Roi Sabar is a PhD candidate in the Institute of Archaeology at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Roi is a field archaeologist, specializes in Hellenistic and Roman archaeology of the Galilee. His doctoral study examines the archaeological aspects of the geopolitical dynamics in the Hellenistic Galilee
Between Calendars: A comparative analysis of two fortresses at Qeren Naftali (Upper Galilee, Israel)
Geopolitics is the field of study that explore political powers and their link to the geographic space. As a discipline founded in the late 19th century, geopolitical studies were mostly focused on recent events and actors such as the two World Wars, the Cold War and the “great powers” that took part in them. While studying such recent events offers ample sets of evidence including maps, photographs, documents, personal diaries and notes, the study of ancient geopolitics is based on fragmentary sets of evidence
This paper is pivoted around Qeren Naftali, a conspicuous hill located in the eastern Upper Galilee near the modern Israeli-Lebanese border. The hill has been nick-named by locals “the tip” or “the furuncle” due to its topographical features. Qeren Naftali accommodates the ruins of Khirbet el-Harrawi, where previous archaeological surveys documented remains of a robust Hellenistic-period fortress with a noticeable architectural plan. The fortress was built on the top of the hill and was defended by solid square towers and a thick double wall. Excavations at the site, carried out in 2000, suggested this fortress was built in the 2nd century BCE by the Tyrians to defend the nearby settlement of Cyadasa (Tel Qedesh).
During my PhD research, which examines the archaeological record of the geopolitical changes in the Hellenistic Galilee, I analyzed the finds from that excavation. It seemed to me that the suggested construction date of the fortress is not supported by the finds. Thus, another excavation at the site was set, aiming to revise the construction date of the fortress. The new excavation included three probes, which were located near the walls of the fortress. This allowed us to retrieve sediment which was stratified against the walls from the very top down to the foundations. The finds, including rich pottery assemblages and coins, indicate the fortress was constructed several decades later than previously suggested. In addition, the finds indicate that the fortress was built by the Hasmoneans, a small expansionist kingdom centered in Judea as a border post facing Cyadasa, rather than the previous suggestion.
One of the biggest discoveries, however, was not in the field. During examination of archived documents from Khirbet el-Harrawi in the archive of the British Mandate Department of Antiquities, one significant document attracted my notice. This was a whiteprint of a building set to be constructed on the peak of Qeren Naftali. The layout included dwellings and a watchtower set around a large courtyard. The whiteprint, entitled “Khirbet el-Harrawi – Agricultural Workers Camp,” also included a general map, sections and specifications. It was submitted in December 1944, and was signed by the architect, Yaakov Matrikin, head of the technical department of the Jewish Agency. The plan was rejected and the building was never constructed. However, it led me to a new adventure to uncover the story behind this proposed building.
During the early 1940s Palestine was still recovering from the Arab revolt, which led the British government to the issue the “White Paper of 1939.” This new British policy paper included regulations over the Zionist movement in both land transfer and migration. In reaction, the Zionists secretly purchased lands and established settlements. Two well-known operations in this regard were the establishment of the “Three Observatories” in the Negev, and the “Three Fortresses” in the upper Galilee. Both these operations were carried out by the same architect – Yaakov Matrikin. The observatories and fortresses are identical to each other; they all had the same measurements, features and style. These buildings were part of the Zionist plan to expand to further territories, exploit their natural resources and to gain defensive strongholds, in addition they were meant to test the British reaction. Apparently, the original plan included construction of one such multifunctional building on Qeren Naftali; however, it was rejected by the British Mandate Department of Antiquities due to the archaeological remains. An alternative plan was submitted a few weeks later in a new location which set the construction to be on top of Jabel Billawi, only 2 km away from Qeren Naftali. This building is the northernmost of the Three Fortress and can still be seen today in Moshav Ramot Naftali.
This paper is an invitation to travel in time and through a geographic lens to explore two sets of geopolitical-systems. The first comprised the Seleucid kingdom as the great power and two minor actors, the Hasmoneans and the Tyrians. According to the results of our excavation, the fortress crowning Qeren Naftali was built in the 80s BCE, by the Hasmonean king Alexander Jannaeus. During that time the sovereignty of the Seleucid kingdom in the region was minimal, and the Tyrians invested most of their power in their city-state – Tyre. In addition to Qeren Naftali, several other Hasmonean fortresses were recently uncovered on the periphery of the expanded Hasmonean kingdom, all dated to the days of the same king. It appears that Alexander Jannaeus expanded the territory of the Hasmonean Kingdom to its maximum, and then built fortresses to defend its borders. Two millennia passed until in 1944 another fortress was designed to be built here. The great power in this geopolitical system was the British Empire and the minor actors were the Zionists and the Arabs. Abundant documentation and systematic archiving offer us specific names and dates in addition to notes and thoughts showing the planners desire to fortify the hill. By presenting an archaeological study of an ancient fortress vis-à-vis an archive inquiry of a modern fortress which was never built, we gain a fresh angle for examination of two sets of geopolitical systems. This perspective illustrates the significance of timing, the great powers and, most importantly, the geography in each of the examined geopolitical system.