 to Moses’ injunctions. That this is actually
meant to be a future form is proved by its repetition in verses 8,
9, 10, and by Kara/3rj(reTai. in verse 9. — In verses 12, 13, JJt'Hin ,
“to dispossess,” is rendered tioAedpevacu, “to destroy utterly.” (Cp.
i£a(pwv in Judg. 1:27 (B), rendered by A there as ii vlov la pay X.
(29) “And upon the borders of the children of Manasseh,
Bethshean and its dependencies, Taanach and its dependencies,
Megiddo and its dependencies, Dor and its dependencies. In these
dwelt the children of Joseph the son of Israel.”
Comments on the Greek: For ®aXp.y, A reads ©aavay. A has
MayeSSto. For vlov A* reads Got. For BaXaS A reads BaXaaS, which
evidently corresponds to B aXaap. of Judg. 1:27 (A), and like it is a
corrupt rendering of ajfry. r i die initial iota of ’I efiXaap was per-
haps dropped through the influence of the final iota of Kal preced-
ing the name. (But cp. of 1 Chron. 6:55). The form
BaXaaS (with S) may be due to the common confusion in Greek
uncial writing of A and M. The fact that the name occurs in some
of the Greek texts 1 , though lacking in the Hebrew, is probably to
be accounted for by the tendency of the Greek translators (or
editors) to use their own judgment in revising and interpreting the
text before them (Cp. Atop in the Greek of Judg. 1: 31, and y tanv
2,kv6o)v 7roXis of Judg. 1:27). Here Jibleam seems to have been
introduced from the parallel passages in Josh. 17:11 and Judg.
1 : 27, more probably the latter 2 .
As has been suggested above 3 , the peculiar phrase flQJUl
in Josh. 17:11 was in all probability originally a marginal gloss,
that later found its way into the text, meant to
point out that the third town in the list = “third of it”)
was to be read with prefixed D£3J; i. e., “INI rifij- r J Ibis was
“ T - T
evidently a variant reading, whether the original and correct one
1 Lagarde’s Edition omits B ahaS but follows the order of B. Instead of
M avaaar/, it reads Mwur/f. Holmes-Parsons omits IZa'AaaS in the text (based
on KE<1>) but records it as appearing in several texts.
2 The order of towns (except Dor) follows that of Judg. 1:27, and the form
B a?,aad is, as explained above, equivalent to B alaap of that verse.
3 Pages 26 f .
Trans. Conn. Acad., Yol. XX.
4
1915.
50
George Dahl,
or intended merely to distinguish this “INI from other Dor’s, for
example, from “i“l in the same verse. By a very natural mis-
take, the two words of the gloss were wrongly divided, the pi be-
ing taken for the article and therefore joined to the following.
The gloss was then inserted at the end of the verse, no other place
being obviously suitable for it. PlGJPf could not of course be read
as nsjn , since ns: could only be the construct state of a noun
_ T - - T ^
ppp from the root The word was therefore not unnaturally
read as a segholate, as though from a root nflj • (To read
naan - as some modern commentators have suggested, is only to
make a bad matter worse. The phrase would be grammatically
objectionable, Pljjpjjf with a feminine noun, and the troublesome
article; moreover, it has no possible meaning in the present con-
text.) This explanation seems to be the only one that will in any
satisfactory manner really explain the phrase that has proved such
a stumbling block to all commentators 1 2 .
in pincmtp of Ezekiel 21 : 19 (Ileb.) we have a case almost exactly
parallel to the one under discussion. The true significance of the
form n rw'hv h as also in this instance escaped the commentators.
The verse, now corrupt, reads as follows:
mn tp -jrn Nmn oiN-p pipin') a»)
□rP rninrr nmn n mn N»n Din
Apparently, a marginal note, mn Pint PpJP > supplied a
variant reading for Din (wh ich is the third time the word
° T T
mn appears in the verse). That is, the form of the verse which the
glossator wished to preserve was the following: mn mn
'•m ‘nun o^n mn n»h oP s n . Observe that this reading
(with instead of ppn) is supported by the Old Greek (rpav-
Ijmt iu>v) and by the Peshitto (U^-M), which accordingly corroborate
our proposed explanation of the difficult nPUPpLP - — For the rest,
T
the verse is obscure; in fact this very obscurity may have led to
the writing of the marginal gloss that later, by its insertion into
1 The v in p0J is lengthened in pause.
IT
2 The Greek, with its to rpirov rf/c ’Na^eda, has mistaken the phrase as a
town name, and is of no assistance in determining the true meaning of the
expression.
History of Dor.
51
the text, greatly added to the difficulties. But whatever may be
the correct reading of the rest of the passage, the explanation given
for is apparently the only one that will really account
for its presence in the verse.
That the above interpretation of the occurrence of j“0.3n DtybW
in Josh. 17 : 11 is correct is rendered still more sure by the study of
a similarly obscure phrase in Isaiah 65: 7. Here at the end of the
verse we read: DJTfl by fi^iO WOI • The conclud-
ing phrase of the preceding verse (65:6) reads: Dp’H by •
In some manuscripts there must have been variation in, or doubt
about, the reading of the preposition. (The form of our M.T.
is obviously a combination of the two readings and by)- Con-
sequently, some scribe seems to have placed in the margin opposite
verse 7 a note calling attention to the fact that the undoubted read-
ing of verse 6, the “first ” (rufeftn) occurrence of the phrase, was
Dp’n by- When this gloss, viz. by rtffcten - was transferred
from the margin into the text, the vowel of the which already
stood there was carefully preserved.
In each of the three cases discussed above (i. e., Josh. 17:11,
Ezek. 21:19 and Is. 65:7), the recognition of the gloss “first
time” or “third time ” solves a riddle which has seemed insoluble.
Cases of the insertion of the similar gloss “second time”
are already well known ; see for example the commentators on
Ezekiel 4 : 6.
A comparison of the Hebrew of Josh. 17:11 and Judg. 1:27
reveals the fact that the former has one name (viz. more
than the latter. Nor does Endor appear in 1 Chron. 7:29. In
the Peshitto of Josh. 17:11, Endor has actually displaced Dor.
Together with Jibleam it is omitted in the Greek (A) of the verse
in Joshua 1 . Inasmuch as Endor lies considerably north of the rest
of this line of border towns, and the textual evidence for it is so
poor, it probably has no place at all in this list. It would seem
that in some early manuscript Dor was written defectively. This
led to the conjecture that Endor was meant, which thus crept into
the text as an additional name. Some later reader decided, and
1 It is barely possible that 'Edup of B a b m s may represent the name. — The
B-text also omits Taanach. These omissions in the Greek are probably
accidental.
52
George Dahl,
rightly, that Naphat.h Dor was meant; his conjecture is preserved
in nsjn r\0 Qf at the close of the verse. In view of the proba-
bilities, and of the evidence against its originality, we must reject
“H from Josh. 17:11.
Of the three passages cited (i.e. Josh. 17:11-13; Judg. 1:27, 28
and 1 Chron. 7:29) the one in Judges is in all probability the
oldest and most historical. Apparently the notice in Joshua has
been borrowed from that in Judges and has been modified to some
extent. To fit the later theory of the tribal domains, the Joshua
passage introduces the “correction: ” “IkhS'Dl Just
L t : t t *
what this theory in regard to the settlements of the tribes was, it is
impossible for us, in view of the confused and conflicting state-
ments regarding it, to determine. That Judg. 1:27, 28 is the
older and better account is further indicated by the fact that it
bluntly states that Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of
these cities (which, according to 2 : lb-5a, they could have done
had they obeyed Jahweh’s commands), while Josh. 17:12 softens
this down and lessens their guilt by declaring the children of
Manasseh were not able to dispossess them. In the retention in
Josh. 17 : 11 of the accusative and of from Judg.
1 : 27 (where they fit into the construction as they do not at all in
the Joshua passage) there is added evidence for the dependence of
Josh. 17:11-13 on Judg. 1:27, 28.
The list of boundaries of Manasseh in 1 Chron. 7 : 29 agrees in
content but not in form with Josh. 17:11’. It would appear that
the Chronicler has rearranged the names he found in the other two
passages, so that the order followed by him is the correct geograph-
ical one, with Dor last. To change (with Moore and Budde) the
arrangement of the towns in Josh. 17:11, Judg. 1:27, so as to
follow the geographical order is hardly justifiable. Both passages
place Dor third in the list, and the gloss n£tf rvvhw corroborates
this order. The Taanach Jibleam order of Judg. 1:27 may
have been corrected by the one who borrowed the verse in Josh.
17:11. Dor’s position in both j^assages may be due to a doubt as
to Avhich Dor was meant (cp. Endor in Josh. 17 : ll) 1 2 . It would
1 As explained above, Jibleam is not given by the Chronicler (Hebrew)
though it is represented in the Greek by B a?ia(a)6.
2 Ancient lists of towns are often in very irregular order. See on Judith
2:28 below, p. 55.
History of Dor.
53
appear that the account in Judges belongs to the J. strand of
narrative, and that Josh. 17 : 11 is borrowed from this account.
The cities mentioned in these passages form a line stretching
from Bethshean on the east to Dor on the west. Betlishean (mod.
Beisan) is situated at the eastern end of the Great Plain. Jibleam
has been identified with the modern Bel‘ameh, south of Genin’,
others place it northwest of Bethshean, the modern Yebla 1 2 .
Taanach (mod. Ta‘annuk) lies west of Bethshean and northwest of
Bel‘ameh. Megiddois northwest of Taanach, at the modern Leggun.
This chain of fortified cities separated the tribes of Joseph from
their brethren struggling for a foothold in Galilee to the north.
in Josh. 17:12, Judg. 1:27 contains the idea of determin-
ation, and the clause may be translated “ persisted in dwelling (or
remaining)” 3 . The Hebrew text of Judg. 1 : 27 is quite irregular in
its use or omission of and rrnua • The reference in Josh.
: tv:
17:13; Judg. 1 : 28, to the time when Israel become strong (PllpflD
is probably to the times of David. We have no satisfactory proof
that the city of Dor ever came into his power, although in 1 Kings
4: 11 the whole region of Naphath Dor is assigned to Ben-Abinadab,
Solomon’s son-in-law 4 . DO refers to the working gangs.
Thus, according to the accounts of Josh. 17: 11-13; Judg. 1: 27,
28 and 1 Chron. 7:29, Dor is one of the border cities of Manasseh,
whose Canaanite inhabitants maintained possession of their cities
at the time of the Hebrew invasion. Later, it is claimed, these
inhabitants were put to task-work by their Hebrew conquerors. It
may be doubted whether the Hebrews ever secured more than a
brief suzerainty (if even that) over the people of remote Dor. The
frank statement that “they by no means expelled them” indicates
that the town remained Canaanite. As for Dor, it was far away
in Philistine or Phoenician rather than in Hebrew territory, and
therefore in a position to maintain its freedom.
judges 1:31.
The Greek of Judges 1:31 includes Dor among the cities
assigned to Asher which remained unconquered. The verse reads
(A-text) :
1 Moore, Budde.
2 G.A.S., Hist. Geog., Maps I, YI.
3 B.D.B. s.v. bw ; Moore on the passage.
4 See below.
George Dahl,
54
(13) kcu As KaroiKovvTas —iSun'a Kal roii s
KaroiKowras AaXaej) Kal rov AcryerSei Kai r^i/ SyeSiar Kal rr;i/ A(f>eK Kal rr/v
'Pow/3.
In the Massoretic text Dor does not appear. None of the ver-
sions except the Greek seem to have it 1 . The textual evidence for
the genuineness of the citation of Dor in this place is, therefore, very-
poor. In all probability the name is an insertion into the Greek
based on the passage in Josh. 17:11, where Dor is mentioned
among the enclaves of Manasseh in Issachar and Asher 2 . Both
Moore and Budde comment on the absence in the Hebrew of Tyre,
which lies between Accho and Sidon ; this is the very position
occupied by Dor in the passage. It is, of course, barely possible
that there Avas present in the original Hebrew the name “11V ; but
of this we have no proof. In view of the faulty character of the
Greek text of Judges and of the evidence of free redaction in it,
AA 7 e must consider it probable that the inclusion of Dor in the Greek
of 1:31 is the word of an editor’s hand. In any case it adds
nothing to the information contained in the passages already
discussed.
1 kings 4:11.
1 Kings 4: 7-19 contains a list of twelve victualling officers of
Solomon, placed over “all Israel.” Fourth in this list appears
(verse 11) the name of Ben-Abinadab, in charge of “all Naphath
Dor:”
ntriO t> nrvn rib^-ro nso “u\“i mrnx-p ud
T TIT “ “ T ~TT T T ’ “ I I V
Translation: “ Ben-Abinadab, all the Height of Dor; (Taphath,
the daughter of Solomon, was his Avife.)”
The Greek reads (A) 3 * * :
1 Walton’s Polyglot.
2 The verse Josh. 17:11 is based, as indicated above, on Judg. 1:27, which
also names Dor and precedes the passage now under discussion by only
three verses. Probably these verses are all connected with one another, at
least in the mind of the Greek translator.
3 The text of B in this verse is hopelessly confused and corrupt; it is
another illustration to prove how poor is the document Swete chose as his
basic text.
History of Dor.
55
(11) vlov ’A(3iva8d/3 7 raaa NafiaSSwp, Tamara Ovydryp SaAa>p.iov yv avr add els) ■
Whether and the other names in this list compounded
with Ben are surnames like Ben-Hadad 1 in 1 Kings 20, or whether
the proper names originally preceded Ben and were later accident-
ally dropped, is uncertain. In the Greek, viov should become vlos.
The els which appears at the end in many good manuscripts may
point to an original “IflK as in Josh. 12:9 ff.
The mention of sons-in-law of Solomon in this section points to
a period somewhat advanced in his reign. However, considering
the evident fact that the whole tendency of 1 Kings 3-11 is to
magnify Solomon and his reign, we may well doubt the historicity
of these reputed divisions of his kingdom. Again, as has already
been said, it can hardly be put down as certain that Solomon’s
realm really included the remote district of Dor, located as it is in
debatable territory lying between Philistia and Phoenicia. It is,
however, true that Biblical tradition is consistent in ascribing to
Solomon a greater extent of territory than was held by any other
Hebrew ruler. If ever the “height of Dor” belonged to Israel, it
was at that time. The passage does not seem to be from the oldest
strand of the narrative of the Books of Kings; very likely it was
from some other historical work editorially included in the book 2 .
judith 2:28.
In the book of Judith, following the account of Holofernes’
punitive ravages in the plain of Damascus, the terror inspired by
him in the coast cities is described as follows (Judith 2 : 28 (18),
A Text) :
Ka i eneaev 6 (f>o(3os Kai 6 rpopos avrov ini rovs KaroLKOvvras ryv napaAiav,
rovs ovra s ev StSohi/t Kai iv T vpw, Kai rovs KaroiKOVvras Soup Kai OKeii'd, Kai
n arras tovs KaroiKovyras Iep.vaav, kui ol KaToiKovvres iv A£wtw kul Auko.-
Awvi iof3r/6r]aav avrov a(j)68pa.
(28) “And the fear and dread of him fell upon them that dwelt
on the sea coast, upon them that were in Sidon and in Tyre, and
1 Gray (Prop. Names, pp. 73 f.) explains the form of these Dames on the
theory that, like Ben-Hadad, some or all of these officers were foreigners.
2 So Stade in S. B. 0. T.
George Dahl,
56
upon them that dwelt in Dor and Accho, and upon all that dwelt in
Jamnia; and they that dwelt in Azotus and Ascalon feared him
exceedingly.”
After ’AdKaXuivL, X- H.-P. X, 58. Syr. Old Lat., read kcu Tdtr/.
It is quite possible that Gaza stood in the original text. For
’Oxam, and H.-P. 19, 108 read Kivraious. But the town-name
better fits the context. ’O k and A top is easily explained.
The date of the composition of Judith is generally placed in the
second century B. C. It is a romance with its setting in the times
of Nebuchadrezzar. As such it has little or no historical value.
The principal value of this notice consists, therefore, in its indica-
tion that in the second century B. C. the writer recognized in Dor
one of the coast towns important enough to merit enumeration in a
list of the larger cities of the region.
THE ESHMUNAZAR INSCRIPTION AND DOR.
The Eshmunazar inscription (Lines 18-20) states that the “Lord
of Kings”, in return for assistance rendered, presented Dor and
Joppa to King Eshmunazar II of Sidon as a perpetual possession.
The text of the inscription reads: 1
• M'JO • pN • p • p’ • “Ip 18 .
. pr • • miN'n • pi • miN • • ini • jvn i».
. rbys • £tn • nw . mo 1 ?
• npp? • on^P • D^rP • pN • ^ . npy 20.
18. “Furthermore, the Lord of Kings gave to us Dor and
Joppa 2 , the glorious lands of Dagon which are in the field of
Sharon, in recognition of the assistance which I rendered; and we
joined them to the territory of the land, to belong to the Sidonians
forever.”
The date of this inscription is variously stated as the fourth or the
third century B.C., i.e., either in the Persian or in the early Greek
period. The argument for the date has usually depended on the
interpretation of the expression “Lord of Kings” pN)-
It is urged 3 that this is a Ptolemaic title and that the inscription
must therefore be dated about the middle of the third century B.C.
Schlottman 4 5 on the other hand refers to the Persian custom of
rewarding with gifts of cities those rulers who had served Persian
interests in some special manner. He therefore dates the inscrip-
tion in the period of Persian prosperity, perhaps during the time of
the wars with Greece. Schtirer 6 , on the basis of Scylax’ Awpos 7roAts
SiSowW 6 , decides that the inscription must certainly be placed in
the Persian period. His contention is that the transfer of Dor to
1 C.I.S. I, 3 ; Lidzbarski, Taf. IV: 2.
2 Hilprecht (Explorations in Bible Lands, pp. 615 ff.) makes the incorrect
statement that “Eshmunazar extended the boundaries of Sidon by the
conquest (sic l) of Dor and Joppa.”
3 E. Meyer in Enc. Bib., 3762 f., s.v. Phoenicia; Cooke, North Semitic
Inscriptions, p. 40.
