395:
military role, this is not necessarily the case, as is evident by the paucity of military finds. Isaac's criticism of Gichon's theories regarding the Roman deployment in southern
Palestine is shared by other scholars as well. Magness marks the homogeneity of the ceramic finds at Upper Zohar, the vast majority of which post-date the mid-6th century, as indicative that Upper Zohar was only occupied in the middle of that century. It could not have been part of any system of defence, often attributed to Diocletian's military and administrative reforms. Like other forts in the region, Upper Zohar is too small to support any sizeable garrison. These were apparently not intended to provide defense against a strong opponent. Rather, they were police posts and lookouts protecting travelers, pilgrims and trade along the road. These forts are evidence for a concentrated effort on the part of the government to police the local road system. Upper Zohar and other such forts may have been constructed on a local rather than imperial initiative, with the purpose of safeguarding the road. They were likely constructed for economic rather than military reasons.
255:
walls was provided by a pair of staircases on the northern and southern walls. In the middle of the courtyard, which is roughly 17 meters squared, stood a cistern sunk into the bedrock. The cistern was circular, 3.75 meters in diameter and 5 meters deep. On the eastern side of the courtyard stood three rooms, although the northern and southern rooms were demolished at some point, leaving a sole room that may have served as a chapel. The fortlet's gateway, roughly 2 meters wide, stood in the middle of the western wall. At some point a wall was built from the tower at the north-western corner of the fort, past the gateway and parallel to the wall. This perhaps served as shelter for animals.
28:
35:
356:
Based on the numismatic and ceramic finds, Harper dated the construction of Upper Zohar only to the late 5th century. The initial occupation had apparently been cleaned out some time in the early 6th century, eventually falling into disuse by the early 7th century, when it was finally abandoned. The
394:
disagree with Parker, noting that
Justinian's reign may have, in fact, witnessed a surge in military building activity in the region. According to Isaac, however, nothing justifies describing Upper Zohar as any part of a system of defense. Although a structure of this type is assumed to have had a
254:
both on the inside and outside. Laid in a shallow foundation, they were set using wet earth and filled with small rubble. Each corner tower was approximately 4 x 4.5 meters, and contained both a lower and upper level. Their walls were preserved up to a height of 3 meters. Access to the top of the
282:
and
Cypriot Red Slip. The datable pottery was dominated by sixth-century types, several known to continue into the 7th century. No example dating from earlier than the late 5th century was found, including those found within the fortlet's foundation trenches. Harper notes that 'no specifically
208:
of Upper Zohar is situated on a flat shelf of a steeply sloping ridge on the northern side of a hill known as Rosh Zohar, 'Zohar Head' ('head' as topographic prominent point), southeast of Arad. Unreferenced by ancient sources, its ancient name is unknown. It appears as
Khirbet Gazza in
319:, where another fortlet stands, the route passes by another fortlet at Hatrurim before approaching Upper Zohar. Here the road merges with another track coming from the Dead Sea through the fort at Mezad Zohar, which lies to the southeast, before heading west to the northern
283:
military finds were uncovered at the site', though the final excavation report does list one spearhead end and 2 slingstones. Faunal finds include over 23,000 mammalian bones, 2,000 bird bones and a similar number of fish. 86% of mammal bones belonged to
238:, a square fortlet with protruding towers at each corner. It is not a perfect square, but rather than carelessness, this is caused by the desire to make use of the characteristics of the site itself. The fortlet was constructed using dense
352:
and refurbished and expanded by
Diocletian. Gichon, therefore, regarded Upper Zohar as a Flavian establishment, part of their line of defense protecting the settled heartland from desert-based raiders.
697:
287:
and a further 12% were pig, while bird bones are dominated by the domestic chicken. Fish species found at the fortlet include both fresh and salt water fish, from both the
Mediterranean and the
692:
384:
forces at the time, the activities of which were carried out by the military. Later, these were replaced by some local arrangement, eventually leading to its neglect and eventual abandonment.
266:
evidence suggests the site was occupied from the first half of the fifth century. The largest number of coins date to the 6th century, particularly to the early reign of
Byzantine emperor
623:
Magness, Jody (1999). "Redating the forts at Ein Boqeq, Upper Zohar, and Other Sites in SE Judea, and the
Implications for the Nature of the Limes Palaestinae". In Humphrey, J. H. (ed.).
