Khirbet Aujah Foqa: Fortress At Crossroads Of Ancient Kingdoms

(MENAFN- Jordan Times) AMMAN - The multi-dimensional significance of the site of Aujah Foqa has already been noted: Its control over the nearby Aujah Spring, its regional location as a frontier site, and the more general significance of its location, which faced the Ammonite Kingdom and allowed for control of the Jordan Valley road.

From a regional perspective, the primary significance of Khirbet Aujah Foqa was control of nearby En Aujah, a major water source for the region from Jericho to Wadi Farah.

"Similarly, Khirbet Marjameh, eight kilometres to the northwest, was another fortified town that controlled another important spring, En Samiyeh. Its aim may have been to protect the main water sources of the region from external enemies, such as the Ammonites or the Assyrians, or internal enemies, such as the Judahites; to aid in territorial disputes; or to control the water sources and protect them from local semi-nomadic populations that may have been subdued or partly subdued by a central political power," said the professor of History and Religion from Averrett University Ralph Hawkins.

Hawkins added that Faust discussed the function of fortified sites and fortified structures outside the main towns in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. He suggested that personnel may have executed military, administrative, and agricultural functions at these sites simultaneously.

A small group of residents might have been considered a military unit while also serving in administrative or other roles, Hawkins explained.

The professor added that since the site is located on the top of a steep hill, access to agricultural fields would have been difficult. It would have been much easier to engage in agricultural activity below the site, on the plains and along the riverbanks.

The site had already been founded in the Iron Age I, that its main activity was during the Iron II B, and that it was deserted by the end of the Iron II B, possibly as a result of Sennacherib's campaign in southern Levant in 701 BC.

"The excavations so far have shown no evidence from the Iron Age I. The date of construction of the fortification will only become clear after the phase predating it is more securely established. The pottery of the main phase dates to the Iron Age II A and II B," the professor said.

"The construction of the main building remains, including the casemate, can therefore be placed during the Iron Age II A, possibly the 9th century BC," Hawkins underlined, adding that the excavations indicate that the site was eventually destroyed, probably violently in battle, and not deserted as Zertal suggested.

This destruction appears to have occurred during a later stage of this period, somewhere in the 8th century BC. The site's significance may also derive from its possible status as a local border town.

The northern parallels for the pottery from the destruction level have been noted. The material culture of our site (especially pottery) seems to be of a more northern nature, and its location was traditionally under the control of the northern kingdom.

"A plan that involved initial construction with a casemate wall may have been a more universal functional design for military settlements throughout the southern Levant during the Iron Age; examples of this plan also appear in northern Galilee," he said.

"Thus, the phenomenon of towns that were fortified by casemate walls and that later assumed a radial structure may have been a more common during the 9th and 8th centuries BC," Hawkins underscored.

MENAFN06022025000028011005ID1109177726