page_title: Tarichaea
section_title: Sennabris (Khirbet Kerak - Malahha - Kinneret Moshava)
hierarchical_section_title: Tarichaea / Geographical location / Sennabris (Khirbet Kerak - Malahha - Kinneret Moshava)
caption_attribution_description: English: Moshava Kinneret during the British Mandate (1920-1947)
context_page_description: Tarichaea, alternative spellings Taricheæ/Tarichaeae/Tarichee; Tarichese; Tarichess, is the Greek place name for a historic site, formerly situated along the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and mentioned in the writings of Josephus. Tarichaea was one of the first villages in Galilee to have sustained an attack by Rome, during the First Jewish-Roman War. The village attracted to it the seditious from the outlying regions east of Galilee, who mixed with the local townsfolk and who relied upon some 230 boats on the Sea of Galilee for protection in the event of an assault upon the village. When the village was eventually overrun by the Roman army, the townsfolk surrendered.
context_section_description: Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History, placed Tarichæa to the south of the Sea of Galilee, while Tiberias is to the west of the lake. 
  Accordingly, the German traveller, Ulrich Jasper Seetzen, described Tarichaea in 1806 as being on the banks of the Sea of Galilee at its "southward extremity," near the town of Sennabris, saying that some ruins and some walls were still visible, and that the place still bore the name of el-Malahha, or Ard-el-Malahha, which is equivalent with the Greek name of Tarichæa, a name derived from the Greek word tarichos (salted fish). Seetzen surmised that the inhabitants of Tarichæa made use of ground salt that was plenteous in their town to cure the quantities of fish produced by the lake. Seetzen described the plain which he saw, directly upon leaving the vicinity of el-Malahha towards its south, southwest: "Here begins the beautiful plain of el-Ghôr,  which greatly resembles the plain of el-B'kaa, between Anti-Libanus and Libanus, only that the two chains of mountains that surround it are not so striking as those of el-B'kaa." This plain would be the one described by Josephus as stretching in front of Tarichaea. The Arabic place-name can be spelled el-Malaḥa, Mallâha. 
  Still in the 19th century, Robinson suggested that Tarichaea was Kerek, a place situated to the south of Tiberias. This opinion was followed by almost all 19th-century authors, Conder, C.R., W.M. Thomson, D.F. Buhl and E. Schürer, among others. Victor Guérin thought that Tarichaea was to be placed either at Kh. el-Mallaḥa or Kh. Kerak, both, south of Tiberias. Archaeologist and historian Nikos Kokkinos proposed that Tarichaea was to be sought somewhere between Kinneret-Moshava and Qevutsa, or what is 1 to 1.5 km north and north-west of Tel Bet Yerach.
  One of the arguments advanced by Kokkinos for locating Tarichaea south of Tiberias is that the Roman army was encamped at the station called Sennabris, a place "well within view (Greek: εὐσύνοπτος) of the rebels" (The Jewish War iii.443). Had Tarichaea been situated at Magdala or at Khurbet Kuneitrîah to the north of Tiberias, as opined by W.F. Albright and by H.H. Kitchener, respectively, the rebels could not have seen the Roman army encampment at Sennabris, 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) to the south, since this place is completely obstructed by the intervening hills.
  The difficulty with these identifications is that some historical geographers have reasoned that the movement of the Roman army would have proceeded from a southern to northerly direction, without breaking-off the movement. According to Josephus, Vespasian arrived from the south (Scythopolis) with his troops, and pitched his camp at Sennabris (a place near Khirbet Kerak). If Tarichaea indeed lay to the south of Tiberias, it seemed inconceivable that it would be bypassed by the Romans, without being dealt with first, while en route to Tiberias. 
  However, according to Kokkinos, this view would not take into account military stratagems, if they indeed existed, such as reconnoitering the Roman army to a place further north (Tiberias) where insurgents were also known to be, and to prevent their sallying-out to their brothers' defence in the south, and only afterwards to engage the enemy in the south (Tarichaea). Kokkinos, citing The Jewish War 3.462 and 4.11, suggests that, after the Roman army had subdued and secured Tiberias, Vespasian moved the remainder of his troops to Ammathus, one biblical mile south of Tiberias, where there are hot springs and where he could refresh his troops. Securing this site was deemed a strategic necessity, as it prevented those insurgents who fled from seeking refuge in Tarichaea. Had Tarichaea been situated to the north of Tiberias, moving the Roman army to Ammathus would not have prevented insurgents from escaping to the rebel stronghold. When Tarichaea was eventually subdued, it was from Ammathus also that the Roman army launched its attack against Gamala, opposite the lake.
caption: Moshavat Kinneret during the British Mandate, overlooking Kh. Kerak
exif: {}