# The Northern Ḥeǧâz/Appendix 3

APPENDIX III
SEʻÎR, AŠ-ŠERA’, AND THE NORTHERN FRONTIER OF THE ḤEǦÂZ
SEʻÎR AND AŠ-ŠERA’
Aš-Šera’ forms the southern half of the mountain range and region of Seʻîr, to which the Bible frequently refers.
The allied kings of Babylon marched eastward from the Dead Sea to the south (Gen., 14: 6), slew the Horites in their mountains of Seʻîr, and reached Êl Pârân.
Êl Pârân is identical with the later harbor of Elath, or the present settlement of al-ʻAḳaba, at the northern extremity of the Gulf of al-ʻAḳaba of the Red Sea. It is thus obvious that we must expect to find Seʻîr to the south or southeast of the Dead Sea. But even if we did not identify Êl Pârân as Elath, it would be extremely probable that the Seʻîr mountain range stretched to the south of Moab and thus to the south-southeast of the Dead Sea.
We are brought to the same regions in Genesis, 32: 4, where it is narrated that Jacob, returning southward from Laban and while still north of the River Jabbok, “sent messengers to Esau his brother unto the land of Seʻîr, the country of Edom.” Esau had already heard of Jacob’s return, was marching against him, and met him east of the Jordan (Gen., 32: 23). Having become reconciled with him, Esau returned to Seʻîr (Gen., 33: 16), while Jacob proceeded in a westerly direction, reaching Sukkôt and crossing the Jordan.
From the context it is clear that Esau dwelt to the south or southeast of the Dead Sea and that he marched against his brother along the transport route leading from Arabia in the south to Damascus in the north. If we were to locate his dwelling place southwest of the Dead Sea and south of Palestine, we should also have to discover the reason why Jacob sent his messengers to him when he was still far to the east of Jordan and to the north of the Jabbok, and why the reconciled brothers ​did not march together, seeing that Jacob also was proceeding toward the south of Palestine and southwest of the Dead Sea.
Seʻîr is also placed to the southeast of the Dead Sea according to the narrative given in 2 Chronicles, 20, about the campaign undertaken by the Moabites, Ammonites, and some of the people of Meʻûn against Joshaphat. According to the account in 2 Chronicles, 20: 2, messengers reported to Joshaphat that the enemy were marching from the east of the Dead Sea, from Edom, and that they were already near Ḥaṣeṣôn Tamar, which is Engadi. There it is recorded (2 Chron., 20: 23) that the Moabites and Ammonites quarreled with the inhabitants of the Seʻîr mountain range and slew them.—
In my judgment, as we have already seen (see above, p. 243), the Meʻûnites were identical with the Maʻônites, who held sway over the great transport route and owed allegiance to the southern Arabian kings. Their center was the present settlement of Maʻân. The Edomites inhabiting Seʻîr likewise acknowledged the authority of the southern Arabian kings, whose trade caravans passed through their territory and brought them considerable profit. At the instigation of the Meʻûnites they therefore gladly took part in an expedition against their remoter neighbors in Judea with whom they were continually quarreling. The Ammonites, Moabites, and Meʻûnites dwelt to the northeast, east, and southeast of the Dead Sea, and, as the inhabitants of Seʻîr are substituted for the Meʻûnites (2 Chron., 20: 23), the Seʻîr mountain range must likewise be located to the south of the Dead Sea.
In 2 Chronicles, 25: 11, it is narrated that Amaziah, king of Judea, marched with his men to the Valley of Salt where he defeated the people of Seʻîr. According to this account we may also locate Seʻîr to the south-southeast of the Dead Sea. To the south of Palestine, especially to the south of the ruins of ʻAbde, there are numerous elevations containing layers of salt, but I doubt whether it is there that we should expect to find the Valley of Salt, or Gê’ ham-Melaḥ, which certainly borders on the Salt Sea, as the Dead Sea was also called. In summer the southern part of the sea evaporates, leaving extensive marshes from which the inhabitants of all the surrounding regions obtain their salt and which may be identified with Gê’ ham-Melaḥ. The people of Seʻîr had heard about the warlike preparations made by those in Judea and therefore marched to meet the latter, encountering them on the frontiers of their country, south of the Dead Sea. As the men of Judea marched from the northwest, it must be supposed that the men of Seʻîr arrived from the east or southeast.
