Body: | The Fortresses at En Haseva
Rudolph Cohen
The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 57, No. 4 (Dec., 1994), pp. 203-214
(The Fortresses at En Haseva Rudolph Cohen, The Biblical Archaeologist,
Vol. 57, No. 4, p 203-214, 1994)
See also: (The Iron Age Fortresses at En Haseva, Rudolph Cohen, 1995 AD)
Large scale excavations at 'En tlaseva have provided one of the most
important recent discover-ies in the Arabah. Excavators have ex-posed a
succession of fortressesfrom the Byzantine and early Islamic period to
the Iron Ageoccupying this crucial crossroads of ancient commerce. In
both Roman and Iron Age periods, the tlaseva fortress was among the most
immense in the region. Excavation is finally darifying the true nature of
the site, which has been known and visited for over a century.
A History of Early
Research at the Site
As early as the nineteenth century, re-searchers touring the area of `En
Haseva, one of the most abundant springs of the Arabah, noted remains
beside the spring (Tin Husuv; map ref. 1734 0242). A. Musil visited the
area in 1902 and prepared a sketch of the square fortress, which measured
120 x 120 feet, and had projecting corner tow-ers (1907207-208, figs.
144-145). He saw an additional multi-roomed struc-ture adjacent to the
fortress in the south, as well as the remains of a bathhouse in the east.
Musil identified the fortress with the caravanserai (an inn serving
caravans) which Hasta mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum (Seeck 1876:73).
In 1930, the fortand its original ground planwere damaged. F. Frank
(1934:254) visited the site in 1932. A. Alt (1935:6) identified the large
structure at
`En kla,seva as the Roman fortress Eise-ba on account of the similarity
between the Arabic and Greek names. The name Eiseba is mentioned only in
the Beer-sheva Edict (Alt 1935:31). N. Glueck (1934-1935:17-20,115)
concluded that the ruin was a Nabataean caravanserai
Aerial view of klaieva. The southern wall of the Roman fortress runs across
the upper left portion of this north-oriented view. The two eastern towers
of the latest Iron Age fort stand at the right. Part of the wall of the
earlier Iron Age fortress is visible at the photo's right-hand margin. The
photograph encompasses the bottom half of the top plan presented on page
204. (All photographs courtesy of the author and the Israel Antiquities
Authority.)
Biblical Archaeologist 57:4 (1994) 203
The southern wall of the Roman fortress, Stratum 2, stretches ca. 46m
towards one of the fort's four projecting towers. Against its inside face,
builders constructed an ashlar wall, probably to support a set of stairs.
also used later by the Romans. He, like Alt, identified the site with
Eiseba, in-cluded in a list of Negev towns and the yearly taxes levied on
each by the Byzantine authorities. In 1950, during a study trip, B. Mazar
found a small number of Iron Age sherds as well as decorated Nabataean and
Roman-Byzantine sherds (Aharoni 1963:31). Relying on these finds, Y.
Aharoni pro-posed identifying cEn Haseva with both biblical Tamar and Roman
Tamara (Aharoni 1963; contra Alt 1935; Gichon 1976:80-81 and esp. fn. 4).
B. Rothen-berg (1967:123-125,162-165) found only Roman-period remains
during his survey in 1960.
The Excavations
In 1972, on behalf of the Department of Antiquities and Museums, salvage
ex-cavations at cEn Haseva concentrated on the southwestern corner of the
Ro-man fortress with square towers. Subse-quently, excavators turned their
atten-tion to the southwestern square tower and a dump area containing
numerous Nabataean sherds (Cohen 1972). These excavations were renewed in
1987 and continued intermittently unti11991 (Cohen 1988/89b; 1991) under
the aus-pices of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). Beginning in 1993,
large scale
204 Biblical Archaeologist 57:4 (1994)
excavations at the site have been direct-ed by the author and Y. Yisrael,
on be-half of the IAA, with funding provided through the Negev Tourism
Develop-ment Administration. The excavations employ 50-60 workers from
Yeruham. The excavators have uncovered two underlying fortresses dating to
the Ju-
The Roman Fortress (Strata 2a-2b) The most obvious and substantial re-mains
at cEn Haseva are those of the Roman fortress. The building of the Roman
fortress at Haseva occupied two clearly distinct stages. Stratum 2a
of-fered a typical square fortress (castellum ca. 46 x 46 m) with four
projecting tow-
known in the Arabah. The Emperor Trajan probably founded it after the
annexation of the Nabataean Kingdom to the Roman Empire (106 cE), thus
establishing Provincia Arabia.
