3. MIDDLE BRONZE AGE FORTIFICATIONS Let him who desires peace, prepare for war. Vegetius Renatus, Epitome Book 3, Preface ANY of the main elements of Middle Bronze fosse) does not serve as an adequate criterion for the MAge defenses in the Levant, such as earthen establishment of a site typology since this may erro­ ramparts (Pennells 1983 ), gates (Gregori 1986; neously imply that these features were continuous Herzog 1986; G. R. H. Wright 1984), and fosses around the site. Special attention is paid, instead, to (Oredsson 2000), have been well documented and the existence of such features in identifiable recurring studied over the last several decades. Various surveys combinations at multiple settlements, which are of Middle Bronze Age fortifications have comple­ likely to suggest a concerted defensive strategy. mented these reports (G. R. H. Wright 1985a; Prior to attempting to create a site typology like Kempinski 1992c; Fritz 1995:27ff.). Yet no single the one mentioned above it is necessary to establish a work provides a comprehensive description of the typology of Middle Bronze Age defensive elements features, functions, and nature of the construction of that accounts for the historical development of each Middle Bronze Age fortifications and how these as­ feature and its regional distribution. In the following pects related to the concerns of Bronze Age warfare. discussion of earthen ramparts, for example, it is as­ In the absence of such a treatment many basic ques­ sumed therefore that a single rampart constitutes a tions remain. For example, which elements are ubiq­ continuous built feature of uniform dimensions (i.e., uitous to fortifications during the Middle Bronze height, width, and slope) running between gates. Age, and which are rare? When do the various ele­ Likewise, while a glacis may have covered one slope ments develop and how do they relate to the techno­ of a tell or an earthen rampart, it cannot be assumed logical developments in weaponry described in the that it featured a similar construction in other areas preceding chapter? Is it possible to suggest that par­ around the site. Finally, issues of preservation must ticular brick sizes or site types were confined to cer­ also be taken into consideration when determining tain regions in the Middle Bronze Age? Are particular the existence and extent of certain features. construction techniques or styles limited to certain In this chapter an attempt has been made to ad­ regions or polities? vance a typology of the characteristic features of The use of simplistic criteria for site typologies, Middle Bronze Age fortifications. The focus is upon such as the presence or absence of earthen ramparts, components such as walls, gates, towers, bastions, has resulted in misconceptions regarding defensive ramparts, glacis, revetment and retaining walls, and strategies during this period. As noted in chapter I fosses, which are frequently identified at archaeo­ there are inherent problems with existing site typolo­ logical sites. Each feature is examined with specific gies, which assume that the use of an earthen rampart attention to its construction, function, typology, com­ around one portion of a settlement justifies its inclu­ paranda, and geographic point of origin. The basic sion in a separate category of settlements (see espe­ elements of their construction, average dimensions, cially comments on Herzog's typology on pp. 11 f.). the period during which they functioned, as well as Such an approach obscures that so-called "ram­ the specific roles that they filled are discussed, as are parted" settlements were not completely surrounded the materials used in their construction. Finally, a by a continuous rampart of one type. While sites such chronological typology of fortified sites in the Levant as Qatna, Timnah, Sefinat-Nouh, and others may is offered for the EB IV through the LB I based upon provide examples of this type of settlement­ the occurrence and function of these architectural completely surrounded by a single type of defense­ features. Because the conclusions provided in this conditions at many settlements prohibited the adop­ chapter are drawn from the catalog of fortified Mid­ tion of a single fortification strategy. A combination dle Bronze Age settlements that are provided in this of defensive strategies was often necessary to prepare work (see catalogs 1 and 2), citations of reports are a settlement's defenses in light of local conditions, not included in this chapter. The reader will find, in­ areas occupied at the time of construction, and un­ stead, that exemplars of the features discussed are even terrain. For this reason the presence of ramparts listed in parentheses. (The Akkadian terms for these or any single architectural feature ( e.g., glacis and features are discussed in chapter 5.) 