4 Die Inschrift Eschmunazars, pp. 48 ff .
5 G.J.V. II, 129.
6 Geographi graeci minores, ed. Muller, I, 79.
History of Dor.
59
Sidon which Scylax’ statement presupposes is the one referred to
here by Eshmunazar. Inasmuch as Scylax lived about 350 B.C. 1 ,
Eshmunazar must be dated in the period of Persia’s supremacy.
This argument of Schiirer seems to have considerable weight. The
counter-argument based on the usage of “ King of Kings ” by the
Persians instead of “Lord of Kings” is not decisive. The latter
title was used of Alexander 2 and others, and may well have been
applied to the Persian overlord.
The excavation of the temple of Eshmiin at Sidon possibly
throws some light on the question of the date of Eshmunazar II.
According to the report of Macridy-Bey 3 , a first temple was
destroyed and another built in its place. This second temple was
in its turn demolished, not later than the latter half of the third
century B.C. The date of the building of the second temple
Macridy-Bey, on the basis of fragments of architecture found
there, places in the latter half of the fourth century B.C. The
destruction of the first temple he therefore dates about the middle
of the same (i.e., the fourth) century. It must therefore have
been built at least as early as the first half of the fourth century
B.C. More convincing still is the discovery, amongst the debris
from the first temple found under the pavement of the recon-
structed temple, of a votive inscription in basalt upon which were
engraved several lines in hieroglyphic script giving the name of
Ak’horis, an Egyptian King of the 29th dynasty (393-381 B.C.)
This would bring the probable date of the first temple back to the
5th century. Now the inscriptions of King Bod-ashtart were
found imbedded in the core of the north wall of the reconstructed
temple 4 . They were so placed in the inside of the wall that they
could neither be seen nor read, and evidently consisted of stones
from the old temple used in rebuilding the later one. These
inscriptions, therefore, probably belonged to the first temple and
are to be dated not later than the early fourth century B.C. Inas-
much as Bod-ashtart belongs to the same generation as Eshmun-
azar II (both being grandsons of Eshmunazar I), Eshmunazar II
1 Schiirer, l.c.\ Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften, II, 77.
2 E.g., in the Umm-el-‘Awamid inscription ( C.I.S . I, 7; Cooke, p. 44).
3 Le Temple d' Echmoun a Sidon (Fouilles du Musee Imperial Ottoman),
pp. 13 ff.
4 Ibid.., pp. 32-34.
60
George Dahl,
should probably likewise be connected with the first temple, and
his inscription dated in the early fourth century. When this
evidence is taken in connection with the testimony of Scylax (dis-
cussed above) we have fairly strong presumptive evidence that
Eshmunazar (and the inscription) antedates the Greek period and
should be dated during the period of Persian domination. This
tentative conclusion does not, of course, exclude the possibility
that further discoveries in Syria may cause us to decide in favor of
another date for this inscription.
P“l in line 19 has been variously translated as “ corn ” and as the
god “Dagon.” We know that Dagon was worshipped among the
Philistines'. Joppa lies well toward Philistia, and Dor, as indi-
cated above, was settled by the Takkara related to the Philistines.
There is, therefore, every possibility that at this time Dagon 1 2 was
also the god of Joppa and Dor, and that the inscription means to
indicate that these regions were within the realms of that god.
The use of the adjective jITl^ may give some slight indication
that in is to be interpreted as the name of the god. In both
Hebrew and Phoenician, “1 HN has the meaning “majestic”, “glo-
rious” 3 , and is very frequently used as an epithet of divine beings
(e. g. in C.I.S. 118, and in the cry of the Philistines in 1 Sam.
4:8). Compare also such common Phoenician names as
In line 16 of this same (i. e. Eshmunazar) inscription the word is
used in the phrase OTlfr's (“Glorious Heavens”), which
apparently designated the hilly district where the temples of the
gods were built 4 . Cooke (North Semitic Inscriptions , p. 38) says
of the adjective here : “The idea of expanse is contained in the
1 Moore in Enc. Bib., p. 983; Paton in Hast. Enc. of Rel. and Ethics, s.v. ;
Schrader in Riehm’s Handworterbuch.
2 It seems most probable that Dagon is related to the Babylonian god
Dagan (so Moore, Paton, Schrader, E. Meyer in Enc. Bib., s.v. Phoenicia).
It would appear that this god was found in the land by its Philistine, etc.
conquerors and adopted by them. The name Dagon is probably connected
with \n (=corn), for he seems to have been both in Babylonia and Canaan
a god of agriculture. On a seal he has the emblem of an ear of corn (Paton,
he.). On the other hand it is still possible that the name comes from ,
T
“fish” (so Schrader, l. c. ; Meyer, Gaza, pp. 115 ff.).
3 B.D.B., s.v.; Siegfried und Stade, s.v.; so also in New Hebrew, cp. Jas-
trow, Diet, of Targ., s.v.
4 Torrey in J.A.O.S., vol. 23 (1902), p. 163 ; vol. 24 (1903), pp. 214 ff.
History of Dor.
61
root; so ttk is suitably applied to the wide corn-lands of pB>”.
It seems much more probable that the choice of the adjective is due
to the presence of the divine name, Dagon. This agrees with the
usual connotation of The use of this particular adjective
here is, of course, very precarious evidence for the worship of
Dagon in Dor at the time of the Eshmunazar dynasty ; and yet its
possible value must be admitted 1 .
1 Neubauer ( Geog . Talm., p. 13) translates : “pays du Dagon adore ” with
the note : “ La racine TIN se trouve plusieurs fois dans cette meme inscrip-
tion avec le sens ‘adorer’.” While he has correctly perceived that the
adjective has probably been chosen with reference to the mention of the
god, he has no sufficient warrant, either in this inscription or elsewhere, for
translating it “adore.” The grammatical form forbids this and requires
that m*wn be read with nnN-
EARLY GREEK WRITERS.
HECATAEUS.
That Dor was not unknown to the Greeks in early times is evi-
denced by the citation from Hecataeus of Miletus in Stephan of
Byzantium 1 . Hecataeus, who lived c. 500 B. C., is quoted as fol-
lows (from his Trepiyyr/avi) : 'Emra-ios ’Acrta • “ /xer a 8e r/ 7raXai Acopos,
vvv Aa >pa KaAemu.”
“ Hecataeus in (section on) Asia: ‘And next comes ancient Doros,
now, however, called Dora’.”
But the change from Doros to Dora occurred long after the time
of Hecataeus 2 . It seems, therefore, that the version of Hecataeus
used by Stephan of Byzantium had been added to by interpolation.
We have no reason to doubt, however, that Hecataeus knew and
mentioned Dor.
CRATEBUS.
It has been argued by some 3 that Dor was for a time tributary
to the Athenians during the period of Athen’s hegemony in the
Mediterranean (fifth century B. C.). This claim is based on the
assumption that Dor in Caria mentioned by Stephan of Byzantium 4
is really the Phoenician Dor. The passage from Stephan reads as
follows :
ecrn Kai. Kapias Awpos ttoXh. r)v cnjyKaraAeyet Tali TroXariv rat? Kapifcais
K parcpoi er u! nepl xf/t](jncrp.aTwv rpirio “ KapiKos (fiopos Awpoi, ‘bacryMrai.”
“ There is also a city of Caria named Doros, which Craterus 5 in
the third book of his treatise ‘Concerning Decrees’ records among
the Carian cities (as follows): ‘ Carian tribute: Doros, the
Phaselians ’.”
Phaselis, the city named with Dor as on the Carian tribute-list,
was situated on the Lycian-Pamphylian border. These provinces
1 Steph. Byz. s.v. A C>pog\ Muller, Frcigm. hist, graec., I, 17, n. 260.
2 See chapter on the name Dor ; Schiir., G.J.V., II, pp. 138 f.
3 See Cooke, Eric. Bib., s.v. Dor ; Schiir., G.J.V., II, pp. 138 ff.
4 S.v. Awpof.
5 Greek historian of the third cent. B. C. (Smith, Diet, of Gr. and Rom.
Biog., s.v.)
History of Dor.
63
are far from our Dor, and it would require much more conclusive
evidence than has yet been brought forward to establish a probabil-
ity that we are to look south of Mt. Carmel for the city named by
Craterus 1 2 . It may be that settlements of Greek Dorians in Caria
led Craterus to speak of a city Doros that had no real existence.
It is far more probable, however, that the Dorians actually had in
Caria a city Doros, since the name is not uncommon. It seems
best, therefore, to reject the assumption that Phoenician Dor is
intended in the passage under discussion.
APOLLODORUS.
Apollodorus, an Athenian grammarian who lived c. 140 B.C. 3 , is
quoted by Stephanus Byzantinus 3 as follows :
' AnoXXoSwpos Se Au >pov KaXel iv XpoviKwv 8’ “ as Ao>pov oixrav iniOaXar-
TLOV TToXlV.”
“And Apollodorus mentions Dor in the fourth (book of his)
Chronica: ‘To Dor which is a maritime city.’ ”
ARTEMIDORUS OF EPHESUS.
From Artemidorus of Ephesus, a geographer who wrote c.103
B.C., we have a fragment in which Dor is mentioned in connection
with Strato’s Tower (later Caesarea) and Mt. Carmel. The pas-
sage reads 4 :
Kail ’ApTepuSwpos Aa>pa ryv noXiv oiSe v iv Ett Lroprj tu>v id “ Sweyais 8’ icrrl
Srparcovos nvpyoypa^>ovpe.vu>v to
avro.
“And Artemidorus is acquainted with the city Dor in his
Epitome book 11 : ‘And adjacent is Strato’s Tower, then comes
1 Kohler, Urlcunden u. Untersuch. zur Gescli. des delischattischen Bundes
(AbhaDcllungen der Berliner Akad., 1869), p. 207, cites from another Athen-
ian tribute-list K elevdepLq (on the Cilician coast opposite Cyprus) to prove
that Athenian influence reached far towards Syria. But this city is too
remote from the Phoenician Dor to establish his contention.
2 Enc. Brit. s.v. Apollodorus.
3 Ed. Meineke, s.v. Aupoc.
* Steph. Byz., l.c.; C. Muller, Geog. Graec. min., I, 576, Fragm. 18 (from
Marcian of Heraclea).
64
George Dahl,
Dora, a small town situated upon a peninsula, near the beginning
of Mt. Carmel.’ And in the ninth hook of the Geography the
same.”
ALEXANDER EPHESIUS.
In his geographical poem, Alexander Ephesius 1 , a contemporary
of Cicero (106-43 B.C.), joins Joppa and Dor in one of his lines.
Stephanas Byzantinus 2 cites as follows:
Kai ’AAecavSpos iv Acta “Aaipos r’ayytaAos t ’lony Trpov)(ovcra daAacrcrrji.”
“And Alexander in the section, ‘Asia’ 3 : ‘ Both Dor bordering
on the water and Joppa jutting forth into the sea.’ ”
1 Called Avxvoc; Knaack iu Pauly-Wissowas Enc. s.v. Alexander Ephesius,
n. 86.
2 Quoted in Meineke, Analecta Alexandrina, p. 374.
3 The geographical poem was divided into three parts, ’E vpunrj, 'Ada and
A if3vy.
HISTORY OF DOR DURING THE GREEK, MACCABEAN
AND ROMAN PERIODS.
POLYBIUS, HISTORIAE 5:66.
In the course of his early campaigns against Ptolemy Philopator
of Egypt, Antiochus III (“ the Great ”) besieged Dor without
result. The strength of the place and the reenforcements sent
by Nicolaus, together with the approach of winter, made him
abandon his attempt. This was in the year 219 B.C. Polybius
thus records the incident 1 2 :
’Aj/noyos ovvf.O'rapJvos noXiopKiav nepl rr]v KO.Xovp.evqv tvqXlv A ovpa", Kal
TTtpOj'vCLV 01! dev SwdpeVOS Sid TC TTjV OyvpOTqTa TOV TOTTOV Kal TOS TWV TTtpl TOV
NtKoAttOi/ TrapaflorjOtias, cvvanTOVTOs r/8q rov yeiptovos, avveydip-qae rais irapd
tov Tlro\ep.aiov it peer ficiais avoyds re iroimTtmOai Terpap.rivovs Kal rwv oXwv els
irdvra avy ko.to. fiqa eaSai to. e\nXdv9punra ravra S’ eVparre, TrX.e7.arov
p.ev onreywy rqs aX-qOelas • crirev8u)V Sir p/q ttoXvv yporov onroaTracrdat tuiv
olkclCwv tottwv, aXX’ iv rrj SeAevKeta Tcouqao.aOai rqv rd>v 8wdp.ea>v 7rapay«-
u.ao lav.
“But Antiochus had begun a siege against the city named Dor,
and could accomplish nothing because of the strength of the place
and because of the reenforcements they received from Nicolaus 3 .
Since winter was already drawing near he agreed with the ambas-
sadors of Ptolemy (Philopator) to observe an armistice of four
months duration and to enter into friendly relations in everything
that concerned the war. And this he did although he was far
from sincerity in the matter. He was eager, rather, not to be long
separated from his own lands, but instead to pass the winter with
his troops in Seleucia.”
Whether Dor fell into Antiochus’ hands the following year
(218 B.C.) on his way to the defeat at Raphia is not recorded.
1 Historiae, 5:66, ed. Biittner-Wobst II, p. 185 f. ; Reland, Palaestina, p.
744; cp. Noris, Annus et Epochae Syromacedonum, on Polyb., V:66;
Schiirer, II, 139.
2 In Aotpa, ov is, as remarked above, simply the confusion of ov with u, a
common phenomenon.
3 An Aetolian, one of Ptolemy’s generals ( Polyb. 5:61, 68, 70). Later he
fights with Antiochus the Great against Arsaces (Polyb. 10:29).
Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XX.
5
1915.
66
George Dahl,
Probably it became subject to him for a time after bis victory at
Paneas in the year 198 B.C. 1 .
1 MACCABEES 15; ANTIQUITIES XIII, 7:2.
Dor was again besieged in 139-8 B.C., by Antiochus YII
(Sidetes). Trypho, who had ruled since his assassination of
Antiochus VI (Dionysus) in 142 B.C., and had by his excessive
luxury and caprices alienated even his troops, had been obliged to
flee before Antiochus Sidetes to Dor for refuge. The siege was
raised, however, when Trypho in some way managed to escape
from the city. First Maccabees 15: 10-14; 25-27; 37; 39c reads 2 :
10. tTOVS Tf.Ta.pTOV KUL i/38op.rjKOaTOV Kilt €KUTO(TTOV fGjXOtV A FTtOyOS tls
tt]v yr/v twv naTfpuv aurou, Kal avrjXOov npos avrov naaai at Sura/xeis, wre
o At you? eu'at. aw Tpvcfxwi. 1 1 . Kal iSlw^ev avrov ’A rrtoyos 6 /lacriAeus, Kai
r/X6fv fits Acopa (ptvyo)v ty/v ini rr/v OaXaaaav. 12. ySci yap on imavvrjKTaL
in avrov ko.k olvlky)V , <$iai£as aypi ravryi, as re
tXwpav tfipovpiov ri SvadXcriv, Kal ^prjpard re rroXXa Kal rpocfrjv
toTs rrjv Auipav rroXiopKOvcn arparunrao;, rvtpxpas irpos ’A vrto^ov, acfOovox s
1 The numbers are doubtless exaggerated.
2 Fritzsche, I, p. 227; Kautzsch, I, p. 78; Fairweather, p. 252; Wace supplies
TroXiopida, and translates “for the second time,” or “in the second siege.”
It is better to consider this a redaction al resumption of the narrative of the
siege described in vv. 13, 14, which had been interrupted by the account of
the return of the embassy in vv. 15-24.
3 Text from ed. Naber. . . . The parallel passage in B.J., I, 2:2 is much
briefer, mentioning simply Simon’s assistance during Antiochus’ siege of
Dor, and Antiochus’ ingratitude afterward. Its source is the same as that
of the passage in Ant.
68
George Dahl ,
iyopi'iypiTev, ok twv dvayKaiordruiv avrov irpos oXlyov Kcapov KpiOrjva i cf)lXwv.
6 piiv yap Tpvcf>u>v is Trjs Awpas <£rya)r «s A7ra/xetav «ai Xr/ffiOus iv avry rrj
iroXiopKui 8it(i)v iv Aolpoj Tps koiAijs Supias irbXa. TToXiopKOvpifvos
vD ' jXvTioyov vytv e<’s IlroAe/xatSa tyjv ' Ak-^v Aey opiivrjv.”
1 Following in general Margoliouth’s revision of Whiston’s translation.
2 Steph. Byz. (ed. Meineke, p. 254), s.v. Aupog; also in Muller, Frag. hist,
graec. Ill, 644 n. 40. Cp. Fritzsche, I, 229. Charax probably lived during
the reia:n of Hadrian and the Antonines.
History of Bor.
69
“And Charax (in book) 11, ‘ Trypho, being besieged in Dor, a
city of Coele-Syria by Antiockus, fled to Ptolemais, called Ake.’”
The attempt to harmonize these variant accounts by making
Trypho go first to Ptolemais, then to Orthosia and finally to
Apamea 1 , is neither reasonable nor convincing. Evidently there
were in existence several differing and conflicting accounts of what
became of Trypho. Schiirer 2 'holds that Josephus used 1 Macca-
bees as his main source here, but that he freely changed some of
the details from some Greek writer, probably Polybius. Holscher 3
classes this passage with the other “ Syriaca” and assigns them all to
Strabo, who, he alleges, in turn found his material in Polybius
and Posidonius. Destinon 4 5 believes that Josephus’ source for this
passage was a writer who had already composed a narrative out of
1 Maccabees and some Greek writer. Inasmuch as the closing
chapters of 1 Maccabees as they now stand seem to be original 6 ,
it is probable that Josephus worked over the material contained in
them with the aid of material from some Greek historian. In any
case, Avhatever the process of fusion and relation of documents in
these passages may have been, it is the clear testimony of our
sources that Trypho was actually besieged in Dor by Antioclms
Sidetes and that he somehow escaped from that city.
antiquities xni, 12:2, 4.
