En Haseva

Transliterated Name	Source	Name
En Haseva	Hebrew
Mezad Hazeva	Hebrew
Ain Husub	Arabic	اين هوسوب
Hosob	German (Musil)
Tamara	Latin
Thamana	Latin
Thamaro
Tamar	Biblical Hebrew

Introduction

‘En Hazeva, situated in the Arava ~38 km. south of the Dead Sea, contains remains from the Late Iron Age I, IIa, and IIb as well as a Roman Fort that appears to be associated with the Diocletianic military build-up in the region (Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes, 2019). It also has levels of Nabatean, Byzantine, and Early Arab occupation. Identification of the site with Latin Tamara is widely accepted (Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes, 2019) - perhaps with Biblical Tamar as well. The site was excavated by R. Cohen and Y. Israel between 1987 and 1994-1995 but a final report was not published before Rudolph Cohen passed away in 2006. Tali Erickson-Gini is working on a Final Publication.

Identification

from Rudolf Cohen in Stern et al (1993 v.2)

Mezad Hazeva (map reference 1734.0242) was established on a hill adjacent to the southern bank of Nahal Hazeva, close to 'En Haseva in the northern Arabah. Researchers who toured the area in the nineteenth century discovered remains near the spring. A Musil, on a visit to the site in 1902, prepared a sketch of the fortress and determined that its plan was square, each of its sides being about 90 m long, with protruding corner towers. He observed another building, adjoining the fortress on the south, that contained several rooms and the remains of a bathhouse to the east. The fortress was severely damaged in 1930, and its original plan could no longer be discerned. In 1932, the site was visited by F. Frank. Subsequently, A. Alt concluded that the large structure at Hazeva was a Roman fortress. N. Glueck, who visited the site in 1943, was of the opinion that the building was a khan established by the Nabateans that the Romans continued to use. He identified Hazeva with Eiseiba (Εισειβα), which appears on a list of settlements in the Negev and the amount of the annual tax imposed on them by the Byzantine authorities (the so-called Beersheba edict; Alt, GIPT, no. 2). B. Mazar and M. Avi-Yonah, who visited Haz~eva in 1950, found several Iron Age sherds in addition to decorated Nabatean potsherds and sherds from the Roman-Byzantine period. Following this discovery, Y. Aharoni proposed identifying Hazeva with biblical Tamar and Roman Tamara. This view was opposed by B. Rothenberg, who noted that no Roman coins earlier than the fourth century CE had been found at the site; he therefore located Roman Tamara at Mezad Tamar (q.v.).

Excavations

from Rudolf Cohen in Stern et al (1993 v.2)

In 1972, excavations were conducted at Mezad Hazeva under the direction of R. Cohen, on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums. The excavations were renewed from 1987 to 1990, on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, under Cohen's direction.

... In the excavator's opinion, the excavation results at Mezad Hazeva strengthen the identification of the site with biblical Tamar. In his view, this was a central fortress on the southeastern border of the kingdom of Judah. Its specific role in the fortification system of Judah and Edom has yet to be established.

Maps, Aerial Views, Plans, Sections, Illustrations, and Photos

Maps

Location Map from

Map of the area – during the Biblical periods

En Haseva is labeled as Tamar

(based on Bible Mapper 3.0)

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

biblewalks.com
Location Map from

'En Haseva sits at a stratgeically crucial commercial crossroads, especially vital for the Arabian spice trade

Cohen and Yisrael (1995)

Cohen and Yisrael (1995)
Map of the main Iron

Map of the main Iron Age sites in the Negev Hills

En Haseva not included

Stern et. al. (1993 v. 3)

Age sites in the Negev Hills (En Haseva not included) from Stern et al (1993 v. 3)

Aerial Views

Annotated Satellite Image (google) of

Annotated Satellite Image (google) of the En Haseva

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

En Haseva from biblewalks.com
Outline of early Israelite

Outline of early Israelite fortress in En Haseva

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

fortress in En Haseva from biblewalks.com
Outline of Roman

Outline of Roman fortress, bathhouse, and Inn in En Haseva

Used with permission from BibleWalks.com

fortress, bathhouse, and Inn in En Haseva from biblewalks.com
Fig. 11 - Aerial photo

Figure 11

Aerial photo of Area E prior to balk removal, looking northwest

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

of Area E from Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
En Haseva in Google Earth

En Haseva
click on image to explore this site on a new tab in Google Earth
En Haseva on govmap.gov.il

