Talk:Harrat al-Sham

Is the northern part aka the Hauran?

Would it be true to say that the northern part of this region is the Hauran, or are they synonymous and a merger is required? Batternut (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Batternut: They're different. This article somewhat misleading implies that harrat al-Shamah is geological term referring to the volcanic province, but it actually refers to a geographic region. Specifically, it's the part of the badiyat al-Sham (Syrian Desert) that is rocky and basaltic, as opposed to the open, gravelly hamad. The Hauran is part of the same geological formation but is not desert, far from it. It's therefore considered geographically distinct.

It may be worth spinning off a separate article on the Harrat al-Shamah volcanic field—the geologic province that includes the Hauran—at some point. But at the moment I don't think there is enough content to justify it. – Joe (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. The Hauran is described as a fertile area, so it would be odd if it were considered part of the Black Desert. Batternut (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

What and where is Harrat al-Sham?

@Jasper33, Leo1pard, Joe Roe, and Batternut: hi. Sorry, this is a stub (created 13 years ago!), hardly anything is explained, and what's written here on the talk-page contradicts the little there is in the article. As it is now it's useless. It lacks: a set of names, with their respective meanings (translation) and if possible their etymologies. Boundaries! Definition: why is it a thing? Is it a geographical unit, or a historical region, or what? What gives it a character & unity, why is it here? Geology (volcanic: all or some? What else?). Geography: physical (wadis/streams, sub-units, heights, climate & soils & vegetation: arid/semiarid/steppe/...), political (towns, population - ethnicities etc., numbers). History (incl. current).

There is a link to Al Harrah, Saudi Arabia; the coordinates there are most likely wrong, take you to a place halfway between Mecca and Medina, I guess too far south (the lead places it at the border with Jordan!), and that's the only indication given here for the extent of the region to the south. Lost in space... The other names indicated (Jabal al-Druze, al-Safa, Dirat al-Tulul) are regions; they need some definition, all these articles need maps or, if not available, clearer definitions writen by the editors (the "coordinates" are useless, lead to dots - not even sure they're in the centre of each region; a dot doesn't define a region). I understand, Syrians have a lot on their plate, but it's a shame and not only Syrians are working on these topics. I'm an outside visitor, but would still like to take something from here. Thanks and good luck, Arminden (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Arminden I think that this article and that of Al Harrah, Saudi Arabia refer to the same thing. One of the sources which is mentioned in the latter article, uses the name Harrat Ash Shamah, so I think that these articles should be merged, whereas the other page you mentioned, Hauran, appears to be a more specific region within Harrat Ash-Shamah, within the Levant (as opposed to the Arabian Peninsula to the south), so maybe the Hauran is the northern part of Al-Harrah or the Harrat Ash-Shamah, but I would favour a merger of the latter 2, rather than either of the latter 2 with Hauran (which is much more detailed). Leo1pard (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Arminden. I agree with all of them, but unfortunately there are many underdeveloped articles on the S. Levant and only so much time...

Yes the Saudi Al Harrah is the same thing and I agree it could be merged. As I said above, I think it's worth keeping a distinction between the harra and the Hauran. The latter is part of the same geological formation but has its own regional-cultural identity because of the much greater rainfall there. – Joe (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Folks, to make it clearer: What and where is Harrat al-Sham? Not details, not mergers or, may the gods forbid, spin-offs. What is this article for and all about? That basic a question. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: As the article says, it's a region of rocky, basaltic desert straddling southern Syria and the northern Arabian Peninsula. Your suggestion of adding a map is a good one and if I have time I plan to make one today, but in the meantime if you open Google Earth/Google Maps Satellite it's easily recognisable as the long dark shape east of Azraq in Jordan. I'm struggling to understand what your purpose in starting this discussion is. Do you have some specific comments on what parts are confusing? Or are you suggesting we do something with the article? Other than the fairly extensive expansion you suggest above (which would of course be great). – Joe (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I was tired when I first started this and hyped the tone a bit. Fact is, what you wrote now is more informative in terms of location than the entire article as it stands. I'm relatively well accustomed to the geography of the usually travelled parts of Jordan, so Azraq I do know. I arrived here from the Jawa article and tried to figure out what the extent of this region is - and I couldn't really. Also, I remember historical episodes of armies losing the sole of their shoes in southern Syria when marching on very abrasive volcanic material and wondered if this is connected. Then you're writing here-above that this is not "the volcanic province", but "a geographic region". Confused. So it's volcanic all right, but not the volcanic province, which is larger? What makes it distinct from the Hauran, or any other parts of the Syrian desert? Either is it shrubland, or it's what the Jawa photo shows - no vegetation at all (apart, most probably, from seasonal growth after winter rains). I cannot get an image: from here to there, looking like... (the photo?), got its own name because its distinct from region X to the S, region Y to the W etc. See what I mean? No clear contours - geographically, landscape-wise, historically. It can't be a name arbitrarily dumped on an arbitrarily delineated piece of desert territory. I have seen its western edge at Azraq, but wouldn't be able to tell what it's about. I know that Wadi Sirhan is the ancient route into Arabia - is it cutting through the harrat, or is it the shortest route taking you out of it? Geologically, is the volcanism connected to the Dead Sea Transform or to what other better known geological process or resulting landscape? I can't put my finger on what the harrat is and means. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No problem, always happy to talk about my favourite part of the world :). It's the place I work, so probably that makes it hard to see how the article is confusing. Also desert physical and cultural geography tends to use a different set of concepts to the ones we're used to in temperate regions.

