The En-Gedi Spring Site and the Judahite Expansion into the Judaean Desert in the Late Iron Age

Abstract

This article discusses the results of the excavations conducted in the Iron II site near the En-Gedi Spring in 1961–1962 and 2019. The site, consisting of a prominent stone platform documented as early as the 19th century and other recently discovered structural remains, is interpreted as a Judahite outpost built in a strategic location within the oasis of En-Gedi. On the basis of the ceramic assemblage, it is suggested that this site was founded during the early 7th century BCE and was abandoned before the end of that century—making it the earliest Iron Age occupation in the oasis. Combined with historical considerations and a regional analysis, the En-Gedi Spring site enhances our understanding of the Judahite expansion into the Judaean Desert during the late Iron Age.

Keywords:

• Judahite monarchy
• Iron Age IIB–IIC
• En-Gedi
• Dead Sea
• Judaean Desert
• Neo-Assyrian period

Acknowledgements

The excavations at the En-Gedi Spring site were supported by the European Research Council (Grant No. 802752, issued to Nimrod Marom, University of Haifa). The authors wish to thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on this article. We gratefully acknowledge all colleagues who helped us study the En-Gedi Spring site: Roi Porat, Yael Rotem and Micka Ullman for their assistance in the field; Alon De Groot and Liora Freud for sharing their invaluable knowledge and experience in analysing Iron Age pottery assemblages; Tal Rogovski and Ido Wachtel for drone photography and the preparation of Fig. 1; Sveta Matskevich and Yohan Nedjer for their assistance in obtaining and processing archival materials; Debi Ben-Ami and Michael Sebanne for providing access to pottery uncovered in past excavations at En-Gedi; and Dudi Greenbaum and the staff of the En-Gedi Nature Reserve for granting access and providing logistic assistance during the excavations. Pottery drawings were produced through 3D scanning by the Computational Archaeology Laboratory at the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, using methods described in Karasik and Smilansky 2008.

Disclosure statement

The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.

Contributors

Avraham Mashiach: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; corresponding author’s email: [email protected]

Uri Davidovich: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem; email: [email protected]; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5947-1534

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 The excavations, carried out in April and December 2019, totalled ten days (with 5–10 excavators).

2 The 1961 excavations at the site were recorded using one locus number, L507 (no baskets were used). The 1962 excavations were recorded using locus numbers L301–L305 and basket numbers B601–B612. The 2019 excavations were recorded using locus numbers L307–L350 and basket numbers B3001–B3045.

3 In addition to the excavations attached to the platform walls, the Mazar expedition uncovered a natural rock fissure below the platform. The two edges of this fissure, described in the excavation journal as a ‘rock-hewn channel’, were discerned beneath the western and eastern faces of the platform. In both cases, large stones had to be placed across the fissure’s aperture to ensure stable construction of the outer walls. The western edge of the fissure was excavated by the Mazar expedition to a depth of ca. 3.2 m (L305), exposing a thick accumulation of grey sediments and small stones. This operation initially led the excavators to speculate that this feature was a manmade channel running beneath the platform’s foundations, although its purpose was not discussed in the field journal. Its omission from Dunayevsky’s final plan and from Mazar’s overviews (Mazar 1976; 1993) suggests, however, that this hypothesis was later ruled out. As far as can be assessed from the available data, this feature is indeed a natural fissure not modified or used by the builders of the platform. The lack of artificial modification, coupled with the absence of cultural remains in the fissure, supports this conclusion (see, further, Mashiach 2022).

4 The quotation is from the field journal of the Mazar expedition, stored in the archives of the Israel Antiquities Authority; translated from Hebrew by the authors.

5 Architectural remains that clearly post-date the Iron Age are beyond the scope of this article.

6 The pottery assemblage from the Mazar expedition includes at least seven diagnostic sherds, kept in the Israel Antiquities Authority archives, out of an unknown number of sherds collected during that operation. The assemblage of the renewed excavations includes a total of 61 diagnostic rim sherds.

7 Translated from Hebrew by the authors. The original entry in the excavation log mentions Stratum IV instead of Stratum V, as at the time of writing, Persian period remains had not yet been found at Tel Goren and the Iron Age remains were therefore assigned to Stratum IV. This initial formulation was ‘corrected’ here in alignment with current conventions.

8 In Rujm al-Baḥr and Meṣad Gozal, the raised platforms are clearly related to their proximity to the Dead Sea level and the need to stabilise their foundations (e.g., Oron et al. 2015). Both sites also contain clear remnants of stone superstructure, which in one case (Rujm al-Baḥr) is dated to the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman periods (and see Hirschfeld 2006 for Meṣad Gozal). Rujm esh-Shajara, an isolated structure on the Dead Sea shoreline between Khirbet Mazin/Qasr el-Yahud (Meṣad Qidron) and ꜤEin al-Ghweir (ꜤEinot Qaneh), is perhaps the closest parallel (albeit smaller and rectangular in shape, ca. 8.7 × 6.1 m) to the En-Gedi Spring structure, although it was not understood as such by its excavator (Bar-Adon 1989: 86) and its date remains enigmatic due to the dearth of material remains at this site (Davidovich 2014: 170–172).

9 A detailed reevaluation of the chrono-stratigraphy of Tel Goren in its early phases is beyond the scope of the present paper. Nonetheless, we wish to note that while our renewed analysis and excavations corroborate Ussishkin’s (2011) claim for the existence of more than one Iron Age phase in Area D at Tel Goren (see already Stern and Matskevich 2007: 73), the stratigraphic and artefactual evidence that we have gathered so far does not enable us to date the foundation of Stratum V prior to the mid-7th century BCE (for a detailed discussion, see Mashiach 2022).

10 The evidence for an early Judahite occupation in En-Gedi may also necessitate a reevaluation of the group of vessels from Herbert E. Clark’s collection, published by the Mazar expedition (Mazar, Dothan and Dunayevsky 1966: Figs. 29–33). These vessels, allegedly looted from tombs in the area of En-Gedi, were dismissed by Stern as unrelated to the oasis due to the presence of various Iron IIB forms that are completely absent from Tel Goren Stratum V (Stern 2007: 362; see also Maeir 2007: 126). The proposed date for the En-Gedi Spring site suggests that, at least on chronological grounds, the Clark collection could have derived from En-Gedi (see also Ussishkin 2011: 229).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Avraham Mashiach

Avraham Mashiach: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Uri Davidovich

Uri Davidovich: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.