volume 69 • number 2 jerusalem, israel • 2019biblewalks.com/files/raviv and zissu...

VOLUME 69 • NUMBER 2JERUSALEM, ISRAEL • 2019

ISRAEL EXPLORATION JOURNAL

Published twice yearly by the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University

The Israel Exploration Journal is published with the assistance of Ethan Grossman, Washington DC

FoundersA. Reifenberg, D. Amiran

Former EditorsMichael Avi-Yonah, Dan Barag, Jonas C. Greenfield, Baruch A. Levine, Amihai Mazar, Miriam Tadmor

Editorial BoardShmuel Aḥituv, Aren M. Maeir and Zeev Weiss, EditorsTsipi Kuper-Blau, Executive EditorJoseph Aviram, President, Israel Exploration Society

Editorial Advisory BoardGideon Avni, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Mordechai Cogan, Israel EphꜤal,Baruch A. Levine, Amihai Mazar, Ronny Reich, Myriam Rosen-Ayalon

IEJ is now available online on JSTOR

Email: [email protected] for review: Israel Exploration Journal, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 9107001,IsraelWebsite and guidelines: http://israelexplorationsociety.huji.ac.il

Copyright © 2019 Israel Exploration SocietyISSN 0021-2059

The Editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors

CONTENTS

129 NAAMA YAHALOM-MACK, NAVA PANITZ-COHEN, TZILLA ESHEL and ROBERT MULLINS: A Late Bronze IIB Silver Hoard from Tel Abel Beth Maacah

154 ANAT MENDEL-GEBEROVICH, YIFTAH SHALEV, EFRAT BOCHER, NITSAN SHALOM and YUVAL GADOT: A Newly Discovered Personal Seal and Bulla from the Excavations of the GivꜤati Parking Lot, Jerusalem

175 STÉPHANIE E. BINDER, MICHAEL LAZAR and EMMANUEL NANTET: Measurements and Shape of the Dead Sea in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods: Confronting Greek and Latin Sources with Modern Physiographical Data

195 MICHAEL ZELLMANN-ROHRER: Ticket to Ride? A Greek Ostracon from the Roman Fort at Arad Reconsidered

202 DVIR RAVIV and BOAZ ZISSU: The Arumah Fortress (Khirbet al-ꜤUrma): A Fortified Site from the Second Temple Period in Eastern Samaria

220 TEHILLAH LIEBERMAN, AVI SOLOMON and JOE UZIEL: Rolling the Dice in Aelia Capitolina: On the Discovery of Gaming Pieces Beneath Wilson’s Arch and Their Function within a Theatre-Like Structure

241 NOTES AND NEWS

249 REVIEWS

VOLUME 69 • NUMBER 2 • 2019

Page layout by Avraham PladotTypesetting by Irit Nachum, JerusalemPrinted by Old City Press, Jerusalem

ISRAEL EXPLORATION JOURNAL

Published twice yearly by the Israel Exploration Society and the Institute of

Archaeology of the Hebrew University, with the assistance of the Nathan

Davidson Publication Fund in Archaeology, Samis Foundation, Seattle WA,

and Dorot Foundation, Providence RI

Founders

A. Reifenberg, D. Amiran

Former Editors

Michael Avi-Yonah, Dan Barag, Jonas C. Greenfield, Baruch A. Levine,

Amihai Mazar, Miriam Tadmor

Editorial Board

Shmuel A¢ituv, Aren M. Maeir and Zeev Weiss, Editors

Tsipi Kuper-Blau, Executive Editor

Joseph Aviram, President, Israel Exploration Society

Editorial Advisory Board

Gideon Avni, Ofer Bar-Yosef, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Israel Ephªal,

Baruch A. Levine, Amihai Mazar, Ronny Reich, Myriam Rosen-Ayalon

IEJ is now available online on JSTOR

Email: [email protected]

Books for review: Israel Exploration Journal, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070,

Israel

Guidelines: http://israelexplorationsociety.huji.ac.il

Copyright © 2017 Israel Exploration Society

ISSN 0021-2059

The Editors are not responsible for opinions expressed by the contributors

ABBREVIATIONS

AASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research

ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

AJA American Journal of Archaeology

AfO Archiv für Orientforschung

ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament3, ed. J.B. Pritchard,

Princeton, 1969

BA The Biblical Archaeologist

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BT Babylonian Talmud

CAD Chicago Assyrian Dictionary

CIS Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum

DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

DSD Dead Sea Discoveries

EI Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies

ESI Excavations and Surveys in Israel

IAA Reports Israel Antiquities Authority Reports

IEJ Israel Exploration Journal

JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies

JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

KAI W. Donner and W. Röllig: Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften 1–3,

Wiesbaden, 1962–1964; 15, 2002

NEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (English

Edition), Jerusalem, 1993

PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

PT Palestinian Talmud

QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine

RA Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale

RB Revue Biblique

RE Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft

RQ Revue de Qumran

VT Vetus Testamentum

ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie

ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES

2017: $73 including postage or equivalent payable to

the Israel Exploration Society, P.O.B. 7041, Jerusalem 91070, Israel.

