tion from the Persian; the first might be derived from Kháneh (the house-home), the second from Gâh (Zend, Gâ), (the place). Arrian, on the authority of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, has corrected the mistake about the place where the battle was really fought, stating that it was at Gaugamela, and not at Arbela; he adds the conjecture, that Arbela, being a well-known place, while Gaugamela, on the other hand, was one little known, obtained the credit of having been the exact site of the conflict; he suggests that the two places are as far apart as Salamis from the Isthmus of Corinth, or Artemisia from Aegina or Sunium (Anab. 6.12). Plutarch agrees with Arrian. (Alex. 100.31.) Ammianus follows the same opinion (23.6). Curtius, on the other hand, calls the field of battle Arbela (4.100.9). Stephanus calls it a place of Persis, probably because, in his time, all that part of Mesopotamia was subject to the Persian Empire. It is, perhaps, represented by a small place now called Karmelis; yet it can hardly be the one marked in Niebuhr's Map (ii. p. 284, tab. 45), as that is too near to Mosul and too far from Arbela; Niebuhr himself is inclined to place the scene of action on the banks of the Khauser, which he calls a small tributary of the Greater Zab. [ARBELA] [V]
GAULANI´TIS (Γαυλανῖτις), the name of a division of Palaestine, the limits of which are not very accurately defined by Josephus. He assigns Galadena and Gaulanitis to the dominion of Og, king of Bashan (Ant. 4.5.3), and extends these districts (the former he now calls Galaaditis) to Mount Lebanon (8.2.3), making them identical with what is described in Scripture as Ramoth Gilead, the cities of Jair, the regions of Argob, which is Bashan, sixty large cities, &c. (1 Kings, 4.13.) He makes it, with Hippene and Gadaris, the eastern limit of Galilee, and therefore the westernmost of the districts which he assigns as the dominions of king Agrippa, viz., Gamalitica, Gaulanitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis. (B. J. 3.3. § § 1,5.) These divisions,however, are not always observed, even by the Jewish historian himself; for Gamala, which in the last-cited passage gives its name to a district, is elsewhere reckoned to Gaulanitis (Ant. 18.1.1); and Judas, who is in this passage called a Gaulanite, is usually designated a Galilaean (Ib. § 6, 20.5.2, B. J. 2.8.1, and 17.8), as he is also in Acts (5.37) For the solution of this difficulty, it is not necessary to resort, as Reland and others have done. to the hypothesis of two Gamalas, but to suppose that Galilee is sometimes used in a wider sense, to include the eastern side of the sea of Tiberias. From these scattered notices, the district of Gaulanitis Proper may be safely fixed to the eastern side of the river Jordan from the northern extremity of the sea of Galilee (for Bethsaida Julias was situated in Lower Gaulanitis B. J. 2.9.1) to the sources of the Jordan and the roots of Lebanon and Hermon. Its extent in width it is impossible to define with any accuracy, as then is no well-defined natural boundary to the mountain region and high table-land of the country east of the Jordan, until it sinks into the great plain of the Hauran. [BATANAEA] It is supposed to have de rived its name from the town of Gaulan, the Scripture GOLAN. (Reland, Palaest. p. 317.) [G.W]
GAULOPES an Arab tribe, mentioned only b Pliny (6.28), who places them, with the CHATENI at the Sinus Capeus, on the west of the Persian gulf, in the vicinity of the modern Chat or Katiff bay. (Forster, Arabia, vol. ii. p. 216.) [G.W]
GAULOS (Γαῦλος, Eth. Γαυλίτης, Eth. Gaulitanus: Gozo), an island in the Mediterranean Sea, between Sicily and the coast of Africa, separated only by a narrow strait from the much larger and more important island of Melita or Malta. Gaulos is itself, however, of considerable extent, being 10 miles in length by about 5 1/2 in breadth, and the soil is fertile: hence the island appears to have been inhabited from a very early period; and Scylax, the most ancient author by whom it is noticed, already mentions it as containing a town of the same name. (Scyl. § 110, p. 50; Mela, 2.7.18; Strab. vi. p.277; Plin. Nat. 3.8. s. 14; Diod. 5.12; Steph. B. sub voce Gaulos must at all times have followed the fortunes of its more powerful neighbour Melita; hence it is seldom mentioned separately in history. But we learn that it was first visited and colonised by the Phoenicians, and subsequently passed into the hands of the Carthaginians, in whose power it remained for the most part till the conquest of Sicily by the Romans. At what period, or how, it fell into the hands of the Greeks, we know not; but that it must have done so may be inferred from the circumstance that there exist coins of the island with the, inscription, in Greek characters, ΓΑΥΛΙΤΩΝ. Nor have we any account of its conquest by the Romans, which doubtless took place at the same time with that of Melita, at the beginning of the Second Punic War. (Liv. 21.51.) Under the Roman government Gaulos appears to have enjoyed separate municipal rights, as we learn from an inscription still extant there. (Cluver. Sicil. p. 444.) It is mentioned, together with Melita, by Procopius (B. V. 1.14), who tells us that the fleet of Belisarius touched there on its way to Africa. The island of Gozo is at present a dependency of that of Malta. It contains about 8000 inhabitants, but has no port, being bounded on all sides by steep or perpendicular cliffs, though of no great elevation. It is strange, therefore, that Diodorus should especially mention it as “adorned with advantageous ports” (Γιμέσιν εὐκαίροις κεκοσμημένη, 5.12), the want of which convenience so strikingly distinguishes it from the neighbouring island of Malta. Besides several inscriptions of Roman date, Gozo contains a remarkable monument of antiquity called the Giant's Tower (Torre dei Giganti); it is of circular form and built of massive blocks of stone in an irregular manner, resembling the Cyclopian style. Near it are the remains of other buildings, constructed in the same rude and massive style of architecture, which appear to have formed part of an edifice of considerable extent consisting of several chambers. These remains, which are wholly distinct in character from anything found in Sicily, are generally ascribed to the Phoenicians; but this rests wholly on conjecture. Their nearest analogies are found in the buildings called Nuraghe, in Sardinia. (Hoare, Class. Tour, vol. ii. p. 293: Bullett. d. Inst. Arch. 1833, pp. 86, 87.) The view, adopted by some ancient as well as
