Orthophoto of the area around Ma'ayan Baruch (lower right) and Yuval (upper left) on govmap.gov.ilThe Acheulean open-air site of Ma'ayan Barukh is located at the northeastern tip of Upper Galilee (map reference 2070.2950), on the [former] northern shore of Lake Hula. The finds are scattered over a triangular core area of roughly 5,000 sq m, between 250 and 275 m above sea level. There are sparser occurrences downslope, over an area of 1 by 1 km, to an elevation of 170m. The prehistoric tools are found on top of, and embedded in, a terra rossa layer (0. 5-2 m thick) whose age is unknown.
Ma'ayan Barukh: map of boundaries and major concentrations of finds
(after Stekelis and Gilead). The square on the 275-m line indicates the location
of trenches.Negev (1969) analyzed an inscription recording the restoration of a temple and argued that it should be attributed to Emperor Julian II. Although Julian is not named explicitly, Negev proposed that the phrase Romani orbis liberatori refers to him, an interpretation supported by comparison with a similar inscription from Italy and by close linguistic parallels with other inscriptions securely attributed to Julian. On this basis, Negev concluded that the inscription found at Maʿayan Barukh belongs to the corpus of Julianic restoration texts. Julian’s reign is well known for the systematic restoration of pagan temples, many of which had suffered damage during episodes of Christian violence earlier in the fourth century CE. If Julian is indeed the emperor intended, the use of the title Pontifici maximo provides a firm terminus post quem after the summer of 362 CE, since Julian did not employ this title earlier in his reign ( Negev, 1969). This chronological point is of direct relevance for archaeoseismic interpretation, as it places the restoration activity before the major earthquake sequence traditionally associated with 363 CE. The inscription was recovered from a site approximately 8 km from Caesarea Philippi (Paneas), described as a location “where once stood a famous Roman Temple” ( Negev, 1969), and Negev suggested that the stone may have originated either from this well-known sanctuary at Paneas or from another Roman temple in the same regional landscape.
Prehistory: M. Stekelis and D. Gilead, Mitekufat Ha'even 8 (1966) (Hebrew); A. Ronen, The Quaternary of
Israel (ed. A. Horowitz), New York 1979, 296-307; id. et al., IEJ 30 (1980), 17-33.
Middle Bronze Age tombs: R. Amiran, 'Atiqot 3 (1961), 84-92.
Later periods: A. Negev, IEJ 19 (1969), 170-173.
N. Goren-Inbar, The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London 1995, 93–109; Z. Greenhut, TA 22
(1995), 16
R. Greenberg, The Hula Valley from the Beginning of the Early Bronze Age to the End of the Middle Bronze Age IIA (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 1996
I. Saragusti (et al.), JAS 25 (1998), 817–825
id., Changes
in the Morphology of Handaxes from Lower Paleolithic Assemblages in Israel (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem 2002;
Annual Report of the Israel Science Foundation 23 (1998–1999), 70–71
W. Eck, Chiron: Mitteilungen der
Kommision für alte Geschichte und Epigraphik 30 (2000), 857–859
H. DeBono & N. Goren-Inbar, Mitekufat Ha’even 31 (2001), 9–23.