All subscribers are entitled to a 25% reduction on the publications of the Society.

Subscribers should give full name and postal address when paying their

subscription, and should send notice of change of address at least five weeks before

it is to take effect; the old as well as the new address should be given.

Single issue: $37 or equivalent.

ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION RATES2020: $73 including postage or equivalent payable toThe Israel Exploration Society, P.O.B 7041, Jerusalem 9107001, Israel.Email: [email protected] are entitled to a 25% reduction on the publications of the Society.Please give full name and postal address and notify IES of change of addressSingle issue: $37 or equivalent

202

The Arumah Fortress (Khirbet al-ꜤUrma): A Fortified Site from the Second Temple Period

in Eastern Samaria

Dvir Raviv Boaz ZissuBar-Ilan University

Ramat-Gan

ABSTRACT: Khirbet al-ꜤUrma is situated on the top of a prominent conical hill in eastern Samaria, about 7 km south of Shechem (Nablus). Scholars generally identify the site as Arumah — the home of Abimelech son of Gideon the Judge. In addition to its biblical identification, the site is of interest due to the remains of a Hasmonean-Herodian fortress consisting of a fortification wall, rectangular towers built in the Hellenistic style, and a series of large cisterns used to store rainfall runoff water. Such typical features, as well as the location on the top of a prominent hill, are characteristic of Second Temple period Judean forts and fortresses. This paper presents renewed archaeological documentation undertaken by the authors in 2009, following antiquities looting and uncontrolled development operations. The new data, its significance and historical background is presented and discussed in light of previous surveys undertaken in the 1980s by H. Eshel and Z. Erlich.

The fortified site at Khirbet al-ꜤUrma,1 or as it is generally known, the ‘Arumah fortress’, is situated at the summit of a high hill c. 7 km south of Nablus and 2 km south of Itamar (ITM 23047/67275) (fig. 1). The hill (a mound 843 m above sea level) overlooks its surroundings and offers a view extending all the way to the Mediterranean Sea, the hills of GileꜤad, the Bethel highlands and Mt. Hermon (fig. 2). The deep channel of Wadi Yanun (upper Naḥal Qanah) passes the foot of the site to the north, and an ancient road from Shechem to the Jordan Valley ran along the length of the wadi. The mound is surrounded by steep slopes on three sides — all but the south, where it is connected by a ridge to the rest of the mountain range. Scholars generally identify the site as the biblical city of Arumah, mentioned once in the Bible as the home of Abimelech the son of Gideon (Judges 9:41).2

1 The Survey of Western Palestine referred to the place as el-ꜤOrmeh (Conder and Kitchener 1882: 387; SWP map, sheet XV), whereas the Mandatory map (1:20000) calls it Kh. al-ꜤUrma (ꜤAqraba, sheet 18–17, 1941). The latter is the name we use in the present paper.

2 This identification was proposed in the nineteenth century (e.g., van de Velde 1854: 303; 1858: 288; Guérin 1969: 2–3) and was accepted by scholars without exception

IEJ 69 (2019): 202 ‒ 219

THE ARUMAH FORTRESS (KHIRBET AL-ꜤURMA) 203

The first detailed documentation of the site, including a map of the visible ruins, was produced in the mid-1960s by the Shechem expedition, headed by Edward F. Campbell (1968: 49–52). The expedition’s members documented a system of fortifications that had been preserved mainly in the southern portion of the hill, three cisterns, a glacis and a moat that cuts off the mound on which the fortress is located from the rest of the spur to the south. In that survey and in the emergency survey (Kallai 1972: 168, site 32), attempts were made to confirm that this is the biblical Arumah, and therefore no emphasis was placed on ruins from the Second Temple period. In the early 1980s, the site was surveyed by Israel Finkelstein and his team (Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997: 805–808). They collected pottery ranging from the Early Bronze Age to the Roman period, including the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods, as previous surveys had done. In the mid-1980s, the site was surveyed by Hanan Eshel and Zeev H. Erlich, who were the first to notice how similar this location and its ruins are to the desert fortresses of the Hasmonean and Herodian periods (Eshel and Erlich 1988). They re-documented the fortifications and the water-supply system, including six large cisterns with a total capacity of more than 5000 m3, connected by a channel. In addition, they found nine coins: one of Demetrius II, one of John Hyrcanus I and seven of Alexander Jannaeus. This paper — an expansion and update of the work of Eshel and Erlich — presents documentation from a survey of the site in 2009.3 The survey found that the site had recently been severely damaged by development work, quarrying and the use of heavy equipment for road-building as part of the construction of a solar power station by the Palestinian Authority. That work uncovered various remains, including the openings of four additional cisterns that had been closed until then

