Body: | Solomon's network of military border fortresses in the Negev
Introduction document: Solomon's network of military border fortresses
Click to View
Qudeirat
Click to View
Qedeis
Click to View
Quseima
Click to View
Nahas
Click to View
K. Ajrud
Click to View
Elat/Kheleifeh
Click to View
Haseva
Click to View
Loz
Click to View
Introduction:
At least 50 fortresses have been discovered in the Negev of Israel.
These fortresses were built by Solomon in 950 BC to protect the southern
borders with Egypt and Edom. If Solomon did not built them, then the next
candidate would have to be David. It is possible but quite unlikely that
Saul built them. Solomon is clearly the best choice from a historical,
Biblical and archeological point of view.
It is clear that Pharaoh Shishak destroyed the fortresses in 924 BC.
We even have his account etched into the stone at Temple of Amon in Karnak.
(see below) Since we know that the fortresses had a short occupation life,
this fits perfectly with Solomon as the builder just 26 years earlier.
The opinion on the builder and dates of these fortresses varies
depending on the bias of the archeologist and fall into two categories:
Those who believe the Bible and those who do not. Basically, those
archeologists who believe the Bible attribute these 50 fortresses to
Solomon in 950 BC. Those archeologists who say Solomon and David are mostly
a myth, will attribute dates before or after David/Solomon, but fight hard
to avoid any suggestion that confirms the historicity of David/Solomon as
revealed in the Bible. Sure these Bible trashing archeologists believe
David and Solomon were real people, just that most of what the Bible says
is untrue. They have a peculiar vested interest in dating that is a few
years before or after Solomon, any date as long as it excludes the
possibility that the Bible is true. Having examined most of the
archeological data, it is clear that these fortresses were indeed built by
Solomon in 950 BC.
This study focuses only on the outmost ring of these fortresses in
an effort to map the border of Israel at the time of Solomon. Israel's
borders with Egypt at Wadi El Arish and Edom at the Arabah valley are
noted. These 50 military fortresses were dotted throughout the Negev, and
end at the Egyptian border and the southern Arabah valley. By simply
plotting the locations of these fortresses, we can therefore determine
where the border between Israel and Egypt lie, from an archeological point
of view.
Special attention is placed in this study on refuting Qudeirat as a
candidate for Kadesh Barnea. One of the problems with locating Kadesh
Barnea at Ein el Qudeirat or Ein el Qedeis, is that it is 28 km inside the
formal border of the promised land. Stated simply, Israel did not spend 38
years "wandering in the wilderness" in the promised land they were
forbidden to enter. Archeologically, it can be proven that Ein el Qudeirat
was part of a series of up to 50 military fortresses built by King David
and or Solomon about 1000 BC. Excavations have shown that many of the 50
military fortresses were built on virgin soil about 1000 BC, including
Qudeirat. Archeologists assign ranges from 1100 BC - 950 BC for Qudeirat,
therefore Ein el Qudeirat cannot be Kadesh Barnea because the exodus
happened at 1450 BC.
These unusual and varied shapes of the many fortresses is explained
by the fact they were built to follow the contour of lookout plateau or
hill top.
"The archaeological findings reveal, first of all, that a network of
fortresses, including the first three types, existed in the 10th century
B.C., and that most of the sites, after a brief phase of occupation, were
permanently abandoned. Second, at Kadesh-barnea in the 8th-7th centuries
B.C. a solid-walled fortress was erected over its predecessor's remains."
(The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev, Rudolph Cohen, 1979 AD)
One of the big discussions is the what the Fortresses were used for.
Some Bible trashing archeologists believe the fortresses were not used for
military purposes but were mere fortified stock yards to protect herds and
small families of nomads. Although the Nomads would sing "Lord I was born a
rambling man" as a the song goes, they decided, in the spirit of Jed
Clampett of the Beverly Hillbillies, to move into the big city. Well maybe
not the big city, but they built small towns to live in. You know, the
"hunter-gatherer, wanderer" settles down and become a farmer. Of course all
the archeological evidence points away from these fortresses as small
social communities and points directly to their military use soldiers
stationed in some desolate outpost. They even had to make their own
dinnerware! Once this fact is established, and it has been established,
then we have no options but to conclude that these fortresses were built by
the Solomon of the Bible!
A. Bible verses that indicate fortresses: "Strong holds"
There is evidence from the Bible that Israel built fortresses.
Although the one's in Judges 6:2 are not likely the one's under discussion
here, they show a Biblical precedence for fortress building or
"strongholds":
"The power of Midian prevailed against Israel. Because of Midian the sons
of Israel made for themselves the dens which were in the mountains and the
caves and the strongholds." Judges 6:2
David Sheltered in strongholds he may have built or were already in
existence:
"David stayed in the wilderness in the strongholds, and remained in the
hill country in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but
God did not deliver him into his hand." 1 Samuel 23:14
"Then Ziphites came up to Saul at Gibeah, saying, "Is David not hiding with
us in the strongholds at Horesh, on the hill of Hachilah, which is on the
south of Jeshimon?" 1 Samuel 23:19
"David went up from there and stayed in the strongholds of Engedi." 1
Samuel 23:29
"When David fled from Saul, seeking refuge in the wilderness of
Judah, he stayed in mesadim (fortresses) (1 Samuel 23:14). This same kind
of fortress or stronghold is later referred to in 1 Samuel 24:22 as a
mesudah. (The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border,
Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
Jerusalem is called a stronghold of David, which indicates he built
them all since the same phrase is used:
"Then David dwelt in the stronghold; therefore it was called the city of
David." 1 Chronicles 11:7
"Then some of the sons of Benjamin and Judah came to the stronghold to
David." 1 Chronicles 12:16
There is an indication that there were strongholds in the
wilderness:
"From the Gadites there came over to David in the stronghold in the
wilderness, mighty men of valor, men trained for war, who could handle
shield and spear, and whose faces were like the faces of lions, and they
were as swift as the gazelles on the mountains." 1 Chronicles 12:8
There is no indication that Solomon built the extensive network of
50 fortresses under discussion here. However, David's key was to establish
control of Jerusalem and the promised land. Solomon greatly expanded his
rule so he is the obvious candidate for these fortresses.
