Talk:Hippos (Golan Heights)

Article should mention Syria

Article never mentions that this site is in the area annexed by Israel called the Golan Heights -- and considered by the US government and UN to be Syrian territory. Should also be tagged as a site in Syria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.103.10 (talk) 23:08, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

The hill is actually in the enclave east of the Sea of Galilee surrounding Ein Gev that Syria does not claim. Look at the map at Image:Golan heights rel89.jpg. Fishal (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, in a way, with both comments: The hill itself is within a small enclave not claimed by Syria (it shows up as a small circle or dot on maps). However, I am told by archaeologist friends that the only way anyone gets to the site is by traveling through occupied territory. Something about the modern history of the site would be very useful in an article like this, and I hope that someone with the relevant expertise will come along! 74.215.238.46 (talk) 03:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is it not time to protect this article since it is so often vandalised? Fipplet (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Not done: The {{editsemiprotected}} template is used for requesting edits to pages that are semiprotected so that non-autoconfirmed users can make reasonable edits despite the need to semiprotect the article. The process for getting a page protected is spelled out over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. The level of vandalism here may not be sufficient to get the page semiprotected, but it doesn't hurt to ask. Celestra (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This place is not in Israel

Its located in what became the disputed DMZ between Syria and Israel [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Refs says in Israel and mention an army position atop Sussita. We're going to need a WP:RS to counter that. Poliocretes (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Look at the coordinates: https://www.google.com/maps/place/32%C2%B046'44.4%22N+35%C2%B039'36.0%22E/@32.779,35.6337358,13z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d32.779!4d35.66?hl=en its within the DMZ. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Arabic name

@Al Ameer son: could you help with your superior Arabic skills? We say here that the Arabic name is Qal'at al-Hisn ([ قلعة الحصن‎ ] Error: {{Langx}}: invalid parameter: |trans= (help)).

الحصن‎ usually means fortress (so قلعة الحصن‎ is "castle fortress", which is how it is used at Krak des Chevaliers)

الحصان is horse, which is presumably why we say "Fortress of the Horse"

Arabic wiki says Arabic: "قلعة الحصن أو الحصن ، تم إستخدامه من قبل السكان العرب في البلاد، بمعنى "حصن الحصان / الفحل, where "حصن الحصان" is Fortress of the Horse.

Obviously it is very logical that the word horse is part of the Arabic name here, but the spelling seems to be off. Perhaps there is some implied poetic licence or similar?

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile: Regrettably, I do not have such skills. All I know is ḥiṣn means "fortress" or "castle" and hiṣṣān means "horse". Sorry I could not be of help. Al Ameer (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It looks like this question is at the heart of debate around the original identification of this place. Schumacher wrote, as translated by Sochi:[2]

• p.144-145 "Burckhardt (according to Ritter) considered the neighbourhood of Fik was the province of Hippene (Hippos); this assumption would be correct, because, according to all the old narratives, Hippene lay opposite to Tiberias, either on or near the lake. Josephus gives its distance from Tiberias as 30 stadium, 60 from Gadara, and 120 from Scythopolis. If this statement is correct — which, however, appears doubtful on comparison with other measures in Josephus, for example, in the description of Tabor (Jewish Wars, iv. 1-8), Hippos, could only, supposing Gadara corresponds to the present Umm Keis, be identical with Semakh or es-Samra. If, however, the statement which I find in Merrill's "East of the Jordan" is worthy of consideration, viz., that the Jerusalem Talmud and other Jewish writings pronounce Susitha identical with Hippos; then the extensive although shapeless ruin Susiyeh, which I discovered between Külät el-Husn and Fik, in a plain, elevated half-way between both, must be regarded as the site of the old Hippos."
• p.206 "The designation 'horse,' however, recalls the place Hippos, or the province Hippene, in which, as we saw on page 195, this fortification must certainly have laid. [Footnote by Sochi: Compare with this the opinion of Frei in Z. D. V. P. ix., 130. Frie appears, in my opinion correctly, to reject the identification of Kül'at el-Husn. It is true that some characteristics correspond to the description given by Josephus: others, however, are so decidedly opposed to the identity that there is little to be placed on the points of agreement. If one rigidly compares the statements of Josephus with those given in Schumacher's carefully sketched plan it is impossible to resist the impression that Josephus had another site in his mind. The designation el-Husn cannot be otherwise explained than in the names Husn el-Akrad or Kül'at el-Husn near Homs, Husn Suleiman in the Lebanon mountains, Husn Hiha north of Zahleh in the Lebanon district. In all these cases it means fortification (Socin, Z. D. V. P., iv., 4). The word Husn does not mean horse, but el-Hisan means stallion."]
• p.238 "Semakh... Burckhardt wrongly regarded the country as Tarichea (' Ritter,' o. 345, seq.). At that time the village consisted of 40 basalt and clay huts, and was governed by a subdued Beni Sakhr Sheikh; later travellers took it for Hippos."
• p.244: "Susiyehi. C. 7). An extensive but completely indistinguishable ruin, on a small plain east of the Külät el-Husn. Plough and hoe have worked among the old building stones, and obliterated all remains of ancient days. In the north, a crescent-shaped ridge, the Serj Susiyeh, which has probably slipped down from the southern slopes over the ruins, stretches along to the Wady Fik. It also bears some ruins. Susiyeh is probably identical with the Susitha of the Jerusalem Talmud (Merrill, 'East of the Jordan'), and consequently with Hippos."

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: are you familiar with the excavations here? I would like to highlight the evidence we have that this place is definitely ancient Hippos. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: I've never heard anyone ever having any doubt about this being Hippos/Susita. Schumacher worked over 100 years ago, he counts today as a venerable pioneer, but not as a reliable source. It's one of the Decapolis cities, and there's nothing similar anywhere around it. I'm not aware of any inscription being found there that would confirm the identification in written, but that would always be a rare exception. Scythopolis, Philadelphia, Gadara, Gerasa, Hippos - I'm not aware of anyone doubting their identification in the last 20 years. But I also thought that the identification of Abila/Raphana were a safe bet, and now I see that the enWiki stub presents it as not 100%. Maybe the stub is at fault :) I did know that Dium/Capitolias as Beit Ras was doubted for a while longer, and anyway, not much is left of the ancient town. But Hippos - no doubt whatsoever. If you would know the topography and the extent of the ruins you'd see why. It's the only candidate. Maps and articles don't transmit the whole picture. Hope it helps. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It's a bit like the identification of Beit She'arim (Roman-era Jewish village) - it's got the largest known necropolis, and we found an inscription with 50% of the letters in the possible Greek version of the name, so it must be this place mentioned a handful of times in classical sources. All throughout the region we see examples of great science in the underlying archaeology or the epigraphy, but with the ultimate connection to the headline sources (classical or Biblical) from which their identification is drawn being based on 19th century conjecture and argument from silence (because we haven't found any better candidates). Onceinawhile (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)