Transliterated Name | Language | Name |
---|---|---|
Safed | English | |
Zefat | English | |
Tzfat | Hebrew | צְפַת |
Tzephath | Hebrew - Talmud | |
Safad | Arabic | صفد |
Seph | mentioned by Josephus in The Jewish War (II,573) | |
Tziphoth | possibly Safed in Egyptian hieratic M.S. called ‘Travels of a Mohar’ (‘Records of the Past,’ vol. ii. p. 62) |
Safed is located on a chalky hill of the Upper Galilee and has been continuously inhabited since c. 2000 BCE - the Middle Bronze Age (Damati, Stepansky, and Barbe in Stern et al, 2008:2025-2027). Josephus fortified the site in 67 CE in preparation for an anticipated Roman invasion and it was later fortified by a host of political entities including the Crusaders, Mamelukes, and Ottomans (Damati, Stepansky, and Barbe in Stern et al, 2008:2025-2027). In the 1500s, it became a center for the mystical Jewish Kabbalah movement and contained large Muslim and Jewish communities (Wikipedia). The city was devastated by the 1837 CE Safed Earthquake and appears to have suffered during historical earthquakes suggesting a possible site effect (Ridge Effect) and geotechnical instability which, according to Katz and Crouvi (2007:59), is exacerbated by up to 10 meters of anthropogenic fill which can lead to both seismic amplification and Earthquake Induced Landslides (EILS).
Ancient Safed is located on a chalky hill in the mountainous eastern area of Upper Galilee. On the summit of the hill, 834 m above sea level, is an elongated ancient mound, c. 10 a. in area, settled from the Middle Bronze Age onward. In the Crusader and Mameluke periods, towering citadels were built on the hill. A number of medieval and Ottoman quarters, still partly preserved, extended along the slopes of the hill surrounding the citadel. The site is first mentioned by Josephus (War II, 573) as Seph, a site he fortified between Achbara and Yamnit. It is thereafter referred to in numerous Jewish and Arab sources and became the main urban center in the Galilee in the second millennium CE.
Surveys and archaeological excavations of the mound and its slopes have revealed that Safed was first settled in the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000 BCE) and has since been continuously inhabited into modern times. The site may have already been fortified in the second and first centuries BCE, possibly as one of the Hellenistic fortresses and later as one of the Hasmonean garrisons conquered by Herod during his campaign against the Jews of Galilee in 39 BCE (Josephus, War I, 238–239, 314–316; Antiq. XIV, 297–298). Josephus fortified the site in 67 CE in preparation for the anticipated Roman invasion. However, no definite architectural remains of these fortifications have been found. During the Late Roman and Byzantine periods, Safed was probably a medium-sized Jewish town, mentioned once in the Jerusalem Talmud. According to Jewish literary and epigraphic sources, a community of one of the 24 priestly families, Yakim-Pashchur (the twelfth priestly course), lived in Safed. In the Early Islamic period, a Jewish community in Safed is documented in the Cairo Geniza. In the eleventh century CE, just before the Frankish conquest, Arab sources mention the existence of a single tower, Burj el-Yatim. The earliest fortification of the site by the Franks is recorded as dating to 1101/02 CE; this fortress was handed over to the Templars in 1168. Safed was surrendered to Saladin by the Franks in 1188, and the fortress remained in Muslim hands until 1240. Safed was then returned to Frankish rule and a large citadel was built, described as the largest Crusader castle in the East; the details of its building are described in a Latin source, De Constructione Castri Saphet, dated to the year 1264 and attributed to the bishop of Marseilles, Benoît of Alignan. In 1266, the Mamelukes, under the command of Baybars, besieged the fortress, which was surrendered after a six-week siege. According to the historical sources, the Mameluke Sultan undertook reconstruction work as early as 1266–1267, building an outer fortification wall, as well as a huge round tower, 120 cubits (60 m) high and 70 cubits (35 m) in diameter, and fitted with a spiral ramp. Safed, dominated by its castle, became a provincial capital and eventually one of the largest cities in the country. During the sixteenth century, it was a world-renowned center of Jewish thought and mysticism, with a prosperous Jewish quarter on its western slope that encompassed about half the city’s total population (c. 20,000). In 1759 and 1837, earthquakes severely damaged the city, while further hardships in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, together with the development of the coastal cities, brought about an eventual decline in the city’s population and importance, a situation relieved only after the 1948 War of Independence.
Although described by numerous travelers throughout the second millennium ce, Safed’s archaeological remains and ancient buildings were first documented by European explorers and artists in the nineteenth century. A survey of the citadel conducted by the Palestine Exploration Fund produced its first detailed plan. Until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, however, no formal excavations were conducted within ancient Safed. The excavations described below were carried out mainly under the auspices of the Israel Department of Antiquities (IDA) and, since 1990, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA).
Chronology is well established and is based on historical reports some of which are listed below:
Source | Report | Notes |
---|---|---|
Letter from the French Consul in Saida | Safed and Nablus have been completely ruined and overthrown |
|
Letter written by Archbishop of Saida Boutros Jalfaq | struck especially in Safed in Galileeand Safad, 2000 dead, but the surrounding countryside is unscathed |
|
Letters written by Dr. Patrick Russell | totally destroyed, together with the greater part of the inhabitants |
|
La Gazette de France 1760 | overthrew the City of Safetand Tripoli in Syria is no more than a heap of ruins as are Saphet, ... |
Chronology is well established and is based on historical reports some of which are listed below:
Source | Report | Notes |
---|---|---|
Article in the Missionary Herald by William McClure Thomson | The first day of this year (1837 CE) will be long remembered as the anniversary of one of the most violent and destructive earthquakes which this country has ever experienced |
|
The Times (of London) | A LIST OF TOWNS ETC., DESTROYED OR INJURED IN SYRIA BY THE EARTHQUAKE ON THE 1st OF JANUARY |
the core city was severely damagedin the earthquakes of 1759 CE
with about 150 fatalities, most of them in the earlier shock (Schiller, 2002; Ya'ari, 1943). They further report that
the majority of the damage occurred in the downhill (western) parts of the core city (Fig. 2b), apparently due to landslides (Yizrael, 2002a). They added that
the synagogues of the Sefaradic Ari and Banea that were damaged in the 1759 earthquake (probably the first) mark the upper landslide boundary (β in Fig. 2b), while the more eastern ones, the Greek pilgrimage and Hagadol (the big) synagogues, were not damaged (Yizrael, 2002a).