Soon after the beginning of the reign of Alexander Jannaeus
(104-78 B.C.), Dor is mentioned by Josephus in connection with
Alexander’s plan of bringing the coast cities under his sway. Dor
and Strato’s Tower (Caesarea) were held at this time by a tyrant
named Zoilus 6 . When Alexander started his campaign by besieg-
1 Fritzsche, I, 229: Wace, II, 527; Schiirer, G.J.V. I, 253.
2 Hauck-Herzog, Enzyk., s.v. Josephus.
3 Die Quellen des Josephus.
4 Margoliouth (Revision of Whiston's Josephus), Introd., p. XVII.
5 See note above, p. 66.
6 Clermont-Ganneau ( Recueil d'Archeologie orientale, V, 1903, pp. 285-8)
gives an epitaph from a stone found at Dor dating from the year 169-170
A. D. , which gives a feminine form, Zoila. The inscription reads: luOia
kvdade keltcll etoiv rpianovra ipJavSpoi;. TAit' ' AireXkaiov epe.iv avrw Tponov (TTpaTtvu em
flroAe/xaiSa, Trj Se po-XV xparr/aus evexXei ere to A avOpanrovs eis tijv ttoX.lv Kai
1 In Ant. XIII, 9:3; 10:1; 13:4 he is called Antiochus Grypus. Holscher
(Die Quellen des Josephus, p. 39) shows that this variation is due to the use
of different sources, probably by Strabo.
2 In view of Ptolemy’s repudiation of their agreement upon learning of
Alexander’s double-dealing, it may be doubted whether Dor was finally
actually delivered to the Jews. At least Dor is omitted from the list (con-
tained in Ant. XIII, 15:4) of cities subject to Alexander, although Strato’s
Tower (Caesarea), its neighbor on the south, is mentioned. On the other
side must be adduced the evidence of Ant. XIV, 4:4 (parallel to B.J., I,
7:7 — see below), where Dor is included among the cities taken from the Jews
and restored to freedom as part of the province of Syria. Josephus’ notori-
ously uncritical use of his sources (as well as his personal bias) complicates
exceedingly the problem of deciding what actually is or is not fact in any
given case.
History of Dor.
71
TrepLKaOlcras avrovs STroXiopKa. twv yap ev rfj napaXia IlToAepais aurco Kal
rd£a povai yeiparOrjvaL irreXeu rovro, Kal ZwiAos Se 6 Karacrycbv rov Srpar ov
avrov ’Avrtoyov, os erreKaXelro Kv£tK7jvos, rroXepovvTwv aXXrjXovs Kal r 'qv avrojv
8vvap.il/ aTroXXvvTOiv r/v ovSepta tols UroXepaevcnv (3orj6eia Trap avrwv. aXXa
rrovovpevoLS rfj TroAtopKta ZoitAos 6 tov Srparcovos irvpyov KOTeayrjKws [7rap7)v]
Kai ra A wpa crvvraypa Tpeejrwv arparLwriKov Kal rvpavv l8l eTriyei.pwv Sta ri)v
rwv /SacnAeW 7rpos aXXrjXovs djuXXav p.u(pa. tols IlToAepaievat rrapefiorjOeL •
ovhe yap ol fiaarXels ovrw s etyov olkuws rrpos avrovs, war’ eXirlaux tlv a Trap ’
avraiv wcfreXcLav. eKarepOL yap ravrov Tots dOXrjTals eVacryov, ol ty) Svvapet
pev aTrrjyopcvKOTCs alerywopevoL Se -rrapaywprjaai SiereXovv apyta Kal avairavaei
Siac/repovres tov aycova. XotTrij 8 ’ avrols eXrrls rjv rj t rapa ra >v Aiyvirrov /3aai-
Aecov Kai too Ktbrpov eyovros TlroXepatov tov Aa Oovpov, os vrro Trj s pr/rpos
KAe07rarpas rrjs apyijs eKtreow els Kv7r pov Ttapeyevero. rrepif/avres ovv rrpos
tovtov ol UroAepatets vapeKaXovv iXOovra s
Sta/3as els Svpiav e£et Fa^aiovs cwecrrajras pera rwv UroXepaLwv Kal ZwiXov,
eTL ye prjv StStovtovs Kal iroXXovs aXXovs aural avXXrpjjeijdat Xeyovrwv, irrap-
Oels rrpos tov eKrrXovv ecr7revSev.
(Then follows in 12:3 the account of a change of heart on the
part of the inhabitants of Ptoleinais and their decision to have
nothing to do with Ptolemy. Although he learned of this, Ptolemy
came straight on and pitched camp near the city. But when the
people would have nothing to do with him, he was at a loss what
to do.)
XIII, 12:4. eXdovrwv Se Trpos avrov ZwtAov re Kal rwv Ta^cuW, Kal Seope-
vwv avp/Layelv avrols iropOovpevyjs arrow Trjs ywpas inro rwv ’IovSatcov Kat
’AA e£av8pov, Avet pev rroXLOpKLav Setcras rov If roAep.a tov 6 ' AXefavSpos, airaya-
yiov Se tyjv orparidv els rrjv oiKelav ecrrparrjyeL to Xolttov , XaOpa pev ty/v K Aeo-
rrarpav errl rov UroXepLalov perairepiropevos, efravepws Se rfnXtav Kat crvppaytav
Trpos avrov vrroKpLvopevos • Kat rerpaKocna 8 dpyvptov rdXavra Soxreiv vt rea-
yero, ydptv avrt rovrorv alrwv ZaitAov Ik tto8lov TroLrjaaadaL tov Tvpavvov Kal
rrjv ycopav rots ’IorSatots irpocrvelpai. Tore pev ovv 6 IlroAe/xatos r/Sews tyjv
rrpos rov AX eijavSpov Troir/crapevos frLXlav yetporrat rov ZtotAov, varepov 8’
aKOvcras XaOpa Sta 7 rep. 7 rop.evov avrov rrpos Tr/v ptjTepa avrov KAeo7rdrpav, Aret
rows yeyevr/pevovs rrpos avrov opKovs, Kal TTpoafiaXiov e-rroXiopKCL ty)v IlToAe-
patSa prj 8e£apevqv avrov ....
XIII, 12:2 “ When he (i. e., Alexander Jannaeus) had arranged
the government in the way he considered most advantageous for
72
George Dahl,
himself, he made an expedition against Ptolemais ; and having con-
quered in a battle he shut up the men in the city, and sat round
about them and began a siege. For, of the cities on the coast,
there alone remained to be conquered by him Ptolemais and Gaza,
besides the tyrant Zoilus who held Strato’s Tower and Dor. Now
inasmuch as Antiochus Philometer and his brother Antiochus, who
was called Cyzicenus, were waging war against one another and
destroying one another’s armies, the people of Ptolemais could get
no aid from them. But when they were in distress on account of
the siege Zoilus, who possessed Strato’s Tower and Dor and main-
tained a body of soldiers, and acted as tyrant because of the contest
between the kings, came and brought a little help to the people of
Ptolemais. Nor indeed were the kings so friendly disposed toward
them that they could hope for any succour from them. For both
were in the same predicament as wrestlers who, though they have
become deficient in strength, are yet ashamed to yield, and so con-
tinue lazily and prolong the contest by resting. Their sole remain-
ing hope was in the kings of Egypt, and from Ptolemy Lathyrus
Avho was holding Cyprus, and who came to Cyprus after being cast
out from his rule by his mother Cleopatra. The people of Ptole-
mais therefore sent to this man and besought him to deliver them,
endangered as they were, out of the hands of Alexander. And
since the ambassadors held forth hopes to him that when once
he had crossed over into Syria he would have the peoj:>le of Gaza
joining with those of Ptolemais; and as they also said that Zoilus
and the Sidonians besides and many others would assist him; he
was elated and hurried the preparations for sailing.”
(The people of Ptolemais decide, not to receive Ptolemy. He is
greatly concerned.)
12: 4. “ But when both Zoilus and the people of Gaza came to
him and desired that he would be their ally because their country
was laid waste by the Jews and by Alexander — Alexander, being
afraid of Ptolemy, raised the siege. And having led away his
army into his own country, he used strategy afterward, by secretly
summoning Cleopatra to come against Ptolemy, but publicly pre-
tending friendship and a real alliance with him. And he agreed to
give four hundred talents of silver, desiring in return that he
should put Zoilus the tyrant out of the way and allot his country
to the Jews. And then indeed Ptolemy gladly made this league of
History of Dor.
73
friendship with Alexander, and subdued Zoilus; but when he after-
ward heard that he had secretly sent to his mother Cleopatra, he
broke the oaths he had made to him, and attacked and besieged
Ptolemais because it refused to receive him.”
Strabo is most probably Josephus’ source of information in this
section. In XIII, 12:6 Josephus expressly cites Strabo and Nico-
laus (of Damascus) as his sources. A comparison of XIII, 10:4
indicates that, of these two, Strabo was more probably the author
of the section XIII, 12:6 (and so of 12:2-4), concerned as they
both are with Ptolemy 1 . In fact, the so-called “Syriaca” would
all seem to belong to this writer 2 . Destinon 3 , however, holds that
the direct use of Strabo and other sources by Josejihus was limited
to the passages where the name of the source is expressly cited.
In other instances he leaves open the possibility that the anony-
mous historian he supposes Josephus used as source may have
utilized these authors. It appears quite probable therefore, that
Strabo was really the source of the sections under discussion.
ANTIQUITIES XIII, 15 : 4.
Dor is not included by Josephus in his catalogue of Syrian,
Idumean and Phoenician cities held by Alexander Jannaeus toward
the close of his career (Ant. XIII, 15:4). The list begins with
SrpaTwvos Trvpyov, just south of Dor, and follows the coast toward
the south. As we have seen above, it is questionable whether the
Jews ever exercised any real control over Dor. This in spite of
the fact that Josephus further on in this same passage includes
YLapfxyXiov opos (“Mount Carmel”) and dAAas re 7t6A.«s n poTtvovaas
rrjs Su/otas yaav Kareorpap/xeVoi (“ other prominent cities of Syria
which had been destroyed ”). It would be unsafe to include Dor
in the list on the basis of such uncertain generalizations by
Josephus. It has already been suggested that there is no clear
statement in Ant. XIII, 12:2, 4 to the effect that Dor was ever
1 Timagenes (quoted in 12:5) was probably one of Strabo’s sources, known
to Josephus only through the latter.
2 Holscher, Die Quellen des Josephus, pp. 15, 39;- Schurer in Hauck-Her-
zog, s.v. Josephus. Holscher maintains (p. 40) that Polybius and Posidonius
are in turn Strabo’s sources. For the period after 143 B.C. (and therefore
for the time of this passage) Holscher believes Posidonius is the original
source .
3 Die Quellen des FI. Josephus, pp. 57 ff.
74
George Dalil,
turned over to Alexander. We must therefore disagree with
Schvirer 1 in his statement “ aber auch Doi’a muss zum Gebiet
Alexanders gehort haben 2 .” All we can say is that there is a
possibility that it was subject to him for a time.
ant. xiv. 4:4 and b.j., i, 7:7.
After his capture of Jerusalem in 63 B.C., Pompey, according
to Josephus, proceeded to take from the Jews many of the cities
that were at that time recognized as part of their realm. He
thereby greatly reduced the extent of Jewish territory. Dor is
included by Josephus among the cities restored to their own inhabi-
tants and incorporated within the Roman province of Syria. From
Pompey’s time Dor seems, therefore, to have been directly under
Roman rule. Josephus gives two accounts of these changes, one
in Ant. XIV, 4: 4 and a second in B.J. I, 7:7:
Kal Ta p,k v 'iepocroAv/xa xnrOTeXrj (fxopo v Ptopatois eTrot-rjcrev, as 8k 7 rporepou ot
ki'OLKOi 7 roAas eyeiptocrovTO rrj s kolXi 7 s 2 up fas atfaeAopevos V 7 ro toj cr^erfpa)
arparr/y a> kratev Kal to avpirav tOvos eirt pAya nporepov alpopevov euros tuju
iSfajv opcov auueVrre/.Aeu. Kal FaSapa p.kv ptiKpov kp.TTpotrOev ko.to.cttoo (freiaav
aveKTiaev ArjprjTptw yapt£op,€i/os toj FaSapef ar-eA evdepto avrov • ras Oe Aoi 7 ras
I 7 T 7 TOU Kat Sku^ottoAu' Kai ITeAAav Kai ATou Kai Sap.apaau ert re Map/. era u Kai
A^o/rou Kat 1 ap.uaav Kal ’ApeOovcrav rots oiKr/Topcnv aTrkdwKtv. Kal rauras
p,k v iv rfj p.eorjyefoj yojpts rtou Kar ar Kap,pAvan> , Fa£av Se Trpos Trj OaXaTTr) Kat
loTnryv Kat Atopa Kat 2r/jarojuos nvpyov, f/ KTtaavTos avrr/v 'HpolSou p.eyaAo-
7rp€7ruis Kat At/xeVtu re Kat uaots KoaprjcravTO s, Katcrapeta peratvopdcrOr] 7 racras 6
IIo/t 7 rptos d(fir/Ktu eAewepas Kat TrpoaivxL/xtv Trj eira.py'a.
“And he made Jerusalem tributary to the Romans, and took
away the cities of Coelesyria which the inhabitants (of Judaea) had
in former times subdued, and he put them under their own praetor
and confined the whole nation which had before so greatly elevated
itself, within its own borders. And he rebuilt Gadara, wFich had
shortly before been demolished, to gratify Demetrius of Gadara, his
freedman. And the rest of the cities, Hippos, Scythopolis, Pella,
Dios, and Samaria, as well as Marissa, Azotus, J amnia, and Are-
thusa, he restored to their inhabitants: and these were in the
1 G.J. V. I, 385.
2 Schiirer’s further statement (Ac.) that Zoilus was subdued by Alexander
is not accurate. According to the record it was Ptolemy Lathyrus who
subdued Zoilus.
History of Dor.
75
interior; as well as those that had been demolished. And also on
the sea-coast, Gaza, and Joppa, and Dor, and Strato’s Tower; this
last Herod rebuilt in glorious fashion and adorned it with havens
and temples, and changed its name to Caesarea. All these Pompey
left free and joined to the prefecture.”
JB. J. I, 7:7.
’ AipcXoptvos Se tov Wvovs Kal Tas iv kolXy] Svpia niiXus, as eiAov, vneTa^ev
t a) Kar' iseivo ’Pcopaiwv OTpaTpyw \ KarartTa ypivioj Kal povoo ; avTovs to is tSiots
opois Trcpi€KXei6aoavTcs Karco-Kaipav, I-kttov
2 kvQottoXiv re Kal Ile’AAav Kal ^apapuav Kal ’lapvuav Kal Map wav 'At,u> tov re
Kal ApeOovcrav, o polios Se Kal ras napaXiovs Ta^av 16 t rrjv Adlpa Kal Tpv naXai
Srpdrajvos irvpyov KaXovpcvrjv, vorepov Se pcraKTiaduadv re vip’’ HpojSou
(3apa
among the cities restored by Gabinius, the proconsul, in 57 B. C.
The parallel passage in B.J. I, 8:4 has Acopeos in most manuscripts;
but two good manuscripts read ’AScopeos. The correct reading is
undoubtedly "AScopa (or ’ASo ipeos). The fact that it is mentioned
along with Marisa points to the Idumean city Adora as the one
here referred to. Niese is therefore correct in reading "AScopa in the
passage in Antiquities. How easily the change from Dora to
Adora can take place is illustrated by the passage Ant. XIII, 6 : 5,
where all the manuscripts read Acopa noXiv rlys ’iSovpxwas, yet where,
as a comparison of 1 Macc. 13:20 proves, "AScopa is clearly meant 5 .
1 So Destinon, Holscher, Schurer, Margoliouth.
2 It has been suggested above that we are none too certain that Dor was
ever taken in possession by the Jews.
8 These “free” cities were, of course, subject to military duties under
Rome. Cp. Schurer, G.J.V. II, 105.
4 Hill, Greek Coins of Phoenicia, p. 117.
5 Schurer, G.J.V. II, 7 ; Reland, Palaestina, pp. 738-741 ; cp. also Contra
Ap. II, 9 below. — Perhaps the similarity in uncial script between A and A
may have had something to do with the miswriting of "Adapa.
History of Dor.
77
In view of the fact that Dor is not included in this corrected list,
the statement of Cook (in Enc. Bib., s.v. Dor) to the effect that
“ Gabinius restored the town and harbor (56 B. C.)” must be cor-
rected. Similarly, Guerin’s declaration (in Sarnarie 2:312f.) to
the same effect is incorrect.
ANTIQUITIES XV, 4:1 AND BEI.LTJM JUDAICUM I, 18:5.
Cleopatra’s attempt to persuade Antony to deprive Herod the
Great of his kingdom and to turn all Judea over to her was ren-
dered ineffectual through Herod’s presents and skillful address
(Ant. XIII, 38). Antony did, however, bestow upon her some of
Herod’s territory about Jericho; in addition to this he gave her all
the (coast) cities south of the Eleutherus river, except Tyre and
Sidon. Dor would be included in this gift. The date of this ces-
sion was c. 34 B. C. With the defeat of Antony at Actium (31
B. C.), if not before, Cleopatra’s possession of these tributary cities
of course ceased. Augustus was shortly won over by the generous
hospitality Herod accorded him and his army on their march
through Syria. Arrived in Egypt, he restored to Herod the part
of his realms taken by Cleopatra, adding thereto among others the
coast cities Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa, and Strato’s Tower. Dor is
not included here, and we have no reason to believe that Herod’s
realm ever extended farther north on the coast than Caesarea.
The account of the gift of the coast cities by Antony to Cleo-
patra is thus recorded in Ant. XV, 4: 1 (end) :
SiSwcnv Se Kal ros evros ’EAeu0epou w orapov iroXus aypts Alyvirrov yojpls
T vpov Kal SiSosvos, (k Trpoyovoiv etScos iXcvdtpas, iroXXa Xnrapoverys avrijs
a vrfj SoOrjvaL.
“Thus he gave her the cities that were this side of the river
Eleutherus as far as Egypt; he made exception however of Tyre
and Sidon (for he knew they had been free cities from the time of
their ancestors), although she frequently begged that these might
also be given her.”
