A fact from Upper Zohar appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 August 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the fort at Upper Zohar, once thought to be a part of Roman frontier defenses, may have been constructed for economic reasons?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rome, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the city of Rome and ancient Roman history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomeWikipedia:WikiProject RomeTemplate:WikiProject RomeRome articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I cannot find a single mention online of this site as "זהר עילי" (Zohar Ili - Upper Zoher): all sources refer to the site as "רוגם זוהר" (Rogem Zohar). Do the printed publications cited in the ""References" section support this? If yes, it should be explicitly cited.
I've now found that a valid alternate name of Rogem Zohar is Metzad Zohar Ilit "the Upper Zohar Fortress (מצד זוהר עילית) [1] apparently to distinguish it from the other Zohar Fortress; see the Hebrew Wikipedia article מצד זוהר, which is about both Zohar Fortresses.
In short, it seems that the English name may be valid, but the Hebrew name is not. It seems that Rogem Zohar is the usual name in Hebrew, though. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'm changing 'עילי' to 'עילית', that actually corresponds to the one Hebrew reference I used; I should have noticed. 'מצד' I'm leaving out though, the source doesn't use it. Neither two forts mentioned in the Hebrew article, btw, are the fort discussed in this article. Both are nicknamed Mezad Zohar and are down by the Dead Sea. Poliocretes (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Economic reasons" suggests either an industry, or trade.
"Military reasons" suggests border protection (defensive), an offensive base, or smth along those lines.
This fortlet (castellum) was, as it seems, either a police fort, or - not addressed explicitly - a caravanserai. If a military detachment fulfilling policing duties was more or less garrisoned there, it should still contain typical military findings. If they accompanied caravans and used it sporadically, less so, but still. If it was a caravanserai (khan), who defended it while caravans stopped there? Their own guards? The findings then would be quite heterogenous.
Whoever read the sources should offer a clearer picture, Magness at least is usually quite clear and articulate in her opinions. Now it's all very nebulous, more questions than answers. An "economic structure/installation" it was clearly not, that's for sure. Maybe a trade protection post garrisoned by a local outfit, or by a detachment under the orders of a local administrator, either permanently stationed there, or only hosed there while accompanying caravans. Arminden (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