Some historians believe that the original Abuhav Synagogue was built in the 15th century near the base of the mountain, above the cemetery and was rebuilt in its present site, on Abuhav Street after the 1759 earthquake. Others say the original synagogue existed in its present site and was rebuilt in the same location after the earthquake. Both versions relate that the southern wall which held the Ark of the Torah scrolls did not collapse after the 1759 earthquake.
One of the Torah scrolls in the Ark had been written in the 15th century by Rabbi Yitzchak Abuhav. According to Safed legend, Rabbi Abuhav warned that the Torah scroll was not be removed from the Ark other than ritual Torah-reading times. After the 1759 earthquake, ten men immersed in a mikva -- ritual bath -- so as to remove the Torah scroll and place it in a safe place as the synagogue was rebuilt. They succeeded in moving the scroll to safer quarters but within a year, all ten men died.
Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description(s) |
---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
Collapse | The Castle |
|
|
Landslide | Jewish Quarter on the western slope |
|
|
Widespread Casualties |
|
||
Heavy Damage in Safed |
|
||
Aftershocks |
|
||
Rebuilding |
|
||
Some parts of town spared | the Muhammedan quarter, The southern quarter |
|
caused severe damage to the core city of Zefat (Vered and Striem, 1976) with more than 1000 lives lost (Ben-Horin, 1952). Katz Crouvi (2007:65) added the following:
An eyewitness of the destruction reported rents and cracks in the rocks and earth of the hill and related that the uppermost row of houses fell on the next one below, which then fell upon a third (Thomson, 1873). Wachs and Levitte (1981), considered the above a description of landslides morphology and dynamics. The landslide extent of this earthquake was apparently larger than that of 1759 (γ in Fig. 2b). The synagogues of the Sefaradic Ari and Banea were damaged again in the 1837 earthquake, as were the more eastern Ashkenazic Ari and Abuhav ones built in the locations of the Greek pilgrimage and Hagadol synagogues that were not damaged in the 1759 shocks (Yizrael, 2002a). The synagogue of Yosef Karo was also damaged and the Elshiech synagogue was spared. The part of the core city situated on the hill backbone, south of the Citadel (Fig. 2a), was reported to have suffered only minor damage (i.e., no landslides) during this earthquake (D. Wachs, unpublished).
The downhill (western) damage in the 1837 earthquake was probably further down from the current western limit of the core city (Fig. 2b). Yizrael (2002a), stated that customarily, the main spiritual center (Sefaradic Ari synagogue) would not have been built on the outskirts of the city, on the border of the cemetery (α in Fig. 2b); thus it is probable that in the past the city extended further down beyond the current cemetery area. Yizrael (2002b), showed that there are no pre-1837 tombs in the upper cemetery area (bordering the current western city limit). He suggested that the most eastern pre-1837 tombs bordered the western city limit of that time. This builtup part, now at the upper cemetery area, was damaged during the 1759 earthquake, rebuilt and damaged again in the 1837 shock and never rebuilt again.
43 The Dutchman Dapper was only a conscientious compiler, who without traveling himself
composed many descriptions of distant countries; see Van der Aa, Biographisch Woordenboek,
iv, 1859, p. 18-19. The first part of what he says about Safed is based on Roger's data.
The passage which I reproduce in translation will be largely confirmed by (Van Egmond and)
Heyman; but it differs from their account in some important details which must have been
taken from a source which has remained unknown to me. Although I have reviewed all the
authors named by Dapper in his introduction, I have not been able to discover the story
he used to describe the ruins of Safed. I must therefore quote my compatriot instead of
his source, wishing the best of luck to my readers.
44 I also thought I had to translate the following description, most of my readers not being,
I suppose, familiar with the Dutch language. Van Egmond and Heyman recorded their impressions
in letters that were published after their deaths by JW Heyman. In the non-paginated preface
(1, p. 12), he mentions that his uncle traveled from 1700 to 1709, Van Egmond from 1720-1723.
To avoid repetitions, the editor took Heyman's letters as the basis of his book, completing
the story of one with that of the other. But it is impossible to say whether the description
of the castle that we are about to read is by Heyman's hand or that of Van Egmond. Let us
therefore retain the first quarter of the eighteenth century as the date.
45 The span was a measure that indicates the distance between the tips of the thumb
and the little finger, that is to say a good twenty centimeters.