In terms of definitions, my summary above is my understanding based on the two main bodies of sources that exist on the region (in English at least). The geological literature characterises it in terms of the volcanic field which is shown in the map I just added. The archaeological/historical/ethnographic literature treats it as an eco-cultural region. The two are connected: the Badia (arid part of the eastern Levant) is relatively flat and homogeneous, so surface geology is actually the most visible means of making geographic divisions. Historically the primary geographical division used by its inhabitants is between hamad (gravelly limestone desert, as you see west of Azraq) and harra (rocky basalt desert, as you see east of Azraq) [1]. The Harra al-Sham is the largest and most prominent of the harrat, although there are others. An analogy might be the Alps, which are of course primarily a geological feature, but on top of that a cultural-historic region.

One wrinkle we've already discussed is that the strict geological definition includes the Hauran, whilst the cultural-historic definition tends to exclude it because if it's distinct ecology, cultural and history. They really are quite different. The Hauran is a breadbasket with a long history of settled agricultural villages, politically oriented to the states to the west. The Harra is, with a few notable exceptions, only suitable for nomadic herding, and politically oriented to the Bedouin to the south and east.

In terms of vegetation, xeric shrubland is about right. I took that photo of Jawa so I can attest that if I'd have tilted the frame down a bit it would show a few plants. The area around Jawa is actually one of the greenest parts of the harra, but that photo was taken in high summer after the area had been grazed. There's also a subtle difference in vegetation between the hamad and harra because the rocky surface of the harra favours shrubs growing in sheltered spots, which makes them hard to see, and isn't so kind to grasses. Not enough that anyone calls it a distinct floral region, though.

Wadi Sirhan runs along the southwest edge of the harra. Not coincidentally: the harra is slightly higher and surface and subsurface water runs off the impermeable basalt to feed the Sirhan–Azraq aquifer system. It doesn't enter the harra at any point. The major route along and across the harra is instead Wadi Rajil (another red link, unfortunately, but it runs past Jawa).

My geology is weak so I don't know much other than it is from the same volcanic activity that produced the other harrat further into the Arabian peninsula.

It's entirely plausible that ancient soldiers lost their sandals there. I've lost (and found) them myself many times. I don't think there are any other particularly rocky parts of the Syrian desert.

If I get time to gather the sources together, I will try to add some of this to the actual article... – Joe (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Joe, many, many, MANY thanks for putting this together! I'll copy your explanations into my files and use them as a base for understanding the area. If Wiki articles relating to the Middle East could more often reach this level, they would do a lot of good. The strict sourcing rules can be an obstacle, I know. When a case like this comes up, me personally would much rather see editors like you write undersourced paragraphs, with a general bibliography (you mentioned two books), to be edited (sources added sentence by sentence etc.) and otherwise processed in time. The problem is, how can you then stop those who only read a press article or a biased & poorly written tourist brochure to do the same? Dilemma :)

It would be great if you could at some point find the time to transfer what you just wrote into the article. If you do, here's a link: Deserts and xeric shrublands. I admit I didn't know the word xeric (and I should have), so I looked it up. You can then use it with added value for the reader, since there they are giving details, showing a representative picture and linking to sites across the continents.

I've always regretted not seeing the eastern part of Jordan, but being there with a clear assignment meant that I had to use my time & budget wisely. This is a bit of an attempt to compensate for it. Thanks again, Arminden (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Joe Roe I've looked at the map. Could it be that this is the maximum expanse allowed by the definition: I'm now a) looking at the first map in "The Harra and the Hamad", and b) thinking how the eastern Galilee, upper Jordan Valley (Huleh), Golan Heights, Hauran could all be covered by the definition. Volcanism over limestone, yes, all of them, but apart from that extremely problematic, for the three at least. Arminden (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes it's the geological "Harrat Ash Shaam Volcanic Province", which includes all those areas. I should probably revise the map... it's certainly misleading to have Golan and Huleh in there, if not the Hauran. That'll teach me to take the lazy way! – Joe (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you please see if the Azraq Oasis can be considered as part of this region? Thinking of the basalt, even though it's at the mouth of Wadi Sirhan. If yes, please do add to the "Archaeol. sites"/Jordan list as "Qasr Azraq and Qasr 'Ain es-Sil in the Azraq Oasis". Thanks! Arminden (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's right on the edge of it. So yeah I would say the sites in and north of Azraq al Druze (also Qasr Usaykhim) could be discussed here. – Joe (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Israel or Palestine

Regarding these edits[2][3][4] by Jaketheforestdude, this article is about the Harrat al-Sham as a historical and geographical region, not the geologic province which is named after it. The latter includes parts of northern Galilee and the Golan Heights, but the former does not. This is because the word "harra" in Arabic refers specifically to a desert landform and the Harrat al-Sham as proper noun refers to a subregion of the Badiyat al-Sham. The basaltic areas of the Galilee and Golan are not deserts by any stretch of the imagination and not historically Bedouin territory. Other upland agricultural areas like the Hauran, the Lajat or Al-Safa are not included either. Lancaster & Lancaster, the best English source I know on the geography of the Badia, say it clearly (pg. 100, emphasis added):

The harra lies east and south of the Jabal al-Arab; basalt deposits also cover the land north and north east of the Jabal but these areas are referred to as al-Ladja and as-Safa.

The map in the infobox includes these areas but it is already labelled as a map not of the harra but of the "wider volcanic province it is part of", per the discussion above. I agree that it is a misleading illustration and it would be great to have a better one for the infobox. We could also consider a separate article on the geologic province but looking at the list of volcanic fields, we don't usually have standalone articles on them. – Joe (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)