The parallel account in B.J. I, 18:5 reads:
TroXXa Se Trj s ycopas avrutv aTroTep.6p.evos Kal Si; Kal rov ev Ieptyowri OLVi-
Kutva ev <5 yevvarai to (3a.Xcrap.ov, SiSoxriv avrrj ttoXcls re rrXrjv Tvpov Kal StSai-
vos rots evros EAei>0epou tt orapov nacras.
“He also cut off a great deal of their country; nay, even the
palm plantation at Jericho, where the balsam grows, and gave
78
George Dahl,
them to her; as well as all the cities this side of the river Eleu-
therus, Tyre and Sidon excepted.”
Plutarch 1 includes in this gift to Cleopatra, Phoenicia, Coele-
syria, Cyprus, a large part of Cilicia, the part of Judea that bears
the balsam, and the part of Nabatean Arabia toward the Mediter-
ranean.
Both passages from Josej^hus above are to be attributed to Nico-
laus of Damascus as their source 2 . In the Antiquities (XY, 4: 2, 4)
Josephus does not state, but distinctly implies that the Jericho
region (as in the account in JB.J.) was given to Cleojiatra, from
whom Herod was obliged to rent it. In these parallel narratives,
as elsewhere, Josephus is very free in his adaptation of his sources.
If, as seems probable, Dor is to be numbered among the coast
cities in this' account, we gain the information that Dor was, for a
short time after 34 B. C., at least nominally tributary to Cleopatra,
queen of Egypt.
ANTIQUITIES XV, 9:6 AND BELLUM JUDAICUM I, 21:5.
In connection with his account of the building of Caesarea by
Herod the Great, Josephus mentions Joppa and Dor. These latter
are described as smaller maritime cities, unfit for harbors because
of the prevalence of violent winds from the south. As a conse-
quence merchants are obliged to anchor their ships in the sea oppo-
site them. According to Josephus it was for the purpose of pro-
viding a safe anchorage on this inhospitable shore between Dor and
Joppa that Herod established the port of Caesarea. The account
in the Antiquities (XY, 9: 6) reads as follows:
/mr at /rev yap rj ttoXls (i. e., Caesarea) iv rfj 4’otviKp Kara rov eis Alyvn-
rov TrapaTrXovv lomrrjs //erafi) Kill At opwv, rroXurpiaTia ravr ear tv TrupaAtu
Bvaoppia Sia Tas Kara At (3a 7rpocr/?oAas, at aei ras Ik tov ttovtov 0ivos enl rr]v
gov a (rvpovcrai Karayoiyi/v ov StSdaarv, aAA’ etrrtv avay/tatov airoiTaXevtiv ra
7roXXa TOVS iflTTOpOVS £7 T dyKVptlS-
“ This city (i. e. Caesarea) is situated in Phoenicia, on the pas-
sage by sea to Egypt, between Joppa and Dor, which are rather
small maritime cities and unfit for havens, because of the violent
1 Ant. 36. See ed. Dochner, II, Vitae 2, p. 1111.
2 So Holscher, p. 25 ; Destinon, p. 120.
History of Dor.
79
south winds which, constantly rolling the sands that come from the
sea upon the shores, do not permit ships to lie at their station ; hut
generally the merchants are obliged to lie at anchor in the sea
itself.”
The parallel passage is found in B.J. I, 21:5:
/X€Tal~v yap Acoptuv Kal 'loirrjs, v ’IorSaiwr crvvaytvyrjv dvearycrav. oj Kal avrol yyavaKTrjcrav oi
SoKovvTes o.vtojv ideyeiv ov tij l8ia npooj.peirei yeyeviprOai Xeyovres aAAa T'rj tov
nXr/Oovs oppfj, vno eKOTOVTapyov ITpd/op-
pyv yeveaOai, yvirep SoKovatv poi 6rjpe.ve.a0cu Sta raw tolovtwv epyow, Kapov koI
tov tlimivtixtov uo' fiaaiXecos ’ Ay pLirnov ovSevds pdXXov irpovoovpevcvv , rj cva per]
dfxoppys 8pa£dpevoi to tow IovSeu'cvv edvos vtto rys apvvys rrpocjxdaei avva-
OpoLdOev els a ? rovoiav X^Pli ' ^ va ^ yveopepwrepov y, tl ku! 6 ~%ef3aards irepl oXov
roS npd.ypu.TOS icjtpovyae, rd iv AXe£av8peta uvrov 8io.Tdypa.Ta TrpoTeOtvTa
TrpoaeOr/Ka, dircp el koi yvdpcpa Trdcnv etj/ai SokcT Tore Kal ini rod /3ypaTOS
aveyvui 6 Tipudraros pot /3aaiXevs ’ Ay pimr as StKaioXoyyadpevos rrepl tov py Sew
avTovs defitupedyvai. r rjs rov ^efiaarrov Stvpeds. eis re ovv rd Xolttov napayyeXXw
pySepiav rrpoefmacv ardaews pySe Tapa^ys tyre iv, dXX iicdoTOVs ra tSta eOy
dpyoKevavX Yierpdmos pev ovv outoj rrpovvoyoe Scopddaews pev to napavopy-
6ev y8y riye iv, yevecrOai 8e irapanXyacov py Sex' els uvtovs.
“But after a vexy little while the young men of Dor, pi'ef erring
daring to piety and being by natui-e boldly insolent, carried a statue
of Caesar into a synagogue of the Jews 1 and set it up. This act
provoked Agrippa exceedingly; for it tended toward the dissolution
of the laws of his nation. He therefore at once came befoi’e Pub-
lius Petronius, who was then at the head of Syria, and accused the
people of Dor. Nor did he less l'esent what had been done (than
did Agrippa). For he judged it an act of impiety to transgi’ess
against lawful customs. So he angrily wrote the following to the
rulers of Dor: ‘Publius Petronius, president under Tiberius Clau-
dius Caesar Augustus Gei-manicus, to the magistrates of the inhabi-
tants of Dor, says: Since some of you have displayed such bold
madness, after the edict of Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus
was issued, for permitting the Jews to observe their country’s cus-
toms, not to obey the same ; but have done everything contrary to
it, in preventing the Jews from assembling in their synagogue by
removing Caesar’s statue and setting it up therein, and have com-
mitted an outrage not only against the Jews but also against the
Emperor himself, whose statue was more fitly placed in his own
temple than in a foreign one (and this is in a place of assembly) ;
whereas it is but natui’al justice that every one should have rule
over the places that belong peculiarly to them, in accordance with
the determination of Caesar; not to speak of my own determina-
tion, which it would be ridiculous to mention after the Emperor’s
1 Cp. the command of Caligula to Petronius to set up his statue in the
temple (Ant. XVIII, 8:2).
Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XX.
6
1915.
82
George Dahl,
edict, which gives to Jews the right to observe their own customs, as
well as commanding that they enjoy equal political privileges with
the Greeks. I command, therefore, that those men who, contrary
to the edict of Augustus, have dared do this thing (at which those
very men who appear to be most prominent among them are indig-
nant also, and allege for themselves that it was not done with their
consent but by the violence of the multitude), be brought before
me by the centurion, Proculus Vitellius, that they may give account
of the things done. Furthermore, I urge the principal magis-
trates, unless they wish to have it seem that this misdeed was done
with their consent, to j^oint out to the centurion those that are to
blame, so as to furnish no occasion for any sort of uprising or
quarrel to arise ; which they seem to me to hunt after who are con-
cerned in such doings; while both I myself and King Agrippa, for
whom I have the sincerest respect, have nothing more under our
care, than that the Jewish nation may not find an occasion of get-
ting together under the pretext of avenging themselves, and
become uncontrollable. And that it may be better known what
Augustus also has resolved about the whole matter, I have sub-
joined the edicts he lately published in Alexandria 1 , which, although
they may be well known to all, yet did King Agrippa, for whom I
have the sincerest respect, read them at that time before my tribu-
nal, pleading that they ought not to be deprived of this gift which
Augustus granted. For the time to come, therefore, I charge you
to seek no occasion of any sort of sedition or disturbance, but that
each one be allowed to observe his own religious customs.’ 4.
Thus, then, did Petronius provide that the breach of the law
already committed should be corrected, and that no such thing
should afterward happen to them (i. e., the Jews).”
Holscher 2 ascribes this section of Josephus to a source which is
concerned principally with the Herodian family, and which he
therefore names the “ Herodaergeschichte” 3 . The author of this
source he describes as a pious Jew, but with broader views than
those of the Pharisees. This Jew in turn had as his sources pos-
sibly Ptolemy of Ascalon, Cluvius Rufus, and state documents, in
1 Ant. XIX, 5:2, 3.
2 Quellen des Josephus, pp. 68, 79, 80.
3 This source Holscher finds traces of in Ant. XIV-XVII ; Ant. XVIII-
XX he derives practically entire from it.
History of Dor.
83
addition to his own general information in regard to the events
concerned. It is probable that Josephus dealt quite freely with his
sources in this part of the Antiquities (as elsewhere) and that we
ought to ascribe more to his free composition than Holscher is
inclined to do.
This edict of Petronius is probably the composition of some
author used by Josephus as his source. Doubtless some such edict
was promulgated, and the one given here is a fairly good repre-
sentation of its general purport. Ancient historians felt free to
compose such letters where they had no access to the original
copies'.
It is of interest to notice that in 42 A. D. there lived in Dor
Jews sufficient in number to maintain a synagogue of their own.
As in other cities in the Greek world they appear to have been none
too popular with the citizens of the place. Agrippa I appears as
the protagonist of the Jews in cities beyond his own realm. This
he could do effectually because of the favor he had won with Clau-
dius. Josephus does not give the sequel to his story; he has ful-
filled his purpose in indicating the favorable attitude of the Romans
tow r ard the Jews, especially as this is illustrated in Agrippa’s rela-
tions with the Roman governor and with the emperor.
CONTRA APIONEM II, 9.
Josephus ( Contra Apionem II, 9) refers to a fable quoted by
Apion from a Greek author whose name appears in manuscripts as
Mnafeas 1 2 . This story relates how, while the Jews were at war
with the Idumeans, a certain Zabidus came out of Dora, a city of
Idumea. Zabidus promised to deliver Apollo, the god of Dora, into
the hands of the Jews, and to bring the god into the temple, if
they would all depart thence. To this the Jews agreed. There-
upon Zabidus set three rows of lamps on a wooden frame, which
he fastened about him. The Jews, when he passed by them at a
distance, thought they beheld a walking star. In this way Zabidus
gained entrance into the temple, and carried off to Dora the golden
head of an ass that was there.
1 See the discussion of literary habits of ancient narrators in Torrey, Ezra
Studies , pp. 148 £f.
2 Niese conjectures Mnaseas, the pupil of Eratosthenes, c. 200 B. C.
(Schiir., G.J.V. II, 7).
84
George Dalil,
In answer to this tale, Josephns says that Apion has loaded the
ass (that is, himself) with a burden of ridiculous lies. The first of
these lies is his statement that there is in Idumea a city named Dor:
Kal yap tottovs ouk out os ypaef)ei. Kal irdXeis ovk eiSaxs p.erarlOr)aLV • rf
p.'e i' y dp iBovfiaui rxys xy/xerepas yuxpas early o/x op os', Kara Ta^ar KO.p.ewq, Kal
Aajpa ravrrjs early ovSe/xia ttoAxs' • rxys /xeVroi FouAxys rrapa to Kapp.xyA.ioi/ opos
Aajpa —oAts oi/o/xa£erai, p.qfi'ev e-mKOivoivovaa rots ’ Attlwvos (pXvaprpjjiai. • rea-
adpoiv yap ry/xep cot/ oSov rxys ’iSov/xaias aefrearyKev.
“For he writes of places that do not exist, and being unac-
quainted with cities he changes them about. For Idumea borders
upon our country, and is near Gaza; in it there is no such city as
Dor. There is, to be sure, a Phoenician city near Mount Carmel
named Dor, which, however, has nothing to do with Apion’s
absurdities; for it is distant four days journey from Idumea.”
Although Josephus so stoutly maintains that there is no such city
as Dor in Idumea, it seems quite certain that Adora of Idumea is
meant in this story. We have seen in Ant. XIY. 5:3 (parallel,
B.J. , I, 8 : 4) that the initial A was easily dropped. This may have
happened either through corruptions in texts or in popular speech.
It seems that this town Adora is called Dura at the present time 1 .
It would appear from the reference to it above that, at the time
of the writing of the treatise Contra Apionem (i. e., c. 95 A. D.),
Dor was known as a city, doubtless of some importance, in Phoe-
nicia. What is here meant by “ Phoenicia ” is not an easy question
to decide, especially as the meaning of the name seems to have
varied at different periods. In some documents of the Greek
period the term KoAxy %vpla Kal o(3ov 7reioivLKr)S.
“But I delivered them out of all fear, and pacified the multitude
in their behalf, and permitted them to send over whatever they
wished, for their own relatives were hostages with Cestius at Dor.
But Dor is a city of Phoenicia.”
Whether Dor was perhaps at this time used by Cestius Gallus as
a base of operations is not clear. In view of the fact that Caesarea,
a few miles south of Dor, was used by the procurator of Judea as
his capital city, it seems rather remarkable that the hostages were
not sent there. It may be that the attack of the Jews upon
1 See discussion of Eshmunazar inscription above.
2 Muller, Geog. Graeci Minores, I, 79.
3 But cp. Vita §67, where Josephus storms this city when the inhabitants
send to Cestius Gallus for aid.
86
George Dahl ,
Caesarea to avenge the slaughter of their countrymen there 1 had
rendered it unsafe; and that Dor, lying farther to the north, with
pronounced anti-Jewish proclivities 2 and not so easily accessible
from Jewish territory, furnished temporarily safer shelter 3 . Dor
is here once more reckoned as part of Phoenicia 4 .
JOSEPHUS IN STEPHAN OE BYZANTIUM.
After referring to Hecataeus 5 as his authority for the statement
that Dor was anciently called Awpos but more recently called Awpa,
Stephan of Byzantium 6 proceeds to cite Josephus, who illustrates
both usages:
kuI outcos 1 oW/pros avrrjv Ku\ti iv £ rrjs IovSa'ixys ioropias “ diro fiev
'lopSdvov Aoipojv 7roA£tt)5.” xal TrdAiv “ ’A£u>t ko.1 Aolpois dptCj/xei'ot.”
kcu iv s “ etrai rt yvvaiov iv iroXei Acopo).” kox ttolAlv “ ore yveyxev eis tijv
A mpovD
“And thus does Josephus refer to it in Book 5 of his Jewish
History: ‘From the Jordan to the city Dora.’ And again:
‘Bounded by Azotus and Dora.’ And in Book 6: ‘That there
was a certain (little) woman in the city Doros.’ And again:
‘ When he brought into Doros.’ ”
The first quotation given by Stephan above is_ from Ant. V,
1:22, where Josephus relates that the allotment of the half-tribe
of Manasseh extended from the Jordan to the city Dor, with its
breadth at Bethshan (Scythopolis). It has been shown above 7 that
the whole matter of the original territories of the various tribes is
so confused in the various Biblical accounts that nothing can be
definitely determined concerning it. Probably the borders were
not fixed in early times; certainly not at the time when the tribes
were gradually taking possession of the land. Josephus’ statement
here is, consequently, of little value.
The second quotation above is likewise from Ant. Y, 1 : 22, and
describes the limits of the territory of the Danites. This account
1 B.J. II, 18:1, 2.
2 See Ant. XIX, 6 :3, 4 above.
3 It is always possible that Josephus’ details are not accurate, although he
ought to be well-informed in the present instance.
4 See Contra Ap. IT, 9 above.
5 See p. 62.
6 Ed. Meineke, 1849, p. 254.
7 See p. 52.
History of Dor.
87
also is of no i^articular historical value, especially in view of the
fact that we see the Danites changing their location in the narra-
tive contained in the Book of Judges. Both these quotations from
Ant. V, 1:22 serve to illustrate the use of the plural form A a>pa,
which Stephan has just referred to (in the preceding quotation
from Hecataeus) as the later form of Dor’s name.
The third and fourth quotations from Josephus above are found
in Ant. VI, 14:2. The passage deals with the visit of Saul to the
witch of Endor, and has nothing whatever to do with Dor. The
name should be read (with Naber) "EvSwpos 1 2 . These last two cita-
tions (i. e. from Ant. VI, 14:2) differ somewhat from our present
text. The former reads 8 rival tl ywaiov tolovtov iv ttoXcl Awpai. Here
tolovtov has dropped out in some way. In the latter citation, the
texts of Naber and Niese read : t/kev eis ryv Awpov. The variations in
Stephan may be due to his carelessness, or more probably to a
different reading in the text he had before him. The fact that the
MSS. differ in the word preceding t/kcv (Naber writing ovras and
Niese aVSpas) shows that text-corruption was present here. Stephan
apparently has an inferior reading. These last two quotations
serve to illustrate for Stephan the use of the form Awpos.
1 In his critical notes on the passage (vol. II, p. VIII) Naber remarks:
“ Steph. Byz. urbs appellatur Aopof et consentiunt R O; error est ex duarum
urbium confusione.” Niese (vol. 2, p. 63) retains the reading AApor.
2 Naber and Niese.
DOR IN THE TALMUD.
Once only is Dor mentioned in tlie Talmud. It occurs in a list
of frontiers of Israel, dating probably from the time of John Hyr-
canus (135-105 B. C.) and Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B. C.) 1 .
Neubauer 2 gives the various readings of the name (which occurs
between Caesarea and Akko) as follows :
(a) Tal de Jer., Schebiith VI: 1 : "ITT"! .
(b) Tosiftha, Schebiith, Ch. 3: HIT .
(c) Siphre, sect. Ekeb, a la fin: “I'll .
(d) Yalkout, sect. Ekeb, § 674: IH’H .
The variations in the form of the name indicate that the texts here
have become quite corrupt.
In the Jerusalem Talmud, precedes H1HH . This Hilde-
sheimer 3 reads with Dor and translates “die Klippe, die Hohe von
Dor.” Neubauer 4 5 , on the contrary, maintains that should be
connected, as in the other redactions, with the preceding HO* or
HO* and that the word should be read JO’O'H&T (or In
order that we may have the various readings of the preceding town
(i. e., Caesarea) before us, I again quote from Neubauer’s table
opposite p. 11, No. 2:
(a) Tal. de Jer., Schebiith, VI: 1: ^UO IHO’IH .