The citadel is roughly oval in shape. It is four hundred meters long, ninety-five wide. Its walls, still about ten meters high, form a double enclosure separated by a ditch carved into the living rock. The facing stones are of very large apparatus and cut with bosses. In 1863, one saw on the central reserve of this fortress the remainders of two considerable buildings; the first was a square dungeon and the other seems to have been a large dwelling... Arab chronicles speak of a very deep well which supplied the garrison with water. Outside the current city are still the remains of two advanced works of the castle. They were also built in huge boss-hewn blocks. But, like those of the castle, these ruins, dismembered every day by the inhabitants, who have made veritable quarries of them, will soon have disappeared. In 1870, mm. Mieulet and Derrien found another recognizable oblong tower, forming one of the flanks of the work located to the south, in front of the citadel, on the other side of the pass, covered with gardens, where the road from Safed to Tiberias52.Twelve years after Rey, on November 14 and 15, 1875, the indefatigable Victor Guérin also went to Safed:
Safed's mountain peak sits 818 meters above the Mediterranean; it is crowned by the ruins of a large elliptical enclosure, the entrance to which is towards the south and surrounded by a ditch, partly dug in the living rock and three-quarters filled in. This enclosure, still called today el-Kala'h, was flanked by about ten towers, which lost, as well as itself, their coating of cut stones. All that remains is the interior blockage. Inside reigns a second ditch, then beyond the castle itself offers nothing more than a confused mass of rubble; it was flanked by towers at the corners and was provided with large and deep cisterns. It is being destroyed day by day, and it is, like the outer enclosure, a veritable quarry, from which the inhabitants of the city continually extract ready-made materials to build new houses. A powerful isolated tower or dungeon, circular in shape, measuring 34 meters in diameter, dominated the castle, which itself dominated the whole city: there are still some lower foundations arranged in a slope on the outside and composed of regular blocks, arranged with many care. Inside we notice the remains of a vaulted gallery, built with similar blocks. The horizon which one enjoys from the top of this dungeon, three-quarters razed as it is, is incomparable in extent and beauty. You can see almost the whole of Upper and Lower Galilee, and a vast expanse of the Transjordan countries, beyond the Houleh and Tiberias lakes, which unfold at your feet. to the northeast and southeast, by two other, much smaller fortresses of more recent times, which are also falling into ruin.However imperfect the data transmitted by Rey and Guérin may be, they agree quite well and their contradictions seem to me only apparent. Guérin speaks of a circular dungeon, Rey found it square. According to Rey, the advanced works were built like the castle in enormous blocks cut with bosses, therefore of Frankish construction, according to Guérin they were of more recent times, therefore of Arab construction. As for these advanced works, even without knowing the observation of Rey, one would know by their very positions that they were indeed of Frankish origin, since they commanded, to the south-east, the road to Tiberias and the approach to the castle, to the north-east the road from Damascus to the sea: this last work was therefore on the road from the castle to the "Ford of Jacob", to the north-east of Safed, where the Chastellet commanded the road from Damascus to the point where it crosses the Jordan. Now we know that in the eighteenth and eighteenth centuries the Arab princes in revolt against the Turkish authority made important repairs to the castle (see plate it); they were certainly not the first to do them and it is obvious that the advanced works were also restored. This state of affairs also appears in the (too) brief notice of the castle that we owe to the English lieutenant(s) (Kitchener and) Conder in the Survey of Western Palestine 54 . It reads: “This was originally a Crusading castle, but of that there remains but little. Vaults and entrances to cisterns still show Crusading work, but the principal remains are those of the castle that Dhâher el 'Amr built here at the time that he defied the Turkish Government, and governed this part of the country by force. Excavation might show Crusading remains hidden beneath the modern ruins... A vault... large vaults... (see below)... The rest of the remains of the castle are of small rubble masonry faced with well-dressed stones of small size, and are the work of Dhâher el 'Amr”. In this same Survey there is a meritorious but quite insufficient plan, which bears the legend: "Crusading and Saracenic Remains" (between p. 248 and p. 249), but which establishes no distinction between these two sorts of ruins. This inevitably leads to the same conclusion as all the notices quoted a little above, namely that towards the end of the axis century one could hardly distinguish the authentically Frankish constructions any more. As for the plan itself, it only indicates a single enclosure that has largely disappeared, which by its position must have been the first. On both sides of this enclosure is a hatching, which could represent the ditches. In the middle of the plan is a part of the fortress higher than the rest; in the southeast corner of this part are the remains of walls, probably belonging to the dungeon, which thus must have dominated the entrance to the castle (to the south in the first enclosure). The sketch of these remains on the plan explains the contradiction pointed out between Rey and Guérin: they can just as easily be interpreted as the remains of a circular tower as of a square tower. Let us not forget, moreover, that our observers found themselves in front of and among ruins, which they had to interpret under primitive circumstances. As for the diameter, it seems quite surprising that Rey, who nevertheless speaks of a "considerable" keep, did not realize, after having visited, examined and drawn so many castles, its exceptional dimensions. Because indeed the diameter of 34 m, mentioned by Guérin (including the thickness of the walls?) would make it the largest known tower of the Middle Ages55. Moreover, there is nothing to judge how exactly Guérin established this diameter, where he was when measuring it and what exactly he was measuring. These uncertainties, added to the implausibility of his observation, incline me not to retain this one. As for the shape of the dungeon, I also lean towards Rey's opinion, which is confirmed by Bartlett's engraving. Even if the keep had not been rebuilt on the foundations of the first period (see below), a square keep did not seem excluded in 1240. Let us not forget that in the great fortresses built by the Order of the Temple: Tortose (Tartous), Chastel-Blanc (Safita), Chastel-Pèlerin (Athlit), the number of square towers so far dominates that of the circular constructions, that it would be truly astonishing that, in a castle which was to present so many characteristics in common with them, the Order would no longer have followed the same principles of fortification. The text of De constructione (lines 182-184) speaks moreover of (the altitudo, of the spissitudo and of) the latitude of the towers. As nothing authorizes to translate this word by “diameter”, I do not see what it could indicate if it is not a square or oblong tower.
46 See the description of Pococke quoted above.
47 The other (plate tv) is in the book by EW Schulz, Reise in das gelobte Land, Mülheim ad Ruhr,
1852, between p. 64 and 65. The engraving is interesting because it shows the castle up close,
seen from the southwest. By contrast, the view of the fortress found in CW Wilson,
Picturesque Palestine, n, London, 1880, p. 91 [= G. Ebers and H. Guthe, Paliistina, 1,
Stuttgart, 1882, p. 3411, beautiful as it is (plate t), presents no detail of comparable
value, any more than the description of Safed on pages 74 and 92-93; the engraving showing
the Jewish quarter (p. 90), was reproduced by Y. Ben-Arieh (see below, n. 51), p. 228.
48 These same details: square keep in the southern part of the fortress, can be seen on
Schulz's engraving. Between p. 204 and p. 205 there is another engraving by Willmore,
depicting a view of Tiberias from the lake side. We see there, closer, the same
fortifications that, from afar, we can see on the engraving of Safed. In the
background rises the castle of Tiberias dominating the city.
49 Such towers still exist in fairly large numbers, Crusaders and Arabs having
used them extensively. The best preserved that I know is that which corresponded
with the castle of Marqab (Margat), some 60 km south of Latakia, to the right
of the road leading from (Tripoli by) Tartous to this city (Bordj es Sabi).
50 The original edition appeared in Utrecht, the same year as the English translation,
which I quote here as more practical. The Dutch title is Reis door Syrii en Palestina in 1851 in 1852.