In 1 Chronicles, 4: 39—43, there is an account of new settlements made by a part of the tribe of Simeon, who migrated from the southern regions of Judea to Gai’. From there few of them proceeded to the Seʻîr mountain range, where they slew the last remnants of the Amalekites and settled down.—Gai’ I identify with the classical settlement of Gea, the modern al-Ǧi, to the east of Petra (see above, pp. 245—247). We must, therefore, expect to find the Seʻîr mountain range in the same direction, and this would also bring us to the south-southeast of the Dead Sea.
Our view about the situation of the Seʻîr mountain range to the south or south-southeast of the Dead Sea is not at all contradictory to ​the Biblical account of the route taken by the children of Israel in their wanderings. Deuteronomy, 2: 1, states that they proceeded from Ḳadeš into the desert in the direction of the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds), making a great detour round the Seʻîr mountain range, until finally they proceeded northward. Deuteronomy, 2: 8, amplifies this with the remark that they went along the road of ʻAraba, marching from Elath and ʻEṣjôngeber and passing through Seʻîr.—
I locate Ḳadeš in the neighborhood of the later town of Petra and hence to the south-southeast of the Dead Sea. They thus must have turned toward the south, either through the deep rift valley connecting the Dead Sea with the Red Sea, or by way of the road leading from Petra southward along the western foot of the aš-Šera’ mountain range, or the ancient Seʻîr. The latter is a transport route of very great antiquity, upon which the caravans conveyed various goods from southern Arabia to Petra. Marching along one or the other of these roads southward, they went past the Seʻîr mountain range leaving it to the east and north, until finally they turned back toward the north, according to Deuteronomy, 2: 8, on the road of ʻAraba, proceeding from Elath and ʻEṣjôngeber and passing through Seʻîr.
Elath and ʻEṣjôngeber are harbors well known from the period of the kings. From them important transport routes ran in a westerly direction to Egypt, in a northwesterly direction to Gaza, and in a northerly, or rather northeasterly, direction to Damascus and Phoenicia. As the Israelites in their wanderings arrived to the east of Moab, it is certain that they chose the road leading from the above-mentioned harbors to Damascus. From the context it by no means follows that the Israelites encamped at Elath and ʻEṣjôngeber, but it is clear that, passing through Seʻîr, they turned off upon that road to the north. The road was called ʻAraba. Al-ʻAraba is today the name of the deep rift valley situated between Ajla (Elath) and the Dead Sea, but it is certain that the Israelites did not go by way of al-ʻAraba, as they would have been obliged not only to make the steep ascent to the eastern plateau, but they would have had to go past Seʻîr again; whereas according to Deuteronomy, 2: 8, they passed through Seʻîr. The rift valley of al-ʻAraba was never traversed by the large transport route connecting Elath with Moab and Damascus. During the dry season many animals and human beings would have perished from the heat there, nor would it have been possible to avoid the steep ascent. The transport routes of antiquity pass only through places which offer a minimum of obstacles, and this applies to the transport route from Elath northeastward through Wâdi al-Jitm to Maʻân, the ancient Maʻôn. If the latter settlement is identical with the main dwelling place of the Maʻônites—and there is no argument against this assumption—the Maʻônites certainly exerted themselves in every way in order that all the big caravans might pass through their territory.