(e.g., Abel 1938: 251; Avi-Yonah 1940: 24; Rainey and Notley 2006: 139; McKinny and Tavger 2017: 17*–18*). Interestingly, H.C. Stewardson, who compiled the index of names for the monumental publication of the SWP, translated the name of the site as ‘the dam’ (Stewardson 1888: 258), apparently associating the Arabic place name with the water-supply system (see below), instead of connecting it with biblical Aruma. Note also the semantic relationship between al-ꜤUrma and the Greek έρυμα, a term used by Josephus for the fortresses at Herodium, Machaerus, Masada and Cypros (see detailed references in the table in Guri-Rimon 1996: 16). Another fortified site with a similar name (Kh. ꜤErma) was documented by the SWP expedition (Conder and Kitchener 1883: 48–52) near a bend in Naḥal Sorek in the Jerusalem hills; that site is also known as Kh. er-Ras. It is tempting to hypothesize that the Arabic al-ꜤUrma is a distortion of the Greek word.

3 Baruch Odesser, Barak Ackerman, Shmuel Buchnik, Maor Dotan, Or Zehavi, Yaakov Tavger, Yehoshua Carmel, Yair Sapir, Eitan Klein and Elimelech Ron-Tal took part in the survey. Most of the photographs in this paper were taken by Yoram Hofman (BibleWalks). Our thanks are extended to them all. This paper was written with the support of the Rotenstreich and Koschitzky Funds of the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology at Bar-Ilan University.

DVIR RAVIV AND BOAZ ZISSU204

and whose shape resembles that of the previously known cisterns. In the wake of the damage caused by the mechanical equipment, antiquities thieves conducted systematic excavations of the cisterns and the rest of the site. We mapped the unearthed ruins (fig. 3), measured the cisterns and took photographs. In this article we present the main ruins documented by us and discuss the significance of the finds and their historical background.

Fig. 1. ꜤAqraba region map, showing the location of Arumah

Fig. 2. Bird’s eye view of the fortress hill (view to the north; photograph by Yoram Hofman)


Fig. 3. The ruins of the Arumah fortress: plan


DESCRIPTION OF THE RUINS OF THE FORTRESS

The FortificationsFortifications were built to supplement the unusual natural fortification of the site. Most of the fortifications preserved are at the southern end of the hill, the weak point of the fortress. They include two towers and a wall, built mainly out of ashlar blocks placed in a pattern of alternating headers and stretchers. This pattern, typical of the Hellenistic period in Palestine, is familiar from the Hasmonean-period First Wall in Jerusalem and from other sites, including the round towers in Samaria and the Alexandrion Fortress (Sarṭaba). The pattern is also seen in Hellenistic architectural ruins — mostly of military, government and public buildings — in Asia Minor and elsewhere (for a bibliography, see Tsafrir 1980: 29–40). The construction style makes it possible to date most of the ruins of the fortifications at Arumah to the Hasmonean period. The rectangular towers (15 × 12 m and 11 × 6 m) are made of large ashlar blocks (1.2 × 0.5 m) with drafted margins and a prominent rough boss, sometimes, but not always, with alternating headers and stretchers (fig. 4). South of the towers is a wall (c. 30 m long) with two clearly discernible construction styles: the lower part is made of worked stones, while the top (slightly to the north) is made of ashlar blocks with drafted margins and a prominent boss like the towers (fig. 5). It is impossible to determine with certainty whether these two styles represent different chronological stages of construction or whether they are technical stages in which the lower part serves as the foundation for the upper, presumably visible,

Fig. 4. Section of the northern wall of the eastern tower (photograph by Yoram Hofman)


part. One section at the bottom of the wall south of the towers (at the western end) was constructed differently. It is made of medium-sized ashlar blocks (0.6 × 0.3 m), also with drafted margins and a prominent boss; the stones are not placed in a regular pattern except for one course of headers (fig. 6). This seems to be a relatively late addition, perhaps from the time of Herod. The presence of a section of ashlar blocks here reinforces the possibility that some of the lower part of the wall was visible; it may have been added to the southern fortifications as a forewall (a sort of proteichisma). Emerging from the eastern tower is a wall made of large worked stones surrounding the fortress mound on all sides. The ruins of this wall can be seen today on the eastern and northern sides of the mound. The entrance gate to the fortified compound was apparently in the southwestern

Fig. 5. The southern wall; note upper and left-hand (western) parts, made of ashlar blocks with drafted margins (photograph by Yoram Hofman)

Fig. 6. The western end of the southern wall (photograph by Dvir Raviv)


corner of the mound, west of the fortifications (at the location of today’s access path).