51 The 1882 edition adds to these words: “The inhabitants are fanatical and quarrelsome.
In 1875, they attacked the small expedition led by Mr. Conder and more or less seriously
wounded all its members” (cf. CR Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, London, 1889, p. 297:
“On Saturday, 10th July, 1875, the Survey party marched to Safed, where they were
endangered by a fanatical attack by the Moorish settlers of the town. The Survey was
suspended in consequence (cf. p. xii of the Introduction: "After the attack on the
party at Safed in 1875, the work was suspended for a year") and the spread of choiera
necessitated the withdrawal of the party from Palestine. The chief offenders were however
imprisoned at Acre, and a sum of L. 270 was paid as a fine to the Committee of the Palestine
Exploration Fund”) (In the edition published in 1878, vol. II, p. 190-203, the episode is
told in detail). As for Lieutenant Conder, we will find him later in connection with the
Surie of Western Palestine, which he led for a long time. On this subject, as on the
subject of a large number of other explorers, one will henceforth consult Yehoshua
Ben-Arieh, The Rediscouery of Me Hot) , Land in Me Nineteenth Cenitay, Jerusalem-Detroit
(Michigan, usit), 1979 (on Conder and Survey of Western Palestine, pp. 209 et seq.).
52 The Frankish colonies of Syria in the 12th and 10th centuries, Paris, 1883, p. 445-446.
53 Geographical, historical and archaeological description of Palestine, 3rd part: Galilee, t. ii, Paris, 1880, p. 420-421.
54 vol. 1 (Galileo), London, 1881, p. 248-250 (see above, n. 51). On page 250,
in smaller type, Guérin's notice is quoted, translated into English. However,
this in no way means that the lieutenant explorers found it exact, because in
the preface (p. v), it is said: “The notes of these officers are printed exactly
as they were sent in, nothing being added or suppressed. The additions made by
the editors are distinguished by being printed in small type. They will be found
to supplement the information. given by the Surveyors.” — There is another note
in the handwriting of EWG Masterman inserted in Palestine Exploration Fund, Quarterly
Statement for 1914, p. 175-176, where we read: "The great ruined castle with its double
line of ramparts, making a total fortified area of about 350 yards [ca. 320 m] by 150
yards [ca. 137 m], running roughly speaking north and south, though to-day an almost
shapeless mass, still stimulates the imagination to conjure up the vast fortress which
must here have dominated the country. Its previous state of ruin is said to be chiefly
the result of the earthquake of 1759, though doubtless that of 1837 contributed to its
decay. But long before that most of the masonry of its original construction must have
perished, and that building which was destroyed in the eighteenth century was but the
comparatively poor work of Dhahr el-'Omer who dominated Galilee earlier in that century.
Almost all the well-cut masonry above the surface has been carted off, as the place has
been used as a quarry for building stone for centuries; but everywhere below the surface
the remains of the earlier buildings may be found. A thorough excavation of this site
would be of undoubted interest. Near the “Keep” some large cisterns are still visible —
a considerable source of danger to the unwary. There are also vaulted passages in places.
One in the south-west part of the outer moat has recently been opened for some 60 yards
[ca. 55m]. At its north-west end, as far as it has been cleared, it is a fine vaulted
passage, over seven feet [ca. 2.15 m] high and four feet [ca. 1.22 m] wide, with well-cut
stones from one to two feet wide [ca. 30.5-61 cm] and sometimes three feet long [ca. 92cm];
at the other end, where the passage gradually curves east and then somewhat north-east,
running towards (and perhaps under) the inner moat, the passage has been constructed of
small stones, and, as a result of earthquake troubles, it has become extraordinarily twisted,
the center of the arch being diverted to the north, and the whole passage appearing here to
be in imminent danger of collapsing. On the fine masonry of the north-west extremity are
many "Mason's Marks", specimens of which, drawn to scale, I append [= plance vitt]. It
seems to me this passage must belong to the original Crusading work. Where the passage
eventually led to it is impossible to say without actual excavation; at the north-western
extremity there is an embrasure in the outer wall for shooting through, but just before
this, where a strong door was once situated, there are signs of steps leading downwards."
55 Compare Deschamps, The Defense of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, p. 140-141, n. 3: "...
since the keep of Margat rounded on its face is 21 meters wide and the keep of Coucy 31
meters in diameter". This dungeon of Coucy was well known to Rey, who himself compares
it, not to that of Safed, but precisely to the dungeon of Margat (Marqab) (Colonies franques, lc, p. 124).
56 vol. he, p. 292-295. See also Jean Richard, Cyprus under the Lusignans. Cypriot documents
from the Vatican Archives (11th and 15th centuries), Paris, 1962, p. 20.
57 See note 31, and RBC Huygens, Saladin's campaign in Northern Syria (1188), in Symposium Apamea of Syria,
Brussels, 1972, p. 273-284 (pp. 277-278). The builders of the castle of Safed undoubtedly updated
advantage the slope of the hill, which at the same time provided a natural glacis that it was enough to build:
it is the impression which one gains on the spot and which seems to confirm the engraving of Schulz (plate iv).
58 Deschamps, The Defense of the County of Tripoli, p. 146, in its summary of my first edition, confuses,
by mixing them, the measurements of the two enclosures and the towers.
59 Van Egmond-Heyman also speak expressly of two masonry ditches.
60 See William of Tyr, xv, 24, about the construction of the castle of Ibelin (near Yavneh,
north-east of Ashdod) in 1144 (text according to the critical edition that I am preparing
in collaboration with H.-E. Mayer): ... in prefato colle, firmissimo opere, iactis in altum
fundamentis, edificant presidium cum turri bus quattuor, veteribus edificiis, quorum multa
adhuc supererant vestigia, lapidum ministrantibus copiam, puteis quoque vetusti temporis,
qui in ambitu urbis dirute frequentes apparebant, aquarum habundantiam tum ad opens
necessitatem, tum ad usus hominum largientibus. The translator (the Eracles) amplifies:
First the foundations lay, then four twists; stones found enough in this place of
fortresses which had once been there, for, as the saying goes: "Chastel abatuz est
demi refez". Three other passages from William of Tyre, whose analogies both in substance
and in form will be noted, further underline what has just been said. They describe, the
first the construction of the castle of Blanche-Garde, northeast of Ashkelon, in 1144,
the second that of a fortress in the ruins of Gaza in 1149, the third that of the castle
of Darom (Darum = Dar Rûm), not far from Gaza, in 1170: (xv, 25).