B. Locations of the 50 fortresses:
"The site, [Ahoroni Fortress] named for the late Y. Aharoni,
be-longs to the category of "Israelite fortresses," of which some 50 have
been discovered in the Negev Highlands. ... According to the general plan
of the site and the finds, it may clearly be classified as one of the
"Israelite fortresses in the Negev."" (The "Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima
and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
More than 40 sites in the Wilderness of Beer-sheba and the
Wilderness of Zin have been surveyed, and 12 of them have been partially
excavated to date. (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983
AD)
In 1975, Ze'ev Meshel conducted a survey in the area of Nahal
Sirpad, with the help of the staff of the field school at Sde Boqer. As a
result of all these archaeological surveys, more than 40 Iron Age
fortresses have now been identified in the Central Negev. (The Fortresses
King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
Here is a map that shows the fortresses we focus on in this
document:
Click to View
Here are two maps, that show a few of the fortresses Solomon built.
One by Cohen, the other by Herzog.
Click to View Click to View
C. Dating the fortress network: The opinion of archeologists
There are three basic opinions of the dating and use of the fortress
network as represented by Cohen, Meshel, Dothan and Ussishkin.
Cohen's view is the only one that states these fortresses were built
by Solomon in 950 BC. Ussishkin on the other hand, dismisses much of the
"house of David" as a myth.
Meshel agrees with Cohen that a king of Israel (Saul, David,
Solomon) built the fortresses under central directives, although:
"Regarding the function of these fortresses, Meshel and Cohen do not see
eye to eye either." (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983
AD)
"An accurate date for these Central Negev fortresses is not a merely
academic issue. In the period embraced by the 11th and tenth centuries,
Israel underwent a major transformation: It developed from a loose
confederation of tribes into a unified state. (David's reign began in about
1000 B.C.) The earlier or later dating of these fortresses is, therefore,
crucial. It determines the historical background against which the role of
the fortress and settlement network will have to be interpreted. Those who
favor the earlier date are inclined to view the fortifications in the
context of King Saul's campaign against the desert nomads, such as the
Amalekites. In my view, the fortresses were erected during the reign of
King Solomon. Solomon's reign was undoubtedly a period of expansion and
royal planning par excellence, and the establishment of a fortress and
settlement network in the Negev would have been of vital importance for the
strengthening of his kingdom's southern region. (On King Solomon's building
of fortifications, see 1 Kings 9:15.) It is in this context that we must
understand the Central Negev fortresses and associated settlements." (The
Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph
Cohen, 1985 AD)
"Aharoni, when contending for an 11th-century date, argued that the
settlement and fortress complex in the Central Negev represented a natural
extension of the ongoing process of sedentarization commenced by the Hebrew
tribes in the 13th century: "We have before us an instructive illustration
of settlement pressure and the diffusion of the excess population into the
most remote and difficult regions. Israelite settlement in the northern
Negev began towards the end of the 13th century, and by the end of the 11th
century it had reached the Negev's southernmost corners."" (The Fortresses
King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
"The sites have produced no Midianite ware or other types that might
imply a much earlier date. The exact date of construction could be anywhere
between the late 11th and the mid-10th century. This wide margin enables
some scholars to base their conjectures on historical interpretation or
models of some sort (e.g., King Solomon as builder and Shishak as
destroyer), rather than on typological considerations. Thus, Herzog
proposes an 11th century date (Herzog 1990: 238); and Finkelstein, true to
his multistage theory, dates the whole process to the end of the 11th and
beginning of the 10th centuries (Finkelstein and Perevolotsky 1990: 78).
This means that the oval fortresses were built in the 11th century, with
the smaller fortresses and settlements coming somewhat later. Dating is, of
course, crucial for both theories: a date earlier than the establishment of
the kingdom of Israel would settle the argument once and for all. But as
long as no finds permitting an unambiguous dating have surfaced, the
controversy will continue." (The "Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima and the
"Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
David Ussishkin gives his view: "Dothan reached ... [this]
conclusion: Three periods of settlement can be discerned at the site: a
settlement which existed 'before the construction of the fortress',
apparently in the tenth century B.C.E.; the rectangular fortress dating
from the eighth-sixth centuries B.C.E.; and a settlement which existed
after the destruction of the fortress, dating from the Persian period." ...
"[Cohen believed...] The existence of three superimposed fortresses
differentiates between Kadesh-Barnea and other Negev sites, in which a
single fortress was constructed. The results of the excavations here
'attest to settlement continuity from the 10th to the 5-4th centuries
B.C.E.'. ... "In my opinion [Ussishkin], the stratigraphic data of the
rectangular fortress should be interpreted along the lines of Dothan's
conclusions rather than Cohen's, taking into account, of course, the newly
excavated data. It seems that only a single rectangular fortress was built
above the early oval one" (The Rectangular Fortress at Kadesh Barnea, David
Ussishkin, 1995 AD)
Dothan said this in 1965: "CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY: Kadesh-barnea was
settled even prior to the building of the fortress. At present it is
difficult to fix the exact date of the sherds of this early occupation,
though they appear to be from about the 10th century B.C.E. There is
nothing in the construction of the fortress (which was built later than the
10th century B.C.E.) to indicate its age with certainty. Fortresses with
casemate walls were built in Palestine from the 11th century to the 7th
century B.C.E. From the ceramic finds, it is clear that this fortress was
constructed in the 9th or 8th centuries B.C.E. Historically, this building
may be attributed to Jehoshaphat, who reigned in Judah in the years 870-846
B.C.E. This king attempted to enter the Red Sea trade, appointing a
governor in Edom and building protective forts along the roads in the
South. In his time, the fortress at Kadesh-barnea would have served as a
stronghold protecting the southern border of Judah, and may have been the
administrative headquarters for the entire area. However, it is also
possible that the fortress was built by Uzziah, who reigned in Judah circa
784-733 B.C.E., and who also fortified the southern limits of Judah,
conquered Elath and Edom, and successfully waged war on the Arabs. ...
