The Impact of Assyrian Rule on Rural Northern Palestine

Tel Aviv University
<strong>The</strong> Faculty <strong>of</strong> Humanities
<strong>The</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Cultures
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>Rule</strong> on Rural Northern Palestine
Settlement Dynamics under Imperial Domination
<strong>The</strong>sis submitted for the M.A. degree
By
Keren Ras
Under the supervision <strong>of</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>. Israel Finkelstein
November 2010

To my brother, Oren Ras 1977-1995
<strong>The</strong>re is a little bit <strong>of</strong> you in everything I do

Acknowledgments
Many are the people to whom I owe a debt <strong>of</strong> gratitude. Our goals demand total
dedication and persistence, which we can find within ourselves. However, on the
journey toward our goals we are in constant need <strong>of</strong> support, encouragement and
reassurance, which if we are lucky we can find in others.
First and foremost I would like to thank Pr<strong>of</strong>. Israel Finkelstein, under whose
guidance this research was conducted. His wisdom, support, advice and insightful
comments were invaluable to me during the writing <strong>of</strong> this study.
I owe a debt <strong>of</strong> gratitude to Pr<strong>of</strong>. Oded Lipschits, whose kindness and patience
meant a great deal to me. He was always willing to listen and engage in fruitful
conversation.
A thank you is also due to Dr. Yuval Gadot, Lily Singer Avitz and Pr<strong>of</strong>. Ronny
Reich who were willing to share and exchange ideas. I would also like to thank Dr.
Mario Martin, who helped me with my German.
I would like to thank the Institute and Department <strong>of</strong> Archaeology at Tel Aviv
University for finding me worthy <strong>of</strong> the Kenny Family Grant. In this respect I would
also like to thank the School <strong>of</strong> Jewish Studies at Tel Aviv University for finding me
worthy <strong>of</strong> the Ignatz-Bubis Grant.
A huge thank you is due to the Institute <strong>of</strong> Archaeology staff, to Sarah Shachar Lev
for her interest and encouragement and to Myrna Pollak for her kind words and
advice. My deepest gratitude and appreciation are due to the Library staff, past and
present. <strong>The</strong> Institute <strong>of</strong> Archaeology Library has become a second home to me over
the course <strong>of</strong> the last few years, and the situation did not change with the new staff. I
would like to thank Naama Scheftelowitz, the former chief librarian and Nirit Kedem,

my friend and the current chief librarian for their support and for putting their
fountain <strong>of</strong> knowledge at my disposal whenever needed. A special thank you is due to
Alexandra Shavit, for her kind support. I would like to thank Leora Pick the
department secretary for her much needed assistance.
And to my friends, it was Plautus who said "nothing but heaven itself is better than
a friend who is really a friend" and you are all true friends. My deepest gratitude goes
to Ido Koch, who helped me create the maps and was always willing to <strong>of</strong>fer his
advice. I would like to thank Natan Ben-Ari and Gilad Jaffe, who were there to lend a
helping hand. I would like to thank Tamar Lakichevic, Shanny Amit, Shira Gur, Alla
Volvovsky, Efrat Bocher and Shimrit Salem for their empowering feminine support
system.
I wish to thank the Ramat Rahel Expedition team, it is both a pleasure and a
privilege to work with such a gifted group <strong>of</strong> people.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my family. My husband Roee, thank you
for all your support, for providing the peace <strong>of</strong> mind and encouragement that are
necessary for me to pursue my dreams. My parents, Dr. Nancy and Avi Ras, whom I
adore, for providing the means, a s<strong>of</strong>t place to fall, much needed advice, a listening
heart and lots <strong>of</strong> love. It is amazing how you are always there when I need you, even
if you are miles away. Thank you for believing in me. My brothers, Segev and Guy,
who are blossoming before my eyes and becoming two remarkable individuals, thank
you.

Contents
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 5
List <strong>of</strong> Figures ............................................................................................................... 6
List <strong>of</strong> Maps .................................................................................................................. 7
List <strong>of</strong> Tables ................................................................................................................ 7
1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 8
1.1. History <strong>of</strong> Research ........................................................................................... 9
1.1.1. <strong>The</strong> Provinces ............................................................................................... 9
1.1.2. <strong>The</strong> Archaeology ........................................................................................ 10
1.2. Geopolitical Background ................................................................................ 12
1.2.1. Tiglath-pileser III and the Final Days <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel ................ 12
1.2.2. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> Annexation <strong>of</strong> Israelite Territory by Tiglath-Pileser III ....... 15
1.2.3. <strong>The</strong> Fall <strong>of</strong> Samaria and the Final Demise <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel ......... 18
1.2.4. Israeli Deportations by <strong>Assyrian</strong> Hands: Geography and Numbers ........... 21
1.2.5. Former Territories <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel Mentioned in Later <strong>Assyrian</strong>
Texts ..................................................................................................................... 24
1.3. Post <strong>Assyrian</strong> Empires in Palestine ............................................................... 27
1.3.1 <strong>The</strong> demise <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire and the Egyptian rule over Palestine .. 27
1.3.2. <strong>The</strong> Neo-Babylonian rule over Palestine .................................................... 28
1.3.3. <strong>The</strong> Fall <strong>of</strong> the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the Persian rule over Palestine
.............................................................................................................................. 31
1.3.4. Persian Domination <strong>of</strong> Palestine ................................................................. 33
1.4. Geographic Introduction ................................................................................ 35
1.4.1 <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Dor (<strong>The</strong> Coastal Plain) .................................................... 35
1.4.2. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo ........................................................................... 36
1.4.3. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Samaria ............................................................................ 39

2. Methods ............................................................................................................ 42
2.1. Site Surface Survey ...................................................................................... 42
2.2. <strong>The</strong> Method used in this Research ............................................................. 43
2.3. Presentation <strong>of</strong> Data .................................................................................... 45
3. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Dor (<strong>The</strong> Coastal Plain) ................................................. 48
3.1. <strong>The</strong> 'Atlit Map ................................................................................................. 48
3.2. Map <strong>of</strong> Dor ....................................................................................................... 50
3.3. Map <strong>of</strong> Binyamina ........................................................................................... 51
3.4. Maps <strong>of</strong> Mikhmoret and Hadera ................................................................... 53
3.5. Map <strong>of</strong> Herzliyya ............................................................................................. 54
3.6. Tel Megadim .................................................................................................... 56
3.7. Dor .................................................................................................................... 57
3.8. Tel Michal ........................................................................................................ 59
3.9. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Dor (<strong>The</strong> Coastal Plain) in Transition ............................... 61
4. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo ............................................................................... 69
4.1. Upper Galilee ................................................................................................... 69
4.1.1. <strong>The</strong> Area <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav ............................................................................. 73
4.1.2. Hazor and Ayyelet ha-Shahar ..................................................................... 74
4.2. Lower Galilee ................................................................................................... 75
4.2.1. Map <strong>of</strong> Shefar'am ........................................................................................ 77
4.2.2 Map <strong>of</strong> Gazit ................................................................................................ 79
4.2.3. Maps <strong>of</strong> Har Tavor and 'En Dor ................................................................. 79
4.2.4. Herbat Rosh Zayit ....................................................................................... 82
4.3 <strong>The</strong> Megiddo Hinterland Project .................................................................... 83
4.3.1 Tell Qiri ....................................................................................................... 86
4.3.2 Tel Qashish .................................................................................................. 87

4.4 <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo in Transition ......................................................... 88
5. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Samaria ............................................................................. 102
5.1. <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey ............................................................ 102
5.1.1. <strong>The</strong> Shechem Syncline ............................................................................. 103
5.1.2. <strong>The</strong> Eastern Valleys and the Fringes <strong>of</strong> the Desert ................................... 104
5.1.3. From Nahal 'Iron to Nahal Shechem ........................................................ 105
5.1.4. From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba ............................................................. 106
5.1.5. <strong>The</strong> area around Kh. Umm er-Rihan ........................................................ 108
5.1.6 Salvage Excavation at Maskiyot ................................................................ 108
5.2. <strong>The</strong> Southern Samaria Survey ..................................................................... 109
5.3. <strong>The</strong> province <strong>of</strong> Samaria in Transition ....................................................... 110
6. <strong>The</strong> Area Surrounding the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Administrative Centers ....... 144
6.1. <strong>The</strong> Area Surrounding the City <strong>of</strong> Dor ....................................................... 144
6.1.1 Dor under <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>Rule</strong> ........................................................................... 144
6.1.2. Analysis .................................................................................................... 146
6.2. <strong>The</strong> Area Surrounding the City <strong>of</strong> Megiddo ............................................... 148
6.2.1. Megiddo under <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>Rule</strong> .................................................................. 148
6.2.2. Analysis .................................................................................................... 150
6.3. <strong>The</strong> Area Surrounding Samaria .................................................................. 152
6.3.1. Samaria under <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>Rule</strong> ................................................................... 152
6.3.2. Analysis .................................................................................................... 153
7. Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................... 155
References ................................................................................................................. 160