At the end of the third or the begin-ning of the fourth centuries CE,
during the reign of Diocletian, the fort flour-ished once again. The
projecting towers were added at that time (Stratum 2a). This Late Roman
fortress was part of the Diocletian frontier system (Berchem 1952;
Bowersock 1971; 1983:138-147; Gichon 1967; 1980; Graf 1987; Avi-Yonah
1966:118-121; Roll 1989:252-260) that depended principally on towers,
forts, and fortresses erected along strategic roads. The inhabitants of the
southeast-ern frontier of the Roman Empire, be-tween the Euphrates and the
Red Sea, were Arab tribes called Saracens (Graf 1978; Parker 1985; Gichon
1986; Mayer-son 1986) who conducted razzia, with the basic aim of taking
booty from the merchants and travelers who crossed the desert areas and
whose destination was important commercial and tradecities, including
Jerusalem and Gaza.
The track south from Jerusalem would have first reached Elusa, continued on
to Tamara (Haseva), positioned south of the Dead Sea (Lacus Asphal-tides),
and led hum there to Transjordan, Rababatora, and Philadelphia.
Archaeological investigation indi-cates that 'En tla5eva stood at an
impor-tant junction with roads leading west, northeast, and south. The
western route ascended via Macaleh `Aqrabim road, past the forts and towers
of Rogem Safir, Horvat Safir and Mesad Safir (Cohen 1983b), until it
reached Mamshit.
The road to the northeast stretched toward the area of the Dead Sea and
Mesad Boqeq, where M. Gihon (1971) uncovered a smaller (ca. 17 x17 m) but
similar fortress. On the modern high-way between the Dead Sea and Dimona,
Gichon also excavated a fortress (ca. 38 x 38 m) at Qasr el Juheiniye and,
following Alt's proposal (Alt 1935:34), identified it as ancient Tamar
(Gichon 1976). From here, it seems there was a Roman road to Zoar, south of
the Dead Sea.
Traveling south from cEn tlawva the road followed the Arabah Valley to
Yot-vata where Z. Meshel excavated a for-tress similar in plan and size
(ca. 40 x 40 m). The fort at Yotvata contained a very important discovery
among others: a Latin Imperial inscription. Dating to the time of
Diocletian, the inscription was found outside and opposite the eastern
facade of the Roman fort, in front of its gate (Roll 1989).
cEn 1:laeva seems to have been, therefore, an important military and
administrative center in the Roman period significant enough to have left
an impression in ancient sources. But do we know its ancient name? As
op-posed to Gichon's identification of the fortress at Qasr el Juheiniye
with Tamara, the author believes that the Tamara described in the ancient
sources is in fact cEn Haseva, as Aharoni proposed long ago (Aharoni 1963).
cEn Haseva does find mention in Eusebius (late third, early fourth century
cE.) Eusebius describes Tamara an Haseva) as a day's march from Mamshit and
states that "today it is a military guard post" (Onomasticon led.
Klostermanni 8:8). The fortress at 'En Haseva-Tamara, was mentioned in the
Tabula Peutingeriana (Miller 1916:773; Aharoni 1963:33-37) as a stronghold
along the road leading south from Jerusalem. Tainarar En Haseva is
mentioned in several other ancient sources: Ptolemaios, Geograpiae V 15,
the Notitia Dignitatum (Seeck 1876: 74), and in The Madaba Mosaic Map
(Avi-Yonah 1954:42-43, Pl. 4).
The Roman fort fell into disuse during the second half of the fourth
century CE,perhaps as the result of the earthquake of 363 CE which
destroyed Petra and several other sites (Russell 1980; Ham-mond 1980). Over
its remains Stratum 1 offered scanty and unidentifiable rem-nants,
including pottery of the sixth-seventh centuries cE.
The Nabataean
Caravanserai (Stratum 3)
The foundations of the Stratum 2b Ro-man fortress were probably built over
the remains of a Nabataean caravan-serai (Stratum 3), possibly similar in
its
square ground plan and size to those uncovered by the author at Mo'a and
Sha'ar Ramon, sites along the Petra-Gaza Road (Cohen 1982; 1987).
Decorat-ed pottery and coins of Nabataean kings were collected on its
floors. It is possible then to surmise that during both the Nabataean and
Roman periods there existed a route connecting Haseva (Tam-ara) with Moca
and continuing from there southward along the Arabah to Mesad Beer Menuha
(Cohen 1983c), Yotvata, H. Dafit (Cohen 1984), and, finally, to Aila
(Elath).
