The Negev "fortresses" in context: reexamining the "fortress" phenomenon in light of general settlement processes of the eleventh-tenth centuries B.C.E.

• Author: Faust, Avraham

INTRODUCTION

The Negev "fortresses" are a group of about sixty enclosed structures that have been discovered over the years in the Negev highlands. The "fortresses" have received a great deal of scholarly attention since they were first discovered by Woolley and Lawrence (1914-1915: 27-28, 40-43, 64-67), and especially since the 1950s, when the area was opened up for modern scholarship. Various schools have interpreted the structures as royal forts, settlements of nomads in the process of sedentarization, or a combination of these two. Moreover, even within these schools there has been a debate regarding the settlers' identity, and on the causes for the end of the phenomenon. This confusion merits a new discussion.

The aim of the present paper is to reexamine the "fortresses" phenomenon both through a new evaluation of older data and through exploring them within the broader settlement context of the eleventh-tenth centuries B.C.E.

THE NEGEV FORTRESSES: BACKGROUND

The "fortress" phenomenon comprises some sixty structures in the Negev highlands, stretching from Dimona in the northeast to Kadesh Barnea in the southwest. (1) Each building is composed of a system of casemate rooms encircling an open yard, and this appears to be the primary shared characteristic of the structures. Most "fortresses" are oval, and only a few are rectangular. It appears as if this is a result of the local topography; most forts are situated on hilltops, and the shape of these is usually oval. The overall size of the structures varies greatly, from about 217 to 3,500 [m.sup.2]. Still, the majority of the "fortresses" falls within 350 to 800 [m.sup.2]. Nor is there uniformity in the ratio of the built area versus courtyard area in the structures. In some of the "fortresses," usually the larger ones, the courtyard comprises more than eighty percent of the total area, whereas in other cases it might be less than forty percent. The width of the outer walls of the "fortresses" is also not uniform, but varies from 0.5 to 1.5 m. (for the data, see Finkelstein 1984). The finds within the "fortresses" consist mainly of pottery, of which two types predominate: (1) northern pottery, typical of the entire country during the Iron Age IIA (tenth century; for the chronology, see below); and (2) "Negbite" pottery, that is coarse, hand-made, and probably "local" ware. The precise percentage of each pottery type at the various sites varies greatly, but both types were found in all the structures. (2) Beyond the coexistence of these types of pottery, it is only the fact that all of the structures are made up of a system of casemate rooms built around a courtyard which makes them similar. Zeev Meshel correctly labeled these structures "casemate-ringed enclosures" (1994: 54).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The phenomenon itself has been known for a long time. Woolley and Lawrence, in 1914-15, were the first to observe some structures and identify them as fortresses. They dated them to the period of the kings of Judah and Israel and believed that they were intended to guard the Negev trade routes. As archaeological knowledge accumulated, it turned out that all the "fortresses" are contemporaneous, and that they were in use for only a very short period, around the tenth century B.C.E. (the period of the United Monarchy), or slightly earlier as others have argued (see more below). It also became apparent that these "fortresses" are concentrated in one part of the Negev highlands, and did not stretch all the way to Eilat. Moreover, as further excavations and surveys were carried out in the Negev, it became clear that the "fortresses" are only the tip of the iceberg, part of a much larger phenomenon, which includes a few hundred sites, most of which are of rural or pastoral nature (Haiman 1994; 2003b).

The total phenomenon includes about 1200 dwellings and some 360 animal pens. About 140 of these dwellings are well built, resembling those in the sedentary lands in the north of the country; about thirty of these are of the four-room house type, typical of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Only a few sites can be defined as hamlets, and the structures in these are usually scattered over a wide area. Some of the settlements, isolated dwellings, and pens are located near the "fortresses," but others are situated farther away (for more information, see Haiman 1994; 2003b).

The "Traditional View"

During the early stages of research, the construction of the "fortresses" was attributed by most scholars to the United Monarchy, and especially to Solomon (Meshel 1974; Cohen 1980; 1986; Haiman 1994; 2003b). Like Woolley and Lawrence, many viewed these structures as fortresses built to control the wild Negev. (The idea that they guarded the road to Eilat was gradually abandoned because of their limited distribution.) The final destruction and abandonment of the forts was usually connected to Shishak's campaign, since Shishak's famous list mentions some seventy sites in the Negev (Aharoni 1979a: 323-30). While there was (and is) agreement that the sites belong to a very short time span, some authorities dated the construction of the sites slightly earlier, and assigned them to the time of David or Saul (Meshel 1979b: 27-28). This was the consensus until the late 1960s.

