The name Hazor still lingers in several places around the upper valley of the Jordan (Robinson, B. R. iii, 63, 81, 401). There is one Ilazury on a commanding site above Cffisarea Philippi, and close to the great castle of Subeikeh. Here Keith {Land of Israel, p. 374) and Stanley {Sin. and Pcd. p. 389) would place the ancient capital of Canaan. But the territory of Naphtali hard- ly extended so far eastward. Another Ilasur is in the plain, a few miles west of the site of Dan ; but neither does this site quite accord with the Scripture notices (Porter's Damascus, i, 304 ; Van de Velde, Memoir, p. 318). Schwarz {Palest, p. 91) thinks a village which he calls vl zu?-, between Banias and IMeshdel (el-Mejel), may be the ancient Hazor; he probably refers to the Ain el-IIazury marked on Zimmerman's Map a little north-east of Banias, which, however, is too far east. There is a place marked as Azur on Zimmerman's Map, a little north-east of Kedes (Kadesh), which imques- tionably lay in Naphtali ; Init M. De Saidcy {Narrat. ii, 406) denies that this can have been the Hazor of Ja- bin (which he distinguishes from the Hazor of Solo- mon), and in a long argument (p. 400-405) he contends that it was situated on the site of some extensive ruins, which he reports at a place called indefinitely el-Khan, on the hills skirting the north-easterly shore of the lake
HAZOR
109
HEAD
el-Huleh, in the direction of Banias. Van do Velde {.Uemoir, p. 318) likewise thinks the Hazor of Jo.shua ilitferent I'rom that of Jiidfjfes (although botli were ruled by a Jabin, evidently a hereditary title), and inclines to regard En-Hazor (Josh, xix, 37) as identical Avith tlic latter, and with a ruined Ilazur in the midiUo of Galilee (about two hours from Bint Jebeil) ; while he seems to acquiesce in the identitication of the eastern Hazor with a Hazur (Porter, Damuscu.i, i, 304) or Kasr Autar (Seetzen), or, as he himself calls it, Tell Haze, covered with remains, and jutting out from ]\[erj Ayun towards the Huleh plain. The Hazor of Josh, xix, 30, he believes to be Tell Ilazur, south-east of Ramah. All this, however, is vague and confused. IMr. Thomson, who visited tliis region in 1843, believed Hazor may be identified with the present castle of Ilunin, north of the Huleh {Biblioth. Sacra, 1846, p. 202). The editor (Ur. Kobinson), however, thinks the arguments adduced more plausible than sound (i6. p. 212), and advocates the opin- ion of liev. E. Smith, that Tell Khiireibeh, at the south end of the plain of Kedes, is better entitled to be re- garded as the site of Hazor {BihUotheca Sacra, 1847, p. 403). Accordingly, in the new ed. of his Researches, after noticing and rejecting several other sites proposed (iii, G3, 81, 402), he at lengtli fixes upon this as best agreeing with the ancient notices of this city {ib. p. 365). There arc, as the name Khureiheh, "ruins," im- plies, some ancient ruins on the tell, but they are those of a village. There are stiU other ruins of an ancient town which occupy a commanding site on the south bank of wady Hendaj, overlooking the valley and lake of Merom, and aljout six miles soutli of Kedesh, which is a not improbable site for the ancient Hazor (Robin- son, Bihl. Res. iii, 363, 365) ; and the plain beneath it, stretching to the shore of the lake, might take the name of the city Asur, as Josephus seems to indicate {I. c). Ritter (Erdk: xv, 260) accepts the Ilazury proposed by Biirckhardt {Trav. p. 44) ; apparently the inconsidera- bla ruin on tlie rocky declivity above Baiaias (Robinson, Res. new ed. iii, 402). Captain Wilson prefers the iso- lated Tell Harah, covered with ruins, about two miles south-east of Kedesh {Jour. Sac. Lit. 1866^ p. 245). But none of these last cited places retain tlie ancient name. Finally, Dr. Thomson is confident {Land and Bool; i, 439) that the true S]30t is Ilazere (the above Ilazur of Van de Velde, east of a more northern Ramali\ in the centre of the mountainous region overhanging lake Hiileh on the north-west, containing numerous ancient remains, and locally connected by tradition with the Is- raelitish victory; although Dr. Robinson (incorrectly) objects to this site {Bib. Res. new ed. iii, 63) that it "is too far from the lake, and ^vithin tlie territory of Asher.
2. A city in the south of Judah (but probably not one of those assigned to Simeon, since it is not named in the list. Josh, xix, 1-9), mentioned between Kedesh (Ka- desh-Barnea) and Ithnan (Josh, xv, 23, where the Vat. MS. of the Sept. unites with the following name, 'Acroo- iiovdi', Alex. MS. omits, Vulg. Asor). We may reason- ably conjecture that this was the central town of that name, the other Hazors of the same connection (Hazor- Hadattah, and Kerioth-Hezron or Hazor- Amam) being probably so called for lUstinction' sake ; and in that case •we may perhaps locate it at a ruined site marked on Van de Velde's Map as Tayibeh (the et-Taii/ib of Rob- inson, Res. iii. Appendix, p. 114), on a tell around the south-west base of which rmis the wady ed-Dheib, emptying into the Dead Sea. See Nos. 3 and 4.
3. H.vzor-Hadattaii (for so the Heb. tlFTin "li:jn, i. e. Xew Ilazor, should be understood ; since there is no copula between the words, and the sense in verse 32 re- quires this condensation ; Sept. omits, Vulg. .4 sor nova), a city in the south of Judah (but not the extreme Sim- eouite portion), mentioned between Bealoth and Keri- oth (Josh. XV, 25) ; probably, as suggested in Kcil and Delitzsch's Commenfari/, ad loc. (Edinb. ed. p. 160), the ruined site el-Hudhairah of Robinson's Researches (iii, Append, p. 114), south of Hebron, in the immediate vi-