Roman period elongated jar and jug.
Biblical Archaeologist 57:4 (1994) 207
Viewed from above its western half, the gate to the Iron II fortress shows
off its first entry way and chamber. Each of the gate's total of four
chambers measure 2.5 x 3.3 m. Between the gate's two halves runs a 4m wide
passageway.
The Iron Age Fortresses (Strata 4,5)
Stratum 4
Only the eastern section (ca. 36 m long) and two projecting towers (ca. 14
m apart) have thus far been cleared in the Stratum 4 fortress. The square
south-eastern tower, completely uncovered, measures 11 x 11 m. Its outer
walls reach approximately 1.5 m in width.
Pottery retrieved from the floor be-longs to the seven-sixth centuries BCE,
which suggests that this fortress was built during the reign of Josiah and
de-stroyed at about the same time as the First Temple in Jerusalem, in 586
BCE.
Stratum 5
The Stratum 5 fortress is square, 100 x 100 m, covering approximately 1
hec-tare (2.5 acres). While some sections of the walls were destroyed
completely, others still stand 2 m high. The fortress's offset-inset wall
was 3 m wide at each offset and 2.5 m wide at each inset, with three
projecting corner towers. The in-sets and offsets were spaced 8-10 m apart.
An outer rampart and moat are currently being exposed. Several
case-mate-rooms have been cleared along the northern and eastern sides of
the parapet; their inner walls are 2 m wide. The southeastern and
northwestern towers, which protrude about 3 m from the wall's line, have
also been uncov-ered. It is not clear, however, if there is a fourth tower
at the northeastern corner.
Corner of the tower of the late Iron Age fortress, Stratum 4. With exterior
walls over 1 m in width, the square, 11 x 11 m tower occupies one of the
corners of the last Iron Age fortress at Haseva.
208 Biblical Archaeologist 57:4 (1994)
The fortress-gate stood near its north-eastern corner. The gate complex
mea-sures ca. 15 x 12.8 m. The western section has not yet been completely
exposed. The walls, ashlar-built, are preserved to a height of ca. 3 m and
are especially im-pressive in the quality of their construc-tion and state
of preservation. Between the gate's four piers (ca. 2.5 m in width), the
gate passageway narrows from 4.8 m on the outside to 4 m on the inside. Two
identical chambers, 2.5 x 3.3 m, stand on each side of the passageway, thus
demonstrating that this is a four-chambered gate, common in fortifica-tions
in Israel and Judah in the nintheighth centuries BCE (Stern 1990). This
gate resembles in plan the fot ti ess-gate at Tell el-Kheleifeh, differing
only in orientation: the 'En Haseva fortress-gate faces the road
approaching from the north, while the Tell el-Kheleifeh gate sits on the
southern side, facing the sea.
View of the end of the unexcavated part of the western gate, in section,
show-ing its well-preserved pier.
(Above.) The four-chambered gate to the fortress, Stratum 5, viewed from
the north through the gate into the fort. The gate complex covered an
impressive ca. 15 x 13 m, a size commensurate with the over-all dimensions
of the fort. Built according to a plan common throughout Israel and Judah
in the Iron Age, Haseva's gate most nearly resembles the fortress gate at
Tell el-Kheleifeh.
210 Biblical Archaeologist 57:4 (1994)
Technically speaking, the architecture at `En Haseva consists of two
principal parts. With its gate area, the northeastern section is similar in
plan and is alone as big as the Tell el-Kheleifeh foi Less. Re- mains of an
outer-gate are also being uncovered at En Haseva.
The plan of the fortress in this stratum is complex and unique, reflecting
archi-tectonic elements from two Iron Age fortress types: the square
fortress with a solid offset-inset wall, like the fortresses at Tel 'Arad
(Strata VII-IX) (Aharoni 1981:6-7), Tell el-Kheleifeh (Strata II-IV; Glueck
1939; Pratico 1985), and Horvat Toy (Cohen 1985; 1988/89a); and the
fortress with projecting towers, like the middle and upper fortresses at
Tel Kadesh-Barnea (Cohen 1981; 1983a) and the fot tiess at Horvat Uzza
(Beit-Arieh
1986), which is rectangular. It should be noted that the 'En Haseva
fortress in this stratum was surrounded by both a solid outer wall and a
row of casemate rooms.