The Water Supply SystemThe most impressive element of the Second Temple period ruins is the water supply system. By 2009 six large rock-cut cisterns in the western slope of the hill were known (nos. 1–2, 4, 7–9 in fig. 3). Development work carried out in 2009 cut into the western slope, precisely along the line of the openings of the cisterns. This led to the discovery of the openings of four additional cisterns (nos. 3, 5–6, 10), which had previously been closed (fig. 7). The ten cisterns were cut in soft chalk of the Kefar Shaul formation. They are rectangular or trapezoidal in shape, with a rock-cut stepped dromos and a rectangular opening on the narrow side near the slope. Noteworthy are the uniform shape and size of the cistern openings and dromoi, as well as the uniform distance (15–17 m) between openings.4 The

4 Interestingly, the distance from the opening of cistern 7 to the opening of cistern 8 is 32.5 m. This may suggest the existence of another cistern between them (15.5 m + 1.5 m [width of the dromos] + 15.5 m). Where the hypothesized opening of the

Fig. 7. The opening of cistern 6, recently exposed during development work (photograph by Boaz Zissu)


exception is cistern 9, composed of four small bell caves reminiscent in shape of the Iron Age wine cellars at Tel Gibeon. The small sealable opening in the cave roof was intended to maintain the uniform cool temperature vital to the fermentation of grape juice. In the Second Temple period the bell caves were converted into a large cistern by removal of the interior walls. The size of the cisterns is noteworthy: almost 25 m long in some places (figs. 8–9). Their average dimensions are as follows: length — 19.3 m; width of the wall containing the opening — 7 m; width of the wall opposite the opening — 10 m; estimated height — 8.5 m. The average capacity of the cisterns is 1,650 m3, and their total capacity is estimated at 15,000 m3 (table 1; fig. 10). The cisterns were carved out in a manner adapted to the local rock: flaws and stable protuberances in the rock were left in place and ‘wrapped’ in a thick layer of plaster. The cistern floors and walls were plastered, but the ceilings were not. Two layers of plaster were applied at different times; they belong to types I,1 and I,2 in Porath’s catalogue and are dated to the Hasmonean and Herodian periods (Porath 2002: 35). Horizontal lines on the plaster on the walls — some of them very high up — indicate the water levels and attest to the large amount of water actually stored in the cisterns. The ease of carving the cisterns may explain their number and size relative to the size of the fortress. They were designed to hold a large quantity of surface runoff trapped in canals and brought in via a central plastered, constructed channel (60 cm wide), whose ruins, including a stone supporting wall, were found mainly between the cistern openings. The central channel is mostly unroofed, except for the northern part, which is roofed with stone slabs. The organized nature of this complex of cisterns (identical in shape and dimensions and with a fixed distance between their openings) indicates that they were all carved at the same time. Given the large amount of water contained in them, it seems that in addition to the drainage of rainwater from roofs of buildings and yards on the fortress hill, surface runoff was collected from the mound to the south. The area of that mound, which is at an elevation of 824 m (the level of the cistern openings), is estimated at 8.5 hectares — six times the area of the fortress mound. In our survey of the ridge and of the southern mound we discovered parts of rock-cut channels that may also have been intended for transporting water. The difference in elevation between the cistern openings and the ridge is only 3–4 m, which could easily be overcome by building an embankment or an arch bridge bearing a water channel or ceramic pipe, but nothing has survived that would attest to this. The effort invested in creating the cisterns was apparently deemed worthwhile in order to ensure an adequate water supply year round for the inhabitants of the fortress, located on the edge of a desert. Average annual precipitation in this region

additional cistern would be there is a small mound c. 2 m in diameter; consequently, we cannot confirm this hypothesis without excavation.


Fig. 8. Cistern 3, viewed from the opening

Fig. 9. Cistern 3: view of the opening


Table 1. Data on the Arumah fortress cisterns

No. (letters in parentheses: denotation in Eshel and Erlich 1988)

Coordinates of the opening (ITM)

Length (m) Width (m) Estimated height (m)

Capacity (m3)

1 (A) 230463/672638 24/20 10.5/7.5 10 25002 (B) 230464/672659 16.5 8.5/6 8 10003 230464/672677 23/21.5 13.5/7 12 35004 (C) 230465/672692 17.5/15.5 8.5/6 8 10005 230475/672710 20/17 11/8.5 11 23006 230487/672737 19/20 10.5/8.5 7 13007 (D) 230489/672743 17 8.5/6.5 6 8008 (E) 230509/672764 18/19 10.5/6.5 9 15009 (F) 230532/672764 L-shaped (3.5 × 3 + 4 × 8) 4 15010 230553/672739 17.5/17 9/6.5 6–7 900Average 19.5/18 10/7 8.5 1650

Fig. 10. The cisterns: plan


is 400–450 mm, and there are no permanent water sources available nearby.5 The large cisterns were therefore intended to supply the daily needs of the fortress and even to enable it to survive a prolonged siege. They are similar in shape and location to the cisterns that collected surface runoff in Second Temple period fortresses in the Judaean Desert and in populated areas of Judaea — Alexandrion, Artabba, Dok, Hyrcania (in its Hasmonean phase), Kh. el-Ḥammam, Kefira, Masada and Cypros (in its Hasmonean phase).6

The shared typology of the waterworks in royal fortresses, the uniform shape of the cisterns, the arrangement of the cisterns on the slopes of a hill and the quality of the plastering (which, as aforementioned, consists of two clear layers, the earlier dated to the late Hellenistic period) enable us to state that the cisterns at Arumah were carved out in the Hasmonean period and remained in use in the Herodian era.