AFO
ANET
BA
BASOR
BAR
BDASI
EI
HA-ESI
IEJ
JBL
JCS
JANES
JAOS
JSOT
NEA
PEQ
SAA
VT
ZAW
ZDPV
Abbreviations
Altorientalische Forschungen
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. Pritchard, J. B.
Biblical Archaeologist
Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the American Schools <strong>of</strong> Oriental Research
Biblical Archaeology Review
Bulletin <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong> Antiquities <strong>of</strong> the State <strong>of</strong> Israel
Eretz Israel
Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel
Israel Exploration Journal
Journal <strong>of</strong> biblical literature
Journal <strong>of</strong> Cuneiform Studies
Journal <strong>of</strong> the Ancient Near Eastern Society <strong>of</strong> Columbia University
Journal <strong>of</strong> the American Oriental Society
Journal for the study <strong>of</strong> the Old Testament
Near Eastern Archaeology
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
State Archives <strong>of</strong> Assyria
Vetus Testamentum
Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins

List <strong>of</strong> Figures
Figure 1 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the 'Atlit Map Survey 50
Figure 2 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Dor Survey 51
Figure 3 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Binyamina Survey 52
Figure 4 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Maps <strong>of</strong> Mikhmoret and Hadera Survey 53
Figure 5 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Herzliyya Survey 54
Figure 6 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Survey <strong>of</strong> Upper Galilee 72
Figure 7 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Survey <strong>of</strong> Lower Galilee 76
Figure 8 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Shefar'am Survey 77
Figure 9 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Gazit Survey 78
Figure 10 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Har Tavor Survey 80
Figure 11 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> 'En Dor Survey 81
Figure 12 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Megiddo Hinterland Project 84
Figure 13 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-unit in the Shechem Syncline 102
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-unit in the Eastern Valleys and Firinges <strong>of</strong>
the Desert
Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-unit in the From Nahal 'Iron to Nahal
Shechem geographical unit
Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-unit in From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba
geographical unit
Figure 17 Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Southern Samaria Survey 109
104
105
106

List <strong>of</strong> Maps
Map 1 Western Part <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel (<strong>The</strong> Coastal Plain), Iron Age II 65
Map 2 Province <strong>of</strong> Dor (<strong>The</strong> Coastal Plain), Persian Period 66
Map 3 <strong>The</strong> Northern Part <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel, Iron Age II 90
Map 4 Province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo, Persian Period 91
Map5 Central Part <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel (Samaria Hills), Iron Age II 112
Map 6 Province <strong>of</strong> Samaria, Persian Period 113
List <strong>of</strong> Tables
Table 1 Sites located in the Province <strong>of</strong> Dor 67
Table 2 Sites located in the Province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo 92
Table 3 Sites located in the Province <strong>of</strong> Samaria 114

1. Introduction
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> imperial impact on the areas under its direct control was documented
in the <strong>Assyrian</strong> royal texts, and is reflected in the archaeological record. Distinct signs
<strong>of</strong> imperial impact can mainly be found in large sites. However the countryside can
also provide important insight as to the impact that a foreign rule might have had on a
specific area, and in turn, shed some light on possible imperial aims and objectives.
<strong>The</strong> provinces created by the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s in the northern part <strong>of</strong> Palestine (Land <strong>of</strong>
Israel) seem to be good candidates for this type <strong>of</strong> study, due to the following factors.
<strong>The</strong> first is the abundance <strong>of</strong> data available regarding this area, which includes the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> royal texts, the archaeological surveys and excavations and the Biblical
narrative. <strong>The</strong> second is that this area is comprised <strong>of</strong> various geographical units,
consisting <strong>of</strong> the coastal plain, hilly countryside and fertile valleys.
In large excavated sites the impact <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> takeover is well documented,
however, many questions remain unanswered. This research seeks to examine how
much, if any impact was felt in the rural areas by this transformation from an
independent kingdom to an imperial province. Were all areas impacted in the same
way, and what could be attributed to any differences that may exist?
In order to answer these questions this research will deal mostly with the
archaeological survey results, although wherever possible, excavations <strong>of</strong> relevant
sites will also be examined, using a comparative method. <strong>The</strong> aims <strong>of</strong> this research are
tw<strong>of</strong>old. Firstly, to present a broad picture <strong>of</strong> the shifts in settlement patterns that
occurred during the transitional phase from independent kingdom to Imperial
province. Secondly, to draw conclusions regarding the <strong>Assyrian</strong> imperial aims and
objectives, that might be reflected in the settlement fluctuations.

1.1. History <strong>of</strong> Research
Since the research regarding the impact <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule over annexed areas
involves various fields <strong>of</strong> study, this history <strong>of</strong> research will focus mainly on the
works that most influenced this topic. It seems that the interest regarding this issue
began in the field <strong>of</strong> Assyriology, and examination <strong>of</strong> cuneiform texts that were found
in the palaces <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> rulers, during the 19 th and early 20 th centuries. <strong>The</strong>se
discoveries led to biblical research regarding mostly the deportations to and from the
kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel.
1.1.1. <strong>The</strong> Provinces
<strong>The</strong> first comprehensive research dealing with the <strong>Assyrian</strong> annexed areas <strong>of</strong> the
kingdoms <strong>of</strong> Damascus and Israel was conducted by E. Forrer and published in 1920.
In his seminal work Forrer examined the system <strong>of</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> provinces. Forrer based
his reconstruction on the <strong>Assyrian</strong> royal texts. This reconstruction was criticized by A.
Jirku (1928: 249-253). In 1929, as a response to Jirku, A. Alt published an article
rejecting his arguments, and using the 'longue durée' approach which indicates that
Forrer's reconstructed system continued with minor variations for hundreds <strong>of</strong> years
after the fall <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire (Alt 1929: 220- 242). He also published an article
which discussed specifically the province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo (Alt 1938: 80-93). Alt's
conclusions were widely accepted by scholars. However, some scholars still doubted
parts <strong>of</strong> this reconstruction (Rainey 1981: 146-148; Gilboa 1996: 131-133).
Nonetheless, much <strong>of</strong> the research being carried out today, regarding the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
province system, still stands on the foundations that were set by Forrer and Alt.
In 1993 N. Na'aman published an article dealing with population changes, which
occurred in northern Palestine following the <strong>Assyrian</strong> annexation. In 1995 Na'aman

published an article (1995a) dealing with the estimated boundaries <strong>of</strong> the provinces <strong>of</strong>
northern Palestine. <strong>The</strong> current work is based on these estimates. In 2009 Na'aman
published an article dealing with whether or not the coastal plain had the status <strong>of</strong> an
independent <strong>Assyrian</strong> province, and concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to
resolve this issue completely. In this issue as well this work follows his notion.
In regards to the populations which were brought and settled in Palestine
following the <strong>Assyrian</strong> annexation, one should mention G.R. Driver (1958), R. Zadok
(1976), Na'aman and Zadok (1988) and Na'aman and Zadok (2000), who researched
the origin and new places <strong>of</strong> settlement <strong>of</strong> deportees. <strong>The</strong> various publications <strong>of</strong>
<strong>Assyrian</strong> texts also contributed a great deal to our knowledge regarding the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
provinces. S. Parpola (1987), who published the corresponding texts <strong>of</strong> Sargon II, H.
Tadmor (1994), who published the royal texts <strong>of</strong> Tiglath-pileser III, as well as F. M.
Fales and J. N. Postgate (1995), who published <strong>Assyrian</strong> administrative records.
Also Salient to this issue is also the comprehensive research conducted by B.
Oded, which although does not deal specifically with the provinces <strong>of</strong> northern
Palestine, is important in regards to <strong>Assyrian</strong> mass deportations and deportees (1979).
Oded's work demonstrated that the <strong>Assyrian</strong> tactic <strong>of</strong> mass deportations had clear
aims and objectives. This research follows that view to a great extent.
1.1.2. <strong>The</strong> Archaeology
From the archaeological point <strong>of</strong> view this period, due to its illusive character,
was not much dealt with. Most <strong>of</strong> the research was conducted on the level <strong>of</strong> the
individual sites in which remains from this period were found. Of the highest
importance to this work are the sites to Dor, Megiddo and Samaria. <strong>The</strong> excavation
results <strong>of</strong> Dor was published by E. Stern (1995 and 2000). However, the renewed