48 The Evolution of Warfare and Defenses in the Levant during the Bronze Age A. Architectural Elements 1. EARTHEN RAMPARTS the definition of a rampart should emphasize that earthen ramparts were not limited to the Middle Earthen ramparts are recognized as an element almost Bronze Age since they were already being erected exclusive to Middle Bronze Age fortifications in the during the third millennium in the northern Levant Levant. However, the interchangeable use of the and northwestern Mesopotamia, as demonstrated terms rampart and glacis, which were originally bor­ below. Furthermore, based upon their morphological rowed from French terms for medieval fortifications, characteristics two distinct types of earthen ramparts has obscured the important distinction between these can be identified: the freestanding rampart and the features. As will be demonstrated below, the earthen supplemental rampart. rampart and glacis protected against the approach of aggressors and the effects of erosion respectively. a. Freestanding Ramparts The clearest definition of a rampart thus far is found in the glossary for The Architecture of Ancient A freestanding rampart is defined as an artificial Israel (Reich and Katzenstein 1992), and for this earthen embankment that featured an interior and exte­ reason I have adopted it in the following discussion. 1 rior slope, which was intended to raise the base of the Ronny Reich and Hannah Katzenstein summarize the fortification wall above the surrounding plain.3 Al­ consensus that has emerged among Levantine ar­ though such ramparts were often built around entire chaeologists regarding the use of the term rampart, settlements, they were also constructed around por­ which they identify as an "earthen mound piled up tions of settlements that were considered especially around a city as a fortification or part of it" (ibid., vulnerable due to their topography. Freestanding ram­ 319). They define the glacis as: parts (as well as supplemental ramparts) were sur­ mounted by defensive walls, although frequently the the outer facing of [an] earthen rampart which serves remains of such walls are poorly preserved if at all ( for as a fortification of the lower slope of a mound (tell), discussion of fortification walls, see pp. 59ff.). or the lower outer-sloping foot of the city-wall. Con­ Freestanding ramparts are the easiest type of ram­ structed of different materials such as: beaten earth, lime plaster, bricks, stones, etc. (ibid., 316).2 part to identify because they often contribute to the formation of crater-like tells (Figure 6 below). Set­ Unfortunately, while their definition of rampart tlements located in fairly open areas that lacked any agrees with the data provided below, describing the natural defenses were often completely enclosed by glacis as "the lower outer-sloping foot of the city­ freestanding ramparts ( e.g., Ebia, Qatna, Tuqan, Dan, wall" does not adequately distinguish between the Ashkelon, Yavneh-Yam, and Timnah). However, it is morphological and functional aspects of glacis and also noteworthy that site morphological processes ramparts. The distinction rests on the fundamental and continuous occupation of settlements have often observation that an earthen rampart is simply an em­ obscured or even destroyed traces of freestanding bankment built to impede the advance of an enemy ramparts at some sites, particularly in the western approaching the fortification wall by elevating the Levant where precipitation is much greater than to wall, while a glacis is merely a surface treatment for the east. These "craters" may also have been filled in the slope of the rampart or tell, which was intended over time by subsequent occupation, thus erasing the primarily to protect it from erosion (for discussion of rampart's characteristic topographic signature ( e.g., glacis, see pp. 55f.). If the glacis actually impeded the Kabri). This may be the case at sites with saddle-like enemy, this was an unintended result. Additionally, appearances where gates would have been located in 1These definitions find support in G. R. H. Wright's Ancient 3Kempinski referred to this type of rampart as a "double­ Building in South Syria and Palestine (1985a:183f.), even sloped rampart" (1992d:175). Peter Parr (1968) and Jacob though he did not explicitly define these terms. Kaplan ( 1975) advanced other terminology to describe 2Aharon Kempinski 's ( 1992c) contribution in the same earthen ramparts based on the presence or absence of forti­ volume ignores the distinction drawn by Reich and Katzen­ fication walls. Ramparts with walls within them, which are stein between the terms glacis and rampart. Kempinski identified as core walls in this chapter (see p. 54), were defines a glacis as "a sloping, external retaining wall" that called "wall ramparts," while ramparts without walls were "protects the base of the city-wall by keeping besiegers identified as "freestanding ramparts" according to Kaplan away" (ibid., 129). (I 975: I). .