After the destruction of the fortress, the site was resettled, in the
Persian period, towards the end of the 6th century or at the start of the
5th century B.C.E. " (The Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea, M Dothan, 1965)
"Dothan discovered no indication of different building phases during
the time of the fortress's existence, but he recognized both pre- and post
fortress settlement periods on the site. The pre fortress findings
consisted of crude handmade pottery-mainly bowls, deep pots, and
hole-mouth jars. Although these sherds could not be connected with
wheel-made vessels or building remains, he dated them, on the basis of
similar pottery finds at Ezion-geber, Ramat Matred, and elsewhere in the
Negev, to the 10th or early 9th century B.C.E. (Dothan 1965: 139; 1977:
697)." (Excavations At Kadesh-Barnea: 1976-1978, Ein el-Qudeirat, Rudolph
Cohen, 1981 AD)
Cohen dismisses the view of Dothan of the "pre-fortress" period
based upon Negev ware pottery alone: "The wheel-made pottery finds were
mainly from the 8th-7th centuries B.C.E., though some seemed a century
earlier. This 9th-century B.C.E. dating suggested to Dothan that the
building of the fortress might be ascribed to the Judean king Jehoshaphat
(ca. 870-846 B.c.E.), who, according to the biblical account, attempted to
enter the Red Sea trade (1 Kgs 22:49) and appointed a governor in Edom (1
Kgs 22:48). If this date is too early, the likeliest ascription then would
be to the later Judean king Uzziah (ca. 784-733 B.C.E.), who, in the
context of his vigorous foreign policy, restored Eilat (2 Chr 26:10) and
fortified the southern regions of Judah (2 Chr 26:10). Dothan assumed that
the fortress had endured until its destruction in the Babylonian onslaught
(Dothan 1965: 143)." (Excavations At Kadesh-Barnea: 1976-1978, Ein
el-Qudeirat, Rudolph Cohen, 1981 AD)
The data below applies only to the fortress at Qudeirat, but it is
representative of the entire network of fortresses.
Earliest
Middle
Latest
Cohen: 1981
(Excavations At Kadesh-Barnea: 1976-1978, Ein el-Qudeirat, Rudolph Cohen, 1981 AD)
Oval fortress built by Solomon and destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak's invasion of Palestine in about 920BC (1 Ki 14:25-26)
Rectangular fortress built by Uzziah of Judah 784-733 BC
Rectangular fortress rebuilt by Josiah, King of Judah 640-609BC. Josiah also rebuilt Solomon's Ezion-Geber sea port. Destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC
Dothan: 1965
(The Fortress at Kadesh-Barnea, M Dothan)
pre-fortress settlements 950 BC
single fortress Rectangular fortress built by Jehoshaphat 870-846 BC and destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC.
No fortress, but Persian era (post Babylonian) settlements.
Herzog: 1983
(Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog)
Fortresses near Beersheba built by David. Fortresses in Negev built by Solomon to protect trade routes to the Red Sea and Ezion-Geber.
Meshel: 1994
(The "Aharoni Fortress"), Zeev Meshel)
Meshel, while uncommitted, sees nothing that prevents the fortresses being dated at the time of Solomon: 950 BC. He also believes the fortresses were the result of a central initiative from the outside (ie Solomon). He also rejects the view that desert nomads transitioned from nomadism to sedentarization (settling down in one place). He openly rejects the views of Ussishkin.
Rothenberg: 1969
(Timna, Beno Rothenberg)
Built by Amalekites in 1300 BC.
Destroyed by King Hezekiah: 1 Chronicles 4:42-43
Aharoni: 1976
Built by Saul 1025 BC to guard against Amalekites
Destroyed by destroyed by Pharaoh Shishak in 925 BC.
Ussishkin: 1995
(The Rectangular Fortress at Kadesh Barnea, David Ussishkin)
Oval structure (not a fortress) for agricultural (sedentary) settlement. no date given but was before rectangular fortress
Single rectangular fortress probably built by Uzziah 784-733 BC or another king and destroyed by Babylon in 586 BC
Click to View
D. Solomon built the fortress network in 950 BC
We believe the careful work of Rudolph Cohen best represents the
reality of truth regarding the archeological history of the fortresses
Solomon built in 950 BC. We include others for documentary purposes below.
Rudolph Cohen gives an excellent summary of the era: "As noted
above, Glueck and Aharoni believed that the fortresses had been erected by
kings of Israel between the 10th and the 7th centuries B.C. for the purpose
of defending the Negev road system (cf. Aharoni 1967: 11-13). Rothenberg,
however, insists on an exceptionally early date for these wares, in the
13th century B.C. or before, and relates them to the inhabitants of the
Negev in the period before the Exodus-the Amalekites-and attributes their
destruction to David. He bases his earlier dating on the results of his
excavations at the Timna sanctuary (1972: 153-54). Aharoni, incidentally,
subsequently altered his position and later contended that the fortresses
could be ascribed to the 11th century B.C. and that they had been
established by Saul in the course of his wars with the Amalekites (1976:
55-76). In the author's opinion, the wheel-made pottery found in the
excavations and surveys of the first three fortress types clearly belongs
to the 10th-century B.C. assemblage. Therefore, in all probability the
fortresses were constructed during the reign of King Solomon, a vigorous
and powerful ruler, whose numerous public works included the fortification
of cities, the construction of store-houses, and the founding of distant
trading posts (cf. Yadin 1958: Ussishkin 1966). His reign was undoubtedly a
period of expansion and royal planning, and the establishment of a fortress
and settlement network in the Negev would have been of vital importance for
the strengthening of his kingdom's southern border region. Accordingly,
these fortresses served not only to guard the roads crossing the Central
Negev, as suggested by Glueck and Aharoni, but also to form a strong
defensive line along the southern boundary. In fact, there is a striking
resemblance between the array of fortresses along the eastern edge of the
Central Negev-from H. Rahba sourth to the Sede Boger area until beyond
Mishor Ha-Ruah, and then west to 'Ain Qudeis and Kadesh-barnea-and the
southern border of the tribe of Judah as described in Josh 15:1-4: "And the
lot for the tribe of the children of Judah. . . And their south border was
from the uttermost part of the Salt Sea, from the bay that looked
southward.And it went out southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and passed
along by Hezron, and went up to Addar. . . and the goings out of the border
were at the sea; this shall be your south border." This may also explain
the fact that no remains of Israelite fortreses have been found south of
Makhtesh Ramon; the fortress at Yotvata, as shown by Meshel's excavations
at the site (1974: 273-74), does not belong to the complex of Israelite
fortresses in the Central Negev. The 10th-century fortress network appears
to have been destroyed in the course of Pharaoh Shishak's campaign into
Palestine, several years after Solomon's death, following which the border
of Judah retreated to its former line along the Beersheva Basin (Amiran
1953: 66). It is probable, therefore, as Mazar has proposed, that some of
the fortresses may be included in the list of conquered sites and cities
appearing on the victory stele that Shishak (Sheshonk I) erected in Karnak.