excavations at the site, conducted by A. Gilboa and I. Sharon have yet to see light.
<strong>The</strong> excavations conducted at the site <strong>of</strong> Megiddo were published (Lamon and
Shipton 1939; Finkelstein et al. 2000). <strong>The</strong> excavations conducted at Samaria were
also published (Crowfoot et al. 1957; Crowfoot et al. 1966).
In archaeological surveys this period is even more difficult to identify. However,
the works <strong>of</strong> Z. Gal (1991, 1992 and 1998a), A. Zertal (1992, 1996, 2005), Zertal and
N. Mirkam (2000) and Finkelstein et al. (2006), should be mentioned. <strong>The</strong>se surveys
attempted to reach the resolution necessary to identify and isolate this relatively short
period <strong>of</strong> time, as well as to identify characteristics in the areas surveyed.
In regards to studies which specifically aimed to deal with the <strong>Assyrian</strong> impact
on areas in Palestine the following should be mentioned. Zertal (1989) defined foreign
pottery, which appears in the Samarian Hills, dated it to this period and concluded it
belonged to deportees. In 1990, E. Stern published an article that dealt with the status
<strong>of</strong> Hazor, Dor and Megiddo during the <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule. Gal (1998b) published an article
in which he used his survey results and drew conclusions regarding the abandonment
<strong>of</strong> Lower Galilee following the <strong>Assyrian</strong> assault. Stern (2001) devoted a whole
chapter to this period in his book in which he reviews the <strong>Assyrian</strong> impact on
Palestine in terms <strong>of</strong> pottery, art and architecture.
Although not dealing with the <strong>Assyrian</strong> impact on provinces in Palestine, it is
important to mention B. J. Parker's work on the northern frontier <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
Empire (2001). In this research he combines both text and archaeology and provides
the foundations for the investigation <strong>of</strong> additional areas under imperial rule.

1.2. Geopolitical Background
1.2.1 Tiglath-pileser III and the Final Days <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel
Tiglath-pileser III's rise to power over Assyria was a turning point in <strong>Assyrian</strong>
international relations. This change in <strong>Assyrian</strong> policy, which would be established by
Tiglath-pileser III, was to have irreversible consequences for many <strong>of</strong> the kingdoms
that would come into contact with the Empire. Until the year 745 BCE the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
kings aimed to raid and subdue the independent kingdoms around them. However,
with Tiglath-pileser III's rise to power, <strong>Assyrian</strong> objectives underwent a process <strong>of</strong>
transformation. During his reign, this <strong>Assyrian</strong> king managed to expand and redefine
<strong>Assyrian</strong> borders and boundaries, while devouring the independent kingdoms around
his core territory and creating a new order in the ancient Near East (Tadmor 1994: 9-
10).
Between the years 754-745 BCE, Assyria suffered a rebellion. <strong>The</strong> rebellion
resulted in the coronation <strong>of</strong> Tiglath-pileser III, who assumed control over the
government (Joannes 2004: 37-38). During his first year <strong>of</strong> reign he managed to
achieve stability on the eastern frontier <strong>of</strong> Assyria. In 743 BCE, Tiglath-pileser III
confronted and crushed the anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> coalition headed by Urartu and Arpad, the
account is brought in Ann. 17 (Tadmor 1994: 50). Following this <strong>Assyrian</strong> victory,
the capital city <strong>of</strong> the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Arpad was besieged. Falling only three years later
(Galil 1998: 58; Joannes 2004: 38), the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Arpad was annexed to Assyria.
This account is documented in Ann. 25 (Tadmor 1994: 56-59). In the year 738
Tiglath-pilesser III fought another anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> coalition <strong>of</strong> the kingdoms <strong>of</strong> northern
Syria and annexed them as well. Tiglath-Pileser III was also paid tribute that year by
Rezin <strong>of</strong> Aram-Damascus (Lipinski 2000: 405). <strong>The</strong>se events are mentioned in Anns.

19*, 13*, 14*: 1-5 (Tadmor 1994: 58-71). Following these accounts the <strong>Assyrian</strong> king
had to focus his attention on the northern and eastern frontiers <strong>of</strong> Assyria, and so was
absent from the west (Lipinski 2000: 405).
During <strong>Assyrian</strong> absence from the west, rivalry between the local kingdoms
intensified. <strong>The</strong> monarchical instability in the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel grew, and stability
was never fully restored. Zechariah, Jeroboam II's successor, managed to stay on the
throne for only a few months, before being murdered by Shallum, who put an end to
the dynasty <strong>of</strong> Jehu (Miller and Hayes 2006: 374-376). One month into his reign,
Shallum was put to death by Manahem. <strong>The</strong>se affairs are described very briefly in the
biblical text in II Kings 15: 8-16.
It seems that this political instability should be attributed to differences in
position regarding the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire. It is reasonable to assume that Israel was
deeply influenced by Aram-Damascus's rise in power during the <strong>Assyrian</strong> absence,
and pro-<strong>Assyrian</strong> policies were being challenged within the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel,
creating political tensions. An anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> coalition was being constructed by Rezin
<strong>of</strong> Aram-Damascus and Hiram II <strong>of</strong> Tyre (Miller and Hayes 2006: 374-377).
However, Israel continued to be faithful to Assyria during the reign <strong>of</strong> Menahem.
Both from Tiglath-Pileser III's inscriptions and from the biblical text it is evident that
Menahem preferred the pro-<strong>Assyrian</strong> approach (Tadmor 1994: 69, Ann. 14*: 10; II
Kings 15: 19-20).
Menahem ruled Israel for ten years and died a natural death. His son Pekahiah,
succeeded him on the throne. However, after only two years in power, he was
murdered by Pekah (II Kings 15: 22-26), who probably held anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> positions
and was interested in cooperating with Rezin's activities against the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s
(Na'aman 1991a: 92; Lipinski 2000: 403; Miller and Hayes 2006: 378). II Kings 15:

25, which describes the actual murder, also mentions that Pekah did not act alone.
According to the biblical verse Pakah was helped by fifty Gileadites. Other accounts
<strong>of</strong> rebellion do not portray such detail and are usually attributed to a single individual,
thus it is curious as to why this information is included here. Na'aman (1995c: 108)
suggested that a military struggle took place in the palace at Samaria and that the
king's guard needed to be overpowered in order to murder the king. For this reason
the biblical text mentioned the fifty Gileadites that helped Pekah carry out his plans.
Rezin's efforts to create a strong anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> coalition involved an attempt to
deepen his political influence within other kingdoms <strong>of</strong> the area. In II Kings 15: 37;
16: 5-9 and Isa. 7: 1-9 an account is described in which, Rezin <strong>of</strong> Aram-Damascus
and Pekah <strong>of</strong> Israel attacked Jerusalem. This account has been known as the Syro-
Ephrimite War, and probably took place in 734 BCE. 1 From the <strong>Assyrian</strong> point <strong>of</strong>
view we have Tiglath-pileser III's summary inscriptions. It seems that Rezin, King <strong>of</strong>
Aram-Damascus, together with his ally from Israel, tried to force the kingdom <strong>of</strong>
Judah to join their anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> efforts by either forcing its king to participate or
disposing <strong>of</strong> its king altogether (Na'aman 1991a: 92). Ahaz, the new king <strong>of</strong> Judah,
who had only ascended the throne probably that same year, refused to join the anti-
<strong>Assyrian</strong> coalition (Na'aman 1995c: 109). Ahaz was attacked due to this decision,
however, Ahaz's unwillingness to participate in the anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> coalition would
prove to save Judah from <strong>Assyrian</strong> annexation (Na'aman 1991a: 93).
Nonetheless, some scholars have argued that the main objective <strong>of</strong> the Syro-
Ephrimite war was not to create an anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> alliance, but to gain territorial
expansion and control over the trade routes in order to achieve economic stability
1 For a detailed discussion <strong>of</strong> this account see Irvine 1990, with earlier literature and Na'aman 1991a:
91-94.