... vocatis artificibus simul et populo universo necessaria ministrante edificant solidis fundamentis et lapidibus quadris opidum cum turribus quattuor congrue altitudinis, unde osque in urbem hostium (Ashkelon) liber esset prospectus, hostibus predatum exire volentibus valde invisum et formidabile, nomenque ei vulgari indicunt appellation Blanche Guarda, Latin quod dicitur Alba Specula. Castrum ergo perfectum and omnibus partibus suis absolutum [cf. xv, c. 24] dominus rex in suam suscepit custodiam, et tain victu quam armis sufficienter munitum viris prudentibus et rei mili taris habentibus experientiam... servandum commisit. Porro qui circumcirca possidebant regionem, predictorum confisi munimine et vicini tate castrorum, suburbana loca edificaverunt quam plurima, habentes in eis familias mullas et agrorum cultores, de quorum inhabitatione fada est regio Iota securior et alimentorum mulla lotis finitimis accessit copia; (xvit, 12) ... Gaza civitas antiquissima... edificiis preclara, cuius antique nobilitatis in ecclesiis et amplis domibus, licet dirutis, in marmore et magnis lapidibus, in multitudine cisternarum, puteorum quoque aquarum viterium, multa et grandia exstabant argumenta. Fuerat autem sita in colle aliquantulum edito, magnum salis et diffusum infra muros continens ambitum... partem predicti collis occupant et iactis ad congruam altitudinem fundamentis [cf. xxl, 26] opus muro insignia et turribus edificant... Nec solum urbe predicta, ad cuius lesionem constructum erat illud presidium, useful recalcitrante flees, sed etiam ea devicta quasi regni limes ab austro contra Egyptios pro multo flees regioni tutamine; (xx, 19) ... predictum castrum. fundaverat occasione vetustorum edificiorum, quorum aliqua adhuc ibi supererant vestigia. . Condiderat autem rex ea intentione predictum municipium, ut et fines suos dilataret et suburbanorum adiacentium, que nostri casalia dicunt [cf. xxit, 20], annuos redditus et de transeuntibus statutas consuetudines plenius et facilius sibi posset habere.61 See above, p. 15-16.
Though already partially in ruins before the earthquake, it was nevertheless sufficiently in repair to be the official residence of the Mutesellim ; and on a former visit to Safed, my companion had paid his respects to that officer within its walls. The fortress is described as having heen strong and imposing, with two fine large round towers ; it was surrounded by a wall lower down, with a broad trench ... Such was Safed down to the close of the year 1836.After
But on the first day of January, 1837, the new year was ushered in by the tremendous shocks of an earthquake, which rent the earth in many places, and in a few moments prostrated most of the houses, and buried thousands of the inhabitants of Safed beneath the ruins. The castle was utterly thrown down ; the Muhammedan quarter, standing on more level ground and being more solidly built, were somewhat less injured
Katz and Crouvi (2007:57) performed a Geotechnical Analysis of Safed and concluded that
the core city of Zefat (aka Safed) is built on a layered anthropogenic material, [a] few meters deep which
which was deposited as a
result of more than 2000 years of human habitation
. They added that the anthropogenic material is mechanically weak, susceptible to slope failure
and to amplification of seismic-shaking
which is responsible for the city's devastation in historical earthquakes
. Their analysis was based on
slope stability analysis developed by Newmark (1965) and implemented in GIS
using 25 m by 25 m grid cells as previously implemented by Jibson et al (2000)
with an added compilation of the relation between geological structure and topography as a control of the failure
type
.
Geotechnical Unit | γ (kN/m3 |
C (MPa) |
Φ (°) |
t (m) |
Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
I | 24 | 5 | 40 | 5 | GT-I, assigned to the city outskirts, consists mainly of dolomite and limestone having high shear strength and elasticity and low sensitivity to water (minor strength change with increasing water saturation). It includes the following formations (Table 1): Kusa, Kub, Ebk. No evidence for rockslides or slumps were found in the field and rock falls are only moderately common, hence the assigned mechanical properties for GT-I (Table 2) yield high FS values (N1 in Eq. 2) even for steep slopes, in general agreement with the calculated mechanical properties for a similar Cenomanian dolomitic rock (Hatzor and Palchik, 1998). The mechanical properties of the bedding planes (Table 2) are after Hatzor et al. (2004), who evaluated mechanical properties of bedding planes in similar dolomites. |
II | 22 | 0.5 | 30 | 5 | GT-II, assigned to the city outskirts, includes the Et formation, which consists mainly of limestone, chalky-limestone and chalk having medium strength and elasticity and low sensitivity to water. No evidence for rockslides or slumps was found in the field, whereas rock falls occur in places on steep slopes. The assigned mechanical properties for GT-II are intermediate between GT-I and GT-III (Table 2), in general agreement with the calculated mechanical properties for a similar Eocene chalky rock (Hayati, 1975). |
III | 20 | 0.03 | 20 | 5 | GT-III, assigned to the city outskirts, includes the following formations: Kues, Kug and Tlt (The latter two are mapped together by Levitte, 2001), which consist mainly of marl, chalky-marl and clay having low strength and elasticity and high sensitivity to water. GT-III rocks show field evidence for disrupted shallow slides and deep-seated slumps and slides. For better constraints on the mechanical properties, the mineralogical composition of the Taqiye (Tlt) Formation was studied using XRD of 17 samples taken along a cross section (micropalentological zones p1b/c to P6a) (Katz and Crouvi, 2003). The sample from the micropaleontological P2-3 zone shows the lowest carbonate content of 46 wt.%, with 32 wt.% illite– smectite, 19 wt.% palygorskite and 3 wt.% quartz (other samples show carbonate content of 53–87 wt.%). The assigned mechanical properties assigned for GT-III (Table 2) are in general agreement with the mechanical properties of 50% carbonate and 50% montmorillonite synthetic mixture with 30 wt.% water (Arkin and Michaeli, 1989). |
IV | 18 | 0.01 | 15 | 3 | GT-IV, assigned to the city core area, includes the anthropogenic material with very low residual strength. GT-IV also includes the contact area of Et with Tlt where it is exposed and results in rock falls and slides. The assigned mechanical properties (Table 2) are in general agreement with a few SPT measurements of the anthropogenic material showing Nb10 and with the observed field static instability (Eq. 2, FS LT 1 for α GT 25°). |
Bedding | 22 | 0.00 | 41 | 5 |
The bedrock under the lower parts of the core city is the chalky Coniacian–Maastrichtian En-Zetim Formation (Kuez) and chalky-limestone Maastrichtian Ghareb Formation (Kug). The bedrock under the upper parts of the core city is the Paleocene Taqiye Formation (Tlt), which consists primarily of marl and shale, and the Eocene Timrat Formation (Et), which consists of chalk and chalky-limestone (Levitte, 2001). Upper Cenomanian to Turonian limestone and dolomite of the Sakhnin (Kusa) and Bina (Kub) Formations outcrop in the core city at the foot of the western hill (Fig. 2a).