(b) Tos., schebiith, ch. 3 : (NiD’pi mm ‘■hjo hoiiyi .
(c) Siphre, sect. Ekeb., a la fin: "Dio noin .
(d) Yalkout, sect. Ekeb., §674: ^HJO DOltH .
Here, too, there is evidently such great confusion in the readings,
that absolute certainty as to the original text can hardly be reached.
Neubauer connects his NTLrntr with the old name of Caesarea,
Srparwros nypyos- This in turn he derives (with Renan) from the
Phoenician mntry nny c But seems very unlike both
the Phoenician and its derived Greek form. AVe cannot, therefore,
accept his explanation as the correct one.
1 Hildesheimer, Beitrdge z. Geog. Pal., p. 10.
2 La Geographie die Talmud, No. 8 on table opp. p. 11.
3 Beitrdge, p. 10.
4 La Geographie, pp. 11, 15.
5 Buhl iGeog., p. 211) finds in the Greek name an original Astartvaton.
History of Dor.
89
Hildesheimer 1 translates TP pJO of the Jerusalem Talmud as
“ Devils-Tower ” 2 , explaining it as a nickname for a town called
after a worshipper of Astarte. Such a substitution of “devil” for
the name of a heathen deity is quite in accord with Jewish usage,
and may well be the true way of accounting for TP here 3 .
In connecting JO’P with “ITT! (which he reads as TT1) and
making the phrase equivalent to “111 j“l5J , however, Hildesheimer
probably errs. All the redactions except the Jerusalem Talmud
connect these letters with the foregoing, and their evidence is worth
something. It is true that [p . jo’p may be translated “die
Klippe, die Hohe” 4 . But the word should probably be read with
the foregoing, “wall of Devils-Tower” 5 . Because of the corrupt
text some copyist seems to have made a mistake here in repeating
TP (or NTP) ; this in turn became frO’P by the change of a
single letter, “I to ^ (cp. the confusion in the other three redac-
tions). This ipos.
He wrote after the rebuilding of Caesarea 2 by Herod and probably
belongs to the first century A. D. 3 . His work on Phoenicia seems
to have been a collection of historical and pseudo-historical notices.
Of Dor he writes 4 :
Kal KAavSios IovAios Zv y <&olvlkiku)v “ peril Kaurapeiav Aolpa Keirat ftpa-
^€ux ttoXl^vy], v re alyiaXuiv Kal
to TTOptfn'pos yovipov rrvveXOovTes. KaAias avTols LpKoSoprjaavTo Kal 7rep1.fta.X6p.e-
voi yap a«as, <0; vm']KOvev avrols to. T?p epyacrias, Tep.v6p.evoL ras tt erpas, Sia tojv
Z ftjjpovp.evo>v XlOlov ra reiyp KareftaXovTO, Kal rip evoppov yr/A^v ottojs [oiov]
re yXo'irraij Atop KaXoiivres. 01 8
''EAAypes, vapiv roil rip efxov rjs evTrpoefiopov, KaXeiv apKovvra (I. apiv 7toAis,
BoukoAwv Kal KpoKoSeiAaiv 7roAis Kal aAAa roiavra. (It a Spvpos //.eyas rts.
“And after Ake is Strato’s Tower, which has a harbor. And
between these is Mount Carmel besides the names of little towns
(and nothing more), viz., the city Sycaminoi, the cities Boukoloi
and Crocodeiloi, and others of the same sort. Then follows a cer-
tain great forest.”
It is to be noticed that Strabo here omits Dor from his enumera-
tion of TT-oAiyv/.W ovopara. It may be that Dor was overshadowed by
its greater neighbor Caesarea. Like Pliny, Strabo mentions the city
Sycaminon as no longer in existence. If his location of this town
is correct, it could hardly be Haifa, but more easily the ruin Tell
es-Semak already mentioned. A city Boukoloi (= herdsmen) in this
region is not elsewhere referred to. The fact that this passage in
Strabo is the only other mention of a city Crocodile (as well as the
reference to Sycaminon and the general description of the coast 4 * ),
may point to a dependence, either direct or through the mediation
of other writers, of Pliny upon Strabo here 6 . The testimony of
these writers is worth this much at least : It indicates that at a time
probably near the beginning of our era the coast cities in this dis-
trict suffered a temporary eclipse.
1 Cp. Sidon, which in 350 B. C. was captured and reduced to ashes by
Artaxerxes Ochus. By the time of the conquests of Alexander the Great
it was again a city of some importance.
2 See above, p. 92.
3 Date 63 B. C.-24 A. D.
4 Notice that, while Pliny follows the coast from S. to N. , Strabo enumerates
the cities in the opposite direction. Boukoloi thus stands in the place of Dor.
6 This statement, in view of the rather scanty evidence, is made very
tentatively.
History of Dor.
97
PTOLEMY.
Claudius Ptolemaus, Alexandrian geographer and astronomer,
includes Dor within the QoivlKys Oecns, and reckons its position as
follows 1 :
Aajpa d(=^) A/1 yd
“Dor 66° 30' 32° 40'”
This testimony would seem to indicate that Dor was still in exist-
ence about the middle of the second century A. D.
CHAEAX PEEGAMENUS.
Stephan of Byzantium 2 quotes from Book 11 of Charax to the
effect that Trypho, when besieged at Dor by Antiochus, lied eh
IlToAe/xatSa, rrjv ' Akyiv Xey o/xevrjv, “ to Ptolemais, called Ake ” 3 . Mul-
ler 4 places Charax under the emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius
and Marcus Aurelius (i. e., 117-180 A. D.). Charax gives us,
however, no information concerning Dor in his own period.
PATTSANTAS.
In the course of his discussion of the ethnic of Dor, Stephan of
Byzantium 5 6 quotes Pausanius as authority for the form Awpceh (from
Ampieds), as follows:
Ilcnxravtas Se ev Trj rr/s 7rarpi8os avrov Kriaei Ao>pieh avroiig KaXei TrjSe
ypaefxjov “ Tdptot ’AcrKaAwtTat Atoptets Paavedirat,” ware 7 rapa ri]V Aaipov
to Awpiov eivai, oil av ely to Aajpieds, (Is tov Xt/otoj/ rd IXycnev s.
“And Pausanias in his work on his native land calls them
Dorieis, writing thus: ‘ Tyrians, Askalonites, Dorieis, Rhaphan-
ites so that beside the feminine Doros there is a neuter form
Dorion, whose ethnic v r ould be Dorieus, just as the ethnic of
Chesion is Chesieus.”
Pausanias was a Greek traveller and author who lived in the
latter half of the second Christian century 0 . Examination of his
1 Geog. V, 15:5 ; ed. Nobbe. Ptolemy flourished from 127-151 A. D.
2 S.v. Aupog ; also in Miiller, Frcigvi. hist, graec. Ill, 644 n. 40.
3 See above, p. 68.
4 L. c., p. 636.
5 S.v. Acjpof.
6 Lippincott on the name; preface to Shilleto’s translation.
Tkans. Conn. Acad., Yol. XX.
7
1915.
98
George Dahl,
Ilepipypo-is 1 fails to reveal the quotation Stephan pretends to give.
The Tyrians appear elsewhere but Ascalon occurs only as a town
name; of the Rhaphanites 2 there is no mention. The Dorieis fre-
quently referred to by Stephan are not the inhabitants of Dor, but
the Greek Dorians. It is quite possible that Stephan here quotes
from memory, and with results most disastrous to his argument.
THE CLEMENTINE RECOGNITIONS.
In the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions Dor is referred to as a
“ breve oppidum.” This theological “ Tendenz-Romance ” repre-
sents Peter and his party on their way from Caesarea to Tripolis
as stopping overnight in an inn at Dor. On the morrow they con-
tinue on their way as far as Ptolemais. The Latin translation of
Rufinus of Aquileia (d. 410 A.D.) reads as follows 3 (Book IV : 1):
Profecti a Caesarea ut Tripolim pergeremus, apud Doram breve
oppidum primam fecimus mansionem, quia nee longe aberat. Et
omnes paene qui per sermonem Petri crediderant, divelli ab eo satis
aegre habebant, sed pariter incedentes, dum iterum videre, iterum
complecti iuvat, iterum conferre sermonem, ad diversorium pre-
venimus, sequenti vero die venimus Ptolomaidem.
The Recognitions are probably to be dated at the earliest in the
first half of the third century A.D. 4 . Their older sources go back
at least to the end of the second century A.D. Thus we have here
the statement that about the year 200 (later or earlier) Dor was
known to the writer of the Clementine Recognitions as a small
town.
EUSEBIUS AND JEROME.
Eusebius (c. 275-c. 340) includes Dor in his Onomasticon 5 under
the two forms A iop tov Nac pad and Na<)>ehSc 'op, as follows : ( 0. iS.
250:56)
Atop tov Nac)) ah. uvrr] earl Tps 7rapaAfas Aaipa p 7 rpos Kaicrapeiar Tps
IlaAanrru'ps. pv ovk tXafiev p cf>v Ap Mavacrcrp, on p,p areiAer rots iv avrrj
aX.\o(j)vXov<;. ( Dos . 11:2; 17:11, 12.)
1 Ed. Hitzig & Bluemmer; trans. by Frazer.
2 Inasmuch as the other cities quoted are on the coast, Raphia is probably
here meant, not Rapliana of the Decapolis.
3 Ed. Gersdorf, pp. 114 f.
4 Uhlhorn in Hauck-Herzog, Real-Enckl., art. Clementinen; T. Smith in
Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII, p. 74.
5 Onomastica Sacra , ed. Lagarde (2) 1887.
History of Dor.
99
“Dor of Napkatk: This is Dor of the sea-coast, adjacent to
Caesarea Palestina; which the tribe of Manassek did not take,
because they failed to destroy the Gentiles in it.”
( 0. S. 283 : 3) Sae.98wp. 2. Zv rfj 7 rapaXia Aaipa. a vrr) Zcrrlv a7 to 0
(TrifMcwv Kaicra/oeias. (Ios. 11:2.)
“Napketh-dor: Symmachus (translates): ‘Dor on the sea-coast’.
This is nine miles distant from Caesarea.”
Under the name MaySojA 1 Eusebius (and after him Jerome) refers
to the town under its shorter name; i. e., taking it as a neuter
plural form, he gives the genitive as Adjpaw. From these references
to the town, it would appear that Dor was in existence at the time
Eusebius wrote 2 , i. e., in the early part of the fourth century.
Between this time and the translation of the Onomastieon by
Jerome 3 4 (c. 390 ) \ however, Dor seems to have fallen temporarily
into ruins 5 . In his free .rendering of the passages of Eusebius
quoted above, Jerome speaks of Dor as deserted ( O.S . 115:22):
Dor ISTafeth, quod Symmachus transtulit Dor maritima (Ios. 11:2)
haec est Dora in nono miliario Caesareae Palaestinae pergentibus
Tyrum, nunc deserta. quae cum cecidisset in sortem tribus Manasse,
earn possidere non potuit, quia habitatores in ilia pristini perman-
serunt (Ios. 17:11, 12). (O.S. 112:13): Nefeddor, quod Symma-
chus interpretatur maritimam (Ios. 11 : 2). Dor autem est oppidum
icon desertum in nono miliario Caesareae pergentibus Ptolomaidem.
In his Sanctae Paulae peregrinatio 6 , Jerome repeats his testimony
concerning Dor, as follows: . . . . et per campos Mageddo, Josiae
necis conscios intravit terrain Pkilistkiim. Mirata ruinas Dor ,
u rb quondam potentissimae. Paula was a Roman matron who
left Rome in 382 and lived in Bethlehem from 384 until her death
in 404. On the basis of the statements of Eusebius and Jerome
1 Onomastica Sacra, ed. Lagarde (2) 1887, 280:40.
2 See on the Bishops of Dor, pp. 102 ff.
3 Hieronymi de situ et nominibus locorum hebraieorum liber.
4 Hauck-Herzog, Encyk., s.v. Hieronymus.
5 The fact that Dor was the seat of a bishopric at a later period indicates
that it was restored. It would appear from the conflicting accounts of Dor
in the early Christian centuries that the town passed through alternate
periods of prosperity and decline.
6 = epist . 108 ad. Eustochinm c.VIIl in opp. ed. Vallarsii et Maffaeii I,
696. Also in Tobler et Molinier, Itinera Hierosolymitana et Descriptiones
Terrae Sanctae, I, p. 31.
100
George Dahl,
we are probably justified in inferring that some calamity depopu-
lated Dor sometime after the middle of the fourth century. Later,
however, the city must have been reestablished, for we read of
bishops of Dor in the following- centuries.
TABTJLA PEUTINGERIANA.
Dor appears on the Tabula Peutingeriana 1 under the form
Thora 2 . The distance from Thora to Cesaria is indicated as VIII
miles, from Thora to Ptolomaide as XX miles. The former of
these distances is approximately correct, the latter not large
enough by several miles 3 .
This interesting map of military roads of the western Roman
Empire is named after the Augsburg recorder, Konrad Peutinger,
who obtained it in 1508 from its discoverer. This particular copy
was made in the 13th century; the original in its present form
goes back probably to the fourth century A.D. 4 .
STEPHAN OE BYZANTIUM.
Stephan of Byzantium 5 , the author of a geographical dictionary
called “ Ethnica,” is supposed to have lived in the fifth century 6 .
Included in the abridgement of this work now extant is a chapter
on A topos, 71-0'Ais v transferendam. ” N um . 120. pag. 504. “ Sequenti
ergo nocte, paratis iis circa diluculum ad iter, iamque congregatis
iumentis, apparet nocte ilia beato Heliae magnus Eutbymius: Quid
boc sibi vult, rogans, quod bodie iumenta congregetis ? Quum is
vero respondisset; ut aquam ex Pbaris afferamus, eo quod nos
nunc omnino defecerit; increpavit ille, dicens: Modicae fidei
bomines, quanam de causa Deum non precati estis ? Hum is qui
e praerupta petra inobedientem potavit populum, & aquam ex asini
maxilla Samsoni aliquando fecit scaturire, non poterit vobis quoque
ad usum suppeditare, dummodo cum fide offeratis petitionem ?
Deinde eis etiam probibuit iter ad Pharas enl 4>apas ut minime
necessarium. Aqua enim vobis implebuntur, inquit, vel maximae
cisternae, ne tribus quidem boris expectatis.” Et n. 121. “Exci-
tatus b somno ad visionem beatus Helias, statimque ea Fido &
reliquis annunciata, iumenta a proposito solvit ministerio: quum
non autem iam transisset, & sol omnem quantam videt terrain
radiorum illustraret iaculis; nubes alicunde aerem subito complexa
caenobio incumbentem, erupit protinus in pluviam, & omnia qui-
dem circumcirca simile adbuc puniebat flagellum siccitatis; ii
autem soli qui erant in caenobio, aqua praeter opinionem frueban-
tur: perinde ac si aliquis pluviam circumscripsisset, rursusque non
sineret ulterius progredi. Postquam autem cisternae fuerunt aqua
plenae, nec ii amplius indigebant imbribus e caelo, statim nubes
dissipata est, & vebemens imbrium procella ad serenitatem iterum
redacta fuit.” Et num. 122. pag. 305. “Quum vero miraculum
brevi totam pervasisset solitudinem, atque ad ipsum etiam arcb-
iepiscopum Martyrium iam pervenisset, descendens ille cum multa
rerum affluentia ad coenobium, praeclaram agit synaxim & vigiliam
cum multis lampadibus & suffitibus Kal 6v[ua/j.a(ri-, sed & splendidam
magnificamque facit dedicationem: Deponem sub altari quasdam
partes reliquiarum martyrum Tarocbi, Probi & Andronici, septimo
History of Dor.
105
mensis Maii, anno iam duodecimo post Euthymii mortem (proinde-
que Christi 484). Quum aliquod autem tempus transiisset, dia-
conus quoque Fidus accipit episcopatum civitatis quae vocatur
Dora:” Proindeque ordinatus est Fidus iste, vel sub finem anni
484 vel anno seq. 485. Quid in praesulatu egerit, & quonam
obierit anno nos latet. Constat solum exeunte anno 518, eum non
fuisse amplius superstitem.
BAROCHIUS.
The second Bishojj of Dor of whom we have any record is
Barochius 1 , who was present at the council of Jerusalem in 518 2 .
This council convened under Patriarch John of Jerusalem in order
to ratify the decisions of the Council of Constantinople held earlier
in the same year under Patriarch John of Constantinople 3 . The
two councils were in decided agreement. Among the thirty-three
bishops assembled at Jerusalem was Barochius. His name appears
with the other signatures attached to the decree of assent issued
by the Jerusalem Patriarch 4 : Bapaj^ios hria-KOTros i\wpv. But the reading with A is the one here
attested 3 4 5 ; and it is hardly probable that Dor was without repre-
sentation at the Jerusalem Council 1 . In itself there is nothing
improbable in the conclusion that the bishops of Dor and Zoar in
the year 536 were both named John.
STEPHAN.
On the eighth of October, 649, Stephan, Bishop of Dor, was
introduced to the Constantinople Council of that year, over which
Pope Martin presided 6 . From the communication read to this
Council by Stephan we learn that this was his third appearance
before the Pope at Rome. He had been sent the first time by
Sophronius I, Patriarch of Jerusalem (who succeeded Modestus,
c. 634 e ) to accuse Sergius of Joppa and other Bishops of monothe-
litism. Pope Theodore (as we learn from Stephan’s letter just
mentioned) appointed Stephan his representative in Palestine to
convert to orthodoxy or else to depose the heretic bishops appointed
by Sergius 7 . Some of these bishops recanted and were duly con-
firmed in their offices by Pope Martin.
Stephan is introduced 8 by a “ Theophylactus notarius” to the
Constantinople Council of 649 (Secretarius II) as 6 ocnwraros e-n-laKo-
TTO? Auipaw 7r ptoro? indp^wv rrjs ev IepocroXvp.ocs lepaTLKrjs 8t«ato8ocrtas.