StrongholdsThe Land of Ephraim Survey included three sites near Arumah that can be regarded as ‘forward operating bases’ for the fortress in the Second Temple period: Kh. Sharab (ITM 22872/67468), Kh. Muwasi (ITM 23105/67284) and an unnamed site referred to as 18-17/02/02 (ITM 23070/67216) (for descriptions of the sites, see Finkelstein, Lederman and Bunimovitz 1997: 712, 809–810, 813–814). Each of the three sites contains a fortified square building and pottery from the Hellenistic and Early Roman periods. These sites are located near the routes of the ancient roads leading from ꜤAqraba and Shechem to the fortress (fig. 1).7 One of them, 18-17/02/02, is situated c. 450 m southeast of the fortress, near a wide ridge from which the main road to the fortress ascended. A 2013 survey found that the site had recently been damaged by antiquities thieves, who uncovered several walls of the main building and a group of nearby caves. The building (25 × 20 m) is made of worked stones and ashlar blocks of a size and shape reminiscent of the fortifications at Arumah. The surrounding wall is 1.2 m

5 The Hasmonean and Herodian periods were among the most humid and rainiest periods in the past 5,000 years (see, e.g., Bookman et al. 2003: 563, fig. 7; Orland et al. 2009: 32, fig. 6C). Annual precipitation in the hilly regions of Palestine in those periods is estimated at 1,200–1,300 mm — double the present amount (for a lower estimation, see Morin et al. 2018). This certainly affected natural conditions in the vicinity of the fortress and the prosperity of settlements in border and desert regions (see, e.g., Issar and Makover-Levin 1995).

6 For details on the various sites, see Amit, Patrich and Hirschfeld 2002; for features of Judaean water systems in the Second Temple period, see Garbrecht and Peleg 1994; Kloner 2005.

7 Interestingly, a similar system of strongholds has been documented around Alexandrion Fortress (Zertal 2005: sites 154, 156, 168, 172, 199).


thick, and there is a square tower in the southwestern corner of the structure. A large cistern (7 × 7 m; at least 6 m deep), the walls of which are coated with grey plaster typical of the Early Roman period, was found north of the structure. North of the assemblage of structures and next to the cistern there is a series of rock-cut caves containing potsherds dated to the Early Roman period. About 100 m southwest of the site are two loculus tombs. Based on the data from the site, we can propose that in the first stage (the end of the Hasmonean period and the reign of Herod), a stronghold or fortified farmhouse stood at the site, overlooking the access roads to the Hasmonean-Herodian fortress, and in the second stage (first through fourth centuries CE), a farmhouse stood there.

Additional Remains at the Site and in the VicinityThe remains of an ancient road were discovered southeast of the fortress, linking the fortress with ꜤAqraba. West of the road, c. 150 m south-southeast of the fortress, an ancient quarry was found (ITM 32056/67243). Southeast of the quarry, on the route of the ancient road (ITM 180603/172403), is a large rock-cut cave (6.5 × 4 m; c. 2.5 m high). Signs of quarrying are visible inside the cave, which was apparently used as a quarry for building stones, among other purposes. On the northern slope of the hill of this site is a loculus tomb (ITM 18064/17202). A storage pit was found on the eastern slope (ITM 23057/67265).

THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE FORTRESS

The natural features of the site, including its unusual natural fortifications, control of a main road and soft, easily carved rock, led to the rise of an important settlement here in antiquity. The ruins and other finds are indicative of a fortified site of regional importance, where a settlement existed almost continuously from the Early Bronze Age to the Early Roman period. Its importance in the Iron Age is reflected by the biblical reference to Abimelech the son of Gideon (Judges 9:41) and the archaeological finds, including a winery and a large quantity of pottery from this period. It seems that the site was first turned into a fortress surrounded by a glacis in the Iron Age, or perhaps even earlier. The site flourished most significantly in the late Hellenistic period (late second century to the first half of the first century BCE), when a large Hasmonean fortress was built there. On the basis of the distribution of the pottery seen at the site, we estimate the area of the late Hellenistic settlement as 3 hectares, 0.8 hectares of which constitute the walled mound, forming a sort of acropolis. Additional buildings (and rock-cut caves, including a burial cave with loculi) were built around the fortified compound, especially to the north, and a peripheral defence system of strongholds may have been built as well. The water storage system of Arumah, dated to the Hasmonean period, is the largest known Hasmonean water installation. Its ability to supply the fortress with more than 15,000 m3 of water