Nevertheless, in the frame of the current study we found that most of the core city is built on talus/strata of anthropogenic material up to 10 m thick that was unconformably deposited on top of this rock sequence in the course of the long 2000b years habitation (Fig. 2b, c). The anthropogenic material is typical of an archeological tell (Rosen, 1986) and in the studied area it exhibits two types: (1) talus-like: inclined (up to 30°) layers of pebbles and pottery embedded in unconsolidated, thin earth-like material (Fig. 3a); this type is exposed mainly around the citadel, and (2) ruins of man-made stone structures filled and covered by reworked sediments (Fig. 3b).
The majority of the new city (S and E of the Citadel) is built on the Eocene Timrat and Bar Kokhba (Ebk) Formations; the latter consists of limestone. The lowermost parts of the new city are built on the En-Zetim and the Ghareb Formations (Fig. 2a).
None of the faults mapped by Levitte (2001) in the area studied are considered active faults (Bartov et al., 2002). Thus, we believe that the damage reported from historical earthquakes in the area is not a consequence of surface rupture but of slope failure.
Katz and Crouvi (2007:61) applied a
relatively simple limit–equilibrium static model of an infinite slope in a material having both frictional and
cohesive strength to all the slopes studied
. They defined their Factor of Safety (FS) as follows:
FS = C/γtsinα + tanΦ/tanα
where
C = Cohesion
γ = Unit Weight
t = Slope normal thickness of the failure slab
α = Thrust angle
Φ = Angle of Internal Friction
Thrust Angle
For a planar slide, thrust angle (β) is the direction the COG of the sliding block moves when displacement initially occurs. Ideally this is the dip of the bedding plane. In regional studies this is typically approximated by the slope angle (Katz and Crouvi, 2007 citing Miles and Keefer, 2001). In their GIS analysis, Katz and Crouvi (2007:61)
- Newmark (1965)'s slope stability model
showing thrust angle (β)Fig. 15 a
O = Circle center
c.g. = Center of Gravity
β = Thrust angle
Newmark (1965)used this practice except for places (pixels) where rock slide is the most-likely slope failure typein which case they used bedding plane dip angle. Katz and Crouvi (2007:61) computed slope angle from the digital terrain model of Hall (1993) and the bedding plane angle from the structural map of Fleischer and Gafsou (2003).
The Newmark Displacement method was used to evaluate slope stability during an earthquake. First a critical acceleration was estimated. Critical acceleration is the minimum earthquake induced acceleration that initiates slope movement. Critical acceleration was computed as follows:
ac = (FS-1)sinαNewmark displacement DN was estimated based on an empirical regression developed by Jibson et al. (2000) and Jibson (2007)
where
ac = critical acceleration measured in g's (1 g = 9.81 m/s2)
FS = Factor of Safety (computed previously)
α = Thrust angle (degrees)
logDN = 2.401*ln(Iα) - 3.481log(ac) - 3.230Iα was estimated based on an empirical attenuation equation
where
DN = Newmark Displacement (cm.)
Iα = Arias Intensity (m/s)
ac = Critical acceleration (g's)
that was developed using synthetic acceleration–time records representing the DST earthquakes (A. Shapira, personal comm., 2003)
logIα = 1.2MW - 2.2logR - 4.9Katz and Crouvi (2007:62) considered a calculated DN of 5 cm. as the
where
Iα = Arias Intensity (m/s)
MW = Moment Magnitude
R = Fault Distance (km.)
critical value characterizing a slope that failed and slid. Katz and Crouvi (2007:62) discussed appropriate DN values as follows:
This value, which is conservative, represents slopes consisting of brittle rock (Romeo, 2000). Jibson and Keefer (1993) defined DN of 5–10 cm as the critical value for failure in clay–silt slopes and 10 cm for cohesive soils. Jibson et al. (2000) showed a large increase in the probability for slope failure for DN values of 5–10 cm
Effect | Description | Intensity |
---|---|---|
Landslides | IV+ |
Effect | Location | Image(s) | Description(s) | Intensity |
---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||
Collapse (Collapsed Walls) | The Castle |
|
VIII+ | |
Landslide | Jewish Quarter on the western slope |
|
IV+ |
Source | Image | Figure | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 2a
Geological map of the studied area (Levitte, 2001; anthropogenic material mapped in the frame of this work). The current Zefat city limits are marked by a blue solid line Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 2a | Geological Map of Area |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 2b
The core (historical) city area. The core city extended from the Citadel, westwards to the old cemetery (α). Sites of field-observed slope instability are marked by black arrows. Also shown are upslope limits of EILS area in the 1759 and 1837 earthquakes (β and γ, respectively) according to reported damage to synagogues (marked by close squares where
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 2b | Geological Map of Safed |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 2c
West– East (A–A') geological cross section through the Citadel and the core city of Zefat; location is shown in a (the thickness of the anthropogenic talus is approximated). Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 2c | Geological cross section |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 2
Legend for Figure 2 a, b, and c Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 2 | Legend |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Table 1
Exposed rocks in the area studied Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Table 1 | Exposed rocks |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 3
Types of anthropogenic material typical of an archeological mound (‘tell’) outcrop in the core city of Zefat:
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 3 | Anthropogenic material |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 4a
Field evidence for instability of the anthropogenic material slopes: Inclined lamp posts found in the anthropogenic talus (marked by arrows) Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 4a | Inclined Lamp Posts |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 4b
Field evidence for instability of the anthropogenic material slopes: open cracks (marked by arrows) in retaining wall founded in the anthropogenic talus Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 4b | Open cracks in retaining wall |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 4c
Field evidence for instability of the anthropogenic material slopes: open cracks (marked by arrows) in building founded in the anthropogenic talus Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 4c | Open cracks in a building |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 4d
Field evidence for instability of the anthropogenic material slopes: rainy winter-season slump in the anthropogenic talus. Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 4d | Winter-season slump in the anthropogenic talus |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Table 2