Among the various place-names relating to the Negev is a group of seven
composed with the base plmr or phgr, and Mazar has pointed out an "evident
correlation between the hagarim in the list of Shishak and the haserim, the
net of fortified settlements which is mentioned in biblical sources" (1957:
57-66). It is reasonable to assume that the destruction of these fortresses
along the principal Negev routes was one of the objects of the pharaoh's
campaign." (The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central Negev, Rudolph Cohen,
1979 AD)
"Notable among these evidences of early human habitation is a series
of sites dating to the Iron Age. They invariably consist of some sort of
fortress surrounding or adjacent to a small settlement. Yohanan Aharoni
identified many of these sites in his Negev survey of the late 1950's and
attributed their existence and importance to the need to establish control
over the road system of the Negev.2 Thus, a line of forts was established
which would safeguard the lucrative trade routes with South Arabia and East
Africa as well as with the various mining operations in the Arabah and
Sinai." (Kadesh Barnea: Judah's Last Outpost, Carol Meyers, 1976 AD)
"Another reason I believe these fortresses were constructed in King
Solomon's reign is that they reflect a unified effort involving the
systematic construction of dozens of remote but at the same time
substantial strongholds. Such an effort clearly implies an initiative by a
strong central authority, an authority not evident in the 11th century, the
days of the Judges. In the tenth century, by contrast, there was a strong
central authority in the person of King Solomon himself. In my view, the
fortresses were erected during the reign of King Solomon, a vigorous and
powerful ruler, whose numerous public works included the fortification of
cities, the construction of storehouses, and the founding of distant
trading-posts. Solomon's fortress network provided a firm defensive line
against attack from the south, and accordingly can be understood as the
southern border of his kingdom.19 Following Shishak's campaign, Judah's
southern border retreated to its former line along the Beer-Sheva Basin.
The Israelites continued to display a definite interest in their country's
southern region, as witnessed by the succession of ambitious fortresses at
Kadesh-Barnea. But the Central Negev, by and large, was abandoned, and no
attempt at serious resettlement was undertaken for many centuries, until
the coming of the Nabateans in the third and second centuries B.C." (The
Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph
Cohen, 1985 AD)
In 1916 AD, it was mistakenly thought that these fortresses were
around at the time of Abraham (2000BC). It is interesting that Woolley and
Lawrence wrongly wondered if the fort at Qudeirat already existed when
Moses arrived. Of course, this was in 1916 AD and now we know that the
remains at Qudeirat were built some 400 years after Moses, by Solomon.
Today, we know that Ein El-Qudeirat, is not even Kadesh Barnea, so Moses
was never even here:
"At a later date Moses, writing to the King of Edom, described Kadesh as `a
city in the uttermost of thy border' (Numbers xx, 16). The word `city' is a
vague one, and probably only means a settlement, perhaps a district, like
the modern Arabic beled which is used to mean town, village, district, or
country. In the former sense it might be used of such hut-settlements as
those of Muweilleh and Kossaima; but would most temptingly apply to the
fortress of Ain Guderat [Qudeirat], should we assume - we cannot prove it -
that the fort was already built when Moses came." (The Wilderness of Zin,
C. Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence, CH IV, Ain Kadeis And Kossaima,
1914-1915 AD)
"Concerning their specific historical background, they [Woolley and T. E.
Lawrence] alternatively suggested that these fortresses may have belonged
to the Patriarchal age, or that they were connected with the Red Sea
"adventures" of one of the "Jewish" kings. ... Although in many respects
their phraseology and descriptions are now obsolete, their discoveries and
conclusions have provided a solid basis for subsequent study." (The Iron
Age Fortresses in the Central Negev, Rudolph Cohen, 1979 AD)
"Glueck and Aharoni maintained that the fortresses had been erected
by the kings of Israel between the 10th and the 7th centuries B.C. in order
to extend royal control over the Negev, the Aravah, and Eilat, and to
protect their caravan routes (Aharoni 1967: 11-13). This southern road
system was one of the Monarchy's chief economic assets, and thus it should
be considered in greater detail." (The Iron Age Fortresses in the Central
Negev, Rudolph Cohen, 1979 AD)
"The tower fortresses, which existed from the ninth or eighth
century B.C. on, testify to Israelite control of the Negev Highlands, which
was maintained without the need for a dense network of forts. Such control
was first achieved under Saul, David, or Solomon, who conquered the region
and achieved a state of cooperation and coexistence with the inhabitants:
the nomads maintained Israelite control of the region, its borders, and
roads (like the desert tribes in the Byzantine period, Finkelstein 1984: n.