puts it on a par with other impressive building projects of the Second Temple period. The historical background for the construction of the fortress seems to have been the conquest of central Samaria (Shechem, Mt. Gerizim and Samaria) by John Hyrcanus in 112–108 BCE (Josephus, Ant. 13.255–256, 275–281; War 1.63–65). This led to a substantial change in the northern border of Judaea. The new border passed through the vicinity of Shechem and Naḥal Qanah, and the ꜤAqraba district was annexed to Judaea. The proximity of the fortress to the city of ꜤAqraba (3 km), the capital of the northern district of Judaea in the Second Temple period, is noteworthy.8 This proximity led Eshel and Erlich to term it ‘the Fortress of ꜤAqraba in Kh. Urmeh’ (Eshel and Erlich 1988). Although the annexation of ꜤAqraba is not mentioned explicitly in sources referring to the Hasmonean period,9 the ruins of the Arumah fortress, near ꜤAqraba (as well as additional Hasmonean period fortifications documented in the region; see below), constitute distinct evidence of this annexation in that period. Furthermore, data from the surveys and excavations indicate flourishing settlements in the ꜤAqraba district and its vicinity in the Hasmonean period (Raviv 2018a: 44–47). In addition to Arumah, the fortified sites dated to the Hasmonean period (especially the reign of Jannaeus) include the royal fortress at Alexandrion (Sarṭaba)10 and several strongholds and fortified compounds.11 These sites made it possible for dozens or even hundreds of fighters to hold out for long periods of time; they had enough space to store water, food and weapons, and in some cases they even held some of the royal treasures (Ant. 13.417). The fortified sites were presumably intended to help establish Jewish settlements in conquered regions and to defend the northern border of Judaea from the hostile Samaritan population, Seleucid forces (e.g., the army of Demetrius III) and Roman troops who threatened Hasmonean rule

8 For references to ꜤAqraba and identification of the site, see Tsafrir, Di Segni and Green 1994: 57; Elitzur 2009: 61–64. Ancient ꜤAqraba is generally identified with the nucleus of the Arab village of ꜤAqraba. There is little archaeological evidence there from the Second Temple period due to later construction (for a summary of the archaeological information, see Raviv 2018b: 149).

9 Other than hints in the Book of Jubilees 29:14 and Judith 7:18. For a discussion of the subject, see Bar-Kochva 2002: 8–28.

10 Interestingly, Aruma and Alexandrion are not within sight of each other, but both can be seen from ꜤAqraba.

11 Among the strongholds are a fortified Hasmonean structure on the slopes of Mt. Gerizim (Magen 2005: 241–242), a Hasmonean garrison at the top of Mt. Gerizim (Magen 2008: 171) and perhaps a fortified structure at Kh. Halas, dated to the first century BCE and uncovered beneath a fortified monastery from the Byzantine period (Sion 1995: 51). In addition, a series of fortified compounds in western Samaria have been documented, including Kh. Firdusi, ꜤAzun, Kh. et-Tel (Haris), Kafr Lakif and Kafr Zur (Dar 1986: 217–223).


(Regev 2000: 128). The geographical properties of the Arumah fortress, including unusual natural fortifications and proximity to the district capital, to the northern border of Judaea and to the main road linking the Jewish and Samaritan regions, enabled it to fulfil a variety of roles, both administrative (e.g., tax collection and logistical assistance to the district capital or to new settlements) and military (e.g., protecting the borders and roads and providing internal security). The fortress may have been used by the troops of Aristobulus II and his son Alexander toward the end of the Hasmonean period until Herod was able to consolidate his power (Regev 2000: 124). In the late first century BCE, the fortress, like the other Judaean fortresses, came into the hands of Herod and it presumably played an important role in preventing disturbances between Jews and Samaritans (Eshel and Erlich 1988: 23–24). The fortress, along with other fortresses established/strengthened throughout the kingdom, may also have helped to prevent an uprising by Jews. Apparently, Herod was successful in these efforts: there was no serious uprising by either Jews or Samaritans during his reign. Furthermore, the desert climate in the ꜤAqraba region and its relative distance from the centres of government in Jerusalem and on the coastal plain were an ideal environment for fighters, rebels and brigands. For example, local rebels could have moved around fairly easily in the region and have received assistance from local residents, whereas an organized army would have encountered difficulties due to the climate and topography (for a detailed description of natural conditions in the ꜤAqraba region, see Safrai 1986: 135–141). Given the strategic location of the fortress, its fortifications and its vast waterworks (a rare commodity in the desert region of ꜤAqraba), we can assume that it played a part in the events of the Great Revolt and the years preceding it. These events, including Eleazar ben Dinai’s actions against the hostile Samaritans, the appointment of Yohanan ben Hanania as commander of the ꜤAqrabim district, the takeover of the region by Simon bar Giora and finally its conquest by Vespasian, are described at length by Josephus (War 2.235, 568, 4.503–513, 551). Presumably, due to these events and the intensity of Jewish opposition to the Roman troops, the region suffered more severe damage during the Great Revolt than other parts of Judaea. This may explain the relative paucity of finds in the ꜤAqraba region and especially at the Arumah fortress, from the period between the revolts and from the time of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, despite its suitability as a base or headquarters for fighters in the region. The Arumah fortress is only one of several fortified sites from the Second Temple period documented in recent years in the populated parts of Judaea and Samaria. The most prominent sites in this group are Tel Kefira in the Benjamin region (Amit and Eshel 2002), the Artabba fortress in southern Samaria (Raviv 2018c), Kh. el-Ḥammam (Narbata) in northern Samaria (Zertal 2002), Kh. Tura in the Jerusalem hills (Zissu 2008), Kh. Ḥusham in the Judaean Shephelah (Klein and Zissu 2014) and Kh. Jumjum in the northern Hebron hills (Meir and Zissu