(Oded 1972: 153- 156; Ehrlich 1996: 85- 94). Dubovsky nonetheless argues that even
if these were in fact the aims <strong>of</strong> this coalition, it still would have been perceived as an
anti-<strong>Assyrian</strong> strategic move, due to the fact that from the <strong>Assyrian</strong> point <strong>of</strong> view,
regardless <strong>of</strong> what the initial objective <strong>of</strong> these kingdoms, they were engaged in anti-
<strong>Assyrian</strong> activities (Dubovsky 2006: 155- 156).
1.2.2 <strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> Annexation <strong>of</strong> Israelite Territory by Tiglath-Pileser III
Faced with these hostilities against him, Ahaz, king <strong>of</strong> Judah, requested the
assistance <strong>of</strong> Assyria (II Kings 16: 7-8; Tadmor 1994: 171, Summ. 7: Rev.11, 277).
Tiglath-Pileser III responded to Ahaz's plea, and in the years 734-732 BCE
campaigned against Aram-Damascus and Israel, after campaigning first along the
Philistine coast, all the way south to the boarder <strong>of</strong> Egypt, thus bringing an end to the
anti <strong>Assyrian</strong> coalition (Tadmor 1994: 78-80, Ann. 23; Galil 1998: 62-63; Lipinski
2000: 405; Miller and Hayes 2006: 395-398). This campaign is depicted in Summary
Inscription 4, which was discovered at Nimrud (Tadmor, 1994: 136-143). Tiglath-
pileser III clearly states that he annexed the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Aram (lines 7-8). He also
seems to claim to have annexed areas bordering on the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel, and
carrying <strong>of</strong>f tribute and deportees:
"[…the cities <strong>of</strong>…]nite, Gil[ead, and] Abel-…, which are on the border <strong>of</strong> Bit-
Humri[a] (Israel)" (line 6)
"…<strong>The</strong> land <strong>of</strong> Bit-Humria (Israel), […its] 'auxiliary army', […] all <strong>of</strong> its
people, […] I carried <strong>of</strong>f [to] Assyria. Peqah, their king [I/they killed] and I
installed Hoshea [as king] over them. 10 talents <strong>of</strong> gold, x talents <strong>of</strong> silver,

[with] their [property] I received from them and [to Assyria I car]ried them…"
(lines 15-19).
From this text it is clear that the entire Israelite territory east <strong>of</strong> the Jordan River
was considered to be part <strong>of</strong> the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Aram, and was annexed to Assyria
following the conquest <strong>of</strong> 732 BCE. However, it is not clear whether Rezin had
previously <strong>of</strong>ficially annexed this area or held it as a tribute paying territory (Na'aman
1995c: 110).
In the biblical text the same account is described:
"In the days <strong>of</strong> Pekah king <strong>of</strong> Israel came Tiglath-pileser king <strong>of</strong> Assyria, and
took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Jonoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and
Gilead, and Galilee, all the land <strong>of</strong> Naphtali, and carried them captive to
Assyria. And Hoshea the son <strong>of</strong> Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son
<strong>of</strong> Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead…" (II
Kings 15: 29-30).
<strong>The</strong>se two sources seem to conflict in regards to the area <strong>of</strong> Gilead. Commentators
have suggested that the geographical designations "Galilee' and "Gilead" are glosses
in the biblical texts and that the original text summarized the list <strong>of</strong> towns brought
forth by the phrase "all the land <strong>of</strong> Naphtali" (Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 174; Na'aman
1995c: 109, with earlier literature). Na'aman suggests that the text was expanded in a
later date in order to encompass the whole "traditional" territory <strong>of</strong> the kingdom <strong>of</strong>
Israel, and that the author <strong>of</strong> the book <strong>of</strong> kings drew his information from a source
that contained only the names <strong>of</strong> the captured settlements and added the summarizing
clause "all the land <strong>of</strong> Naphtali" himself. According to this the area <strong>of</strong> Gilead was
probably not included in the original source (Na'aman 1995c: 109).

Interestingly, there are two geographical areas and/or cities which do not appear
in either <strong>of</strong> these sources – the coastal plain, or the city <strong>of</strong> Dor, and the Jezreel Valley,
or the city <strong>of</strong> Megiddo. It seems that scholars have commented about the absence <strong>of</strong>
the Israelite coastal plain and most agree that it was likely to have been subjugated by
Tiglath-pileser III when he was on his way to Philistia, as was the Phoenician coast
(Na'aman 1995b: 274; Younger 1998: 204- 205; Dubovsky 2006: 158-160).
During these campaigns Aram-Damascus, in its entirety and the northern
Israelite territories were annexed to Assyria (II Kings 15: 29; Pitard 1987: 186-187;
Dubovsky 2006: 159- 161). From Dubovsky's reconstruction <strong>of</strong> Tiglath-Pileser III's
strategy, it seems that the <strong>Assyrian</strong> king had planned the course <strong>of</strong> his attack carefully.
He first swiftly campaigned along the coast, rather than attacking the centers <strong>of</strong> the
alliance, Damascus and Samaria. With the <strong>Assyrian</strong> army's chariots fighting on the
plain, he was able to block the easiest access <strong>of</strong> Egyptian assistance to the rebels.
Only then did Tiglath-Pileser III venture to attack the center <strong>of</strong> the coalition –
Damascus. <strong>The</strong>n a surprise attack was launched against Arabian tribes, followed by
the acceptance <strong>of</strong> tribute from vassal kingdoms (Judah, Edom, Moab and Amon).
Finally, the two centers <strong>of</strong> resistance were left isolated from each other. <strong>The</strong>
annexation <strong>of</strong> Israelite Galilee was one <strong>of</strong> the later events that took place, probably
during the third phase <strong>of</strong> the campaign in 732 BCE (Dubovsky 2006: 161-164) 2 . <strong>The</strong>
territory <strong>of</strong> the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel was reduced to the hill country <strong>of</strong> Samaria and a
new king was put on the throne, as stated in Summary Inscription 4: 17-18 (Tadmor
1994: 141; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 178-179) 3 . Following Tiglath Pileser III's
2 For a new reconstruction <strong>of</strong> these campaigns see Dubovsky 2006: 153- 170.
3 Contrary to this view, Irvine (1990) argued that Rezin <strong>of</strong> Damascus had previously conquered the
northern areas <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel, so that during these campaigns by Tiglath-pileser III the

campaign to Palestine, possibly two provinces were established west <strong>of</strong> the Jordan
River, Dor, in the Sharon coastal plain 4 and Megiddo, encompassing mainly the
Galilee and the northern valleys (Forrer 1920: 59-62; Cogan and Tadmor 1988: 178-
179; Na'aman 1995a: 106; Lipschits 2005: 6-7).
Hoshea was the newly appointed king <strong>of</strong> Samaria (II Kings 17: 1-3). <strong>The</strong>
<strong>Assyrian</strong> inscriptions do not indicate by whom Pekah was killed, whether by the
<strong>Assyrian</strong>s or by someone <strong>of</strong> his own people (Tadmor 1994: 141, Summ. 4: 17-18,
277-278). This account is also mentioned in the biblical text in II kings 15: 30, and in
the biblical version it was Hoshea who put Pekah to death (Na'aman 1995b: 274-275;
Miller and Hayes 2006: 383).
1.2.3. <strong>The</strong> Fall <strong>of</strong> Samaria and the Final Demise <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel
King Hoshea ruled Samaria for nine years. His early days overlapped the last
years <strong>of</strong> Tiglath-pileser III, who died in 727/6 BCE (Tadmor 1979: 58; Miller and
Hayes 2006: 383). Of Shalmaneser V, the king who succeeded Tiglat-pileser III, no
inscriptions are known.
<strong>The</strong> only source for his reign is the Babylonian Chronicle I i: 27-32, which report
his succession, the destruction <strong>of</strong> Samaria, as well as the death <strong>of</strong> Shalmaneser V and
the succession <strong>of</strong> Sargon II (Grayson 2000: 69-87) 5 . <strong>The</strong> Chronicle reads:
Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel was already reduced to the hill country around Samaria, and was not heavily
impacted by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> campaign.
4 For an up to date discussion regarding the status <strong>of</strong> Dor as an independent province see: Na'aman
2009.
5 For a detailed reading and presentation <strong>of</strong> the possible interpretations <strong>of</strong> this chronicle see Becking
1992: 22-25.