En Haseva

click on image to explore this site on a new tab in govmap.gov.il

Plans, Sections, and Illustrations

Normal Size

Plan of fortresses at En Haseva

Mezad Hazeva: plan of the Roman fortress and the two Iron Age fortresses

Stern et. al. (1993)

from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 4 - Plan of the eastern

Figure 4

The eastern part of the camp, plan

JW: locations

Room 45 - upper right

Wall 785 - mid right

Room 53 - bottom center

Wall W578 - bottom right

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

part of the Roman camp from Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
Fig. 9 - Plan and sections

Figure 9

Room 53, plan and sections

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

of Room 53 from Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
Artist's depiction of the Middle Fortress at En Haseva

The middle fortress (Stratum 5) from the ninth-eighth centuries BCE occupies roughly four times the areal extent of contemporaneous Negev fortresses. Perhaps the site should be regarded as a small administrative city, like the Judean fortified city of Tel Beersheba, rather than a large fortress. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Cohen and Yisrael (1995)

from Cohen and Yisrael (1995)

Magnified

Plan of fortresses at En Haseva

Mezad Hazeva: plan of the Roman fortress and the two Iron Age fortresses

Stern et. al. (1993)

from Stern et al (1993 v. 2)
Fig. 4 - Plan of the eastern

Figure 4

The eastern part of the camp, plan

JW: locations

Room 45 - upper right

Wall 785 - mid right

Room 53 - bottom center

Wall W578 - bottom right

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

part of the Roman camp from Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
Fig. 9 - Plan and sections

Figure 9

Room 53, plan and sections

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

of Room 53 from Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

Photos

Digital Theodolite photo

Digital Theodolite Shot of Tilted Iron Age Gate Wall at En Hatseva

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023

of the Iron Age Gate's Tilted Wall - photo by JW
Fig. 14 - Wall 578 and

Figure 14

Wall 578 and the eastern wall of the gatehouse (W595), looking east.

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

the eastern wall of the gatehouse (W595) from Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

Stratigraphy

Tentative, modified, and unverified Stratigraphy

Modified from ancientneareast.tripod.com
Numbering differs from earlier publications

Stratum	Period	Approximate Dates	Comments
1b	Modern	1900-	Aqueduct, well, police station, Kibbutz Ir-Ovot (1967- 1980s) In modern times, the British authorities paved a road across this part of the site. Traces of the road can still be discerned in the upper layers of the balks over the principia (headquarters) of the camp (Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes, 2019)
1a	Early Islamic	8th - 9th centuries CE	During the Early Islamic period, in the eighth–ninth centuries CE, the bathhouse was reoccupied and converted into domestic quarters, and water channels that led to nearby fields were constructed over the ruins of the camp (Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes, 2019)
2	Byzantine	4th-7th centuries CE
3	Byzantine ?	4rd-6th centuries CE	Three phases of construction and occupation were identified in the camp (Erickson-Gini 2010:97–99). The camp appears to have been built around the time that the Diocletianic fort was constructed on the tell, in the late third or early fourth century CE. It was devastated in the earthquake of 363 CE, which damaged the bathhouse and the fort as well. The camp was subsequently reconstructed and remained in use until the sometime in the sixth century CE. A second earthquake, in the sixth century CE, appears to have destroyed the second phase of the structure and the bathhouse, and subsequently they were both abandoned (Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes, 2019)
4	Roman	3rd-4th centuries CE	Three phases of construction and occupation were identified in the camp (Erickson-Gini 2010:97–99). The camp appears to have been built around the time that the Diocletianic fort was constructed on the tell, in the late third or early fourth century CE. It was devastated in the earthquake of 363 CE, which damaged the bathhouse and the fort as well. (Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes, 2019)
5	Nabatean	1st century BCE-1st century CE
6		7th-6th centuries BCE	Fortress apparently concurrent with Edomite Shrine - Stratum 4 of Cohen and Yisrael (1995)
7b		8th century BCE	Fortress
7a	Late Iron Age IIa	9th-8th centuries BCE	The Middle Fortress - Stratum 5 of Cohen and Yisrael (1995)
8	Late Iron Age I	10th century BCE	The Early Fortress - Stratum 6 of Cohen and Yisrael (1995)