Mechanical properties of the geotechnical units Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Table 2 | Mechanical properties of the geotechnical units |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 5
Map of the geotechnical units in the area studied (for details see Tables 1 and 2). The core (old) city extends from the citadel (marked by a triangle) westwards toward the city limits. Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 5 | Geotechnical Map |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 5 Legend
Legend for Figure 5 Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 5 Legend | Legend for Geotechnical Map |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 6
Map of calculated critical acceleration in the study area. The core (old) city extends from the citadel (marked by a triangle) westwards toward the city limits Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 6 | Critical Acceleration Map |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 6
Critical Acceleration Map Legend Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 6 Legend | Critical Acceleration Map Legend |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 7a
Calculated Newmark displacement maps of two historical earthquakes used to calibrate the mechanical model, (a–b) October 1759 Mw = 6, R= 15 earthquake Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 7a | Newmark displacement map for 1759 Safed Quake |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 7b
Calculated Newmark displacement maps of two historical earthquakes used to calibrate the mechanical model, (a–b) October 1759 Mw = 6, R= 15 earthquake. For inferred location of epicenter see text and Fig. 1. Also shown are upslope limits of EILS area in the 1759 and 1837 earthquakes ( β and γ, respectively, see Fig. 2) traced according to reported damage to synagogues (marked by numbered close squares, see Fig. 2). Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 7b | Newmark displacement map for 1759 Safed Quake |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 7c
Calculated Newmark displacement maps of two historical earthquakes used to calibrate the mechanical model, (c–d) January 1837 Mw = 7, R= 10 earthquake. For inferred location of epicenter see text and Fig. 1. Also shown are upslope limits of EILS area in the 1759 and 1837 earthquakes ( β and γ, respectively, see Fig. 2) traced according to reported damage to synagogues (marked by numbered close squares, see Fig. 2). Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 7c | Newmark displacement map for 1837 Safed Quake |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 7d
Calculated Newmark displacement maps of two historical earthquakes used to calibrate the mechanical model, (c–d) January 1837 Mw = 7, R= 10 earthquake. For inferred location of epicenter see text and Fig. 1. Also shown are upslope limits of EILS area in the 1759 and 1837 earthquakes ( β and γ, respectively, see Fig. 2) traced according to reported damage to synagogues (marked by numbered close squares, see Fig. 2). Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 7d | Newmark displacement map for 1837 Safed Quake |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 8
Maximal fault zone distance (R, km) for EILS (threshold DN values are 5–10 cm or 10 cm<, for the more and less conservative cases, respectively) as a function of the triggering earthquake magnitude (MW). Data is from the calculated scenario earthquakes (for location see Fig. 1). Also plotted are the maximal fault zone distances for EILS according to Keefer (1984). Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 8 | Fault Distance vs. Magnitude Plot |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 9a
Examples of calculated Newmark displacement maps (EILS hazard) in scenario earthquakes.
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 9a | Newmark displacement map for MW = 6 earthquake |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 9b
Examples of calculated Newmark displacement maps (EILS hazard) in scenario earthquakes.
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 9b | Newmark displacement map for MW = 7 earthquake |
Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Fig. 10
Engineering status in the core city of Zefat: past and present building codes. Old buildings (built no later than about mid 20th century) are typically founded on the anthropogenic talus and are not supported by the underlying bedrock. For the construction of some of the newer buildings the anthropogenic talus was dug out and the structure was founded on the bedrock. In addition, piles and rock-bolts were placed to reinforce the slope cut behind the house. Katz and Crouvi (2007) |
Figure 10 | Engineering status in the core city of Safed |
Barbé, H.
Barbé,Hervé.Safed Castle and it's territory
Barbe, Hervé and Emanuel DAMATI (2005) Zefat,
in: Hadashot
Arkheologiyot - Excavations
and Surveys in Israel 117 (2005), 10/7/2005 (excavation of south
section of the castle)
Barbe, Hervé (2006) Zefat,
Hativat Yiftah Way. Final Report, in: Hadashot
Arkheologiyot - Excavations and Surveys in Israel 118 (2006),
29/03/2006
(excavation of NW section of the castle’s outer wall)
Barbé, H.
Barbé,Hervé.Le château de Safed et son territoire à l'époque des croisades.Israel:
PhD thesis, Hebrew University,2010.
Ben-Horin, U., 1952. An official report on the earthquake of 1837. Isr.
Explor. J. 2, 63–65.
Cohen, M. 2003 Safed Stories. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense (Hebrew).
Edna Delali-Amos (2013) Zefat Final Report [Hadashot Arkheologiyot 125]
Hayati, G., 1975. The geology of few chalks in Israel. PhD
Dissertation, Technion, Isr. Tech. (in Hebrew).
Hervé Barbé and Emanuel Damati (2005) Zefat [Hadashot Arkheologiyot 117]
Huygens, R. B. C. (1981) De Constructione Castri Saphet: construction et fonctions d’un château
fort Franc en Terre Sainte (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, Verhandingen Niewe Reeks 3), Amsterdam 1981 - open access at archive.org
Jibson, R. W., et al. (2000). "A method for producing digital probabilistic seismic landslide hazard maps." Engineering Geology 58(3): 271-289.
Katz, O., Crouvi, O., 2003. Evaluation of earthquake induced
landslides hazard in the 1:50,000 scale, Zefat map quadrangle
Geol Surv Isr, Report GSI/25/03 (in Hebrew).
Katz, O. and O. Crouvi (2007). "The geotechnical effects of long human habitation (LT 2000 years):
Earthquake induced landslide hazard in the city of Zefat, northern Israel." Engineering Geology 95(3–4): 57-78.
Newmark, N. M. (1965). "Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments." Géotechnique 15(2): 139-160.
Robinson, E. (1841) Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea,
A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838 Vol. II Boston, 1841, Vol. II
Robinson, E. (1856) Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea,
A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838 Vol. II London 1856
Robinson, E. and E. Smith (1841). Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea:
A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838 Volume 3, Crocker & Brewster.
Romeo, R., 2000. Seismically induced landslide displacements: a
predictive model. Eng. Geol. 58 (3–4), 337–351.