“The most reverend Bishop of Dor, who is first of the church
council in Jerusalem.” In the introduction and conclusion of the
1 Lequien, III, p. 579 ; Harduin, II, p. 1418.
2 Lequien, l. c. ; Harduin, II, p. 1402.
3 Although the Latin in Harduin reads “ Posdonus.”
4 Cp. the Jerusalem Council in 518 just discussed, at which Barochius of
Dor was present.
5 Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, III, pp. 216 f. ; Noris, Annus et Epochae, pp.
457 ff. ; Lequien, III, pp. 579 f.
6 Lequien, l. c.
2 Hefele, III, pp. 209 f.
8 Mansi X, pp. 891 f. ; Harduin, III, pp. 709 ff.
History of Dor.
107
letter he reads 1 , Stephan refers to himself in almost exactly the
same words. Among the signatures under Secretarius I of this
same council 2 appears in Latin the name : Stephano Dorensi episc.
In the Greek of both Mansi and Harduin, however, the name does
not appear.
The address of Stephan to the Council 3 proves him to he a man
zealous for the orthodox faith, in defence of which he has incurred
the bitter hate of his opponents. He points out that Christ must
possess both a divine and a human will if he is at once true God
and true man. Any other teaching is opposed to that of the Council
of Chalcedon. No innovations must be permitted to stain the faith.
Stephan and those in the East renew the request of Sophronius that
the Council reject and destroy these false teachings which are again
being spread abroad by Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, and by Sergius
of Joppa and his followers.
In a letter to John, Bishop of Philadelphia 4 , Pope Martin says
that John had been strongly recommended to him by Stephan of
Dor and the eastern monks. He therefore appoints John as his
vicar in the East, with the task of restoring order and appointing
in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem bishops, priests and
deacons. Bishop Stephan, to whom this commission had originally
been given, had been hindered by others 5 from executing it.
Pope Martin wrote to a certain Pantaleon 6 in reply to his criti-
cism of Stephan of Dor. The Pope laments the circumstance that,
while Stephan had been given full authority to depose certain
bishops and priests, the documents authorizing him to appoint
others to fill their places had been kept from him. In this way the
clergy in those districts had become insufficient for the needs. The
Pope has now appointed a new vicar and instructed him whom he
may or may not appoint. This new vicar is evidently John, Bishop
of Philadelphia, to whom reference has just been made. How
1 Mansi X, pp. 891 E., 901 B ; Harduin, III, pp. 709 ff., 720.
2 Mansi X, p. 867.
3 Hefele, III, pp. 216 f.
4 Mansi X, pp. 806 ff. ; Harduin, III, p. 639; Hefele, III, p. 230.
5 Cp. Letter to Pantaleon following.
9 Mansi X, p. 821 A; Harduin, III, p. 652; Noris, Annus etc. p. 455;
Hefele, III, p. 231. — Nothing further is known about Pantaleon. The letter
was probably written shortly after 649 (cp. Mansi).
108 George Dahl,
many years after 649 Stephanus continued his work we do not
know 1 .
ZACHARIUS.
From the works of St. John of Damascus (died between 963-969
A. D.) Lequien quotes 2 the title of a letter from Peter Mansur to
Zacharius, bishop of Dor (written Aodpwv) 3 . Inasmuch as we know
nothing further about either the sender or the receiver of this letter,
it is not possible to determine its date. It would seem, however,
that Ave have had preserved for us here a copy of a letter sent to
one of the bishops of Dor, perhaps from the sixth or seventh cen-
tury. Lequien’s statement is as folloAvs:
Extat inter opera S. Joannis Damasceni novae editionis Paris.
1712. to I, p. 655 A. ‘epistola sanctissimi Petri Mansur ad Zacha-
riam episcopum Doarum Aodpcov, de corpore & sanguine Christi.’
Pro A odpwv autem legendum arbitror Ac opa>v Dororum. Auctor
enim huius epistolae, qui non fuit ipse sanctus Joannes Damascenus,
cuius nec doctrinam refert, videtur commoratus in Palestina,
quippe qui pag. 655 A. quaedam verba recitat ex liturgia sancti
Jacobi seu Hierosolymitana. Quum vero non constet quandonam
vixerit Petrus ille, pariter etiam huius Zachariae aevum definiri
accurate non potest. Eius porro hie meminimus, ex hopothesi quod
reipsa fuerit, aliquo tempore, Dororum in Palestina episcopus,
Zacharias nuncupatus.
1 Lequien, III, p. 580.
2 Oriens Christianus, III, p. 580 ; Opera Joannis Damasceni Monachi et
Presbyteri Hierosolymitani (Venetiis, 1748).
3 Cp. Bishop John, p. 105.
LATER GEOGRAPHERS.
ISIDOR OP SEVILLE.
In bis work Originnm sive Elymologiarum Libri XX, Isidor of
Seville 1 refers to Dor in the following terms (Bk. XV, ch. 1) : Dor
urbs fuit quondam potentissima, et versa vice Stratonis turris,
postea ab Herode, rege Iudaeae, in honorem Caesaris Augusti Cae-
sarea nuncupata. In qua Cornelii domum Christi vidit 2 ecclesia 3 4 ,
et Philippi aediculas, et cubiculum quatuor virginum prophetarum.
Isidorus Hispalensis lived from 565 to 636 A. D., becoming
bishop of Seville in 600. The work from which the passage above
is quoted is a compilation of various sources. Among these
sources 1 are included Orosius, Jerome’s Onomasticon, Solinus, Ser-
vius on Vergil, Josephus’ Antiquities and Suetonius. His work
has not, therefore, the value of an original source.
How little his knowledge of geography really was is indicated by
Isidor’s evident confusion (in the passage quoted) of Dor and Cae-
sarea. In some way his sources seem to have given him the idea
that Dor was but another name for Strato’s Tower; possibly on a
map the names were written confusedly 5 . The mention of bishops
of Dor contemporary with Isidor 6 clearly proves that the city was
in existence in his day.
GEOGEAPHUS EAVENXAS.
From the seventh century there has come down to us the work
of an anonymous writer on geography, who is referred to as Geog-
raphus Ravennas. His main source appears to be the Tabula Peu-
tingeriana; in addition he used several Greek writers as sources 7 .
1 Ed. F. V. Otto, p. 462. (=Tom III Corpus Gram. Lat. Vet.)
2 Var., “ videt”, “ est ”.
3 Var. “ ecclesiam ”.
4 K. Miller, Mappae Mundi, VI, p. 59.
, 5 K. Miller (Mappae Mundi , VI, Map 2) has tentatively reconstructed a
map on the basis of the work of Isidor. On this map “dor Cesarea ”
appears between Tyrus and Joppe. — There are several T-shaped sketch
maps preserved in MSS. of this writer.
6 See chapter on “ Bishops of Dor ”.
1 Miller, Mappae Mundi, VI, p. 34.
110
George Dahl,
As a result of this process of compilation repetitions occur. For
example, in Book II, chap. 15,Phoenice is included in Syria; while
in chap. 16 of the same Book II, Fenitia appears as a province of
Asia Minor 1 2 .
In Book II, chap. 15 of this work 5 , Dora is included among the
maritime cities (Phoenician) as follows: Item ad aliam partem
iuxta mare sunt civitates, id est Biblon, Birithon, Sidone, Tyrone,
Edippa, Ptolemaida, Dora.
Again in Book Y, chap. 7 3 , Dora is mentioned with “totas civi-
tates circa litora totius maris magni positas 4 ,” as follows: Iterum
civitas .... Ioppe, Apollonia, Caesarea Palaestinae, Dora, Ptolo-
maida, Ecdilpa, Tyros 5 .
This reference to Dor by Raven nas adds nothing to our informa-
tion about the city.
GUIDO.
In the year 1119 a certain Guido, concerning whose identity
nothing definite is known, wrote a sort of universal history in six
books. As a basis for his work lie used the writings of the anony-
mous Geographus Ravennas, in such manner that his “ Geogra-
phica ” is little more than a recension of the earlier work 6 . From
this compilation by Guido, we quote the following 7 : Si subtilius
scire voluerit totas circumquaque parte per litora maris positas
etc Ioppe, Apollonia, Cesarea Phalestinae, Dora, Ptolo-
maida, Ecdilpa, Tyrus Sidonia
No contribution to our knowledge of Dor is made by this late
compilation of earlier materials.
THE PATRIARCHATE OF JERUSALEM.
There has been preserved part of a French Provincial (= list of
bishoprics, etc.) dating from c. 1180 A.D., which names Dor first
1 Miller, l. c.
2 Ravennatis anonymi Cosmograpliia et Guidonis Geographica , ed.
Pinder et Partliey, p. 89.
3 Op. cit. , p. 357.
4 Op. cit. , p. 325. Here in the opposite order.
5 See Miller, Mappae Mundi, YI, p. 30 for partial reconstructed map of
Ravennas exhibiting Dora.
6 Miller, Mappae Mundi, III. p. 54; VI, p. 7.
1 Ravennatis anon. Cosmograpliia et Guidonis Geographica, ed. Pinder
et Parthey, pp. 504, 524.
History of Dor.
Ill
among the sees under Caesarea. It reads in part as follows 1 :
(Patriarcat De Jerusalem).
Eli Palestine, li premiers sieges: Cesaire Maritime que Herodes
redesia, soz laquele sunt XIX sieges d’eveschie: Dore, Antipa-
trida, Jamnias, Assur, Nicople, Omis, Sorti Kayfas, Ierico,
Apotas, Paumeroie, Cipon, Escomason, Essulion, Touxe, Le Sault,
Constantine.
This list is extremely corrupt 2 , and goes back to early Greek and
Latin lists as its sources 3 . It cannot therefore be used as an argu-
ment for the continued existence of Dor down to the end of the
twelfth century.
GEORGIUS CYPRIUS.
George of Cyprus 4 became patriarch of Constantinople in 1283
and abdicated in 1289. He wrote, evidently on the basis of older
documents, a “ Descriptio orbis romani.” In this work he repro-
duces 5 the early churchly division of Palestine in A., B. and C.,
naming Dor 6 as first of the sees under the metropolis Caesarea:
’E7rapyia IlaAo.wrrtV^s A.
AiAia IcpocroXvfjLfDv Ayia IIoAis.
Katcrapeta p.qTpoTroXi^-
Aa ipa.
' AvTnrarpis.
AiocnroXis t/tol VewpyLovTToXis-
Idp.
PsyecoF Ai/3ias.
Peyew rddapa.
A£a>ros ITapaAos.
A£a>TOS ?) l7r7TlV09.
Ev/aop.d£(oi/.
BirrlAios.
TptKOjp.tas.
To£os.
SaArw Ka)j/(7Tai/TtaviK^s.
2dAro>i/ PepairiKos.
prot /3apad/xojv.
“Eparchy Palestine A.
Aelia 1 Jerusalem, the Holy City.
Caesarea Metropolis.
Dor,
Antipatris, etc., etc.”
Dor’s place in these lists seems to be regularly after that of
Caesarea. It would seem that the version of Georgius Cyprius
has suffered less corruption of text than that of the Patriarchate of
Jerusalem above.
1 So named after Publius Aelius Hadrianus (Sophocles. Greek Lexicon
s.v.).
THE PERIOD OF THE CRUSADES.
In connection with the First Crusade (1095-1099) mention of
Dor is made by several historians. Foucher de Chartres 1 , who
himself took part in the events he is narrating, traces the route
taken in 1099 by the French along the coast on their journey to
Jerusalem. After a futile attempt to capture Archas, a city near
the Lebanons, the army was proceeding down the coast. Regard-
ing the march from Acre to Caesarea Foucher writes as follows:
Accori vero, id est. Ptholomaida, ab Austro habet Carmeli mon-
tem. Iuxta quam transeuntes ad dexteram reliquerunt oppidum
Caypham 2 dictum, post haec iuxta Doram 3 , exin, iuxta Caesaream
Palaestinae incessimus, quae quidem antiquitus dicta est altero
nomine Turris Stratonis, in qua Herodes .... exspiravit infeli-
citer.
The anonymous author of the Gesta Francorum Iherusalem
Expugnantium, writing before 1109 (who himself declares that his
work is an abridgment of that by Foucher de Chartres), records
this same march down the coast 4 :
Transeuntes autem Achilon 5 6 , invenerunt oppidum Cay pha dic-
tum, quod est sub Carmelo monte, et habet mare ob Oriente, mon-
tem vero ab Occidente. Dehinc Caesaream Palaestinae adorsi
sunt, quae quidem Dor 0 antiquitus, a quibusdam vero Turris Stra-
tonis nuncupata est, in qua Herodes .... infeliciter exspiravit.
This account adds nothing to the information given by Foucher
de Chartres. It is suggestive, however, in that the carelessness
with which the author handles his source warns us against expect-
ing any great amount of accuracy in Crusading historians.
1 Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Occidentaux III, pp.
XXVII, 354; Gesta Dei per Francos, ed. Bongars, I, p. 39G.
2 1.e., Haifa.
3 One MSS. (F in the Bibliotheque de F Arsenal, Paris) and ed. Bongars
add: “ vel Pirgul.” This is doubtless a corruption of irupyog (see Guerin,
Sam. II, p. 314), and refers probably to Caesarea, whose ancient name was
n'upyoQ Irparoivoc (= Turris Stratonis).
4 Recueil, Hist. Occident., Ill, pp. XXXVI, 508.
6 1.e., Acre (or Accho or Accon).
6 This is, of course, an error on the part of the writer. Possibly he is
following Isidor of Spain, who makes the same mistake (see above, p. 100).
Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XX.
8
1915.
114
George Dahl,
In still another record of this march mention is made of Dor.
This is the anonymous history of the First Crusade (with a contin-
uation to 1123) written in 1146-47 by order of Baldwin III of
Jerusalem, and known as Balduini III llistoria Nicaena vel Antio-
chena 1 2 . Beginning with the abandonment of the siege of Archas,
this account reads:
Mox obsidionem solventes, praetergressi sunt urbem Tripolim
deinde urbem Beritum, post haec Sydonem, quae ab incolis Sagitta
dicitur, exinde Sareptam Sydoniae, dehinc Tyrum, quam Sur
nominant (Ilebraice enim Soor dicitur), inde Ptolemaidam, prius
Accon dictam, deinde oppidum Chaypha, exhinc Doram, post haec
Caesaream Palaestinae, quae altero nomine Turris Stratonis dicitur.
Like the accounts already given, this gives us no definite infor-
mation about the town of Dor.
Covering in part this same period is the work, Benedicti De
Accoltis llistoria Gotefridi", written between the years 1464 and
1466. In the midst of his description of the advance toward Jeru-
salem, this late historian digresses in order to explain the location
of the principal cities of Judea:
Duo in ea nobiles portus Lannetorum et. Gazeon imprimis
fuerunt, et infrascriptae urbes maritimae, quae praecipuae habe-
bantur: Stratonis (Pyrgus), Caesarea, Appollonia, Azotus, Joppe,
Aschalon, Gaza, Dora et Antedon.
After mentioning other Judean and the Samaritan and Galilean
cities, he continues:
Sed ex his non paucae urbibus desertae ant disiectae fuerant,
quum Cliristiani Judaeam armis repetiverunt, plurimae quoque
vetus nomen prorsus amiserant.
Casual reference to Dor is made by William of Tyre (Book X,
Cap. XXVI) 3 in connection with the wounding of King Baldwin I
in the year 1103 on his return along the coast after the abandon-
ment of the siege of Ptolemais:
1 Recueil, Hist. Occident., V, pp. XXXI, 174 E.
2 Ibid,, pp. CXXXV, 599 C. Practically his only source was the work of
William of Tyre.
3 Ibid. I, Part I, p. 440.
History of Dor.
115
Volensque per Caesaream redire, accidit quod in loco, qui dicitur
Petra Incisa 1 , iuxta antiquam Tyrum 2 , inter Capharnaum 3 et Doram,
oppida maritima, qui locus hodie Districtum 4 appellatur, praedones
et viarum publicarum effractores invenit. Etc. etc.
This same writer again makes incidental reference to Dor in his
account of the fruitless siege of Tyre in the year 1111, as follows 5 :
Est autem Tyrus civitas in corde maris sita, in modum insulae
circumsepta pelago, caput et metropolis provinciae Phoenicis, quae
a rivo Valeniensi, usque ad Petram Incisam, Dorae conterminam 6 ,
protenditur ; infra sui ambitum, urbes suffraganeas continens
quatuordecim.
In none of these instances cited is mention made of any settle-
ment or fortress at Dor. Nothing is said concerning the town that
could not be gathered from ancient literary sources. Benedict’s
statement 7 above to the effect that some of the towns he mentions
were deserted or destroyed was quite probably true of Dor at this
time. If a town named Dor had existed at this period we should
certainly have expected some reference to the name in the account
of Richard’s march down the coast in 1191 8 . Apparently these
historians of the Crusades knew of the existence and location of
Dor, not from personal observation or through the accounts of
those who had visited the place, but from ancient Biblical and
geographical notices. We are, accordingly, uninformed regarding
the real status of Dor at this time.
1 According to Conder (P.E.F., Spec. Pap., p. 275), “The old name for
Khirbet Dustrey, the outlying fort of ‘Athlit, is Petra Incisa (The Scarped
Rock).” The name is probably derived from the passage through the rocky
ridge near ‘Athlit. — See also the notes on geography in Recueil, Hist. Occi-
dent., I, Part I, p. XXVI.
2 Also known as St. John of Tyre : Michelant et Raynaud, Itineraires
Francais, pp. 229 (Pelrinages et Pardouus de Acre), 901 (Les Pelerinaiges
por aler en Iherusalem).
3 See below, pp. 117 f.
4 Recueil, l. c.
5 Recueil, Hist. Occident., I, Part I, p. 482.
6 Probably nearer ‘Athlit than Dor. There are a number of these passages
through the ridge between Dor and ‘Athlit.
1 P. 114.
8 See below, pp. 116 ff.
Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XX.
9
1915.
116
George Dahl,
At the end of the work by William of Tyre 1 there appears (very
likely added by another hand) a list of the cities subject to the
principality of Jerusalem. As in the earlier lists 2 , Dor appears
first among the cities under the archbishopric of Caesarea :
I Sedes Prima, Caesarea Maritima. Sub hac sede sunt episco-
patus XIX
Dora
Antipatrida
Iamnias
Xicopolis, etc., etc.