7), and were rewarded with food, grain, or some other commodity." (The
"Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the
Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
"As to the central question, I still favor the theory of externally
imposed settlement by a king of Israel" (The "Aharoni Fortress" Near
Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
"To summarize this point: judging from the distribution and variety
of sites in the Negev Highlands, I believe that they were ordinary
settlements, not necessarily military outposts. This is not to say that
some external agency could not have initiated the establishment of a
network of sites along and near major routes, at key points and along the
border of the region controlled by that agency." (The "Aharoni Fortress"
Near Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994
AD)
"Israelite control of the Negev in the Iron Age II was based on a
network of tower-fortresses, such as those excavated at Uzzah, Arad, Qadesh
Barnea, and lately at `Ein Hazevah (Cohen 1988; 1991). It is generally
believed that these structures were built "to carry out an administrative
function and to defend the southern frontier of the Judaean monarchy"
(Finkelstein 1984: 183; Eitam 1988: 318). (The "Aharoni Fortress" Near
Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
"Eitam, for his part, suggests military pressure of some sort,
"undoubtedly [by] King David, who instituted a new order in the Negev" (I
Chron. 18:12-13; Eitam 1988: 333-34)." (The "Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima
and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
"Undoubtedly, the small forts and accompanying settlements were
founded in connection with Solomon's trade operations in the Red Sea. In my
opinion, the forts were intended to defend the caravans plying the routes
of the Way of the Spies, the Way of the Hill Country of the Amorites, and
the Way of the Red Sea (Meshel 1974: fig. 17; 1981: fig. 1). These royal
enterprises enabled a network of open settlements to be interwoven with the
forts, as an expansion of the earlier clusters of enclosed settlements in
the north.4 Presumably there was mutual cooperation between the forts and
the civilian settlements, the former providing protection and the latter
logistical support in the form of agricultural products and perhaps even
manpower. It was apparently Shishak's invasion that brought this network of
settlements to an end. Some time afterwards, probably following an
occupational gap in the 9th century B.C., attempts were made to rebuild
this system, but that subject is beyond the scope of the present study."
(Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
"All the rest of the "Negev fortresses" are characterized by two
basic features: small square forts and small open villages, usually in
close proximity to each other. They are found scattered over the Negev
highlands (i.e., the Wilderness of Zin) between the two nuclei of enclosed
settlements described above. Their establishment was undoubtedly connected
with later geopolitical developments in the region involving royal
initiative." (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
"It is tempting to relate to this 11th century phase of settlement
the recently found site at el-Quseima (Meshel 1981: 361-62; fig. 4) in the
vicinity of Kadesh-barnea, which has all the appearances of an enclosed
settlement. However, the oval fortress of Kadesh-barnea (i.e., "earliest
fortress" of Cohen 1981: 107) and 'Ain Qudeis (Cohen 1980: fig. 3:1),
probably belong to the 10th century. Hence, this region might have been
another nucleus of 11th century occupation-as might be expected from the
prominent role of Kadesh-barnea in the formative stage of Israelite
history." (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
"This wave of settlement must have led to a conflict of interests
between the Israelites and the population of the "city of Amalek" (Tel
Masos), eventually resulting in the campaign of Saul against the Amalekites
(1 Sam 15:5, 7), which was apparently responsible for the destruction of
Tel Masos Stratum II, while the destruction of Tel Esdar could have been
the result of a counterattack by the Amalekites. All the rest of the sites
continued to exist into the 10th century, when a new phase began in the
history of the region with the ascension of David to the throne." (Enclosed
Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
"At first an administrative center was erected at Beersheba (Stratum
V), probably under the initiative of this monarch [David] (Aharoni 1974),
followed by construction of the large military fortresses at Arad Stratum
XI, Kadesh-barnea ("earliest fortress," Cohen 1981: 107), and Tell
el-Kheleifeh Period I (Glueck 1965: 71-82), all of which we believe are
dated to Solomon's reign." (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev
Herzog, 1983 AD)
Rothenberg is way off on a number of things. First he rejects the
Bible's date for the Exodus of 1446 BC and believes it took place in 1270
BC. Second he then uses Negev Pottery as proof the fortresses predated
Israel, since Negev ware pottery is found in most of the forts. The dilemma
is solved if he had just read his Bible and learned the Exodus was in 1446
BC he would never had made the comments that the fortresses of the Negev
could NOT be of Israelite origin. Rothenberg makes his final blunder in
suggesting that Hezekiah wiped out the Amalekites in the Negev based upon 1
Chronicles 4:42-43: "From them, from the sons of Simeon, five hundred men
went to Mount Seir, with Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons
of Ishi, as their leaders. They destroyed the remnant of the Amalekites who
escaped, and have lived there to this day." Mt. Seir is transjordan and is
not even located in the Negev! It is the capital of Edom. Poor Rothenberg.
If only he had trusted the Bible much of his conclusions would have been
truth and reality.
"The peculiar pottery-making tradition in the Negev, which could not
possibly have originated in Judean times and never occurs anywhere in Judah
itself, would therefore exclude any possible identification of the Negev
settlements as Israelite. Although not enough archaeological evidence
exists so far for the accurate dating of these settlements, the Timna
Temple finds strongly corroborate the view that many of the agricultural
settlements and hill fortresses in the Central Negev predate the Israelite
conquest of Palestine and already existed as fortified Amalekite villages
at the time of the Exodus. It therefore seems plausible to conclude that
some of the battles between the Israelite tribes on their way to the
Promised Land and the Amalekites, their arch enemies, must have taken place
around these settlements and fortresses. It appears also most likely that
the destruction of many of the fortresses and settlements was actually
caused by the continuous struggle carried on during most of the Kingdom of
Israel between Amalekites and Israelites. Amalekites were still reported as
settlers in the Negev Mountains as late as the time of Hezekiah, King of
Judah. In 1 Chronicles 4:42-43 we find the latest date for Amalekite
habitation in the Negev given as the end of the eighth century BC, whilst
the Negev-type pottery found in the Timna Temple strongly suggests the
existence of a sedentary civilization in the Central Negev at the end of
the fourteenth and continuing well into the twelfth centuries BC." (Timna,
Beno Rothenberg, 1969 AD)
"Rothenberg's dating is incompatible with the Iron Age wheel-made
pottery found in these sites (most of which, we should point out, came to
light after the publication of Rothenberg's study." (Enclosed Settlements
in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
"Two of Rothenberg's basic arguments-namely that the Negev
fortresses were actually agricultural settlements and that they were
founded not as royal enterprises but by the semi-nomadic bearers of the
Negev ware-were adopted by Etam in a short response to Cohen's Hebrew
version of his summarizing article on the Negev fortresses (Cohen 1979;
Etam 1980). But, unlike Rothenberg, Etam dates this settlement to the 11 th
century B.C. and attributes the entire network of sites in the Negev
highlands to an autochthonous population (he clearly avoids naming this
population in more specific ethnic terms) that used this Negev ware. The
termination of habitation was, according to Etam, caused by Saul, who
destroyed the city of Amalek. Before considering this theory, I must point
out a fundamental contradiction in Etam's hypothesis: he tries to prove
that the settlements were not of defensive character, while at the same
time he denies their attribution to Saul on the grounds that it is
difficult to imagine that this king built defensive systems to fortify the
southern border of the kingdom while it was still in its infancy."
(Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
E. Fortresses shaped according to local topography for security:
In the discussion of the fortresses we find a variety of shapes
including ovals, squares and rectangles which as generated much discussion.
In the end, it is clear that the shape of and individual fortress was
determined by the shape of the hill top on which it was built. The aim in
all circumstances was to chose a shape that maximized security. They would
use the natural hills and cliffs as additional brims to enhance the height
of the walls they would build on top.
"The site [Ahoroni Fortress] is particularly large in fact by far
the largest of its type. The location is also unique: it was apparently of
crucial importance to erect the fortress at this particular site. Most
convincing is the way the building was built to conform to the topography:
the outer wall encircles the entire summit, and it was built at the very
edge of the cliff. ... The builders generally chose raised ground, a hill,
a spur, sometimes even a steep mountain, and built their fortress on the
summit. The casemates generally encircled the entire summit; and the outer
enclosing wall was built at the very edge of the summit, directly
overlooking the slope. If the summit was oval-shaped, so was the enclosure,
as in the `Ein Qadis fortress and elsewhere. ... Why were most of the
"fortresses" built to conform to the topography? Though here we are
knowingly entering the area of interpretation rather than facts, I suggest
that the goal was to increase security by perimetric observation and
contro1. The principle is well demonstrated by the Aharoni fortress; as we
have seen, the builders chose a high hill, rising to a considerable height
over the surroundings, whose edges afforded a clear view in all directions
of the lower land and roads at the foot of the hill. Had they built on the
slope, according to Herzog's prescription, the personnel within could not
have had an unobstructed view in all directions." (The "Aharoni Fortress"
Near Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994
AD)
"Their overall shape is amorphous and adapted to the local
topography." (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
Clearly, the three fortress types-oval, rectangular and square-were
contemporary with one another, and all belonged to the same overall
defensive network in the Central Negev. This is shown by the pottery and,
to a lesser extent, by the other similarities, including the similarities
in building technique. (The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His
Southern Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
As a result of all this work, we have identified four different
styles of fortresses-perhaps, more accurately, I should say we have
identified four different types of architectural plans. Some of the
fortresses are (1) roughly oval in plan; others are (2) rectangular but
with unequal sides; still others are (3) square; finally, two of the
fortresses are (4) rectangular but with outcropping towers at the corners
and sides. Let us put aside the fourth category because the two fortresses
with outcropping towers at their corners and sides date from the eighth to
the sixth centuries B.C., considerably later in the Iron Age than the other
three fortress plans; these other three are not only earlier, but
contemporaneous. (The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern
Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
"The other "fortresses" are classified by Cohen according to shape
and by Meshel according to size and topographical conformity. Cohen's
categories are: (1) roughly oval, (2) rectangular, and (3) square ...
Meshel, aware of this incongruity, classified these fortresses into two
main categories-large and small." (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev
Herzog, 1983 AD)
The most common plan is the oval. We now know of 11 oval fortresses.
(The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph
Cohen, 1985 AD)
We call it Mesudat Nahal Aqrav. The first word means "fortress" in
Hebrew. Aqrav, as I shall call it here, is surrounded by a casemate wall,
which is a wall formed by two parallel walls subdivided into rooms by
transverse walls. The inner and outer casemate walls of the fortress are
two feet wide and were constructed with rough-hewn blocks of local
limestone. (The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern
Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
F. Fortresses built for military personnel not families:
The archeological evidence points to these fortresses being used a
military outposts, not farming communities to protect their livestock.
"Lack of Archaeological Proof for Use of the Courtyard as a
Stockyard: Neither at these sites nor in the fortresses has excavation of
the courtyard revealed a layer of dung or any other find that might testify
to its use as a stockyard. Even if one doubts the very possibility of
discovering such finds, and therefore does not consider the lack of finds
to disprove the thesis, one cannot ignore the evidence of livestock pens
that have indeed been discovered; some are attached to fortresses" (The
"Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the
Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
"This structural difference between the large enclosed settlements
and the small casemate fortresses reflects different functions: the
multi-roomed dwelling units of the enclosed settlements were suitable to
accommodate whole families, while the single-room casemates fit the
requirements of a military garrison." (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb,
Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
G. Fortresses all built at a single period of brief occupation:
"Both historical and strictly archaeological considerations have led
me to the conclusion that the Central Negev fortresses and settlements were
not in existence in the Period of the Judges; their brief occupation can be
dated to the tenth century B.C." (The Fortresses King Solomon Built to
Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
"The excavations at the fortresses have revealed no evidence of
raising of floors, sealing or piercing of openings, structural changes, or
any other data that might point to stages or phases in their occupation.
Hence all excavators have classified them as single period, briefly
occupied sites" (The "Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima and the "Israelite
Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
We may therefore conclude that these three sites should be dated to
the same period and defined likewise as enclosed settlements. (Enclosed
Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
"The excavations of these sites have all indicated that they were
occupied only for a brief period, 50 years at most. They could not have
been erected long before their demise. Therefore, they must have been
constructed some time in the tenth century. Other archaeological evidence,
such as the presence of red-burnished pottery, supports this contention."
(The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph
Cohen, 1985 AD)
"I should like to stress what in my opinion is the basic drawback of
all of these studies: the assumption that the Negev "fortresses" were
homogeneous in nature and that a single historical and functional
interpretation can be attributed to all of them. Rather, they should be
viewed as the result of a developing process. This conclusion was reached
after an intensive study of the finds from the Early Iron Age strata at Tel
Beersheba (Herzog, forthcoming), material that was not available to the
authors of the earlier studies." (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb , Ze'ev
Herzog, 1983 AD)
This combined architectural and geographic data is apparently the
key to unraveling the Gordian knot between two disparate types of
settlements that for several decades were erroneously considered to be a
single phenomenon. (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983
AD)
I. No fortresses found from Qudeirat to Ezion Geber:
One of the puzzles of the fortress network Solomon built, is why we
have found no forts between Borot Loz and the Red Sea.