Rosen, A.M., 1986. Cities of clay, the geoarcheology of Tells. In:
Butzer, Karl W., Freeman, Leslie G. (Eds.), Prehistoric Archeology
and Ecology Series. Univ.Chicago Press, Chicago and London.
Schiller, E., 2002. The 1837 earthquake in Zefat. Ariel 157–158,
106–112 (in Hebrew).
Shivtiel, Y. ., Frumkin, A. ., & Bar-Matthews, M. . (2022).
Mitigating Water Scarcity in the Medieval and
Islamic Periods: The Example of Safed, Israel. Journal of Islamic Archaeology, 8(2), 167–186.
Stepansky, Yosef (2007) Zefat, the Western Slope of Giv‘at Ha-Mezuda Final Report [Hadashot Arkheologiyot 119]
Thomson, W.M., 1873. The Land and the Book. Nelson and Sons,
London.
Vered, M., Striem, H.L., 1976. The Safed earthquake of 1.1.1837 and
its implications on the seismic risk evaluations in Israel. Israel
Atomic Energy Commission, Report IA-LD-1-105, 38 p.
Wachs, D., and Levitte, D., 1978, Damage Caused By Landslides During the
Earthquakes of 1837 and 1927 in the Galilee Region
MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Report HYDRO/5/78 - Jerusalem - June 1978
Wachs, D., Levitte, D., 1981. Earthquake induced landslides in the
Galilee. Isr. J. Earth-Sci. 30, 39–43.
Wust-Bloch, H., Wachs, D., 2000. Seismic triggering of unstable
slopes in northern Israel. Isr. J. Earth-Sci. 49, 103–109.
Ya'ari, A., 1943. Letter written by the Jews in Israel to their brothers in
the Diaspora from Babylonian Exile to nowadays Zion Return.
Gazit, Tel-Aviv 357–367 (in Hebrew).
Yizrael, R., 2002a. The chronicles of the Jewish quarter in Zefat. Ariel
157–158, 203–215 (in Hebrew).
Yizrael, R., 2002b. The old Jewish cemetery in Zefat. Ariel 157–158,
216–225 (in Hebrew).
Safed Fortress at BibleWalks.com - note that there are some photos at the
bottom of the page showing through-going joints (not labeled on the website)
Safed 1837 Earthquake at Zissil.com
Historical Sites in Safed at www.safed-home.com
Livnot U’Lehibanot - an organization which, among other things, excavated
some sites in Safed
Safed municipality website (in Hebrew)
The Safad Citadel Park, Safad, n.d.
Huygens, R. B. C. (1981) De Constructione Castri Saphet: construction et fonctions d’un château
fort Franc en Terre Sainte (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van
Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, Verhandingen Niewe Reeks 3), Amsterdam 1981 - open access at archive.org
ibid. (Review) PEQ 117 (1985), 139–149.
V. Guérin, Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, Galilée, 2, Paris
1880; C. R. Conder & H. H. Kitchener, Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, 1, London 1881, 230–231,
255–256
R. A. S. Macalister, PEQ 39 (1907), 91–130
S. Klein, Beiträge zur Geographie und Geschichte
Galilaeas (Ph.D. diss.), Leipzig 1909
E. W. G. Masterman, PEQ 46 (1914), 169–179
L. A. Mayer, QDAP 1 (1932), 37–43; 2 (1933), 127–131; 3 (1934), 24–25; 10 (1944), 195–207 (Excavations in Palestine and
Trans-Jordan 1939–1940)
M. Dothan, IEJ 1 (1951), 250
B. Lewis, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 15 (1953), 477–488
N. Avigad, EI 7 (1964), 166*
Y. Yadin, ibid., 172*–173*
R. B. C. Huygens, Studi Medievali 6 (1965), 355–387
M. Benvenisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land, Jerusalem 1970, 199–204
M. -L. Favrean-Lilic, ZDPV 96 (1980), 67–87
E. Damati, ESI 4 (1985), 98; 5 (1986), 93–94; 6 (1987), 93–94 (with Y. Stepansky); 7–8 (1988), 159–160; 9 (1989), 13; 20 (2000), 6*–7*; id. (& Y.
Stepansky), ibid. 29 (1996), 107–108; 46 (2004), 135*–137* (pt. with D. Syon)
id., Tsafon: Revue d’Études
Juives du Nord 26–27 (1996), 89–146
D. Pringle, PEQ 117 (1985), 139–149
Y. Stepansky, ESI 5 (1986),
94; 9 (1989–1990), 79 (with E. Damati); 10 (1991), 73–75 (with E. Damati); 117 (2004)
D. Leistikow, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 39 (1989), 341–372
K. Kennedy, Crusader Castles, Cambridge 1994, 190–198
P. B. Fenton, Medieval Encounters 1 (1995), 271–296
B. Brandl, ESI 29 (1996), 1–5
M. Dow, The Islamic Baths of Palestine (British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 7), Oxford 1996
M. Piccirillo, La fabbrica dei castelli crociati in Terra Santa (eds. L. Marino et al.), Firenze 1997, 92–98
J. Leclant & G. Clerc, Orientalia 67 (1998), 435
B. Bagatti, Ancient Christian Villages of Galilee (SBF Collectio Minor 37),
Jerusalem 2001, 186–189
R. Frankel et al., Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper
Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper Galilee (IAA Reports 14), Jerusalem 2001, 39–40
L. Bornstein-Makovetsky, New Studies on Jerusalem 8, Ramat-Gan 2002, 17*
M. Rosen-Ayalon, Art et archéologie islamiques en Palestine, Paris 2002, 134–136
H. Barbé, Bulletin Monumental 161 (2003), 252–255
id. (& E. Damati), Crusades (for the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East) 3 (2004), 171–178
id., La fortification au temps des croisades. Actes du Colloque de Parthenay, 26–28.9. 2000, Rennes 2004
P. D. Mitchell, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (2003), 117–124
id., Levant 36 (2004), 243–250
Y. Roman, Eretz 86 (2003), 18–29
J. Drori, The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and
Society (The Medieval Mediterranean 51
eds. M. Winter & A. Levanoni), Leiden 2004, 163–187
H. Taragan, ibid., 3–20
kmz | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
Right Click to download | Master Safed kmz file | various |