Site Stratigraphy from BibleWalks.com

from biblewalks.com
links not working

Strata	Date	Period	Findings
1b	20th Century AD	Modern	· Aqueduct, well, police station · Kibbutz Ir-Ovot (1967- 1980s)
1a	7th-8th Century AD	Early Arab	· Buildings, farm
2	4th-7th Century AD	Byzantine
3,4	2nd-4th Century AD	Roman	· Square fortress (46m x 46m) with 4 corner towers · Caravanserai, Bathhouse
5	1st Century BC- 1st Century AD	Nabatean	· Room with store jars under the Roman fortress
6	7th-6th Century BC	Late 1st temple	· Fortress · Cult vessels from Edomite shrine · Four-room house
7b	8th Century BC	1st temple	· Immense fortress (casemate wall 100m x 100m, 3 towers) · 4 chambers gate
7a	9th-8th Century BC	1st temple	· Fortress (casemate wall 50m x 50m) · 4 chambers gate
8	10th Century BC (Solomonic)	Unified Kingdom	· square fortress

Cohen's Stratigraphy in Stern et al (1993 v. 2)

from Rudolf Cohen in Stern et al (1993 v.2)

Stratum	Period	Approximate Dates	Comments
1	Early Arab
2	Roman	2nd-4th c. CE	Remains of a Roman fortress
3	Nabatean	1st-2nd c. CE
4	Iron Age		Iron Age fortress
5	Iron Age		Iron Age fortress

Stratigraphy from Cohen and Yisraek (1995)

from Cohen and Yisrael (1995)

Stratum	Period	Approximate Dates	Comments
1	Late Byzantine and Early Islamic	6th-7th c. CE
2	Late Roman	3rd-4th c. CE	Remains of a Roman fortress
3	Nabatean and Early Roman	1st-2nd c. CE
4	Iron Age	6th-7th c. BCE
5	Iron Age	8th-9th c. BCE
6	Iron Age	10th c. BCE

The Iron Age in the Southern Levant

8th century BCE Earthquake (?)

Illustrations and Photos

Artist's depiction of the

The middle fortress (Stratum 5) from the ninth-eighth centuries BCE occupies roughly four times the areal extent of contemporaneous Negev fortresses. Perhaps the site should be regarded as a small administrative city, like the Judean fortified city of Tel Beersheba, rather than a large fortress. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Cohen and Yisrael (1995)

Middle Fortress at En Haseva from Cohen and Yisrael (1995)
Fig. 5 The tilted Iron Age

Figure 5

Foundation failure beneath the inside pier of the fortress gate at `En Haseva. Although the Iron Age fortress gate is superbly constructed of well-hewn stones, individual blocks within the pier cracked on several courses as the foundation compacted differentially. The whole pier of the gate now leans northeastward. The excavators of the gate complex associated destruction debris within the gate complex to damage caused by an earthquake, not foundation failure caused by a continuous process of creep.

Austin et al (2000)

wall of En Haseva from Austin et al (2000)
Digital Theodolite photo

Digital Theodolite Shot of Tilted Iron Age Gate Wall at En Hatseva

Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023

of the Iron Age Gate's Tilted Wall - photo by JW

Discussion

Cohen and Yisrael (1995) suggested that the Iron Age II "Middle Fortress" was most likely damaged by a mid 8th century BCE earthquake mentioned in the Book of Amos (1:1). The fortress, dated from ceramics to the 8th-9th centuries BCE, suffered final destruction via either human agency or an earthquake. Cohen and Yisrael (1995) dated earthquake damage to ca. 760 BCE relying on historical texts and comparison to archaeoseismic damage at other sites rather than precise archaeological dating from En Haseva and they dated it's final destruction by human agency to ~735 BCE - also based on historical texts. Austin et al (2000) (and apparently others) have suggested that The tilted wall (see Fig. 5) of En Hatseva was tilted by one of the Amos Quakes although a question remains why the other walls were not tilted. Roberts (2012:187-189) notes that floors were absent in the casemate walls which suggests an alternative theory for the wall tilt - poor construction led to differential subsidence.

References

Roberts (2012)

from Roberts (2012:187-189)

21. 'Haseva

‘En Haseva (Tamar) stood as a massive 100m x 100m Iron Age fortress (or fortified city) on the southern border of ancient Judah about 35 km south of the Dead Sea. While excavation began in the early 1970’s, it was only in 1987 that the excavations, directed by Rudolph Cohen and Yigal Yisrael, uncovered an Iron Age fortress.135 In Cohen’s 1993 article that updated the discovery of the Iron Age fortress, he also noted that the end of strata 2, the Late Roman Period (third-fourth century CE) could have been due to the earthquake of 363 CE though he did not supply any evidence for his suggestion.¹³⁶ While early on, there was very little pottery to help date the Iron Age strata, more discoveries helped excavators conclude that Stratum 5 was built in the ninth-eighth century rather than a century later as they previously thought. towers at the corners and an offset-inset casemate wall built of dressed stones. These walls surround a large courtyard with a four-room gate near the northeastern corner of the fortress with some storehouses and granaries near an inner courtyard surrounded by casemate walls. An interesting feature of the site is the absence of floors. In both the storehouses and in the casemate walls floors are absent and complete vessels were found in only two of the casemate rooms near the gate and in the granaries.