The ancient transport route from Ajla via Maʻân to the north leads along the border between the settlers and the nomads; and as, according to the Assyrian and Biblical sources, the nomads were called Arubi, or Arabs, and their land was given the same name, we must suppose that this road was called the Arabian road, because it led along the western border of Arubi, or Aribi, i. e. Arabia. The Israelites joined this road ​somewhere near the present station of al-Ḳwêra, and upon it they turned off to the north. They certainly passed through the Seʻîr mountain range, but upon its eastern edge where numerous other nomad tribes used to betake themselves. As they did not plunder, the inhabitants of Seʻîr did not resist their passage but merely guarded their border.
This march through Seʻîr is recalled by Deborah (Judg., 5: 4), extolling Jehovah who went out of Seʻîr and marched from the fields of Edom. There is an analogous statement in Deuteronomy, 33: 2, to the effect that Jehovah came from Sinai and showed the people his radiance from Seʻîr. He shone from Mount Pârân and came from Merîbat Ḳadeš.
By locating Ḳadeš on the western border of Seʻîr, I can understand Deuteronomy, 1: 44, where it is narrated that the Amorites pursued the Israelites, who had departed from Ḳadeš against the will of Moses, and destroyed them in Seʻîr as far as Ḥorma. The defeated Israelites certainly fled to the western border of Seʻîr, where they had their headquarters. There the Amorites went after them and thus likewise reached the border of Seʻîr, where they attacked the encampments and flocks of the separate clans who were dwelling at a distance from the headquarters.
All the passages quoted hitherto require, or at least permit, us to locate Seʻîr to the south-southeast of the Dead Sea. Difficulties are presented, however, by Joshua, 11: 17; but they can be disposed of. It is there stated that Joshua held sway over all the land from Mount Ḥalaḳ going up toward Seʻîr as far as Baal-Gad in the depression of Lebanon. As we cannot precisely define the position of Baal-Gad, likewise we cannot identify Mount Halak. I think, however, that it is the mountainous knot rising in the environs of ʻAbde, south of Beersheba and west of Petra (see Musil, Karte von Arabia Petraea), where we locate Ḳadeš. This mountainous knot actually rises opposite our Seʻîr, being separated from it by the rift valley today known as al-ʻAraba. Thus interpreted, it not only does not contradict our identification but actually corroborates it.
THE NORTHERN FRONTIER OF THE ḤEǦÂZ
According to Ptolemy, Geography, VI, 7: 2, 27, the northern frontier of Arabia Felix, leaving the shore of the Red Sea between the settlements of Ajla and Ḥaḳl, swung off in a northeasterly direction to the aš-Šera’ mountain range, the southern slope of which separated Arabia Felix from Arabia Petraea.—Ptolemy is concerned with the geographical rather than the political frontiers.
The southern ridge of aš-Šera’ appears to have formed also the frontier of the provinces of Arabia and Palestina Tertia, for Eusebius, Onomasticon (Klostermann), p. 124, writes that the town of Madiam is situated beyond Arabia to the south in the Saracen desert east of the Red Sea. According to this it would be necessary to locate the frontier of the province of Arabia, and hence also of Syria, to the north of Madiam.
The same statement is repeated by Jerome, Comment. in Isaiam (Migne), 60: 6.
According to Procopius, De bello persico, I, 19, it must be inferred that the islet of Târân belonged to the province of Palestina Tertia, although the adjacent coast did not. The southern frontier of Palestina Tertia coincided with the northern frontier of Arabia Felix.
​The Arabic authors call the northwestern part of Arabia Felix the Ḥeǧâz and place the border of the Ḥeǧâz where the boundary of the former was situated, coinciding with the physiographical frontier.
Abu Ḥuḏajfa says (Jâḳût, Muʻǧam [Wüstenfeld], Vol. 3, p. 86) that Abu ʻObejda with the Moslem army reached Sarṛ, or the modern Soraṛ, and from there marched into Syria. It is obvious, therefore, that the frontier of Syria lay to the north of Ṣoṛar at the former position of the northern frontier of Arabia Felix and where the Ḥeǧâz is divided from Syria by the steep slope of the aš-Šera’ mountain range.