We believe the answer is simple and two fold: The mountains provided
a difficult area to navigate and provided a natural barrier. Second, the
border between Egypt and Israel from Borot Loz to the Red Sea was a kind of
free zone that was used by everyone and Solomon did not want to control
this in fear of sparking rebellion from many nations and peoples. He did
build a fortress at Elat and Ezion-Geber (under shipping yards of modern
Aqaba) but on the north side of the gulf of Aqaba, Solomon did not claim
control. The ancient Egyptian mining port island of Jezirat Faraun remained
in firm Egyptian control and Solomon dare not attempt to touch this.
And "above all, south of Qadesh Barnea along important Darb Ghazza,
the main route to the Gulf of Eilat, not even one fortress has been found"
(The "Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the
Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
J. Negev ware pottery found at fortresses is unique
Detailed discussion of the Pottery of the Bible
"Another common denominator of the Negev fortresses besides the
casemate structure, is Negev ware (Cohen 1986: 385-94). One may dispute its
significance and the identity of the makers, but one cannot ignore the fact
that Negev ware is a distinctly regional phenomenon, never appearing in the
Beersheba Valley sites, whether early (Arad, Esdar, Beersheba, Masos) or
late (Arocer, Ira, Uzza, Kitmit). I agree with the attribution of Negev
ware to the southern desert nomads, and consider this quite adequate for
our purpose." (The "Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima and the "Israelite
Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
Although "Negev" pottery appears to have undergone some typological
changes, it cannot be used as a chronological tool. It has to be dated
itself on the basis of the wheel-made pottery found together with it. It
was customary previously to assign it to the 10th century B.C., especially
after the excavations at Ramat Matred (Aharoni et al. 1960: 97-111).
However, Rothenberg's research in the Timna-Eilat area has shown that its
origins may be several centuries earlier, and now, since the excavations at
Kadesh-barnea, it is clear that it remained in use until the end of the
Iron Age (below). In view of new ceramic material accumulated in recent
years and its distribution geographically, the author believes that it may
be possible to relate the hand-made pottery specifically to the Kenites,
one of the Negev's nomadic tribes which, according to the Bible, had stood
in an especially close relation to the Israelites since the time of Exodus
(e.g., Num 10:29; Judg 4:11; 1 Sam 15:6; cf. Fensham 1964). (The Iron Age
Fortresses in the Central Negev, Rudolph Cohen, 1979 AD)
The pottery from these structures consists of two types: handmade
Negev ware (sometimes called "Negebite ware") and wheel-made vessels of the
types common in Judah at the time. Since recent discoveries have shown that
the Negebite ware had an extremely wide chronological range-from the 13th
century B.C. at Timna (Rothenberg 1972: 180-82) to the end of the Iron Age
at Kadesh-barnea (Cohen 1980: 77)-the presence of this ware cannot, of
course, support any particular date within the Iron Age for these sites.
Cohen's suggestion to relate this ware to the Kenites (1980: 77) is
apparently contradicted by the evidence from the only site so far
attributed to this tribe, namely Stratum XII at Arad (Mazar 1965: 303),
since no Negebite ware was uncovered in this stratum (M. Aharoni 1981).
(Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
The wheel-turned vessels found in the Negev fortresses are dated by
Cohen exclusively to the 10th century B.C., and he thus attributes these
sites to the reign of Solomon (Cohen 1980: 77-78). According to Meshel,
however, this pottery cannot be dated any more precisely than the 11 th-
10th centuries B.C. On historical grounds, he prefers to associate these
structures with "one of the kings who defeated the Edomites and
Amalekites," Saul or David being the most likely candidates in his opinion
(Meshel and Cohen 1980: 80). (Enclosed Settlements in the Negeb, Ze'ev
Herzog, 1983 AD)
Rothenberg's dating is incompatible with the Iron Age wheel-made
pottery found in these sites (most of which, we should point out, came to
light after the publication of Rothenberg's study). (Enclosed Settlements
in the Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
"The principal method for dating these fortresses is to date the
pottery found lying in the ashes on the floor. Although never found in
large quantities in any of the fortresses, it is nevertheless homogeneous
pottery and clearly datable, in our view, to the tenth century B.C." (The
Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph
Cohen, 1985 AD)
"Interesting as this Negbite pottery is, it cannot be used at the
present time to date the Central Negev fortresses because it has such a
wide chronological range. True, at one time, the pottery was assigned to
the tenth century B.C., but that was before my excavation at Kadesh-Barnea,
where it clearly remained in use until the end of the Iron Age in the sixth
century B.C." (The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern
Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
"For example, in the Central Negev fortresses, which I date to the
tenth century, virtually the only forms of Negbite ware were cooking pots
and bowls. By the eighth-seventh centuries B.C., as seen in the so-called
middle fortress at Kadesh-Barnea, we found a wide variety of shapes, many
of them quite clearly modeled on contemporaneous wheel-made types." (The
Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph
Cohen, 1985 AD)
"In my view, the pottery associated with the oval fortresses
throughout the Central Negev can be confidently assigned to the tenth
century B.C." (The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern
Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
"If my arguments as to the dating of this pottery are correct, then
a re-dating of a number of excavation levels is required at several
important sites somewhat north of the Central Negev fortresses, in the
Beer-Sheva Basin (Tel Beer-Sheva, level VII; Tel Masos, level I; and Tel
Esdar, levels II-III). The excavators of these sites date these strata
earlier than the tenth century B.C. It seems to me that the firm chronology
established for the Central Negev fortresses necessitates a re-evaluation
of their views. My own examination of the pottery from these levels has
convinced me that they date to the tenth century B.C." (The Fortresses King
Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
K. Fortresses destroyed by Shishak in 924 BC
We take the firm view, based on archeological evidence that Shishak
destroyed Solomon's entire network of border fortresses in 924 BC in a
military campaign.