Regarding the end of Stratum V, the excavators suggest an earthquake, “Based on the destruction debris and its configuration, we believe that the quake mentioned in Amos and Zechariah was responsible for the destruction of…the gate complex…”¹³⁷ They do not list reasons other than the foundation failure associated with the uneven compaction of the substrate.

There is little to evaluate Cohen and Yisrael’s view publication was limited to small reports and Cohen’s untimely death inhibited a full publication of the results though some reevaluation has taken place. For example, Nadav Na’aman has argued that the builders of Stratum V were not Judean kings, but Assyrians in the late eighth century.¹³⁸ Na’aman sees three Assyrian forts in the Negev, at {En Haseva, in Wadi {Aravah near the copper mines, and on the road to the Gulf of Eilat in addition to those at Kadesh Barnea and Tell el-Kheleifeh. Na’aman’s suggestion of a later genesis in the building of {En H¸asΩeva’s fortress would certainly dismiss its fate at the hands of an earthquake though Na’aman does not explain how the Stratum V would have ended.¹³⁹ David Ussishkin approaches stratum 5 from a different perspective, arguing that the casemate wall of the fortress and its monumental gate form the substructure of the complex and not the superstructure.¹⁴⁰ He notes, more surprising, that this conclusion was reached with the excavators during a tour of the site during excavations of the stratum 5 gate. In sum, a superstructure of mostly mudbrick would sit on top of the stone substructure. Usshiskin sees evidence of a similar type of construction at other Iron II locations such as a courtyard gate at Megiddo dating to the VA-IVB Southern Palace as well as the inner gatehouse at Lachish from Level IV-III.¹⁴¹ Ussishkin raises some interesting points about the role of the stone walls and how this could affect earthquake interpretations. The parallel fortresses he provides would argue against Na’aman’s proposal of an Assyrian fortress as well as the date of its construction. All this to say, the fortress remains inconclusive for earthquake damage.

Footnotes

136 Rudolph Cohen, “The Fortress at 'En 'Haseva,” BA 57 (1994): 203-214. On the 363 CE earthquake, see Kenneth W. Russell, “The Earthquake of May 19, A.D. 363,” BASOR 238 (1980): 47–64; Kenneth W. Russell, “The Earthquake Chronology of Palestine and Northwest Arabia from the 2nd Through the Mid-9th Century A.D.,” BASOR 260 (1985): 37–59.

137 Cohen and Yisrael, “The Iron Age Fortreses,” 231. Austin et al., “Amos’s Earthquake,” 661-662, list ‘En Haseva as one of the sites that corroborates evidence of earthquake damage.

138 Nadav Na’aman, “Notes on the Excavation of {Ein HasΩeva,” Qadmoniot 30 (1997): 60 (Hebrew); Nadav Na’aman, “An Assyrian Residence at Ramat RahΩel?,” TA 28 (2001): 260-280.

139 To be fair, stratum 4 dates to the seventh-sixth centuries so a tight sequence is not needed to explain the end of stratum 5 before stratum 4 began.

140 David Ussishkin, “{En H¸asΩeva: On the Gate of the Iron Age II Fortress,” TA 37 (2010): 246-253.

141 David Ussishkin, “The City-Gate Complex: A Synopsis of the Stratigraphy and Architecture,” in The Renewed Archaeological Excavations at Lachish (1973–1994) (Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 22). Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 2004), 504–524.

Late Roman or Byzantine Earthquake - 324 to early 6th century CE

Plans and Photos

Plan of En Haseva from

Figure 4

The eastern part of the camp, plan

JW: locations

Room 45 - upper right

Wall 785 - mid right

Room 53 - bottom center

Wall W578 - bottom right

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
Fig. 6 Collapsed arches

Figure 6

Line of collapsed arches over a layer of ash in Room 45, looking west

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

in Room 45 from Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
Fig. 7 Collapsed arches

Figure 7

Line of collapsed arches over a layer of ash in Room 45, looking east.

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

in Room 45 from Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

Discussion

Coins below collapsed arches in Room 45 provide an apparent terminus post quem of 324 CE while coins above an associated floor date from the first half of the 4th century to the early 6th century CE. Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) discussed the 4th century earthquake as follows:

Three phases of construction and occupation were identified in the camp (Erickson-Gini 2010:97–99). The camp appears to have been built around the time that the Diocletianic fort was constructed on the tell, in the late third or early fourth century CE. It was devastated in the earthquake of 363 CE, which damaged the bathhouse and the fort as well. The camp was subsequently reconstructed and remained in use until the sometime in the sixth century CE.