Ibn al-Faḳîḥ, Buldân (De Goeje), p. 92, records that Ajla is situated on the southern border of Syria.
According to Ibn Ḥawḳal, Masâlik (De Goeje), p. 19, and to Abu-l-Feda’, Taḳwîm (Reinaud and De Slane), p. 80, the southern border of Syria is formed by a straight line leading from the Red Sea near the harbor of Ajla along the edge of the administrative area of Tebûk—thus along the southern foot of the aš-Šera’ mountain range—to the east.
Jâḳût, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 259, states that the pass of Šitâr is situated in the aš-Šera’ mountain range between the regions of al-Belḳa’ and al-Medîna.—As this pass is in the southwestern part of aš-Šera’ near the frontiers of the administrative districts of al-Belḳa’ (Syria) and al-Medîna (Ḥeǧâz), according to Jâḳût also the aš-Šera’ mountain range must form the border between the Ḥeǧâz and Syria.
Al-Idrîsi, Nuzha, III, 5, writes that Tebûk is four days’ march distant from the Syrian frontier—which would place the northern frontier of the Ḥeǧâz on the southern foot of the aš-Šera’ mountain range. This can be reached from Tebûk in four marches, each of forty-five kilometers.
Abu Zejd al-Anṣâri (Jâḳût, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 825) locates Tebûk between al-Ḥeǧr, four marches away, and the frontier of Syria—thus about midway between al-Ḥeǧr and the frontier.
Muḥammad ibn Mûsa al-Ḥâzemi says (Jâḳût, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 451) that Madjan is located between the valley of al-Ḳura’ and Syria and is thus within the territory of the Ḥeǧâz.
With different political administrations the political ontiers of the Ḥeǧâz were shifted, but the old physiographical frontiers did not change. This is clearly shown by al-Muḳaddasi; for in one passage (Aḥsan [De Goeje], p. 155) he refers to Madjan as being in the Syrian administrative district of aš-Šera’, but in another (ibid., p. 178) he states that Madjan is situated in the Ḥeǧâz near its northern frontier. The incorporation of a number of places in Syria is of just as little importance as regards the actual northern frontiers of the Ḥeǧâz as their incorporation in Egypt, as is the case in Jâḳût, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 748, with al-ʻWejned, and in al-Maḳrîzi’s Mawâʻiẓ (Wiet) Vol. 1, p. 311, with Bada’, Šaṛab, and other places.
Al-Aṣmaʻi (Jâḳût, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 205) assigns the volcanic territory Ḥarra Lajla, as well as the settlements of Šaṛab and Bada’, to the Ḥeǧâz. Ibrâhîm al-Ḥarbi (ibid.) conjectures that Tebûk and even part of Palestine form a part of the Ḥeǧâz. This conjecture of Ibrâhîm, however, is entirely isolated. It was probably due to the circumstance of the northern part of the Ḥeǧâz having belonged to the political administration of southern Palestine. Unwilling to admit that the sacred Ḥeǧâz was dependent on Palestine, Ibrâhîm al-Ḥarbi included with the Ḥeǧâz southern ​Palestine as far as the town of Ṣoṛar at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea.
Al-Iṣṭaḫri, Masâlik (De Goeje), pp. 12 and 14, states that the Ḥeǧâz extends somewhere between Madjan by the Red Sea and as-Sirrîn on the Persian Gulf, as well as between al-Ḥeǧr and the two mountains of the Ṭajj tribe. According to him, we may assume that the northern frontier of the Ḥeǧâz runs close to Madjan and north of it; the eastern frontier is near the mountains of Eǧa’ and Salma, while the western is formed by the Red Sea. As the ancient Madian was situated near the present oasis of al-Bedʻ, we must locate al-Iṣṭaḫri’s northern frontier of the Ḥeǧâz between this oasis and the settlement of al-ʻAḳaba on the northern extremity of the gulf bearing the latter name. The mountains of the Ṭajj tribe are included by al-Iṣṭaḫri in the Ḥeǧâz because politically they belonged to Mecca and because the governor of the Pilgrim Route, who was sent from Mecca, resided in the settlement of Fejd situated at the northeastern foot of Mount Salma.