364:
Archaeologist Thomas S. Parker has suggested that the cessation of military activity at the site in the 6th century may have resulted from the demobilization of the
682:
228:
274:
were unearthed at Upper Zohar, 55% of which were local cooking ware and another 42% other coarse wares, though 3% were fine imported ware, including
662:
687:
596:
Gichon, Mordechai (1991). "When And Why Did The Romans
Commence The Defence of Southern Palestine". In Maxfield, V.A.; Dobson, M. J. (eds.).
27:
196:
line of defense against desert raiders. More recent research has suggested it was constructed for economic rather than military reasons.
667:
326:
Harper had chosen to excavate Upper Zohar because of its potential to contribute to the debate about the nature and date of the Roman
323:. Like these and other similar forts, it stands at a point where anyone using the road is obliged by the topography to pass close by.
361:
and the discovery of the skeleton of a child under the rubble of one of the towers a suggests the cause may have been an earthquake.
64:
677:
247:
588:
258:
Only a small amount of identifiable coins were recovered at the site. Save for a single coin dated to the reign of
672:
336:
in
Palestine, proposing the existence of defensive belt of fortifications in the northern Negev, known as the
404:
251:
223:
598:
Roman Frontier Studies 1989 â Proceedings of the XVth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies
374:. The fortlet may have been initially garrisoned by a detachment from one of the units listed in the
328:
214:
607:
Upper Zohar: An Early Byzantine Fort in Palaestina Tertia Final Report of Excavations in 1985-1986
376:
358:
279:
641:
349:
345:
300:
275:
218:
632:
Parker, S.T (1997). "En Boqeq and Upper Zohar: two Late Roman Fortlets near the Dead Sea".
627:. Portsmouth: Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementry Series Number 31. pp. 189â206.
169:
391:
656:
308:
332:
in Palestine. Mordechai Gichon had written extensively about the disposition of the
387:
235:
210:
193:
185:
267:
645:
625:
The Roman and Byzantine Near East, Vol. 2: Some Recent Archaeological Research
333:
263:
259:
231:
led by Richard P. Harper. The final excavation report was published in 1997.
79:
66:
371:
366:
312:
243:
189:
136:
341:
316:
348:
fortifications, this line of defense was supposedly established by the
288:
284:
381:
304:
205:
181:
246:
was used for doorways and some exterior corners of the towers. The
320:
271:
239:
227:, but was only excavated between 1985 and 1986 by a team from the
616:
The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East revised edition
250:
varied between 1 and 1.5 meters in width, and were built with
380:, which policed the road. There were, after all, no real
600:. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. pp. 318â325.
262:, pierced and therefore worn as a good luck charm, the
299:
Upper Zohar stands along an ancient road leading from
698:
7th-century disestablishments in the Byzantine Empire
609:. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem.
180:, is an archaeological site on the outskirts of the
155:
147:
142:
132:
124:
116:
108:
103:
95:
58:
50:
693:5th-century establishments in the Byzantine Empire
213:'s writings and is also correctly marked in the
270:. No coins date later than 550 CE. Over 43,000
217:maps, both from the 1930s. It appears again in
8:
234:The site of Upper Zohar occupies roughly 26
16:
229:British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem
15:
505:
503:
501:
499:
452:
450:
448:
446:
444:
432:
430:
428:
426:
424:
422:
420:
307:toward the Palestinian heartland and the
520:
518:
487:
485:
483:
481:
479:
477:
416:
370:, attributed to emperor Justinian by
188:. It is believed to be the site of a
7:
683:Roman legionary fortresses in Israel
173:
34:
200:Location, archaeology, description
14:
436:
33:
26:
663:Holy Land during Byzantine rule
547:
509:
491:
468:
456:
558:
524:
1:
688:Roman fortifications in Judea
634:Journal of Roman Archaeology
605:Harper, Richard P. (1997).
575:Gichon, Mordechai (1975).
536:
714:
618:. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
589:Israel Exploration Society
668:Classical sites in Israel
646:10.1017/S1047759400015397
21:
614:Isaac, Benjamin (2000).