"On the twenty-fifth day <strong>of</strong> the month Tebet Shalmaneser (V) ascended the
throne in Assyria . He ravaged Samaria 6 . <strong>The</strong> fifth year:
Shalmaneser (V) died in the month Tebet. For five years Shalmaneser (V)
ruled Akkad and Assyria. On the twelfth day <strong>of</strong> the month Tebet Sargon (II)
ascended the throne in Assyria." (Grayson 2000: 73, lines 27-31)
<strong>The</strong> limited data available regarding Shalmaneser V, and the lack <strong>of</strong> royal
inscriptions, makes the process <strong>of</strong> reconstructing the course <strong>of</strong> events leading to the
demise <strong>of</strong> the kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel, very difficult. In addition, the fact that his successor,
Sargon II, attributes this deed to himself (Becking 1992: 25-39) further complicates
the process 7 . Sargon II's display inscription, which seems to provide the most data,
reads:
"I besieged and conquered Samerina. [2]7,290 people who lived in its midst I
carried away. 50 chariots I gathered from their midst. <strong>The</strong> bereaved I taught
proper behavior. I appointed my commissioner over them. <strong>The</strong> levy <strong>of</strong> the
former king I laid upon them" (Becking 1992: 26, lines 23-25)
This account <strong>of</strong> the fall <strong>of</strong> Samaria is also described in the biblical text in II Kings
17: 3- 6 and 18: 9- 11, stating the name <strong>of</strong> Shalmaneser alone as the conqueror <strong>of</strong>
Samaria. Due to the conflicting evidence, scholars in the past preferred to attribute the
conquest <strong>of</strong> Samaria to Sargon II, because it was the most reliable source. Only few
scholars reconstructed the events in light <strong>of</strong> the biblical text and attributed the fall <strong>of</strong>
Samaria to Shalmaneser V 8 . However, following Tadmor's argument that both
<strong>The</strong> name Samaria is written in this text: uru Šá-m/ba-ra-΄-in and not all scholars read this word as
Samaria, however this refers to a minority (see details in Becking 1992: 23).
7 For a detailed reading <strong>of</strong> Sargon II's inscriptions see: Becking 1992: 26-45.
For a detailed summary <strong>of</strong> past research regarding this issue see Na'aman 1990: 206- 207.

<strong>Assyrian</strong> kings captured the city <strong>of</strong> Samaria, many scholars agreed that the biblical
text, although stating only the name <strong>of</strong> one <strong>Assyrian</strong> king (Shalmaneser), refers to two
different accounts (Tadmor 1958: 33-40; Tadmor 1979: 57- 58; Stern 1998: 3-4;
Miller and Hayes 2006: 385). Hoshea rebelled against Assyria twice and the city <strong>of</strong>
Samaria was conquered twice: First in the reign <strong>of</strong> Shalmaneser V in 722 BCE, and a
second time during the reign <strong>of</strong> Sargon II in 720 BCE (Tadmor 1958: 33-40; Becking
1992: 33-44). Na'aman however, argued that the two campaign hypothesis raises
many unsolved chronological issues and was a highly unlikely reconstruction <strong>of</strong> the
events that took place (Na'aman 1990: 206-225). He reconstructed that Hoshea
rebelled against Assyria during Shalmaneser V's accession year. When the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
army reached Palestine, Hoshea appeared before it and was arrested. Shortly after this
event occurred Shalmaneser V died. When Sargon II ascended the <strong>Assyrian</strong> throne he
was detained in Assyria due to internal rebellion. <strong>The</strong> Samarians, whose king was still
held in the hands <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s, then joined the coalition <strong>of</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> vassal states
and provinces, which formed under the leadership <strong>of</strong> the king <strong>of</strong> Hamath and was
supported by Egypt. Only after Sargon II solidified his rule did Samaria come under
siege. According to Na'aman this siege did not last long, however, three years passed
between Hoshea's imprisonment and the conquest <strong>of</strong> Samaria by Sargon II and this
period <strong>of</strong> time was regarded by the Deuteronomistic Historian as years during which
the city was under siege (Na'aman 1990: 224-225). It seems that it was Sargon II who
took over Samaria, annexed it and exiled its inhabitants (Na'aman 1990: 225;
Lipschits 2005: 6-7). In addition, during Sargon II's reign, the province <strong>of</strong> Samaria
was established encompassing the Samarian hills, the eastern part <strong>of</strong> the Sharon plain
and the northern part <strong>of</strong> the Shephelah including the cities <strong>of</strong> Aphek and Gezer
(Na'aman 1995a: 105-107; Lipschits 2005: 6).

1.2.4. Israeli Deportations by <strong>Assyrian</strong> Hands: Geography and Numbers
When dealing with the deportation <strong>of</strong> inhabitants from the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel by
<strong>Assyrian</strong> hands we rely on two main sources: <strong>The</strong> biblical narrative and the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
royal texts. Both sources seem to provide a list <strong>of</strong> conquered areas and cities. In the
case <strong>of</strong> the deportation conducted by Tiglath-pileser III, the biblical text does not state
numbers and seems to take for granted that everyone in the mentioned areas was taken
by the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s:
"In the days <strong>of</strong> Pekah King <strong>of</strong> Israel came Tiglath-pileser king <strong>of</strong> Assyria, and
took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Jonoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and
Gilead, and Galilee, all the land <strong>of</strong> Naphtali, and carried them captive to
Assyria." (II Kings 15: 29).
Most <strong>of</strong> the cities mentioned in this biblical account are located in or around the
great rift in Upper Galilee (Tadmor 1994: 280). In contrast to the biblical narrative,
the <strong>Assyrian</strong> royal texts seem to give exact numbers <strong>of</strong> deportees, as well as names <strong>of</strong>
cities conquered. <strong>The</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> 13,520 deportees documented in Ann. 24: 9
(Tadmor 1994: 82) may be the total <strong>of</strong> deportees taken in one campaign or perhaps
during several campaigns to the kingdom (Tadmor 1994: 281). Na'aman suggested
that a short list <strong>of</strong> cities that did not survive followed the large number <strong>of</strong> 13,520
captives, indicating that the overall number <strong>of</strong> deportees taken includes more
individuals than cited in the previous list (Na'aman 1995b: 273). As for the cities
documented in the <strong>Assyrian</strong> texts as being captured, some names are fragmentary and
cannot be read, while others' exact locations are disputed. However, two, Hannathon
and Jotbath, are located in Lower Galilee (Tadmor 1994: 280).
As for Sargon II's conquest and deportations regarding Samaria, in the biblical
text the account appears twice; once in II kings 17 and once in II Kings 18. Again, it

does not state exact numbers <strong>of</strong> the Samarians deported, and only generally states that
Israel was carried away. However, it does provide some data regarding the events
leading to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> attack, as well as the designated areas <strong>of</strong> relocation <strong>of</strong> the
exiles:
"And the king <strong>of</strong> Assyria found conspiracy in Hoshea: for he had sent
messengers to So king <strong>of</strong> Egypt, and brought no present to the king <strong>of</strong> Assyria,
as [he had done] year by year: therefore the king <strong>of</strong> Assyria shut him up, and
bound him in prison. <strong>The</strong>n the king <strong>of</strong> Assyria came up throughout all the land,
and went up to Samaria, and besieged it three years. In the ninth year <strong>of</strong> Hoshea
the king <strong>of</strong> Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria, and
placed them in Halah and in Habor [by] the river <strong>of</strong> Gozan, and in the cities <strong>of</strong>
the Medes" (II Kings 17: 4-6)
"And it came to pass in the fourth year <strong>of</strong> king Hezekiah, which [was] the
seventh year <strong>of</strong> Hoshea son <strong>of</strong> Elah king <strong>of</strong> Israel, [that] Shalmaneser king <strong>of</strong>
Assyria came up against Samaria, and besieged it. And at the end <strong>of</strong> three years
they took it: [even] in the sixth year <strong>of</strong> Hezekiah, that [is] the ninth year <strong>of</strong>
Hoshea king <strong>of</strong> Israel, Samaria was taken. And the king <strong>of</strong> Assyria did carry
away Israel unto Assyria, and put them in Halah and in Habor [by] the river <strong>of</strong>
Gozan, and in the cities <strong>of</strong> the Medes" (II Kings 18: 9-11)
Sargon II claims that he conquered and annexed Samaria in several <strong>of</strong> his royal
inscriptions 9 however, the most detailed and informative description <strong>of</strong> this account is
brought in his display inscription:
For a detailed reading <strong>of</strong> Sargon II's inscriptions see: Becking 1992: 26-45.