Al-Idrîsi, Nuzha, III, 5, states that the western frontier of the Ḥeǧâz leads from the waterless harbor of Râs abi Muḥammed at the entrance to the gulf of ʻAḳabat Ajla as far as the harbor of al-ʻUwajnid, ten miles distant from and opposite the island of an-Naʻmân, and farther on towards Ṭena’ and ʻUṭûf.—Râs abi Muḥammed is identical with Râs Muḥammed on the southern spur of the peninsula of Sinai. The name of al-ʻUwajnid (al-ʻWejned) has been retained in the pilgrims’ station of the same name southeast of the island of an-Naʻmân. Ṭena’ must be corrected to Ẓeba’, from which it has been transcribed, but Ẓaba’ (or Ẓbe’) is situated to the north and not to the south of the island of an-Naʻmân. ʻUṭûf is unknown to me.
According to Jâḳût, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 77, the name Ḥeǧâz (barrier) is derived from the fact that this territory separates the seashore al-Ṛawr from the upland of Neǧd. Al-Ḥeǧâz extends, he says, from al-Medîna to the environs of the oasis of Fejd and the two mountains Eǧa’ and Salma.—Jâḳût here copies from Iṣṭaḫri and indicates the then existing political area of the Ḥeǧâz. Physiographically the eastern frontier of the Ḥeǧâz is formed by the eastern edge of the jagged mountain range extending from near Tejma southward.
Ibn al-Faḳîh, op. cit., p. 27, defines the beginning of Neǧd as where the ṛaḍa shrub grows. In the Ḥeǧâz, he says, there is no ṛaḍa, but only ṭalḥ, samur, and asal.—This, however, is not the case, for in the Ḥeǧâz itself there are extensive areas covered with an abundance of ṛaḍa: for example, the lowland of al-Meḥteṭeb to the north, northeast, and west of Tebûk, and the valley of al-Ǧizel.
Al-Muḳaddasi, Aḥsan (De Goeje), p. 53, includes the places al-Ḥaǧr, al-ʻAwnîd, Bada’ Jaʻḳûb, Ḍabba, and Nabk within the administrative area of Ḳurḥ, as the main settlement of Wâdi al-Ḳura’ is called.—Al-ʻAwnîd, the harbor of this area, is identical with al-ʻWejned; Bada’ Jaʻḳûb is the small oasis of Bada’; Nebk must be located near the šeʻîb of aš-Šaʻaf; Ḍabba, or more correctly Ẓaba’, is the modern Ẓbe’. The frontier between the Syrian administrative area of Ṣoṛar and the Ḥeǧâz area of Ḳurḥ led from al-Mwêleḥ on the shore to al-Muʻaẓẓam, or, as it was then called, al-Muḥdaṯa, on the Pilgrim Route; thus at latitude 27° 40’ N.
Henri Lammens (L’ancienne frontière entre la Syrie et le Ḥidjâz ​[Notes de géographie historique], reprinted from Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Vol. 15, pp. 69 ff.) locates the frontier between Syria and the Ḥeǧâz somewhere below the oasis of al-ʻEla’. This essay is brilliant as regards its equipment of learning, but on a more detailed investigation of the sources quoted it is obvious that the author has arrived at results which are scientifically inaccurate. He does not distinguish the physiographical from the administrative frontiers, pays no attention to classical reports, and does not interpret the Arabic authors faithfully.