Using just the Egyptian Chronologies, apart from the Bible, Shishak
ascended the thone in 945 BCE. This agrees with the Bible record: "The
chapter concludes that the most likely minimum reconstruction of the date
of the accession of Shishak/Sheshonq I is 941 BCE, with dates in the
mid-940s BCE being the most likely overall. This supports biblical dates
for the attack well, which would conventionally place the accession of
Shishak/Sheshong I in 945 BCE. It emphasizes that, while not perfect, the
Egyptian chronology is very robust and internally consistent, even without
reference to external events. ... As can be seen, the Egyptian chronology,
like that of all other ancient chronologies, requires contradictory
evidence to be weighed and assessed before a most likely chronology can be
drawn up. It is not perfect, not free of error and not 'set in stone', but
is subject to new findings and new interpretations. It does, however, stand
up remarkably well to such findings, and the arguments now usually revolve
around one or two years on the end of reigns and the affiliations of
individual kings rather than wholesale changes in the length or nature of
the chronology. As such we can be very confident of ascribing the accession
of Sheshonq I to the middle of the 940s BCE. (The Bible and Radiocarbon
Dating, Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Higham, A.J. Shortland, 2005, p43, 53)
It is clear that Shishak destroyed Solomon's network of border
fortresses in 924 BC. It is a sad judgement from God on the results of sin.
All of Solomon's works and efforts came to nothing because his son Rehoboam
acted foolishly causing the people to rebel and the kingdom to disintegrate
into two. Of course just as archeologists are divided on who built the
fortresses and when, so too are they divided on how they were destroyed.
Those who accept the Bible as their guide believe that Pharaoh Shishak
destroyed the network in 924 BC. Those who reject the Bible suggest they
slowly were abandoned over a long period of time, not destroyed all
together at once.
Discussion among archeologists revolves around the ash layer found
on the floor of most of the fortresses. Some ignore or discount it. But the
ash layer, although small and scant, does indeed exist. Facts are facts!
"Let us consider another archaeological fact. Many of the fortresses and
the associated settlements contained an ash-layer that convincingly proves
these fortresses and their nearby settlements suffered the same sorry end.
What or who was the destroyer? I believe there is only one reasonable
candidate: Pharaoh Shishak (Sheshonq I)." (The Fortresses King Solomon
Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
"There can be no doubt that the Central Negev fortresses and
settlements constitute the principal evidence of Israelite settlement in
the area south of Beer-Sheva. The reality of Shishak's devastating campaign
to the Central Negev is accepted by everyone. Moreover, if the Central
Negev fortresses and settlements were not among the sites enumerated by
Shishak, we are confronted with an acute historico-archaeological problem:
Where are the settlements destroyed by Shishak? There simply are no other
possibilities. Following the destruction of these fortresses, the Central
Negev was virtually abandoned. The conclusion is inescapable: Shishak
demolished the Central Negev fortresses and settlements in about 924 B.C."
(The Fortresses King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph
Cohen, 1985 AD)
"A more extensive description of the campaign was inscribed by
Shishak himself on the walls of the Temple of Amon in Karnak. In this
victory inscription, which is one of the most important historical
documents of its time, Shishak lists the names of the cities, villages and
settlements he conquered. The first part of the inscription contains a long
list of sites in the northern and central sections of Israel. The second
part of the inscription, containing over 10 names, is apparently devoted to
the Negev. Only a few of the names can be identified with cities known from
the Bible. These include Arad, Yurza, Sharnhen, and the proposed
identification of Ezion-Geber, which is doubtful. Of particular interest to
us here are nine place-names formed with the component p.h\-q-r, which can
be readily associated with the Semitic root h\-g-r ("fort"). The list
includes, for example, the fortress of Great Arad, which clearly refers to
the site still bearing that name. Identifying the other fortresses referred
to by Shishak is more problematic, but it may well be that a number of the
names refer to the fortresses we have been discussing." (The Fortresses
King Solomon Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
Click to View
The very sparse finds which are nevertheless characteristic and the
lack of any conflagration of destruction layer indicate that the site was
not destroyed in battle, but deliberately abandoned. (The "Aharoni
Fortress" Near Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses" in the Negev, Zeev
Meshel, 1994 AD)
"Scholars who attribute the settlements to the royal Israelite
initiative attribute their abandonment to Shishak's campaign, as stated
above (Cohen 1986: 316, 413-18, 472; Haiman 1989: 56). But despite theories
of war and conquest, no evidence has come to light of large-scale
conflagration and total destruction. Although evidence of burning and ashes
has been discovered in most of the fortresses, that evidence is of limited
extent" (The "Aharoni Fortress" Near Quseima and the "Israelite Fortresses"
in the Negev, Zeev Meshel, 1994 AD)
"Cohen (1980: 78) attributes the disappearance of the "fortresses"
to the havoc wrought during Pharaoh Shishak's campaign, while Meshel
considers the burnt patches found occasionally in these structures to be
insufficient evidence for a military destruction and concludes that the
sites were abandoned when the "local inhabitants" recognized the permanency
of the central authority and hence determined that there was no longer any
need for fortresses (Meshel 1977: 133)." (Enclosed Settlements in the
Negeb, Ze'ev Herzog, 1983 AD)
About five years after Solomon's death (ca. 924 B.C.), Pharaoh
Shishak launched an attack against the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. There
are cursory references to this Egyptian campaign in 1 Kings and 2
Chronicles. In 1 Kings 14:25-26, we read "In the fifth year of King
Rehoboam, King Shishak of Egypt marched against Jerusalem and carried off
the treasures of the House of the Lord and the treasures of the royal
palace. He carried off everything; he even carried off all the golden
shields that Solomon had made." In 2 Chronicles 12:1-12, we are told that
Shishak came with 12,000 chariots, 60,000 horsemen and innumerable troops.
In the swath of destruction, he took the fortified towns of Judah. But
Shishak "did not destroy [Rehoboam] entirely." (The Fortresses King Solomon
Built to Protect His Southern Border, Rudolph Cohen, 1985 AD)
By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections.
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|