This bare mention of the name “Dora” does not indicate that the
city flourished at the time. Here, too, old lists doubtless formed
the basis of the enumeration.
At the time of the Third Crusade (1189-1192), Richard marched
along the coast with his army. After the capture of Acre
(Summer 1191), he started toward Joppa. The route taken and
the difficulties of the march are thus described by Geoffrey de
Vinsauf 3 :
“. . . . On a Wednesday, which was the third day after stop-
ping at Cayplias (== Haifa), the army moved forward in order, the
Templars leading the van, and the Hospitallers closing the rear,
both of whom by their high bearing gave evidence of great valour.
That day the army moved forward with more than wonted caution,
and stopped after a long march, impeded by the thickets and the
tall and luxuriant herbage, which struck them in the face, especially
the foot soldiers When the king had proceeded as far as
Capernaum, which the Saracens had razed to the ground, he dis-
mounted and took some food, the army, meanwhile, waiting ; those
who chose took food, and immediately after proceeded on their
march to the house called ‘of the narrow ways,’ 4 because the road
there becomes narrow ; there they halted and pitched their tents.
.... The army remained two days at the abovementioned station,
where there was plenty of room for their camp, and waited there
1 Recueil, Hist. Occident., I, Part II, p. 1136.
2 See pp. 101, 110 f.
3 Itinerarium Ricardi (ed. T. Gale), IV, 12 ff. — English translation by H.
G. Bohn, Itinerary of Richard 1, Bk. IV, §§12-14.
4 Or, “ Casal of the Narrow Ways.” (“ Casam dictam angustarum
viarum,” in ed. T. Gale).
History of Dor.
117
until the ships arrived which they were expecting ; namely, barges
and galleys, laden with provisions, of which they were in need ; for
these vessels were sailing in connection with the army along the
shore, and carried their provisions on board. The army advanced,
using all precaution against the Turks, who kept on their flank, to
a town called Merla 1 , where the king had spent one of the previous
nights; there he had determined that he would lead the van himself
the next day, on account of the obstacles in the Avay and because
the Templars kept guard in the rear; for the Turks continually
threatened them in a body on the flank .... The army, after
accomplishing its march with great difficulty, arrived that day at
Caesarea 2 .”
The Capernaum mentioned above is strangely supposed by
Conder 3 to be ancient Dor. He cites as authority for this identi-
fication Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, who travelled southward along
the coast to Caesarea between 1166 and 1171. The passage in
Benjamin reads 4 :
pro Nim Dimi “150 Kim am dind-ig jdin own)
nji Nin HNnw'p niNDifl rwti dsf'oi j^o-on ^ mpo
• v , r\vh&> ntr'K
“From there (i.e., Haifa), it is four parasangs to Capernaum,
which is the village of Nahum, identical with Maon, the place of
Nabal the Carmelite 5 . And from there it is six parasangs to
Caesarea, which is Gath of the Philistines.”
Conder mistakenly understands the passage to indicate that the
distance from Haifa (instead of from Capernaum!) to Caesarea
is six parasangs. He therefore argues that the proportional dis-
tances of four and six parasangs from Haifa to Capernaum and
Caesarea respectively, point to the identification of Capernaum
with ancient Dor. Capernaum is more probably to be placed at
1 Ed. T. Gale : “ad oppidum Miriam dictum.” According to Dr. Stubbs,
this was on Aug. 30, 1191.
2 The main body passed the night at the Crocodile River (Nahr el-Zerka),
north of Caesarea.
S P.E.F., Special Papers, p. 275.
4 M. N. Adler, Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, pp. ^ f-
5 Maon is, of course, contiguous to another Carmel situated in Judah (1
Sam. 25:2ff.). Benjamin simply cites the faulty identification current in
this region. So also in the case of Gath.
118
George Dahl,
Al-Kunaisah 1 (the Little Church), a mound a few miles north of
‘Athllt 2 . This would fit the proportional distance given by Ben-
jamin. William of Tyre 3 makes a clear distinction between the
maritime cities of Capernaum and Dor. Conder’s identification of
the two is in any case absurd 4 .
The “ house of the narrow ways” 5 is probably near ‘Athllt 6 . The
name arose from the rock-cut passages through the coast ridge; of
these there are several between ‘Athllt and Dor 7 . The harbor at
‘Athlit would have made possible the landing of provisions. This
identification is to be preferred to that of Conder, who wishes to
identify the Casal (as well as Capernaum) with Dor. It is hardly
probable that the heavily armored soldiers would have attempted
to make the march of twenty miles to Dor in one day; more likely
they encamped at ‘Athllt.
Concerning the location of the next place mentioned, viz. Merla
(or Mirla or Merle), there is considerable doubt. If our identifica-
tions thus far have been correct, it must lie somewhere between
‘Athllt and Caesarea, the town next in order. The narrative here
does not make clear whether it was on the coast or inland on the
main road. Elsewhere, a Merle is spoken of as a fortress belong-
ing to the Templars 8 9 . Among the fortresses of Palestine captured
by Saladin after his defeat of King Guy, July 6, 1187, are included
Castellum Merle Templi and Castellum de Planisb Bohaeddin in
his account of this march along the coast 10 gives the name as El-
1 Or, Tell Kanisah. See especially DeGoeje’s note in his edition of Mokad-
dasi, Bibl. Geogr. Arab. Ill, p. 192, note m.
- Guy le Strange, Pal. under the Moslems, p. 477; Adler, op. cit., pp. 31,
32: Recueil, Hist. Occident.. I, Part I, p. LIV.
3 Above, p. 115: “inter Capharnaum et Doram, oppida maritima.”
4 T. A. Archer, Crusade of Richard I, p. 376 (note FA
5 P. 116.
6 Archer, l.c.; Itinerarium Regis Ricarcli (Rolls Series) p. 255; Recueil,
Hist. Occident., I, Part I, pp. XXVI, LIV.
1 Conder, P.E.F., Spec. Papers, p. 275: above p. 13.
8 W. Stubbs, Hist. Introd. to the Rolls Series (ed. Hassell), p. 329.— In
the Pelrinages et Pardouns de Acre of the 13th or 14th cent. (Michelant et
Reynaud, Itineraires a Jerusalem, p. 229), it is stated of “ Chastiel Pelryn:”
“e de pres est Merle.”
9 Chronicle of the Reigns of Henry II and Richard I, by Benedict of
Peterborough (Rolls Series), II, p. 23.
10 Recueil , Hist, Orient., III. pp. 246, 248; Itinerarium Regis Ricardi (Rolls
Series), p. 255; Wilken, Geschichte der Kreuzzuge, IV, p. 407.
History of Dor.
119
Mellaha (aLs*^L#Jt). Apparently the fortress at Merla had been
destroyed by 1191, for there is no mention of a fortress there either
in the Itinerarium or in Bohaeddin’s Life of Saladin just mentioned.
Attempts have been made to identify Merla with Dor 1 , and such
an identification is not impossible. However, in view of the fact
that Dor lies off the coast road, it may be better with Conder 2 to
locate Merla at El-Mezra‘a 3 between Dor and Caesarea, where a
strong Crusading tower still remains in ruins beside the main road.
Withal, we must still admit the possibility that the ruins at Dor
(if they be of the Crusading period at all) are those of Merla. It
seems almost certain, however, that the fortress was not standing
when Richard passed through this region. Otherwise some refer-
ence to it would doubtless have been made.
Having arrived at Joppa, Richard issued orders to the army to
rebuild the foi'tresses of Plans and Maen 4 . The Templars, while
engaged in this work at Plans, were attacked by Turkish cavalry
from Bombrac. King Richard, who was busy rebuilding Maen,
heard of the tumult, and on his arrival succeeded in driving away
the Turks.
Conder 5 , again relying upon Benjamin of Tudela 6 , identifies
Maen with Capernaum, and therefore with Dor. Plans he places
at Kalensawieh, situated about twenty miles from Dor and a like
distance from Ibn Ibrak (=Bombrac). But the account of the
proceedings in the Itinerary makes it clear that Maen and Plans
are in the neighborhood of Joppa. Dor, which is nearly forty
miles away, cannot possibly be meant. Dr. Stubbs 7 suggests that
Plans is the village of Beit Dejan, five and one-half miles S.E. of
Joppa, and that Maen is to be sought at Saferiyeh, seven miles S.E.
of Joppa. These two towns are only one and one-half miles apart;
this would make it easily possible for the king to rush quickly to
the rescue of the attacked Templars. These identifications are
1 Recueil, Hist. Occident.. I, Part I, p. LIV; G. A.. Smith, Hist. Geog.,
p. 130.
2 P.E.F., Spec. Pap., p. 275; Archer, l.c.; S.W.P. Mem., II, p. 4.
3 The similarity in the names is to be noticed.
4 Itin. of Richard I, Bk. IV, §§ 29, 30 (Bohn’s translation).
5 P.E.F., Spec. Pap., p. 277.
6 See above, pp. 117 f.
1 Archer, Crusades of Richard I, p. 176.
120 George Dahl,
very probable ones; those of Capt. Conder are absolutely impos-
sible.
The results of our investigation of the history of Dor during
the Crusading period are negative. The references to the town
under the old name Dora, we have concluded, are merely reminis-
cences of the earlier days of the city; in any case they supply no
information. The identification of Capernaum and Maen with
Dor have been shown to be impossible; that of the “house of the
narrow ways,” improbable. There is a possibility (though not a
probability) that Merla represents ancient Dor. In our present
inadequate knowledge of the Crusading period, with its confusion
and constant change of names, it seems impossible to decide what
there was on the site of Dor at this time. At some period the fort
whose ruins still lie scattered about must have been occupied. A
more exhaustive study of Crusading documents or the use of the
spade on the spot may throw light upon the history of Dor during
the Crusades.
THE ARAB GEOGRAPHERS.
The outstanding fact is that Dor (S^JaAi®) is not mentioned at
all by the classical Arab geographers (i. e. during the 9th to the
12th centuries A. D.). Moreover, in their various enumerations of
the cities and towns on the Syrian coast, or along the travelled
roads in that region, they habitually “skip over” Dor in a way
that shows that they know of no town there worth mentioning.
Thus, Ibn Khordadhbeh, in the first half of the 9th century,
describes the maritime district of central Syria with mention of
‘Akka, Kadas, Tyre; Jaffa, Caesarea, Nabulus 1 . Similarly Ya‘kubl,
at the close of the 9th century, mentions Tyre and ‘Akka,
and then proceeds inland with his description ; then returning to
the coast he names Caesarea, Jaffa, and J amnia 2 .
Much more significant still is the fact that in the great geograph-
ical dictionary of Yakut (about 1200 A. D.), as Avell as in that of
Bekri (latter part of the 11th century), Tantura does not occur.
Yakut, in his article on , a fortress in the Haifa region,
has occasion to speak of the coast south of the latter city. Kasr
Haifa, he says, is “a place betiveen Haifa and Caesarea' 1 ''
y .^ L vj . A ' j l.o> ^ Obviously Caesarea was the first town
south of the Carmel promontory known to this geographer’s
sources. Yakiit, it may be added, mentions ‘Athlit (oa.aXa£) as a
fortress which had been taken by Saladin in 583 A. H. (1187 A. D.).
The evidence gained from the Arab geographers, then, appears
to be this, that between the 7th and 12th or 13th centuries the coast
region between ‘Akka and Caesarea was only sparsely inhabited.
The road along the shore was probably unsafe and little used.
Haifa almost disappears from sight, from the 7th century down to
1100 A.D., when the town was besieged and taken by Tancred. The
remark of Ibn Shaddad quoted by De Goeje, from a Leyden manu-
script, in his edition of Ya‘kubl 3 , is instructive. Ibn Shaddad has
just noted the fact that both Ya‘kubl and Ibn Haukal omit to men-
1 Bibl. Geogr. Arab. VI, Trans., pp. 57, 58.
2 Ibid. VII, 327, 18 ff.; 329, 2ff.
3 Loc. cit., pp. 327 f., note e.
122
George Dahl,
tion Banias, apparently because it bad only recently been restored
and was only known as “modern” (x.j'A.SX.'o) ; and then proceeds :
Ld-i! LgiK, ^.jI o ;
“Nor do Ibn Abi Ya‘kub (i. e. al-Ya‘kubi) and Ibn Haukal men-
tion Haifa, presumably because it also was modern.”
‘Athllt came into temporary prominence in the crusading period
simply because of its very strong natural position. The Arab
geographers before Yakut do not mention it at all. As for Dor, it
seems to have been nearly or quite deserted from the 7th century
until after the third crusade (at least). Even Caesarea was
reduced, during this same period, to a small and unimportant town.
Thus Yakut 1 says of it that it had once been an important city;
“At present, however, it is not such, but is rather a village than a
city:” xaA! ^it Col, .
1 IV, 214, lines 3-6.
THE VISITS OF THE CHEVALIER D’ARVIEUX.
From about the year 1660 we have the reminiscences of a certain
Chevalier d’Arvieux 1 , who, in addition to looking after his own
commercial interests, acted as a sort of French consul at Sidon 2 .
On a trip from Sidon to Gaza, d’Arvieux stopped at Tartoura in
order to arrange for permission for the Carmelite monks to return
to their monastery on Mount Carmel. Having arranged this matter
satisfactorily, he viewed the city. The translation of d’Arvieux’s
version of this visit into quaint eighteenth-century German is as
follows 3 :
Man rechnet drei Meilen von dem Schlosse Pellegrin (=‘AthlIt)
nach Tartoura. Wir stigen daselbst bei einem grieehischen Chris-
tens, Namens Abou-Moussa, ab, und brachten die Nacht in einem
Zimmer zu, wo wir gedachten, das uns die Flohe auffressen
wtirden. Weil wir bei guter Zeit alda anlangten, so ging ich also-
bald mit dem Herrn Souribe nach dem Feldlager des Emir Turabey,
um die Wiedereinsetzung derer Carmelitermonche in ihr Kloster
auf dem Berge Carmel zu vermitteln. Sie waren, durch die Ver-
folgungen derer Araber, genothiget gewesen, selbiges zu verlassen.
Das Feldlager dieses Emirs war nur eine Viertelmeile von Tartoura
entlegen. Wir wurden von diesem Fiirsten, der sehr ehrbar war,
recht wol empfangen, und er willigte sehr hoflich in unser Begeh-
ren. Wir brachten den iahrlichen Tribut in Richtigkeit, welchen
diese Monche zu geben ptlegten, und sie kehrten wieder in ihr
Kloster zuriik.
Hiernachst kehrten wir wieder nach Tartoura, und hatten noch
Zeit genug iibrig, dasienige zu besehen, was in diesem kleinen
Orte, der nur aus einer einzigem ziemlich grossen Strasse, die nach
dem Meere hin gehet, angetroffen wird. Daselbst wird der Markt
1 Born 1635, died 1702.
- Memoires clu Chevalier d,' Arvieux, par C. R. P. Jean Baptiste Labat,
Paris 1735, 6 vols. The only copy of this work in America is the one at
Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y. (so Meyer, Gaza, p. 105). This I have been
unable to consult.
3 Des Herrn von Arvieux .... merkwurdige Nachrichten .... von
dem Herrn Labat (Kopenhagen und Leipzig, bei Johann B. Ackermann,
1754), Part II, pp. 11-13.
124
George Dahl,
gehalten, wo die Araber ikre Raubereien, nnd die da herum wohnen-
den Bauren ibr Yieb & Friichte binbringen, so sie gegen Reis &
Leinwand vertauschen , welcbe die Egyptier in kleinen Fabrzeugen
hinfithren, weil der Flafen, oder eine Art von Hafen, der vor der
Stadt ist, keine hinlanglicke Tiefe bat, dass grossere Fakrzeuge
einlaufen konnen. Die Einwobner baben keine Moscbeen, sondern
sie versamlen sich auf dem offentlichen Platze, wo sie das Erdreicb
obngefebr zwei Fus bocb erhoket, nnd mit einer kleinen Mauer
eingescblossen haben. Albier kommen sie in der Zeit ibrer Bet-
stunden znsammen unter oifenem Himmel. Ganz dicbt darbei ist ein
Kabue, welches das scbonste Gebaude, und das am meisten daselbst
besucket wird. Der Name desselben zeuget zurGeniige von seiner
Bestimmung. Jederman versamlet sick alda, Tabak zu raucben,
Kaffee zu trinken, und neue Zeitungen zu erzeblen oder zu horen.
Tartoura wtirde Mangel an gutem Wasser zum Trinken baben,
wenn es nicbt eine kleine Quelle auf einem Felsen, zwei Ruthen
in das Meer binaus, batte, die aber bei der geringsten Aufwallung
des Meers mit Wellen uberscblagen wird. Man trift zwar andere
Quellen an verschiedenen Orten daberum an, sie sind aber salzigt,
und es ist eben diese kleine Klippe, die vom Meergewasser umzingelt
wird, deren man an diesem Orte so oft benotbiget ist.
Die ganze, um diesen Ort liegende Gegend ist ziemlicb unfrucht-
bar, bios und obne Baume. Das Erdreicb traget nur Korn. Der
Emir Turabey bat einen Pachter in Tartoura, der den Zoll, den
Caffar, oder Wegezoll, nebst denen andern Abgaben eintreibet, die
in diesem Flecken beim Ein = und Ausgang milssen entrichtet
werden. Der Herrn Souribe batte mit dem Abou-Moussa einige
Geschafte abzutbun, welcbe uns fast den ganzen Vormittag des
folgenden Tages aufbielten; also, dass wir erst nacb einem des
Mittags eingenommenen Friikstucke uns auf den Weg nacb Casa-
rea macbten, welches nur vier Meilen davon entlegen ist.
Again in 1664 d’Arvieux pays another visit to Tartoura. At
this time the shipwreck of a Greek ship, with a wine-banquet of
the native rulers following thereupon, furnishes our author with
materials for a vivid picture of native manners and customs 1 :
Tartoura ist ein kleiner unter die Hersckaft des Emir Turabey
gehoriger Hafen. Wir waren kaum daselbst angelanget, als bei
Op. cit., Part III, pp. 75-82.
History of Dor.