The 2003 Excavation

Room 45

A north–south wall (W785), running through the center of the room was exposed to its full length. The wall was made up of pilasters and collapsed arches over a layer of dark soil and ash (Fig.s 6, 7). Coins discovered under the arches included a Roman Provincial coin from the third century CE (IAA 97941), coins of Licinius I (320 CE; IAA 97946) and Constantine I (324 CE; IAA 97937), and a Late Roman coin from 324 CE (IAA 97936).

The soil over the Room’s floor (L300/L303) contained coins, mainly from the fourth century CE, attributed to both the first phase of the structure (late third or early fourth century to the earthquake of 363 CE) and its second phase (from 363 CE until the early sixth century CE). These included coins of Arcadius (383 CE; IAA 97942) and Theodosius (379 CE; IAA 97940), as well as several other Late Roman coins of the early fourth century CE (IAA 97939, 97944, 97945, 97947, 97948). A Late Roman coin from 346 CE was recovered on the surface of the site elsewhere in the structure (IAA 97949).

Room 53

According to the 1994–1995 field notes by Y. Kalman, Area E supervisor, Room 53 was filled with collapsed debris, stone slabs that were used for roofing, arch stones and other building stones. The structure probably collapsed in the 363 CE earthquake.

The 2009–2010 Excavations

The wall running down the center of the structure and dividing it into two (W578; Fig. 14)—probably a stylobate or a foundation for a series of arches—appears to have been constructed in the second, post-363 CE phase of the camp. This wall is essentially an extension of W785, running down the center of Room 45. This suggests that the original gatehouse was blocked, probably after it was damaged in the earthquake, and the entrance to the camp was removed to a different location.

6th century CE Earthquake

Plans

Plan of En Haseva from

Figure 4

The eastern part of the camp, plan

JW: locations

Room 45 - upper right

Wall 785 - mid right

Room 53 - bottom center

Wall W578 - bottom right

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

Discussion

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) discussed the 6th century earthquake as follows:

The 2003 Excavation

Room 45

Evidence of damage caused by the earthquake that occurred in the sixth century CE was found in the collapse of the western wall of Room 45 (W790); it fell into an open space west of the room (L600). Here, two complete oil lamps were revealed that had apparently sat in a niche in the wall. One belongs to a type that is commonly found in contexts from the first half of the fifth century CE (Fig. 8:1). The other is a Byzantine sandal lamp, commonly found in deposits from the second half of the fifth century CE (Fig. 8:2).

8th century BCE Earthquake (?)

Seismic Effect	Location	Figure(s)	Comments
Tilted Wall	Middle Fortress (Stratum 5 of Cohen) Gate Mezad Hazeva: plan of the Roman fortress and the two Iron Age fortresses Stern et. al. (1993) The middle fortress (Stratum 5) from the ninth-eighth centuries BCE occupies roughly four times the areal extent of contemporaneous Negev fortresses. Perhaps the site should be regarded as a small administrative city, like the Judean fortified city of Tel Beersheba, rather than a large fortress. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Cohen and Yisrael (1995)	Figure 5 Foundation failure beneath the inside pier of the fortress gate at `En Haseva. Although the Iron Age fortress gate is superbly constructed of well-hewn stones, individual blocks within the pier cracked on several courses as the foundation compacted differentially. The whole pier of the gate now leans northeastward. The excavators of the gate complex associated destruction debris within the gate complex to damage caused by an earthquake, not foundation failure caused by a continuous process of creep. Austin et al (2000) Digital Theodolite Shot of Tilted Iron Age Gate Wall at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 Oblique Aerial Shot of Iron Age Gate at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 6 Jan. 2023	Cohen and Yisrael (1995) suggested that the Iron Age II "Middle Fortress" was most likely damaged by a mid 8th century BCE earthquake mentioned in the Book of Amos (1:1). The fortress, dated from ceramics to the 8th-9th centuries BCE, suffered final destruction via either human agency or an earthquake. Cohen and Yisrael (1995) dated earthquake damage to ca. 760 BCE relying on historical texts and comparison to archaeoseismic damage at other sites rather than precise archaeological dating from En Haseva and they dated it's final destruction by human agency to ~735 BCE - also based on historical texts. Austin et al (2000) (and apparently others) have suggested that The tilted wall (see Fig. 5) of En Hatseva was tilted by one of the Amos Quakes although a question remains why the other walls were not tilted. Roberts (2012:187-189) notes that floors were absent in the casemate walls which suggests an alternative theory for the wall tilt - poor construction led to differential subsidence.

