Jump to content

Minat al-Qal'a

From Catholicism Wiki
Minat al-Qal'a
Aerial view of Minat al-Qal'a
Aerial view of Minat al-Qal'a
31°46′48″N 34°37′17.5″E / 31.78000°N 34.621528°E
Type Fort
Periods Umayyad
Fatimid
Crusader
Location Israel
Palestine grid 114/132
Site notes
Condition Ruin

Minat al-Qal'a (Arabic: مِنَاة الْقَلَعَة, lit. 'harbour of the fort'; Hebrew: מצודת אשדוד ים, romanized: Metzudat Ashdod Yam, lit. 'Ashdod Yam Fortress';[1] Latin: Castellum Beroart) is a medieval coastal fort protecting the port known as Ashdod-Yam (lit. "Ashdod-on-the-Sea"), which was historically separate from Ashdod proper but whose archaeological remains are today located on the southern beach of the sprawling modern city of Ashdod. The fort was built by the Umayyads and later restored by the Crusaders.[2]

Etymology

The medieval Arabic name was Mahuz Azdud, "harbour of Azdud", after centuries of being known as "Azotus paralios" (Greek for Ashdod-on-the-Sea)[3][4] The modern Arabic name, Minat al-Qal'a, means "The harbour (mina) with the fortress (qal'a)", while the modern Hebrew name, "Hurbat Ashdod Yam" means the "ruins of Ashdod-on-the-Sea."

History

Early Muslim period

The fort was built by the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (reign 685–705 CE) before the end of the 7th century on top of Byzantine-era remains. It was in use during the 10th-11th centuries, and was restored and used again by the Crusaders in the late 12th century after sustaining serious damage from the 1033 earthquake.[5][6] The fort was meant to protect the port from raids by the Byzantine navy, while the port itself was used by the same navy to exchange Muslim prisoners for ransom.[7]

Crusader period

Archaeological excavations show that the fort was restored and reused during the Crusader period.[5] They come to prove what was already known from documents from the era, which indicate that Nicolas de Beroard, a knight of lord Hugh of Ramla, was in charge of the stronghold in 1169. From this period it is known as Castellum Beroart.[8]

Ayyubid and Mamluk periods

The port stops being mentioned during the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods, making it likely that it was destroyed by the Muslims along with the other port cities from the coast of Palestine, due to fears that they might again be used by Crusader invasions from the sea.[6]

Ottoman era

In 1863 Victor Guérin visited and described it,[9] while in 1873–4, it was described by Charles Simon Clermont-Ganneau.[10] In 1882, the Palestine Exploration Fund's Survey of Western Palestine described it as being apparently from "the Middle Ages".[11]

Archaeology

The almost rectangular fortress (35×55 meters) was enclosed by a six to seven meters high curtain wall. It has four solid corner towers, and two semicircular ones flanking each of the two huge gates that gave access to the stronghold from the west and east.

References

  1. Back to citation Also known in Hebrew as Hurbat Ashdod Yam (חורבת אשדוד ים, 'Ruins of Ashdod Yam') "גיליון 125 לשנת 2013: חורבת אשדוד-ים" Gilyon 125 Lishnat 2013: Hurvat Ashdod Yam [Issue 125 for the year 2013: Ruins of Ashdod Yam]. Israel Antiquities Authority (in Hebrew). Retrieved 2025-09-24.
  2. Back to citation Palmer, 1881, p. 372; Vunsh, Tal and Sivan, 2013, Hurbatat Ashdod-Yam; Pringle, 1997, p. 72
  3. Back to citation Pringle, 1997, p. 72
  4. Back to citation Tel Aviv University, History of Yavneh-Yam
  5. Back to citation occurrence 5.0 Back to citation occurrence 5.1 Vunsh, Tal and Sivan, 2013, Hurbatat Ashdod-Yam
  6. Back to citation occurrence 6.0 Back to citation occurrence 6.1 Petersen, 2005, pp. 90-91
  7. Back to citation Petersen, 2005, pp. 90-91; [Shams al-Din al-Muqaddasi, Ahsan al-taqasimfi ma'rifat al-aqalim, Edition M.J. De Goeje, E.J. Brill Leiden (1906).]; Le Strange, 1890, pp. 23-24; Petersen, 2001, pp. 159-160
  8. Back to citation Röhricht, 1893, RRH, pp. 16- 124, No 472; cited in Pringle, 1997, p. 72
  9. Back to citation Guérin, 1869, pp. 72-73
  10. Back to citation Clermont-Ganneau, 1896, vol 2. p. 191
  11. Back to citation Conder and Kitchener, 1882, SWP II, pp. 426-427

Bibliography