From the oldest times the southern slope of the aš-Šera’ range formed the frontier between the settlers and the nomads. This is clear both from the Bible and from the Assyrian records. The classical authors took over these native frontiers and gave the separate regions new names; the Arabic authors changed nothing in this natural limitation of frontiers except the names. The southern frontier of Syria coincided with the southern frontier of Arabia Petraea (later of Palestina Tertia, or Palestina Salutaris) which led from the Red Sea across the mountains of Iram (Ramm) to the southern slope of the aš-Šera’ range.
On the border of Arabia the Roman imperium had a twofold limes, an internal and an external one. The internal limes followed the edge of the settled and cultivated territory, while the external one led through the frontiers of the territory of the nomads, to whom the Romans paid annual salaria. The internal limes was permanent and therefore strongly fortified; the external limes, on the other hand, was not fixed; it contained no permanent Roman garrisons and therefore no fortified camps. North of Iram (Ramm) and in the aš-Šera’ range there is an abundance of remains of Roman strongholds and fortified camps which would seem to confirm the information given in the Notitia dignitatum. South of the aš-Šera’ range, however, I did not find a single Roman remain; nevertheless the settlements of Madiama (al-Bedʻ), Onne (ʻAjnûna), Bada’, and especially Heǧra (al-Ḥeǧr) were known to the classical writers, who would certainly have mentioned it had there been Roman garrisons in them, or if the remains of Roman encampmen had been preserved there. But we search in vain for such references in the classical writers and for Roman camps in the northern Ḥeǧâz. From this it is clear that both Madiama and the other oases mentioned above were situated, as Eusebius correctly states, trans Arabiam, and that they did not belong to the political administration of the province of Palestina Tertia, or Palestina Salutaris. It does not follow from this that they were not situated in an area enclosed by the external limes. This is obvious from the inscription at Ṛwâfa, where the tribe of the Thamudenoi built a temple in honor of the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Verus (see above, p. 185). The Thamudenoi bordered on what was then Arabia Petraea and later Palestina Salutaris, whence they received salaria for acknowledging the supremacy of the Roman and Byzantine emperors into whose service they let themselves be hired. Indeed, they were even appointed as Roman or Byzantine officials. This is a usage for which there is evidence in the Assyrian records, and it has continued until now, but we cannot infer from it that the territory of the Thamudenoi, or of the Ǧuḏâm tribe after them, formed a permanent part of the Roman Empire and belonged to Syria. As soon as a chief, who was at the same time a Roman official ​or ally, no longer received his salaria, he departed in exteriorem limitem and made incursions against the Romans, as if they were his enemies. There is abundant evidence to support this in the classical and Syrian records.
When the Romans or Byzantines succeeded in winning over an important chief, the external limes was shifted to the border of his political influence. At the time of the chief and phylarch Amorkesos the external limes extended to the south certainly as far as the environs of al-Medîna; and the same holds good also for the time of the powerful kings of the Ghassânian tribe, who made punitive raids as far south as the oases of al-ʻEla’, Ḫajbar, and Ḥâjel. The traces of such temporary influence extending as far as the Holy Cities were preserved even in Moslem traditions. Zubejr ibn Bakkâr relates that ʻOtmân Ḥuwêreṯ was appointed king of Mecca by the Byzantine emperor (Zobayr ibn Bakkar Sohayly, Manuscript of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, p. 161; A. Sprenger Das Leben und die Lehre des Muḥammad, Vol. 1, Berlin, 1869, p. 89). The actual permanent Byzantine influence did not extend beyond the fortified internal limes, which passed along the southern foot of aš-Šera’. This was also known to the more important Arabic authors and explains why they place the northern frontier of the Ḥeǧâz where it is indicated by the classical writers and distinguish between the physiographical and the political or administrative frontiers. We can thus easily explain why some of them refer to the Syrian Ḥeǧâz, that is the Ḥeǧâz politically dependent upon Syria, and why there is variance in their statements about the frontier. A strong ruler of Syria has often exerted and will exert influence as far as the Holy Cities of the Ḥeǧâz; but he may not shift the geographical frontiers by one inch.