2010). These sites have features similar to those of the desert fortresses, including strategic, isolated location, fortifications and large cisterns. Despite its size and the impressive ruins, this site — like most of the fortresses located in the settled parts of Judaea — does not seem to be mentioned in sources from the Second Temple period.12 Apparently this is due to their ‘grey’ (military/administrative) role, in contrast to the royal desert fortresses, all of which are mentioned. One source indicating the existence of numerous fortresses not mentioned by name is Josephus’ Ant. (13.417–427). According to this account, Queen Salome entrusted her fortresses to her sons, and her son Aristobulus then seized all 22 of them immediately thereafter. Such fortresses have been discovered only in the past 30 years, and more will presumably be found in the future.

REFERENCES

Abel, F.M.1938 Géographie de la Palestine II, Paris

Alexander, T. and Dan, Y.1972 The Complete ‘Midrash VayisaꜤu’, in Ben-Ami, I. (ed.), Folklore Research

Center Studies 3, Jerusalem: 67–76 (Hebrew)

Amit, D. and Eshel, H.2002 The Water-Supply System of Horvat Kefira, in Amit, Patrich and Hirschfeld

2002: 417–422

Amit, D., Patrich, J., and Hirschfeld, Y.2002 (eds.), The Aqueducts of Israel, Portsmouth RI

Avi-Yonah, M.1940 Map of Roman Palestine, London

Bar-Kochva, B.2002 The Conquest of Samaria by John Hyrcanus: The Pretext for the Siege, Jewish

Settlement in the ꜤAkraba District, and the Destruction of the City of Samaria, Cathedra 106: 7–34 (Hebrew)

Bookman (Ken-Tor), R., Enzel, Y., Agnon, A. and Stein, M.2003 Late Holocene Lake Levels of Dead Sea, Geological Society of America

Bulletin 116: 555–571

12 Lurie proposed identifying the place with Aram, which is mentioned in the version of Yalkut Shimoni in Midrash Va-yissaꜤu (Lurie 1948: 347). This version also appears in the edition of Alexander and Dan (1972). Although the geographical and archaeological features of the site may be consistent with this proposed identification, the existence of other versions makes this proposal highly doubtful (for additional versions and other suggestions, see Safrai 1987: 617–618).


Campbell, E.F. 1968 The Shechem Area Survey, BASOR 190: 19–41

Conder, C.R. and Kitchener, H.H.1882 The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs II. Samaria, London1883 The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs III. Judaea, London

Dar, S.1986 Landscape and Pattern: An Archaeological Survey of Samaria 800 B.C.E.–636

C.E., Oxford

Elitzur, Y.2009 Ancient Toponyms in the Land of Israel: Preservation and History, Jerusalem

(Hebrew)

Eshel, H. and Erlich, Z.H.1988 The Fortress of Aqraba in Kh. Urmeh, Cathedra 47: 17–24 (Hebrew)

Finkelstein, I., Lederman, Z. and Bunimovitz, S.1997 Highlands of Many Cultures: The Southern Samaria Survey, Tel Aviv

Garbrecht, G. and Peleg, Y.1994 The Water Supply of the Desert Fortresses in the Jordan Valley, BA 57: 161–

170

Guérin, V.1969 Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine:

Samarie, Amsterdam

Guri-Rimon, O.1996 Treasure Houses and Administrative Centers: The Primary Purpose of the

Desert Strongholds, Cathedra 82: 7–16 (Hebrew)

Issar, A. and Makover-Levin, D.1995 Flourishing and Abandonment of the Desert Settlements during the Roman-