Late Roman or Byzantine Earthquake - 324 to early 6th century CE

Seismic Effect	Location	Figure(s)	Comments
Collapsed arches	Room 45 Figure 4 The eastern part of the camp, plan JW: locations Room 45 - upper right Wall 785 - mid right Room 53 - bottom center Wall W578 - bottom right Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 11 Aerial photo of Area E prior to balk removal, looking northwest Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Outline of Roman fortress, bathhouse, and Inn in En Haseva Used with permission from BibleWalks.com	Figure 6 Line of collapsed arches over a layer of ash in Room 45, looking west Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 7 Line of collapsed arches over a layer of ash in Room 45, looking east. Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)	A north–south wall (W785), running through the center of the room was exposed to its full length. The wall was made up of pilasters and collapsed arches over a layer of dark soil and ash (Fig.s 6, 7) - Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
Debris containing collapsed walls, arches, and roof	Room 53 Figure 4 The eastern part of the camp, plan JW: locations Room 45 - upper right Wall 785 - mid right Room 53 - bottom center Wall W578 - bottom right Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 11 Aerial photo of Area E prior to balk removal, looking northwest Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 9 Room 53, plan and sections Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Outline of Roman fortress, bathhouse, and Inn in En Haseva Used with permission from BibleWalks.com		According to the 1994–1995 field notes by Y. Kalman, Area E supervisor, Room 53 was filled with collapsed debris, stone slabs that were used for roofing, arch stones and other building stones. The structure probably collapsed in the 363 CE earthquake. - Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)
Blocked gatehouse	Original Gatehouse Figure 4 The eastern part of the camp, plan JW: locations Room 45 - upper right Wall 785 - mid right Room 53 - bottom center Wall W578 - bottom right Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 11 Aerial photo of Area E prior to balk removal, looking northwest Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Outline of Roman fortress, bathhouse, and Inn in En Haseva Used with permission from BibleWalks.com	Figure 14 Wall 578 and the eastern wall of the gatehouse (W595), looking east. Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)	The wall running down the center of the structure and dividing it into two (W578; Fig. 14)—probably a stylobate or a foundation for a series of arches—appears to have been constructed in the second, post-363 CE phase of the camp. This wall is essentially an extension of W785, running down the center of Room 45. This suggests that the original gatehouse was blocked, probably after it was damaged in the earthquake, and the entrance to the camp was removed to a different location. - Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

6th century CE Earthquake

Seismic Effect	Location	Figure(s)	Comments
Collapsed wall (collapsed to the west)	western wall of Room 45 (W790) Figure 4 The eastern part of the camp, plan JW: locations Room 45 - upper right Wall 785 - mid right Room 53 - bottom center Wall W578 - bottom right Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 11 Aerial photo of Area E prior to balk removal, looking northwest Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)		Evidence of damage caused by the earthquake that occurred in the sixth century CE was found in the collapse of the western wall of Room 45 (W790); it fell into an open space west of the room (L600) - Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

8th century BCE Earthquake (?)

Modified by JW from a plan in Stern et al (1993 v. 2)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from a plan in Stern et al (1993 v. 2)

Late Roman or Byzantine Earthquake - 324 to early 6th century CE

Modified by JW from Fig. 4 of Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 4 of Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

6th century CE Earthquake

Modified by JW from Fig. 4 of Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

Deformation Map

Modified by JW from Fig. 4 of Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)

8th century BCE Earthquake (?)