The Nomadic Settlement School

In 1967 Beno Rothenberg suggested that these sites were neither forts nor Israelite (1967: 92-97). He claimed that the sites were settlements of desert nomads. He slightly raised the chronology, and dated them to Iron Age I, attributing their destruction mainly to David (as mentioned in I Chronicles 18; 12-13; Rothenberg 1967: 96). Rothenberg's suggestion turned out to be very influential. In the 1970s Aharoni (1979b: 215-16) wrote that the "fortresses" were the settlements of the tribe of Simeon, constructed in the period of the Judges, and that they were destroyed around 1000 B.C.E., probably by the Amalekites. In the late 1970s and early 1980s David Eitam followed Rothenberg and claimed that the forts are indeed nomad settlements, and should be dated to the eleventh century. He assigned their construction to the tribe of Simeon, and later to the Amalekites or the Edomites (1979; 1983; 1988, respectively). Eitam attributed their destruction to Saul (1980: 57) or to David (Eitam 1988: 334).

This approach was also taken by a few other authors, primarily by Israel Finkelstein, who became the most important and systematic proponent of the sedentarizing nomads view (1984; 1995a). He, too, dated the sites to the eleventh century and believed that they were constructed by the Amalekites (Finkelstein 1995a: 104, 125) and destroyed by Saul or David (1995a: 125). Finkelstein also presented the most comprehensive discussion of the phenomenon. According to him, the Negev witnessed a period of prosperity in Iron Age I, due to the growing importance of the Arabian trade. Some of the desert's inhabitants became richer, and they established permanent settlements in the Beersheba valley, and later also in the Negev highlands. The growth of settlement in the desert, however, coincided with the emergence of a neighbor to the north, the United Kingdom of Israel. The two polities came into collision, from which Israel emerged as the victor. The Negev settlements were either destroyed or abandoned (Finkelstein 1995a: 103-26; esp. 120-26). Finkelstein's view will be discussed in greater detail below. Notably, Finkelstein has recently altered his views (2002b), and while he still maintains the sedentarizing nomads scenario, he now believes that the agent of destruction was Shishak.

The reasons given by the sedentarizing nomads school for their rejection of the traditional view are:

1. As we have seen, there are no forts in the southern part of the Negev, but the sites are all concentrated in the central Negev highlands. If these forts were intended to protect the road to Eilat, we would expect to have found some in the southern Negev (Eitam 1979: 124; Finkelstein 1984: 195).

2. Even within the central Negev highlands, however, the distribution of the sites is not uniform. Sometimes several "forts" are situated in close proximity, while in other cases they have been built very far apart. No military logic can be recognized behind this dispersal (Finkelstein 1984: 190-92, 195-96; 1995a: 104-5; Eitam 1979: 127-28).

3. The walls are too thin to serve military purposes (Eitam 1979: 126; Finkelstein 1984: 193; 1995a: 105-7).

4. The form of the sites is irregular, not uniform in size or plan (Eitam 1979: 126; Finkelstein 1984: 193-94; 1995a: 107). Some have suggested that the size of the casemate enclosure is determined by the required size of the courtyard, which in turn resulted from the size of the herd for which it served as a pen (Finkelstein 1984: 194-95).

5. There is evidence for agricultural activity near or even in the "forts" (Eitam 1979: 126; 1980: 57; Finkelstein 1995a: 107-9).

6. The "forts" are just one aspect of a much larger phenomenon (Finkelstein 1984: 192). Many sites of an agricultural nature have been discovered in the region, and the "forts" seem to be part of this settlement phenomenon, which is civilian by nature. At any event, real forts would not be expected to have settlements attached to them (Eitam 1979: 126).

7. The "forts" are not located on the highest possible locations, and their military significance is therefore doubtful (Finkelstein 1984: 190; Meshel 1994: 57).

8. Large quantities of locally manufactured coarse handmade pottery ("Negbite ware") were unearthed at most of the sites, indicating that the settlers were local nomads (Eitam 1979: 128; 1980: 57; Herzog 1984: 26; see also Meshel 1994: 175; 2002; Mazar 1990: 394-95, 446; the same idea is also explicit in Finkelstein 1984: 200).

   Response to the Critics

   The interpretations set forth by the supporters of the sedentarizing nomads school initiated a heated debate. The responses to this view have varied. Some (Cohen, Haiman)...