"I besieged and conquered Samerina. [2]7,290 people who lived in its midst I
carried away. 50 chariots I gathered from their midst. <strong>The</strong> bereaved I taught
proper behavior. I appointed my commissioner over them. <strong>The</strong> levy <strong>of</strong> the
former king I laid upon them" (ANET: 284, lines 23-25)
<strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> 27,290 deportees taken by Sargon II from Samaria seems to be too
large to have been taken from the city <strong>of</strong> Samaria alone. It is more likely that this
figure represents the total number <strong>of</strong> deportees taken from the area surrounding the
city as well (Na'aman 1993: 106-108).
However, this time the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s did not leave the area desolate, and conducted a
two way deportation. This is attested to in both the biblical narrative and in the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> royal texts. <strong>The</strong> Bible provides information regarding the origin <strong>of</strong> these
newcomers:
"And the king <strong>of</strong> Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and
from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the
cities <strong>of</strong> Samaria instead <strong>of</strong> the children <strong>of</strong> Israel: and they possessed Samaria,
and dwelt in the cities there<strong>of</strong>" (II Kings 17: 24)
Driver and Zadok have demonstrated that the origins <strong>of</strong> the groups relocated to
Samaria do not lie in north Syria, as had been suggested previously, but rather in
Babylonia and its eastern areas which were reached by Sargon II in the years 710-709
BCE (Driver 1958: 18-20; Zadok 1976: 113-124; Becking 1992: 95-102). Na'aman
states that traces <strong>of</strong> this relocation <strong>of</strong> exiles from other areas <strong>of</strong> the vast empire in
Samaria can be seen in the biblical text. Na'aman and Zadok argued that during the
years 716-708 BCE populations brought from the Syro-Arabian desert as well as from
Babylonia and its periphery were resettled in the city <strong>of</strong> Samaria and in the areas
around it (Na'aman and Zadok 1988: 46; Na'aman 1993: 108-112). <strong>The</strong>y further

argued that at least part <strong>of</strong> the deportees brought by the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s were settled along
the Aruna passage as part <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> policy aimed at controling and overseeing
the main route that connected northern and southern Palestine (Na'aman and Zadok
2000: 182). In the fragments <strong>of</strong> inscribed prisms found at Nimrud, the deportation
from and to Samaria are described:
"[<strong>The</strong> inhabitants <strong>of</strong> Sa]merina, who agreed with a king [hostile (?) to] me, not
to endure servitude [and not to br]ing tribute [to Ashur (?)], did battle. [Wit]h
the power <strong>of</strong> the great gods, my [lord]s [aga]inst them I foug[ht]. [2]7,280
people, together with [their] chariots, and the gods, in which they trusted, as
spoil I counted. With 200 chariots for [my] royal force from them I formed a
unit. <strong>The</strong> rest <strong>of</strong> them I settled in the midst <strong>of</strong> Assyria. I repopulated Samerina
more than before. People from countries, conquered by my hands, I brought in
it. My commissioner I appointed as Governor over them. I counted them as
<strong>Assyrian</strong>s." (Gadd 1954: 179-180, lines 25-41)
<strong>The</strong> Sg II Nimrud prism IV: 25-41 inscription provides further data regarding the
deportees from Samaria. According to this text a group <strong>of</strong> deportees was incorporated
into the <strong>Assyrian</strong> army, together with 200 chariots. <strong>The</strong> other group is said to have
been resettled in other areas <strong>of</strong> the empire, without further specification.
1.2.5 Former Territories <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel Mentioned in Later
<strong>Assyrian</strong> Texts
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> main centers <strong>of</strong> administration, Dor, Megiddo and Samaria, in the
provinces created following the annexation <strong>of</strong> Israelite territories are mentioned in the
documentations records and correspondence <strong>of</strong> the following <strong>Assyrian</strong> kings. <strong>The</strong>y

are mentioned in texts which deal with listing and documenting Neo-<strong>Assyrian</strong>
provinces, cities and districts. <strong>The</strong>se three administrative centers appear in three texts
which seem to contain general lists <strong>of</strong> place names under <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule. In text K
4384 (SAA XI text no. 1), <strong>of</strong> the three only the name Dor is mentioned, in rev. line 11
(SAA XI: 4-6). All three names <strong>of</strong> these administrative centers appear in text K 1521
+ K 14257 (SAA XI text no. 2) in lines ii 1, 3 and 4, with Damascus appearing in line
ii 2 (SAA XI: 6). Megiddo alone seems to be mentioned in text K 14452 (SAA XI text
no. 6) in line 10 (SAA XI: 8). Due to the fact that these text are namely lists <strong>of</strong> place
names, no additional information is provided regarding the places mentioned.
Megiddo seems to be mentioned also in text K 9996 (ADD 952) + K 14270 +
K14309 (SAA XI text no. 80), which deals with the account <strong>of</strong> sheep in provinces, in
line rev. 3 (SAA XI: 52-53), however, the amount registered is broken. Samaria is
mentioned in text K 11921 (+) K 11933 (CT 53 430) in line rev. 3 (SAA XI text no.
19). This text is a building progress report (SAA XI: 19-20), however, due to the
condition <strong>of</strong> this text it is impossible to extract additional information regarding the
building project that is reported.
Samaria, or rather the "Samarians" are mentioned in text ABL 1201 dealing with
agricultural production tax (SAA I text no. 220). This text originated in the palace
area <strong>of</strong> Sargon II at Nineveh and probably dates to the two last decades <strong>of</strong> the 8 th
century BCE (SAA I: XI). This appears to be a letter written by and <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial
in order to verify that the "Samarians" paid the tax imposed on them. <strong>The</strong> text does
not provide data as to the amount <strong>of</strong> tax expected however, it does state that some
<strong>of</strong>ficials are not executing the tasks expected <strong>of</strong> them by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> administration.
Samaria is mentioned in an additional correspondence letter, text K 13005 (SAA I text
no. 255). This text deals with the river <strong>of</strong> Samaria, which has dried up (SAA I: 198).

<strong>The</strong> writer seems to express a great deal <strong>of</strong> urgency to this water problem that has
occurred. It is not possible from this text alone to identify exactly which is the river
that the text deals with however, perhaps the rivers <strong>of</strong> Qana or Shechem should be
considered as the best candidates due to the fact that they are the largest in the area.