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Seismic Effect	Location	Figure(s)	Comments	Intensity
Tilted Wall	Middle Fortress (Stratum 5 of Cohen) Gate Mezad Hazeva: plan of the Roman fortress and the two Iron Age fortresses Stern et. al. (1993) The middle fortress (Stratum 5) from the ninth-eighth centuries BCE occupies roughly four times the areal extent of contemporaneous Negev fortresses. Perhaps the site should be regarded as a small administrative city, like the Judean fortified city of Tel Beersheba, rather than a large fortress. Courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority. Cohen and Yisrael (1995)	Figure 5 Foundation failure beneath the inside pier of the fortress gate at `En Haseva. Although the Iron Age fortress gate is superbly constructed of well-hewn stones, individual blocks within the pier cracked on several courses as the foundation compacted differentially. The whole pier of the gate now leans northeastward. The excavators of the gate complex associated destruction debris within the gate complex to damage caused by an earthquake, not foundation failure caused by a continuous process of creep. Austin et al (2000) Digital Theodolite Shot of Tilted Iron Age Gate Wall at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023 Oblique Aerial Shot of Iron Age Gate at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 6 Jan. 2023	Cohen and Yisrael (1995) suggested that the Iron Age II "Middle Fortress" was most likely damaged by a mid 8th century BCE earthquake mentioned in the Book of Amos (1:1). The fortress, dated from ceramics to the 8th-9th centuries BCE, suffered final destruction via either human agency or an earthquake. Cohen and Yisrael (1995) dated earthquake damage to ca. 760 BCE relying on historical texts and comparison to archaeoseismic damage at other sites rather than precise archaeological dating from En Haseva and they dated it's final destruction by human agency to ~735 BCE - also based on historical texts. Austin et al (2000) (and apparently others) have suggested that The tilted wall (see Fig. 5) of En Hatseva was tilted by one of the Amos Quakes although a question remains why the other walls were not tilted. Roberts (2012:187-189) notes that floors were absent in the casemate walls which suggests an alternative theory for the wall tilt - poor construction led to differential subsidence.	VI +

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VI (6) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224 big pdf).

Late Roman or Byzantine Earthquake - 324 to early 6th century CE

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Seismic Effect	Location	Figure(s)	Comments	Intensity
Collapsed arches	Room 45 Figure 4 The eastern part of the camp, plan JW: locations Room 45 - upper right Wall 785 - mid right Room 53 - bottom center Wall W578 - bottom right Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 11 Aerial photo of Area E prior to balk removal, looking northwest Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Outline of Roman fortress, bathhouse, and Inn in En Haseva Used with permission from BibleWalks.com	Figure 6 Line of collapsed arches over a layer of ash in Room 45, looking west Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 7 Line of collapsed arches over a layer of ash in Room 45, looking east. Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)	A north–south wall (W785), running through the center of the room was exposed to its full length. The wall was made up of pilasters and collapsed arches over a layer of dark soil and ash (Fig.s 6, 7) - Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)	VI +
Debris containing collapsed walls, arches, and roof	Room 53 Figure 4 The eastern part of the camp, plan JW: locations Room 45 - upper right Wall 785 - mid right Room 53 - bottom center Wall W578 - bottom right Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 11 Aerial photo of Area E prior to balk removal, looking northwest Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 9 Room 53, plan and sections Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Outline of Roman fortress, bathhouse, and Inn in En Haseva Used with permission from BibleWalks.com		According to the 1994–1995 field notes by Y. Kalman, Area E supervisor, Room 53 was filled with collapsed debris, stone slabs that were used for roofing, arch stones and other building stones. The structure probably collapsed in the 363 CE earthquake. - Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)	VIII +

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224 big pdf).

6th century CE Earthquake

Earthquake Archeological Effects chart

Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)

Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Seismic Effect	Location	Figure(s)	Comments	Intensity
Collapsed wall (collapsed to the west)	western wall of Room 45 (W790) Figure 4 The eastern part of the camp, plan JW: locations Room 45 - upper right Wall 785 - mid right Room 53 - bottom center Wall W578 - bottom right Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) Figure 11 Aerial photo of Area E prior to balk removal, looking northwest Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)		Evidence of damage caused by the earthquake that occurred in the sixth century CE was found in the collapse of the western wall of Room 45 (W790); it fell into an open space west of the room (L600) - Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019)	VIII +

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224 big pdf).

Drone Surveys

Description	Flight Date	Pilot	Processing	Downloadable Link
Entire Site	12 Jan. 2023	Jefferson Williams	ODM - no GCPs	Right Click to download. Then unzip

Photos

Orthophoto

Orthophoto of En Haseva

Click on Image to open a high resolution magnifiable image in a new tab

From Drone Survey by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023

Long Shots and Drone Shots

Photos
Description	Photo	Comments
Oblique Aerial Shot of Entire Site	Oblique Aerial Shot of entire excavated site of En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Cropped Oblique Aerial Shot of Entire Site	Cropped Oblique Aerial Shot of entire excavated site of En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Oblique Aerial Shot of Iron Age Gate	Oblique Aerial Shot of Iron Age Gate at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 6 Jan. 2023
Tilted Wall of Iron Age Gate	Tilted Iron Age Wall at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 6 Jan. 2023
Tilted Wall of Iron Age Gate (Digital Theodolite)	Digital Theodolite Shot of Side View Tilted Iron Age Wall at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Orientation Measurement (Az = 51°) of Wall of Iron Age Gate (Digital Compass)	Orientation Measurement (Az = 51°) of Wall of Iron Age Gate at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Tilt Measurement (8.6°) of Wall of Iron Age Gate (Digital Theodolite)	Digital Theodolite Measurement of Tilt of 8.6° of Iron Age Wall at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Tilt Measurement (7°) of Wall of Iron Age Gate (Clinometer)	Tilt Measurement of Tilt of 7° of Iron Age Wall at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Slumped and Faulted Walls	Slumped and Faulted Walls at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023
Slumped and Faulted Walls (Digital Theodolite)	Digital Theodolite Shot of Slumped and Faulted Walls at En Hatseva Photo by Jefferson Williams 12 Jan. 2023