Byzantine Period: ‘A Climatic Change’ Point of View, Michmanim 8: 17–22 (Hebrew)

Kallai, Z.1972 The Land of Benjamin and Mt. Ephraim, in Kochavi, M. (ed.), Judaea, Samaria

and the Golan: Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem: 153–193

Klein, E. and Zissu, B.2014 Excavation and Survey at Hurbat Husham in the Judean Foothills and Its

Possible Identification with Thamnata, One of Bacchides’ Fortresses, in Baruch, E. and Faust, A. (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem 20, Ramat-Gan: 141–183 (Hebrew)


Kloner, A.2005 Water Cisterns in Idumaea, Judaea and Nabatea in the Hellenistic and Early

Roman Periods, In Binos Actus Lumina 2: 129–148

Lurie, B.1948 The Border between Judaea and Samaria during the Second Temple Period,

Molad 1/6: 340–348 (Hebrew)

Magen, Y.2005 Flavia Neapolis: Shechem in the Roman Period, Jerusalem2008 Mount Gerizim Excavations II: A Temple City, Jerusalem

McKinny, C. and Tavger, A.2017 The Abimelech Episode and the Identification of Beth-Millo, In the Highland’s

Depth 7: 11*–33*

Meir, E. and Zissu, B.2010 Archaeological Excavations at Khirbet Jamjum (Gush Etzion): A Fortified

Settlement and Remains of Pottery Production from the Roman and Byzantine Periods — 2008 Season, in Billig, M. (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies 19, Ariel: 113–124 (Hebrew)

Morin, E., Ryb, T., Gavrieli, I. and Enzel, Y.2018 Mean, Variance and Trends of Levant Precipitation over the Past 4500

Years from Reconstructed Dead Sea Lake Levels and Sstochastic Modeling, Quaternary Research 89–90: 1–17

Orland, I.J., Bar-Matthews, M., Kita, N.T., Ayalon, A., Matthews, A. and Valley, J.W.2009 Climate Deterioration in the Eastern Mediterranean as Revealed by Ion

Microprobe Analysis of a Speleothem that Grew from 2.2 to 0.9 ka in Soreq Cave, Israel, Quaternary Research 71: 27–35

Porath, Y.2002 Hydraulic Plaster in Aqueducts as a Chronological Indicator, in Amit, Patrich

and Hirschfeld 2002: 25–36

Rainey, A.F. and Notley, R.S.2006 The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, Jerusalem

Raviv, D.2018a The Settlement in South Samaria during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods

According to Archaeological Surveys I: Analysis of the Findings and Historical Conclusions (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University; Hebrew), Ramat- Gan

2018b The Settlement in South Samaria during the Hellenistic and Roman Periods According to Archaeological Surveys II: The Corpus of Sites (unpublished Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University; Hebrew), Ramat-Gan


2018c The Artabba Fortress: An Unknown Hasmonean-Herodian Fortress on the Northern Border of Judaea, IEJ 68: 56–76

Regev, E.2000 Why Did Aristobulus and His Son Alexander Fortify Alexandrion-Sartaba? in

Schwartz, J., Amar, Z. and Ziffer, I. (eds.), Jerusalem and Eretz Israel: Arie Kindler Volume, Jerusalem: 119–132 (Hebrew)

Safrai, Z.1986 The Samaria Massif: A History of Settlement in the Roman and Byzantine

Periods, in Dar, S. and Safrai, Z. (eds.), Shomron Studies, Tel Aviv: 127–1811987 Midrash VaisꜤau: The War of Jacob’s Sons in Southern Samaria, Sinai 100:

613–627 (Hebrew)

Sion, O.1995 Kh. Halas, Ḥadashot Arkheologiyot 103: 50–51 (Hebrew)

Stewardson, H.C.1888 The Survey of Western Palestine: A General Index, London

Tsafrir, Y.1980 The Site of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem, Cathedra 14: 17–40 (Hebrew)

Tsafrir, Y., Di Segni, L. and Green, J.1994 Tabula Imperii Romani: Iudaea Palaestina: Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic,

Roman and Byzantine Periods: Maps and Gazetteer, Jerusalem

van de Velde, C.W.M.1854 Narrative of a Journey through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852 II,

Edinburgh1858 Memoir to Accompany the Map of the Holy Land, Gotha

Zertal, A.2002 The Water System of Khirbet el-Hammam (Narbata), in Amit, Patrich and

Hirschfeld 2002: 413–4162005 The Manasseh Hill Country Survey IV: From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba, Tel

Aviv (Hebrew)

Zissu, B. 2008 The Hellenistic Fortress at Ḥorvat Tura and the Identification of Tur Shimon,

IEJ 58: 171–196

volume 69 • number 2 jerusalem, israel • 2019biblewalks.com/files/raviv and zissu...

Documents