1.3. Post <strong>Assyrian</strong> Empires in Palestine
1.3.1 <strong>The</strong> demise <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire and the Egyptian rule over Palestine
During the first half <strong>of</strong> the 7 th century BCE the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire was the
strongest political entity in the ancient near east. However, within a few decades this
impressive empire was to collapse in an abrupt and rapid process. It seems that the
disintegration started after the death <strong>of</strong> Ashurbanipal, with a revolt that broke out in
Babylonia during the last third <strong>of</strong> the 7 th century BCE (Na'aman 1991b: 40-41, with
earlier literature; Lipschits 2005: 11-20). Babylonia was freed from <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule by
Nabopolassar, in the year 626 BCE. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong>s attempted to renew their grasp on
Babylonia and during the years 625- 623 BCE launched campaigns against the
revolting cities <strong>of</strong> Babylonia (Lipschits 2005: 13-15, with earlier literature). In
addition to the Babylonian problem, it seems that that the winds <strong>of</strong> revolt had spread
and during this period Elam also revolted against the empire. <strong>The</strong> empire also had to
deal with internal instability caused by an outbreak <strong>of</strong> internal revolt. Assyria
managed to suppress the internal revolt however Nabopolasser seized this opportunity
to gain control <strong>of</strong> Babylonia (Lipschits 2005: 15-16).
Following these events Assyria weakened dramatically. Conflict with Babylonia
and the Medes intensified. As the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire loosened its grip on the area <strong>of</strong>
Syria-Palestine, the Egyptians strengthened their influence in the area (Miller and
Hayes 2006: 446-447). Egypt's 26 th (Saite) dynasty was established previously by the
<strong>Assyrian</strong>s in the days <strong>of</strong> kings Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal, and seemed to remain
loyal to the empire (Lipschits 2005: 20-22, with further literature). Egypt came to
Assyria's aid in battle during the last years <strong>of</strong> the latter's existence (in the years 616,
610-609 BCE), understanding that a weakened Assyria would act as a buffer against

the growing power <strong>of</strong> the Babylonians (Lipschits 2005: 16-17; 24-25). Nonetheless,
Assyria finally fell in 609 BCE, with the fall <strong>of</strong> the city <strong>of</strong> Haran (Lipschits 2005: 19-
20).
Following the fall <strong>of</strong> the last <strong>Assyrian</strong> stronghold, Egypt and Babylonia came
face to face with each other and competed for control over the entire area previously
ruled by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Empire. Babylonia had established itself in the area east <strong>of</strong> the
Euphrates, while Egypt controlled the west. Egypt had previously started filling the
political vacuum left by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire in the Levant following the latter's
retreat during the third decade <strong>of</strong> the 7 th century BCE (Na'aman 1991b: 38-41, with
further literature; Redford 1992: 441; Lipschits 2005: 24-25). Egypt established its
rule over Palestine, probably adopting the <strong>Assyrian</strong> structure <strong>of</strong> administration in the
area (Rainey 1989: 1200). However, its presence there was short lived. <strong>The</strong> decisive
struggle between the two powers took place during the years 609-605 BCE, when
battles broke out between the Babylonians and the Egyptians. It was the Babylonians
who emerged victorious (Redford 1992: 453-456; Lipschits 2005: 32-35; with further
literature). Egypt was pushed out <strong>of</strong> Syria and Palestine, which it had ruled for
approximately a quarter <strong>of</strong> a century and the Neo-Babylonian Empire took over
(Lipschits 2005: 25, 32-35, with further literature).
1.3.2. <strong>The</strong> Neo-Babylonian rule over Palestine
<strong>The</strong> Babylonian Empire finally took control <strong>of</strong> Palestine in 605/604 BCE,
following Nebuchadrezzar II's victory over Egypt at the city <strong>of</strong> Carchemish (605
BCE). Most scholars agree that these shifts in ruling powers did not cause major
changes in administration (Aharoni 1987: 315; Oppenheim 1979: 163; Grayson 1991:

161) 10 . It seems that for the next few years, the Babylonians preferred a passive
approach towards Palestine; the policy was to invest minimal effort and involvement
in the area (Lipschits 2005: 36). Nebuchadrezzar II did not change the existing
administrative structures in Palestine, nor did he invest in developing the annexed
areas. It seems that the Babylonian's main concern was to obtain tax payments from
its subordinate kingdoms and provinces (Lipschits 2005: 48-49, with further
literature).
However, the Babylonians did invest their efforts into ensuring the continuation
<strong>of</strong> their rule in Palestine. <strong>The</strong>se efforts were primarily aimed towards weakening and
conquering Egypt. Nabuchadrezzar finally set out to invade Egypt in the year 601
BCE. During this battle casualties were apparently heavy on both sides, however, it
was the Babylonian army that lost and retreated from Egypt without achieving its
goals (Lipschits 2005: 49-50, with further literature). Following this account the
Babylonian grasp over Palestine weakened, and the Egyptians started to renew their
influence in the region. Evidence for this tilt in the balance <strong>of</strong> power between Babylon
and Egypt can be found in Judah's decision to revolt against Babylon, which was
probably supported by Egypt (Lipschits 2005: 51).
During the year 598/597 BCE the Babylonians returned to Palestine to reclaim
their rule and succeeded (Lipschits 2005: 52-55). In the course <strong>of</strong> this campaign
Jerusalem was besieged and ultimately surrendered. A new king came to power over
Judah before its annexation. Nonetheless, the Babylonians from this point on adopted
a much more active approach towards the administration <strong>of</strong> Judah (Lipschits 2005:
55-62).
10 For a different approach see Vanderho<strong>of</strong>t 2003: 235-262.

In the year 596/595 BCE the Babylonians confronted Elam which attacked from
the east. Nebuchadrezzar defeated the King <strong>of</strong> Elam, however, further conflict was to
come. During the next year, Babylon suffered from an internal revolt. <strong>The</strong> revolt was
suppressed but it seems that these circumstances were interpreted by some kingdoms
as signs <strong>of</strong> weakness. In the year 592 BCE, the King <strong>of</strong> Egypt embarked on an
expedition to the Phoenician coast. This demonstration <strong>of</strong> power by the Egyptians,
impressed the local vassal kings, and encouraged an anti-Babylonian pact between the
kings <strong>of</strong> Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, Sidon and Judah (Lipschits 2005: 63-64). With
the succession <strong>of</strong> a new king in Egypt the Neo-Babylonian empire understood that
drastic measures must be taken if it was to continue ruling Palestine. This new
Babylonian policy would prove most destructive for the kingdoms against whom it
would be exercised (Lipschits 2005: 68-69). During the next few years following this
shift in Babylonian policy, Nebucharezzar conquered and annexed the remaining
vassal kingdoms near the border with Egypt (Lipschits 2006: 22-23). In regards to the
Philistine cities the Babylonian empire's new attitude meant that they were to display
a very different approach then their <strong>Assyrian</strong> predecessors. <strong>The</strong>y conquered and
annexed the Philistine coastal plain, turning it into Babylonian provinces. <strong>The</strong> main
aim <strong>of</strong> the Babylonians in adopting this new aggressive approach was to create a
buffer zone comprised <strong>of</strong> weak and dependant provinces between themselves and
Egypt. However, despite the deportations, Nebuchadrezzar had no interest in
emptying the kingdoms <strong>of</strong> their inhabitants, and thus the rural settlement survived for
the most part (Lipschits 2006: 23-24, with further literature).

1.3.3. <strong>The</strong> Fall <strong>of</strong> the Neo-Babylonian Empire and the Persian rule over
Palestine
<strong>The</strong> Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus II, when he defeated the Median ruler
in 550 BCE. <strong>The</strong> reasons for this conflict, as well as various details regarding the
course <strong>of</strong> the battle are not entirely clear. This turn <strong>of</strong> events led to further
confrontation between Cyrus II and the Lydians (probably during the year 547 BCE)
and with the Babylonians (in 539 BCE). With the subduing <strong>of</strong> Babylon, the entire
Babylonian Empire fell into Cyrus II's hands (Stern 2001: 353; Lipschits 2006: 24;
Kuhrt 2007: 48-49). <strong>The</strong> fall <strong>of</strong> Babylon to Cyrus II is well documented in historical
sources, as well as in the Bible 11 . <strong>The</strong> cuneiform texts depict Cyrus II as the ruler
chosen by the Babylonian gods to rule over their city 12 . However, it seems highly
unlikely that the city <strong>of</strong> Babylon fell to Cyrus II without resistance. According to his
analysis <strong>of</strong> the sources, Briant states that there is evidence that conflict between the
Babylonians and the Persians did not start in 539 BCE, but earlier. However, Cyrus
II's accounts between 547 and 539 are silenced to depict a picture <strong>of</strong> a swift and
natural transition (Briant 2002: 42).
During the entirety <strong>of</strong> his reign Cyrus II was involved in military conquests
aimed at ensuring the boundaries <strong>of</strong> his empire. He died while in battle in the year 530
BCE, in Central Asia, and was succeeded by his son Cambyses (Stern 2001: 353;
Briant 2002: 49-50). Most <strong>of</strong> the data regarding the Persian King Cambyses comes
from the writings <strong>of</strong> Herodotus, and relate to his confrontations with Egypt in 525 and
522 BCE. Following these events, Cambyses died in Syria, while on his way back
For a detailed analysis <strong>of</strong> these sources, see Vanderho<strong>of</strong>t 2006: 351-372; Kuhrt 2007: 70-87.
12 For further literature concerning the establishment <strong>of</strong> the Persian empire, as well as the relations
between Persia and Babylon see: Briant 2002: 40- 44; Vanderho<strong>of</strong>t 2006: 351-372; Kuhrt 2007: 47-49,
70-87.