References

Articles and Books

Aharoni, Y. (1963). "Tamar and the Roads to Elath." Israel Exploration Journal: 30-42.

Aharoni, Y. (1967). "Forerunners of the Limes: Iron Age Fortresses in the Negev." Israel Exploration Journal 17(1): 1-17.

Austin, S. A., et al. (2000). "Amos's Earthquake: An Extraordinary Middle East Seismic Event of 750 B.C." International Geology Review 42(7): 657-671.

Cohen R. 1984. Ma‘ale Safir. ESI 2:64–65.

Cohen and Israel (1990) 'En Hazeva Summary Report on Excavations at 'En Hazeva - Excavations and Surveys in Israel Vol.15:110-116 - IAA

Cohen, R. (1994). "The Fortresses at En Haseva." The Biblical Archaeologist 57(4): 203-214.

Cohen, R. and Y. Yisrael (1995). "The Iron Age Fortresses at En Haseva." The Biblical Archaeologist 58(4): 223-235.

Cohen, R. and Y. Yisrael (1995). "The Iron Age Fortresses at En Haseva." The Biblical Archaeologist 58(4): 223-235.

Cohen, R. and Y. Yisrael (1995) "On the Road to Edom: Discoveries from En Hazeva." Israel Museum Catalogue(370).

Erickson-Gini, T. (2010). Nabataean settlement and self-organized economy in The Central Negev: crisis and renewal, Archaeopress.

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019), Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Volume 131

Hamai (2016), Hadashot Arkheologiyot, Volume 128

Musil A. 1907. Arabia Petraea II: Edom––Topographischer Reisebericht. Vienna.

Websites

Ein Hatzeva-an Israelite Fortress on the Border with Edom - Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Blossoming Rose - Official curators of the Biblical Tamar Park at En Haseva

website with info on En Haseva

En Haseva (aka Biblical Tamar) at biblewalks.com

Bibliography from Stern et al (1993 v.2)

Musil, Arabia Petraea 2, 207-208

N. Glueck, AASOR 15 (1935), 17-20

F. Frank, ZDPV 57 (1934), 254.

Bibliography from Stern et al (2008)

Main publications

R. Cohen & Y. Israel, On the Road to Edom: Discoveries from ‘En Hazeva (Israel Museum, Catalogue 370), Jerusalem 1995

T. Erickson-Gini, Crisis and Renewal: Settlement in the Negev in the 3rd and 4th Centuries ce, with an Emphasis on the Finds from the New Excavations in Mampsis, Oboda and Mesad ‘En Hazeva (Ph.D. diss.), Jerusalem (in prep.).

Studies

R. Cohen, ESI 10 (1991), 46–47

15 (1996), 110–116 (& Y. Israel)

id., BA 57 (1994), 203–214; 58 (1995), 223–235 (& Y. Israel)

id., BAR 22/4 (1996), 40–51, 65 (& Y. Israel)

P. Beck, TA 23 (1996), 102–114

id., Imagery and Representation, Tel Aviv 2002, 447–459

P. Crocker, BH 32 (1996), 40–51

Z. Meshel, IEJ 47 (1997), 295–297

M. Bernett & O. Keel, Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadttor: Die Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell) (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 161), Göttingen 1998, 70–71

W. G. Dever, NEA 61 (1998), 39–52

T. Haettner Blomquist, Gates and Gods: Cults in the City Gates of Iron Age Palestine: An Investigation of the Archaeological and Biblical Sources (Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series 46), Stockholm 1999, 100–104

P. Bienkowski & L.Sedman, Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan, Sheffield 2001, 310–325

J. Naveh, ‘Atiqot 42 (2001), 197–198

BAR 29/1 (2003), 56

T. Erickson-Gini & Y. Israel, The Nabateans in the Negev (Reuben and Edith Hecht Museum Catalog 22

ed. R. Rosenthal-Heginbottom), Haifa 2003, 9*–13*.

Wikipedia page for Ir Ovot (includes section on the Hatseva Fortress)

from wikipedia