This immense fortress is one of the largest known in the Negev and
adja-cent regions. It covers four times the area taken up by such
considerable fortresses as that at Tel 'Arad, Horvat Toy, Horvat Uzza, and
Tell el-Kheleifeh, coming close in size to fortified cities of this
period-Beersheva, for example, which also ex-tends over an area of about 1
hectare (2.5 acres; Aharoni 1973:75, 80).
During whose reign was the Stratum 5 fortress at 'En Haseva built? Thus
far, the scant ceramic material recovered makes it difficult to assign a
date. It was probably built in the eighth-seventh centuries BCE, during the
reigns of King Uzziah and his successors. An examina-tion of the relations
between Judah and Edom as they are described in the Bible reveals several
possibilities. Amaziah, the son of Joash, diligently fortified his kingdom
both from within and without, and, after he instituted reforms in the army,
went to war with Edom. He de-feated the Edomites in the Valley of Salt, in
the northern Arabah, and then went on to conquer Sela (2 Kgs 14:7). He
re-named it Joqte`el, and settled descen-dants from the Tribe of Judah
there. Wasthe large fortress at `En Haseva estab-lished during Amaziah's
rule, and was it from here that he set out against the Edomites? Or was the
foitiess built during the reign of his son Uzziah (2 Kgs 15:1), the
powerful and active king who "built Elot and restored it to Judah" (2 Kgs
14:22; 2 Chr 26:13)? Or perhaps this fot Ness was built during the reign of
Jehoshaphat when "there was no king in Edom, a deputy was king" (1 Kgs 22:
48), and when in an un-successful attempt to repeat Solomon's achievements,
"Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir for gold, but they did
not go, for the ships were wrecked at Ezion-geber" (1 Kgs 22:49; Bartlett
1989:115-116).
Casemate rooms in the wall of the central area of the Iron Age II fortress,
Stratum 5. The walls of Iron II Haseva combined solid offset-inset with
casemate wall construction. The walls enclosed the largest fort of the
Negev, equal in size to the regional adminis-tration center Beersheva.
Pottery vessels from the Iron Age II fortress, Stratum 5, include these
carinated bowls and oil lamp. Unfortunately, ceramic finds remain too scant
to permit accurate dating of the structure's construction.
Another possibility is that this fortress was established in the course of
the Israelite/Judahite retaliatory campaign against Mesha, King of Moab (2
Kgs 3:4-15), whose rebellion against the King of Israel is mentioned in the
Stele of Mesha (Bartlett 1989:116-122; Dearman 1989). The large Stratum 5
fortress may have served as the deployment center for this invasion. The
ground plan of the Stra-tum 5 fortress at `En Haseva has several features
in common with that of the for-tress uncovered at Tel Jezreel (Ussish-kin
and Woodhead 1992), an important administrative center in the Israelite
Kingdom.
The dimensions of the Stratum 5 for-tress at 'En Haseva and the evidence of
the intense building activity there reflect its strategic importance. It
sat on the road which followed the Arabah from north to south leading to
Elath and the Red Sea, and defended the area opposite the Edomite mountains
to the east. The resemblance between the plan of the 'En Haseva fortress
and that at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Strata II-HI) is not surprising since it
appears that both were built at the same time.
Summary
The finds from the Roman and Iron Age fortresses at 'En Haseva support
Aharoni's proposal to identify the site, which was a major fortress on the
south-eastern frontier of the Judaean Kingdom, both with biblical Tamar
(Ezek 47:19; 48:28) and with Tamara mentioned in the Roman and Byzantine
sources cited.
1 Kgs 9:17-18 states that "Solomon built Gezer, Beth-boron the Lower,
Baalath and Tamar in the wilderness, in the land." Some scholars believe a
mistake was made here and that, in fact, the reference is not to Tamar but
to Tadmor, referred to in the parallel description in 2 Chr 8:4: "Tadmor in
the wilderness" (Gray 1970:248-249). This problem will be solved if remains
dating to the time of Solomon are uncovered at 'En Haseva. This is likely,
given the parallel between the histories of 'En Haseva-Tamar and
Kadesh-Barnea. In Ezekiel, these two sites on the southern border of Israel
are mentioned in proximity.
The strategic location of `En Haseva-Tamar is obvious, sitting as it does
at the intersection of four major routes one leading south to Elath, one
traveling east to Edom, a third leading north to Jerusalem, and the fourth
leading west through Macaleh `Agrabim to the central Negev area. The
remains of the im-pressive fortresses testify to the impor-tance of the
site during the Iron Age and, later, in the Nabataean and Roman periods.
