But Why Build Fortifications After The Battle?

[Minimalist]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 171640.htm

Aug. 19, 2013 — Researchers from Tel Aviv University have unearthed the remains of massive ancient fortifications built around an Iron-Age Assyrian harbor in present-day Israel.

Kaplan believed the Ashdod rebels built the fortifications in anticipation of an Assyrian attack, but Fantalkin says the construction appears too impressive to have been done under such circumstances.

But why would the Assyrians fortify a site they had just overrun? Who were they defending it from? They were the Boss Hooters in the 8th century BC?

[nicolas.fox]

As far as I can tell from the article, it would both make sense if they were built before or after the attack. It's also mentioned in the article that they are not sure.

They could have been built before or after the Ashdod rebellion was put down, either at the initiative of the locals or at the orders of the Assyrians.

If it was before the rebellion, it would make sense. They would simply want to make sure they were thoroughly protected for when Sargon II would try to break the rebellion.

Assyrian inscriptions reveal that at the end of the century, Yamani, the rebel king of Ashdod, led a rebellion against Sargon II, the king of the Assyrian Empire.

If it was built after, it would also make sense. It would make the story less interesting though (maybe that's why they mentioned the rebellion: they need good stories to get more funding). There's many reasons why the Assyrians would build fortifications, even if they were the head honchos back then.

1. Protection from other (possible) invaders of marauding tribes.
2. To enhance the status of the city.
3. Walls could be built not only to keep people out, but also used as a control against its inhabitants.

There's more possibilities but these seem the most logical. I don't think 2. would be the case, since the people from the city rebelled (or at least supported Yamani). So it seems unlikely a ruler would reward the population with enrichments to the city. It's more likely a control that the inhabitants would rebel a second time. However, it seems to me that it would be choice 1.. If you look at where Ashdod-Yam (now Ashdod-Sea) is situated, it makes sense to build walls. It's a port town, which means it's an excellent target for pirates and marauders. You can see where it is by looking at modern day Ashdod (Ashdod-Yam is in the South).

Just speculation of course. But perhaps it will give you some ideas as well. If it does, please share

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashdod-yam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashdod

[Minimalist]

1. Protection from other (possible) invaders of marauding tribes.
2. To enhance the status of the city.
3. Walls could be built not only to keep people out, but also used as a control against its inhabitants.

1. Militarily it doesn't make sense.
The region had been overrun by the Assyrians and it was one vassal state after another. Their empire stretched from Central Turkey to Egypt. Someone would have had to penetrate a long way to get to Ashdod. Besides, allowing vassal states to build fortifications gave them ideas....as Hezekiah himself shortly demonstrated. When the Egyptians controlled Canaan they did not permit defensive fortifications, which kind of puts the lie to the whole Joshua story as if it weren't in enough trouble.

I agree about #2. Seems about the last thing the Assyrians would do is reward rebels.

3. Far cheaper to take hostages from among the leading families and has the added bonus of not giving anyone the security of knowing that if they rebel again they would have an Assyrian made wall to hide behind.

I'm inclined to think that Kaplan had it right. The original rebels built the defenses. Fear can make a population work very hard and these people had been building with mud brick for a long time.

[kbs2244]

The territory covered by ancient Israel was important not because of any natural wealth.
It was fought over because it was supreme crossroads of trade.
In all directions.
North to South, East to West, East to North, South to East.
From anywhere to anywhere, you could find in on the East cost of the Med.

Ashodod was a port.
An artificial one, but once there it was used and it was valuable.
And once in use it provided another point of taxation on the trade going in all directions.

As someone with a gravely voice once said.
“Follow the money.”

[Minimalist]

Ashdod was a Philistine port. No Israelites involved and the Assyrians took out the Israelites on their big push south. The Judahites were either ignored or chose to back the winning side which was a smart move for a while.

In any case,



This map of the Omride Dynasty shows that while they controlled a stretch of the coast there was not much in the way of ports - the Philistines and Phoenicians had that pretty well wrapped up.

BTW, as Finkelstein points out the land of the northern kingdom of Israel was actually quite suitable for agriculture - particularly the Jezreel Valley - and in stark contrast to Judah which was good for little more than grazing sheep. Much denser population and it did for a short time become something of a regional power....until the Aramaens and Assyrians got serious. But Israel was worth conquering. Judah was not.

[nicolas.fox]

Actually things got a little mixed up.

We're talking about two different Ashdod cities here.

1. (Phillistine) Ashdod - Where the rebellion was put down, and the city subsequently lost its influence over the area. / Destroyed by Sargon II
2. Ashdod-Yam - Power shifted to this nearby city. This is where the fortifications where found.

And things get even more unclear while trying to find some information on Ashdod-Yam. Apparently the city joined the rebellion as well. So I'm not sure where its allegiance lay before the rebellion. I'm guessing it was another Phillistine city. I'm also pretty sure they were inside the dominion of the Assyrians already (hence rebellion).

The site is mentioned in documents from the time of Sargon II of Assyria when in 713 BCE the Assyrian king speaks of having to depose a usurper who had taken over control of the city of Ashdod and had fortified it, Gath, and Ashdod-Yam.

In any case, as you can tell by the map you provided by Minimalist, it was an (artificial) port and a border city. And as mentioned by kbs224, it was controlling trade routes. So protecting it against its (rebellious) neighbours, other civilizations and marauders/pirates would make sense. Also another source suggests that the fortifications were only there for little under a 100 years. This would make sense if you look at the expansion of the Assyrian empire in subsequent years.

Pottery found at the site suggests that the fortifications were constructed in the second half of the 8th century BCE and that a second phase of occupation occurred during the 7th century BCE when the site was no longer fortified.

Map of Assyrian Empire: http://www.ancient.eu.com/uploads/images/117.png

But actually this is not the most important point of the article:

The fortifications appear to protect an artificial harbor," says Fantalkin. "If so, this would be a discovery of international significance, the first known harbor of this kind in our corner of the Levant."

And that's pretty cool.

[Minimalist]

It would certainly require the revision of this web site...

http://www.cmj-israel.org/CMJMinistries ... fault.aspx

The first artificial harbor in the world, Caesarea was a monument to Herod the Great’s ingenuity.

Both constructions deal with the reality that there is a long stretch of the Canaanite coast which does not have natural harbors. This is what made Tyre and Sidon so important/valuable. Ships coasting along between towns liked to put into ports at night and if they had stop for the night and there was no port then a sheltered bay would be the next best choice. Worst of all would be pulling the ship up on the beach at night. Could be dangerous if a storm blew up the next morning.

Of course the Assyrians were not a major naval power. Neither were the Egyptians who were shortly overrun by the Assyrians, too. Once again that leaves us with the likely suspects - the Philistines and the Phoenicians to have actually built the thing. The Assyrians did the same thing as Pompey the Great 8 centuries later. You control the sea by controlling the ports. But the Assyrians to a far greater extent than the Romans utilized tributary vassal states as their empire rather than direct rule. Which is probably why they reached their greatest extent in the early 7th century BC and were gone by the end of it.