576:
344:. Based on even earlier
242:quarried nearby, though
192:-era fort and part of a
678:Byzantine sites in Asia
295:Dating and possible use
80:31.235312°N 35.242167°E
221:'s writings about the
215:British Mandate-period
54:××ר ע×××ת, Rogem Zohar
405:Archaeology of Israel
148:Excavation dates
51:Alternative name
340:, against marauding
311:ports. Beginning at
85:31.235312; 35.242167
206:fortlet (castellum)
76: /
42:Shown within Israel
18:
377:Notitia Dignitatum
120:5th or 6th century
359:destruction layer
338:Limes Palaestinae
224:Limes Palaestinae
163:
162:
159:Richard P. Harper
705:
649:
628:
619:
610:
601:
592:
562:
556:
550:
545:
539:
534:
528:
522:
513:
507:
494:
489:
472:
466:
460:
454:
439:
434:
350:Flavian emperors
219:Mordechai Gichon
175:
91:
90:
88:
87:
86:
81:
77:
74:
73:
72:
69:
37:
36:
30:
19:
713:
712:
708:
707:
706:
704:
703:
702:
673:Byzantine forts
653:
652:
631:
622:
613:
604:
595:
578:
577:××Ş×¨× ××××ץ ×× ××
574:
571:
566:
565:
557:
553:
546:
542:
535:
531:
523:
516:
508:
497:
490:
475:
467:
463:
455:
442:
435:
418:
413:
401:
297:
202:
84:
82:
78:
75:
70:
67:
65:
63:
62:
46:
45:
44:
43:
40:
39:
38:
12:
11:
5:
711:
709:
701:
700:
695:
690:
685:
680:
675:
670:
665:
655:
654:
651:
650:
629:
620:
611:
602:
593:
570:
567:
564:
563:
551:
540:
529:
514:
495:
473:
461:
440:
415:
414:
412:
409:
408:
407:
400:
397:
392:Benjamin Isaac
296:
293:
236:meters squared
201:
198:
161:
160:
157:
156:Archaeologists
153:
152:
149:
145:
144:
140:
139:
134:
130:
129:
126:
122:
121:
118:
114:
113:
110:
106:
105:
101:
100:
97:
93:
92:
60:
56:
55:
52:
48:
47:
41:
32:
31:
25:
24:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
710:
699:
696:
694:
691:
689:
686:
684:
681:
679:
676:
674:
671:
669:
666:
664:
661:
660:
658:
647:
643:
639:
635:
630:
626:
621:
617:
612:
608:
603:
599:
594:
590:
587:. Jerusalem:
586:
583:(in Hebrew).
582:
573:
572:
568:
561:, pp. 210â212
560:
555:
552:
549:
544:
541:
538:
533:
530:
527:, pp. 191â193
526:
521:
519:
515:
511:
506:
504:
502:
500:
496:
493:
488:
486:
484:
482:
480:
478:
474:
470:
465:
462:
458:
453:
451:
449:
447:
445:
441:
438:
433:
431:
429:
427:
425:
423:
421:
417:
410:
406:
403:
402:
398:
396:
393:
389:
385:
383:
379:
378:
373:
369:
368:
362:
360:
357:absence of a
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
324:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:Mediterranean
306:
302:
294:
292:
290:
286:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
253:
252:coursed faces
249:
248:curtain walls
245:
241:
237:
232:
230:
226:
225:
220:
216:
212:
207:
199:
197:
195:
191:
187:
183:
179:
171:
167:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
138:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
89:
61:
57:
53:
49:
29:
20:
637:
633:
624:
615:
606:
597:
584:
580:
569:Bibliography
554:
543:
532:
464:
437:Magness 1999
388:Jodi Magness
386:
375:
365:
363:
355:
337:
327:
325:
298:
257:
233:
222:
211:Albrecht Alt
203:
177:
165:
164:
640:: 580â586.
581:Erez Israel
548:Gichon 1975
537:Gichon 1991
510:Harper 1997
492:Parker 1997
471:, pp. 15â16
469:Harper 1997
457:Harper 1997
268:Justinian I
178:Rogem Zohar
166:Upper Zohar
128:7th century
83: /
59:Coordinates
17:Upper Zohar
657:Categories
591:: 149â165.
559:Isaac 2000
525:Isaac 2000
411:References
334:Roman army
264:numismatic
260:Diocletian
143:Site notes
71:35°14â˛32âłE
68:31°14â˛07âłN
459:, pp. 1â2
372:Procopius
367:Limitanei
313:Ein Bokek
244:limestone
190:Byzantine
174:××ר ע×××ת
151:1985â1986
137:Byzantine
125:Abandoned
512:, p. 117
399:See also
342:Saracens
317:Dead Sea
303:and the
280:Phocaean
184:town of
176:), also
109:Material
315:on the
289:Red Sea
285:caprids
276:African
182:Israeli
133:Periods
117:Founded
104:History
99:fortlet
382:police
346:Judean
301:Arabia
272:sherds
170:Hebrew
329:limes
321:Negev
305:Arava
240:chert
194:Roman
112:stone
390:and
204:The
186:Arad
96:Type
642:doi
659::
638:10
636:.
585:12
579:.
517:^
498:^
476:^
443:^
419:^
291:.
278:,
172::
648:.
644::
168:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
