Note: The traveller should be cautioned against embarking on the study of place–names, identification of scriptural sites, &c., before mastering the principles of Arabic phonetics. Many of the attempts made at rendering the names of Palestinian place–names in European books are simply grotesque. The following are the chief pitfalls:
(1) Confusion of the vowels, the pronunciation of which is obscure.
(2) The consonant 'ain , to which the untrained European ear is deaf, and which in consequence is often omitted. Less frequently it may be over–conscientiously inserted in a place where it does not exist. Sometimes the 'ain and its associated vowel are transposed (as M'alula for Ma'lula ) making unpronounceable combinations of consonants.
(3) The letter kaf , often dropped in pronunciation, and therefore often omitted.
(4) The letter ghain , which an unaccustomed ear confuses with either g or r
(5) The reduplicated letters, which a European is apt to hear and to write as single.
(6) The nuances between the different d , h , k , t , and s sounds.
3. Surface–exploration of a tell. The stratification can rarely be studied on the surface only: superficial indications of this are obscured by the plough, weather, vegetation, and the activities of modern natives who grub for building–stone and for the chance of buried treasure. Only by trenching can the strata be exposed. An exception to this rule is afforded by Tell el–Hesy (Lachish) explored by Dr. Petrie in 1890–1: here the erosion of a stream had exposed enough of the strata for a reconnaissance. In the majority of cases the most that a visitor can hope to do is to pick up stray antiquities on the surface of the ground, and ascertain therefrom the limits of date.
The chief clue is afforded by the pottery (see below, V), sherds of which, large and small, are strewn in considerable numbers on every ancient site. Scarabs, seals, bronze implements, iron fragments, beads, bone ornaments, and the like may also be noticed. A trained eye is essential even for such surface finds: one man may walk over a mound and find nothing, another may walk in his steps and gather quite an interesting harvest of small objects.
Surface indications of buried buildings (or rather foundations) may be noted both on the top and on the sides of a tell. Lines of wall may not infrequently be traced. Often the vegetation growing on the surface indicates the presence of structures underneath (either by burnt–up patches amid luxuriant growths, or vice versa).
4. Surface exploration of a khirbet. The task here is, generally sneaking, simpler. In a khirbet there is usually no great depth of accumulation; indeed, the bare rock frequently crops up in the middle of such a site. There is, therefore, as a rule only one historical period represented. Potsherds, coins (Roman, Jewish, Byzantine, early Islamic, sometimes Crusader), tesserae of mosaic pavements, fragments of iron nails, beads, minute metal ornaments (as bronze wire finger–rings) are to be picked up on khirbet sites.
The remains of walls are usually more easily traceable in khirbet than in tell sites, though much damage has been done by quarrying for modern buildings. These walls should be carefully examined: buildings other than mere houses (churches, synagogues, baths) may sometimes be detected. Cisterns should be noted. Some of these are not very obvious and the traveller should be on his guard against falling into them.
All stones should be examined, as there is a chance of finding inscriptions.
5. In all work on ancient sites the investigator must make a point of noting everything, irrespective of its apparent importance, and of carefully training a critical judgement in interpreting his observations. It is impossible to lay down general principles that govern every case completely: every site presents its own individual problems.