125
clem ungestiimen Wetter ein grosses griechisehes Fahrzeug auf
denen Sandbiinken stranclete. Es war mit cvprisckem Weine und
Ivase beladen, und nach Egypten bestimt. Sobald es veste sas,
ward es in wenig Minuten von denen Wellen zerscklagen, und die
ganze Manschaft fliicktete ans Land. Der Ivase blieb im Meere
liegen, die Weinfasser aber rolten mit denen Wellen fort. Der
Emir Dervik, welcher den Schifbruch von dem Gebirge herab gese-
hen hatte, eilte mit einem Tlieile seiner Reuterei und einigen
Bedienten des Grosemirs kerbei, welche mit Pliinderung derer
Matrosen und Reisenden den Anfang mackten, und durck die
Araber die zersckeiterten Stiike des Fakrzeuges, nebst allem, was
das Meer landwarts trieb, herauszieken liessen. Als sick der
Sckiffer mit alien seinen Lenten nakend entkleidet sake, verbargen
sie sich im Gestraucke, und erwarteten der ISTackt, um sick nacli
dem nacksten Dorfe zu begeben, damit sie etwas zu ihrer Bedekung
bekommen konten. Ick trostete sie fiber ikren gehabten Verlust,
und sagte iknen, class ick ein Ckrist sey, und bei denen Arabern in
einigem Anseken sttinde ; daker wolte ick sucken, iknen Dienste
zu leisten. Sie waren sekr frok, class sie mick angetroffen, und
mick ikre Spracke, die gemeine grieckiscke, reden korten. Ick
tkat iknen den Vorschlag, class sie das, was aus dem Meere kbnte
gerettet werden, solten kerauszieken kelfen, so wolte ick macken,
class iknen etwas wiedergegeben wurde. Ick mackte, das der
Emir solckes gut aufnakm, und mir versprack, sie zu befriecligen.
Als sick nun cliese armen Matrosen, die Gewaltsamkeit derer
Wellen olingeacktet, so die Ivaufmansguter ans Land warfen, und
nackker wieder in die weite See zuriik zogen, ins Meer geworfen
katten, retteten sie viele Sacken. Man konte das Zerscklagen
derer Tonnen nickt verwekren ; sie vermogten nur zwei clavon zu
retten, und die brackten sie mit vieler Miike ans Land. Die
Araber katten einige Ivase aufgefiscket: da sagte ick im Sckerz
zu iknen, sie waren aus Saumilch gemackt, alsobald warfen sie
selbige kin, wuscken sick die Hande, und die Grieeken beniizten
sick ikrer. Es fing an, spilt zu werden, und clas Meer war so
nngestiim, class die Matrosen nickt melir arbeiten konten. Ick bat
clen Emir, iknen ikre Kleider wiedergeben zu lassen. Er gab des-
kalb Befekl, und die Araber stelten iknen clen grosten Tkeil cler-
erselben wieder zu ; weil cler Emir aber in Tartoura unter Zelten
scklafen wolte, die er katte aufscklagen lassen, so mackte ick iknen
126
George Dahl,
Hof nung, nock etwas fur sie zu erhalten: ich gab ihnen den Rath,
zu warten, bis er zu Abends abgespeiset biitte, damit sie ikn bei
muntererm Gemiitlie antreffen mogten. Der Emir befakl, dass
man ibm die Abendmahlzeit zubereiten solte: nickts war seinen
Bedienten leichter, denn alle in dem Dorfe befindlieke Leute katten
ibm Gescbenke von Fleiscli, Vogelwild, Wildpret, Frtichten und
Kaffee gebracbt, niemand aber katte an Wein gedaclit; ick fand
zwei K rtige v oil bei einem Griecken des Dorfes, Namens Abou
Moussa, welehe icb dem Emir durcb diese arme Matrosen iiber-
reicken lies. Der Ftirst nabm sie mit Yergnugen an. Wir sezten
uns an Tafel: icb gab denen Griecben ein Zeicken, sick aussen vor
dem Zelte aufzubalten und zu warten, bis icb sie hinein fiikren
liesse; unterdessen wurde ibnen zu essen gereicbt.
Die Maklzeit war gros, wakrete lange. Es waren viele Araber,
die keinen Wein trunken, daber der Emir, icb, und vier bis ftinfe
von seinen Bedienten genug daran batten. Man trug die Scbaalen
in der Runde kerum, man sang gut und scblecbt, und dieser Land-
zeitvertreib war vergntiglick. Nun glaubte icb, dass es selea'ene
Zeit sey, die Griecken herein kommen zu lassen; daker lies ick sie
rufen; sie kamen Haufenweise herein, ktisten die Weste des Emirs,
und begaben sick zur Seite. Der Ftirst frug micli, ob man ihnen nickt
ikre Kleider wiedergegeben katte, und ob sie nock sonst etwas ver-
langten ? Ick antwortete ikm : seine Bef ekle waren sehr genau vol-
zogen worden, weil aber diese armen Leute durch den Yerlust ikres
Fakrzeuges und ikrer Kaufmansgiiter zu Grunde gericktet worden,
so fleketen sie um die durck den Schifbruck zersckeiterten Sttike,
so sie auffiscken konten, die nickt betracktlick waren, und ibnen
clock dienen konten, sick wieder nack ikrer Heimat zu begeben,
und ikren elenden Familien unter die Arme zu greifen. Dieienigen
aus der Geselsckaft, welclie daraus Nutzen zu zieken wtinsckten,
sezten sick dagegen ; der Emir aber bewilligte ibnen selbige, nack
einiger Ueberlegung, und befahl auf der Stelle, dass man ihnen
alles, bis auf einen Nagel, solte wegnekmen lassen. Mehr wurde
darzu nick erfordert. Die Griecken ktisten ikm zur vdlligen Dank-
sagung den Saum der Weste, und mackten sick alsobalcl fort, um
an Auffischung dessen, was das Meer auf die Ktiste warf, zu arbei-
ten, in der Hofnung, das tibrige des folgenden Tages zu verrick-
ten; denn, weil der Wind gefallen war, so muste das Meer ruhiger
werden, der Emir auck mit alien denen, die sie katten verkindern
konnen, aufbrecken solte.
History of Dor.
127
Ick stand mit Anbruche des Tages anf, lies zwei Scblitten
machen, um die zwei Fasser Wein auf das Gebirge zu sckaffen : vor
einen ieden Schlitten lies ieb drei Paar Ochsen spannen, and die
Fasser wol bevestigen. sagte auch zum Emir, dass ick die Fort-
sckaffung besorgen wolte, damit sick kein Zufal dabei ereignen
mogte. Ick nakm alle die Banren, die ick darzu notkig zu seyn
eracktete, und wir mackten uns auf den Weg. Die Ocksen gingen
so langsam, und unsere Bauren waren zu dergleicken Arbeit so
wenig aufgelegt, dass wir erst um sechs Ukr des Abends in dem
Lager des Emir Dervik anlangten. Der Emir war so vergniigt,
seine zwei Tonnen gesund und wol bekalten zu seinem Hoflager
gebrackt zu seken, dass er denen Bauren grosmutkig fur ikre Millie
eine Vergeltung gab, und augenbliks Boten an alle die Emirs
abfertigte, von denen er waste, dass sie sich iiber das Verbot des
Weintrinkens kein grosses Gewissen machten, um iknen zu berick-
ten, dass er zwei grosse Tonnen davon in seiner Woknung kabe,
und sie zur Theilnelimung daran einzuladen. Sie liessen ikm zuriik
sagen, sie batten es sckon erfahren und sick, ikn zu besucken, auck
die Nackt mit ikm in seinem Lager zuzubringen, angesckikt, daker
moge er sick nur fertig macken sie wol zu empfangen, und lierrlick
zu bewirtken.
Der Emir Dervik, als der iiingste von alien diesen Ftirsten,
empfing diese Zeitung mit einer ungemeinen Freude. Er war iiber
diese Gelegenkeit erfreuet, iknen Zeichen seiner Freundsckaft zu
geben. Daker stelte er Befehle zu einem Feste aus, und alsobald
sake man im ganzen Lager ein volkommenes Scklackten und Rosten
von Ocksen, Hameln, iungen Ziegen, Yogelwild und Wildpret.
Yiele Zelte waren mit Weibespersonen angefiillet, welcke mit
Zuricktung derer Suppen, gewilrzter Speisen, Bakwerk, Friickten
und Zukergebakenem besckaftiget waren. Ick nakm die Aufsickt
des Weins iiber mick, der nickt sonderlick klar war, diese Leute
aber fragen wenig darnack. Es war f iirtreflicker cypriscker Wein.
Ich lies die beiden Tonnen in das grosse Festgezelt an einem Orte
kinlegen, wo sie niemanden im Wege waren. Ick stelte einen von
meinen Lenten zu ieder Tonne, und als ick in meinem Sckreibe-
zeuge einige neue Federn fand, mackte ick Kleine Rokren daraus,
um den Wein abzuzapfen, und die Sckaalen zu fiillen, welcke von
denen Bedienten rund kerum denen Gasten zugebrackt warden.
Ick Avolte dem Emir zeigen, wie man bei denen Franzosen das
Fleisck bratet. In Ermangelung eines Bratspiesses, nakm einer
128
George Dahl,
von meinen Leuten eine alte Lanze, maclite einen Handgrif daran,
und stekte einen grossen Miirbebraten darauf, nebst einem Hamels-
viertbeil und Vogelwild, lies sie nach unserer Weise bi'aten, und
auftragen. Ich zerlegte diesen Braten und reichte ihn herum; und
diese Fiirsten gestunden, dass unsere Weise, Fleiscb zu braten,
besser als die ihrige, sey, weil unser Fleiscb seinen Saft bekalt, da
bingegen das ibrige troken, fast verbrant und unscbmakbaft war.
Wir batten keine Flascben, weil diese bei denen Arabern nicbt
gebraucblicb sind, man scbenkte aber die Scbaalen wieder voll, ie
nacbdem sie ausgeleeret wurden. Alle eingeladene Emirs langten
zusammen an, und nacb denen Hoflickkeitsbezeigungen, denen
Umarmungen, dem Bart-und Handeklissen, ie nacbdem es der
Gebraucb und die Wtlrde derer Personen erforderte, sezte man
sicb auf Matten nieder. Die Emirs batten samtene kiissen, die
andern batten keine, und sassen mit gekreuzten Fiissen, wie unsere
Schneider. Nacb einer ziemlicb kurzen Unterredung legten die
Eingeladene ilire grossen Scbnupftucber, die sie an statt derer
Tellertticber gebraucbten, vor sicb, ibre Kleider zu verwabren,
und man trug grosse kupferne verzinte Beken mit gebratenem,
gekocbtem Fleiscbe und gewiirzten Speisen auf. Die Suppen
waren iiberflussig, und von verscbiedenen Arten. Das biernacbst
aufgesezte Bakwerk war wol geratlien. Der Braten, welcber zur
lezten Tracbt verwakret wurde, dienete zu Zwiscbengericbten, und
man fand ihn gut. Hierauf kam die Frucbt. Alle Gaste speiseten
mit grossem Appetite. Man trug neue Schiisseln auf, ie nacbdem
einige ausgeleeret waren, oder die Emirs selbige ihren Leuten
gescbikt batten, welcbe Rottenweise geordnet waren, und mit eben
so grossem Appetite, als ibre Herren, assen. Die Scbaalen gingen
rund berum, und der Wein verbreitete die Freude fiber alle
Eingeladene. Die Schalmeien, Violinen, Trompeten und Trom-
meln macbten eine Musik, die man sebr weit koren konte. Sie
spielten bisweilen besonders, und zuweilen alle mit einander. Ibre
scbmacbtende Stfikcben macbten unsere Trinker ganz entziikt; sie
sassen nacbsinnend mit ibren Scbaalen in denen Hiinden, weinten
aus Zartlickkeit, umarmten sicb, kiisten einander den Bart, und
gaben sicb die zartlichsten Yersicberungen von der Welt. Die
Mahlzeit wabrete so lange, dass man erst nacb Mitternackt urn drei
IJhr von der Tafel aufstunde. Alsdenn legten sicb dieienige, so
des Scblafes benotkiget waren, auf Matratzen und Kiissen, womit
die Matte, welcbe auf dem Fusboden lag, bedekt war. Die ersten,
History of Dor.
129
so des Morgens gegen zehen Uhr erwachten, riefen die andern. Ich
rieth ihnen, Kaffee mit Milcbe zu trinken, den meine Leute zube-
reiten musten, und hierdurch erwies icli ihnen einem Dienst, dessen
sie hocklich benbthiget waren: denn die meisten batten Kopf-
schmerzen. Nacb dem Kaffeetrinken und einem kurzen Spazirgange
sezte man sicb zur Tafel, und fing auf neue Unkosten wieder zu
essen und zu trinken an; diese Uebung ward drittelialb Tage wie-
derbolet, nebmlicb so lange, als der Wein wahrete, und da schieden
sie, in Erwartung, dass anderer kommen solte, als die besten Freunde
von der Welt auseinander.
Bei diesem langen Feste bemerkte icb zwei Dinge, die mir Ver-
gntigen erwekten. Erstlich, dass diese Leute, die gemeiniglick
sehr masig leben, auch eine so grosse Bescbwerlichkeit ertragen
konten, als die bei diesem langen Gastmable war, okne dass man es
an ihnen durcb die Zeiclien abnebmen konte, die gemeiniglicb der
Schwelgerei folgen. Zweitens, dass unter so vielen Leuten, die
diese lange Mablzeit kindurch tiberfliissig Wein trunken, sicb nicbt
die geringste Unordnung ausserte: man borte nicbt das geringste
Sticbelwort, nocb den geringsten Vorwurf. Hingegen blieben sie
in ihrer Ernstbaftigkeit, und der Wein maclite sie nur ein wenig
munterer, lustiger, zwar ein wenig freier, aber obne die Sckranken
der Hoflicbkeit, des ganzen Wolstandes und der Acbtung, die sie
einander scbuldig waren, zu tiberscbreiten ; daber sie mit tausend
derer zartlicbsten Freundscliaftsbezeugungen und alien Hoflick-
keiten, die man von Leuten ikres Standes erwarten konte, von
einander schieden.
LATER VISITORS AT DOR.
After the Chevalier d’ Arvieux, the first explorer to visit Tantura
whose writings we possess was Richard Pococke 1 . In the year
1737, accompanied by a retinae sent along with him by the sheik
at ‘Atldlt, Pococke reached “Tortura.” This he describes as a
small village with a port to the south into which large boats are
sometimes forced to put by stress of weather; on such occasions
passengers are forced to pay a tax of nine shillings a head. The
sheik at Tantura received him and his companions with great civility.
Having visited Caesarea, Pococke on his return travelled along the
road a half mile to the east of Tantura intending to pass by it.
The sheik, however, sent some of his people in pursuit of Pococke
with an urgent invitation to dine with him. For fear of giving
offense, Pococke returned and accepted his invitation.
On the 14th of January, 1816, “ Tartoura ” was visited by J. S.
Buckingham 2 . At that time there were forty or fifty dwellings
and perhaps 500 Mohammedan inhabitants in the town. Bucking-
ham cites Father Julio of Mt. Carmel as authority for the state-
ment that the ruined tower at Tantura was for some unknown
reason called by the Franks the “Accursed Tower.” The Arabs,
he says, called it merely “ Khallat-el-Ateek ” (the Old Castle).
During supper he was in characteristic fashion questioned as to his
destination and business by the elders of the village. “They
eagerly inquired after Bonaparte, whom they all knew” 3 . On
awaking the following morning Buckingham discovered that all
the remaining provisions had been stolen from the baskets during
the night.
Irby and Mangles 4 passed through “Tortura ” on October loth,
1817. They characterize the extensive ruins here as possessing
nothing of interest.
1 A Description of the East and Some Other Countries (London, 1745), II,
p. 57.
2 Travels in Palestine, etc. (London, 1822), p. 123.
3 Napoleon passed along the shore road on his way to the disastrous engage-
ment at Acre.
4 Travels in Egypt and Nubia, Syria and the Holy Land (1844), p. 59.
History of Dor.
131
In tlie month of May, 1843, John Wilson' found a “few
wretched houses” at Tanturah.
C. W. M. van de Velde 1 2 visited Tantura in 1851. He calls par-
ticular attention to the ridge of rock east of Dor, which served as
a protection against attack from that direction. The outrageous
prices charged by the natives created considerable difficulty, until
Dr. Kalley (van de Velde’s companion) packed up 1 i is medicine
bag with a threat to treat no more patients. The inhabitants then
became open to reason.
The first thorough-going description of the ruins at Dor was that
of (Hugo) Victor Guerin 3 , who visited and described the site in
1870. The results of his observations have been employed in the
chapter above on the “Topography of Dor.” At the time of
Guerin’s visit “Tantoura” possessed two mosques 4 , one of them
partially demolished.
Still more thorough and complete was the survey made by the
Palestine Exploration Fund 5 * on the 8th of March, 1873. The
accurate maps, plans, pictures and descriptions issued by the Fund
constitute our principal authority for the description of the ruins
at Dor. Additions to the information contained in this report have
appeared in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly".
Tantura lies off the usual tourist routes near unhealthful swamps,
and is therefore seldom visited. Beside a few illustrations accom-
panying some of the descriptions mentioned above 7 , it has been
impossible to obtain satisfactory pictures of the site. A renewed
examination of the ruins would doubtless yield interesting addi-
tions to our information concerning ancient and mediaeval Dor.
It is to be hoped that such an examination will be made before all
the material has been removed or destroyed.
1 The Lands of the Bible Visited and Described (Edinburgh 1857), II, p. 249.
2 Narrative of a Journey through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852
(Edinb. and London, 1854), I, p. 333.
3 Description de la Palestine, II Partie — Samarie— (Paris, 1874-75), 2 : 305 f.
4 When Buckingham (see above) visited Tantura in 1810 the town was without
a mosque.
5 Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs of the Topography, etc. (London,
1881-83), II, pp. 3 ff.
0 1887, p. 181 ; 1895, p. 113 (Reports by Dr. G. Schumacher).
’S. W. P. Mem. II, pp. 10 ff. ; P.E.F.Q., (1887), p. 84; Wilson, Piet. Pal.,
Ill, p. 105.