Aharoni believed that the sys-tem of road-fortresses was established during
the time of the First Temple peri-od in the Negev and the Arabah. These
1988/ 'En Haseva-1987. Excavations and 89b Surveys in Israel 7-8:52-53.
1991 'En F.laseva 1988/1989. Excavations
and Surveys in Israel 10:46-47.
Dearman, J.A.
1989 Historical Reconstruction and the Mesha Inscription. Pp. 155-210 in
Studies in the Mesha Inscription and Moab, edited by A. Dearman.
Archae-ology and Biblical Studies, 2. Atlanta: Scholars Press.
Eph'al, I.
1982 The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent:
9th-5th Centuries B.C. Leiden: E.J.Brill.
Eusebius
Onomasticon. E. Klostermann ed. Leipzig 1904.
Frank, E
1934 Aus der 'Araba I. Zeitschri ft des deutschen Palfilestina-Vereins
57:191-280.
Gichon, M.
1967 The Origin of the Limes Palaestinae and the Major Phases in its
Develop-ment. Pp. 175-193 in Studien zu den Mil itargrenzen Rams.
Koln-Graz: Bohlau Berlag.
1971 Das Kasten En Boqeq. Bonner
Jahrhucher 171:386-406.
1976 Excavations at Mezad Tamar "Tamara" 1973-75. Preliminary Re-port.
Saalburg-Jahrbuch XXXIII:80-94.
1980 Research on the Limes Palaestinae: A Stocktaking. Pp. 843-864 in Roman
Frontier Studies 1979. Papers Presented to the 12th International Congress.
British Archaeological Reports International. Series 71. Edited by Hanson,
WS. and Keppie, L.J.F. Oxford: BAR.
1986 Who were the Enemies of Rome on the Limes Palaestinae. Pp. 584-592 in
Studien zu den Militargrenzcn Roms III. 13th Internationaler Limeskongress,
Aalen 1983. Stuttgart: Kommissions Verlag K. Teiss.
Glueck, N.
1934- Explorations in Eastern Palestine, II. 1935 Annual of the American
Schools of
Oriental Research XV. New Haven:
ASOR.
1939 The Second Campaign at Tell el-Kheleifeh (Ezion-Geber: Elath).
Bul-letin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 75:8-22.
Graf, D.E.
1978 The Saracens and the Defense of the Arabian Frontier. Bulletin of the
Ameri-can Schools of Oriental Research 278:1-26.
1987 The Roman Road System of Arabia Petraea [Abstract, The 88th General
Meeting]. American Journal of Archaeol-ogy 91:319.
Gray, J.
1970 1 & II Kings: A Commentary. 2nd ed. Old Testament Library
Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Hammond, P.C.
1980 New Evidence for the Fourth Century CE. Destruction of Petra. Bulletin
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 238-65-67.
Mayerson, P.
1986 The Saracens and the Limes. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Re-search 262:35-47.
Meshel, Z.
1989 A Fort at Yotvata from the Time of Diocletian. Israel Exploration
Journal 39:228-238.
Miller, K.
1916 Itineraria Romana. Stuttgart: Strecker and Schrader.
Musil, A.
1907 Arabia Petraea II Edotn . Vienna: A. Holder.
Parker, S.T.
1985 Romans and Saracens: A History of the Arabian Frontier. ASOR
Dissertation Series 6. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Pracico, G.D.
1985 Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excava-tions at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A
Reap-praisal. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
259:1-32.
Ptolemaios
1932 Geographiae. Edited by J. Fisher Codex Urbinas Graecus 82.
Bibliothecae Vaticanae, Lipsia
Roll, I.
1989 A Latin Imperial Inscription from the Time of Diocletian Found at
Yotvata. Israel Exploration Journal 39:239-260.
Rothenberg, B.
1967 Negev. Archaeology in the Negev and the Arabah. Givatayim-Ramat Gan.
(He-brew).
Russell, K.W.
1980 The Earthquake of May 19,363 CE. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Orien-tal Research 238:47-64.
Seeck, 0, ed..
1876 Notitia Dignitatum. Berolini.
Stern, E.
1990 Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and under Assyrian Rule.
Israel Exploration Journal 40:12-30.
Ussishkin, D. and Woodhead, J.
1992 Excavations at Tel Jezree11990-1991: Preliminary Report. Tel Aviv
19:3-56.
Yeivin, S.
1960 Did the Kingdoms of Israel have a Maritime Policy? Jewish Quarterly
Review 50:193-228.
By Steve Rudd: Contact the author for comments, input or corrections.
Click to View
Go To Start: WWW.BIBLE.CA
|