from Egypt to Persia. Following Cambyses's death, a power struggle for the throne
broke out which resulted in the coronation <strong>of</strong> Darius I. This coronation led, in turn, to
rebellions. <strong>The</strong> first took place in Elam and was quickly suppressed by Darius I. <strong>The</strong>
second broke out in Babylon. This rebellion was too suppressed, and by 519 BCE it
seems that Darius I had managed to secure his empire (Stern 2001: 353-354; Briant
2002: 107-128). Following this Darius I was involved mainly in confrontations
regarding the empire's western frontier; in Anatolia and Greece (Stern 2001: 354;
Briant 2002: 139-161).
Darius I died in the year 486 BCE and his son, Xerxes I, took to the throne over
Persia. During this year, a revolt broke out in Egypt, which was finally suppressed in
483 BCE (Stern 2001: 355-356; Briant 2002: 525). In the year 480 BCE Xerxes I
suffered significant defeats during his confrontations with the Greeks (Briant 2002:
525-542). Several years later Xerxes I was murdered by his vizier (Stern 2001: 356;
Briant 2002: 563-568). Xerxes I's successor was Artaxerxes I, who was enthroned in
465 BCE. In the following year Egypt revolted again. It took the Persians almost ten
years to crush this revolt (Stern 2001: 356; Briant 2002: 569-577).
Following the death <strong>of</strong> Artaxerxes I, an internal power struggle began among the
Persian elite. It ended when Darius II was finally enthroned. During the reign <strong>of</strong>
Darius II, revolts broke out in various parts <strong>of</strong> the Persian Empire. Darius II, with the
help <strong>of</strong> his satraps and son Cyrus, managed to suppress the revolts as well as confront
the Athenians alongside the Spartans (Stern 2001: 357; Briant 2002: 591-596).
Following Darius II's death, his son, Artaxerxes II, succeeded him. <strong>The</strong> new
king's throne was challenged by Cyrus, his younger brother. <strong>The</strong> two brothers met in
battle and the heir to the throne emerged victorious. Cyrus was killed (Stern 2001:
358; Briant 2002: 615-630, with further literature). During Atraxerxes II's reign,

Egypt managed to free itself from Persia and to gain back its independence (Stern
2001: 358; Briant 2002: 634-637). During the years 366 and 360 BCE, Persia suffered
internal revolts, all <strong>of</strong> which were suppressed (Stern 2001: 359; Briant 2002: 666-673,
674-675)
Artaxerxes II died in the year 358 BCE, following which Artaxerxes III was
enthroned. After stabilizing the internal affairs, Artaxerxes III set out to reconquer
Egypt. Following a year <strong>of</strong> battles he abandoned his attempt and this failed attempt
triggered a rebellion on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Phoenician cities, aided by Egypt (359-341
BCE). This revolt was suppressed in 343 BCE, and during these confrontations Egypt
was also reconquered. However, this victory was short lived and In 332 BCE the
whole satrapy was taken over by Alexander the Great (Stern 2001: 359; 681-690).
1.3.4. Persian Domination <strong>of</strong> Palestine
<strong>The</strong> Persians, much like their Babylonian predecessors in this respect, preferred
at first not to change the former administrative system in Palestine (Aharoni 1987:
315; Rainey 1989: 12-13; Kuhrt 1995: 607). <strong>The</strong> area <strong>of</strong> Palestine was initially
included in the satrapy <strong>of</strong> Babylonia and across the river. This continued to be the
case even after Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525 BCE (Briant 2002: 64, 71, 74-75;
Lipschits 2006: 24-25). However, following the suppression <strong>of</strong> revolt outbreaks in
various parts <strong>of</strong> the empire, Darius I established the sub district <strong>of</strong> "Across the River"
(Briant 2002: 487-490; Lipschits 2006: 25). Darius I is traditionally attributed with
the work <strong>of</strong> organizing the vast empire, nonetheless, his work was founded on
previous structures; local as well as impyreal (Stern 2001: 354-355; Briant 2002: 62).
An additional administrative change was carried out more than 30 years later.
Following the Babylonian revolt (482 BCE) when Xerxes created two separate

provinces: Babylon and Across the River. It seems that this independent status was
maintained until the end <strong>of</strong> the Persian Period (Stern 2001: 356; Lipschits 2006: 25).
During the reign <strong>of</strong> Artaxesxes I, according to the biblical text, the Persian king gave
Ezra and Nehemiah permission to carry out missions in Jerusalem in order to repair
the Temple. Unlike Ezra, Nehemiah held the title <strong>of</strong> governor over Judah (Stern 2001:
356-357; Briant 2002: 583-586).
As for the daily life <strong>of</strong> the conquered population, it seems that not much had
changed. Many institutions continued from the previous imperial rulers or gradually
adapted to the new Persian rule. <strong>The</strong> Persian Empire imposed its authority by treating
each area differently and keeping the local hierarchy and traditions <strong>of</strong> the conquered
lands. <strong>The</strong> local political structures seem to have stayed the same and were integrated
into the empire's administrative system (Briant 2002: 76-77).

1.4. Geographic Introduction
1.4.1 <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Dor (<strong>The</strong> Coastal Plain) 13
<strong>The</strong> province <strong>of</strong> Dor most likely incorporated a narrow strip <strong>of</strong> the coast,
bordering at the Yarkon River in the south and Mount Carmel in the north. This
portion <strong>of</strong> the coast belonged to the former Israelite kingdom (Na'aman 1995: 106;
2001: 426; 2009: 95) and consisted <strong>of</strong> two geographical units, the Sharon coast and
the Carmel coast.
<strong>The</strong> Sharon is the coastal unit situated between the Yarkon River in the south and
the Taninim Stream in the north (Orni and Efrat 1971: 47). It measures 54 km. in
length and 16 km. in width. This stretch <strong>of</strong> coast can roughly be divided into three
lengthwise strips (Nir 1970: 87, with earlier literature). <strong>The</strong> western strip measures 7
km. in the south and 4 km. in the north. <strong>The</strong> middle strip measures in width from 7
km. to 4 km. It is made up <strong>of</strong> red sand unsuitable for crops. <strong>The</strong> eastern strip consists
mainly <strong>of</strong> the Kurkar chain (Nir 1970: 87-94; Orni and Efrat 1971: 47-48). It is
possible that this eastern strip did not belong to the province <strong>of</strong> Dor, but was split
between the provinces <strong>of</strong> Megiddo and Samaria (Na'aman 2001: 425, with earlier
literature).
<strong>The</strong> Sharon coast is characterized by streams, the northernmost being Taninim
and the southernmost being Poleg, which is theorized to have been a drainage channel
dug by the Romans rather than a natural stream (Orni and Efrat 1971: 47). In the past
this area was also characterized by swamps (Orni and Efrat 1971: 48). This fact
probably determined the main route <strong>of</strong> the ancient coastal road, which turned inland at
13 For the discussion regarding whether or not Dor was indeed an independent province see: Na'aman
2009: 95-109.

Aphek and proceeded along the eastern edge <strong>of</strong> the Sharon Plain rather than
continuing along the coast, in order to bypass this swampy area (Dorsey 1991: 55-56,
70). However, the main route had additional alternates which passed through or
around the Sharon plain. One <strong>of</strong> these routes, perhaps a seasonal route, passed along
the coast and connected the cities <strong>of</strong> Joppa, Apolonia, Dor continuing to the Acco
plain (Dorsey 1991: 72-74, 78-83). Nonetheless, it seems that all the routes seem to
avoid the swampy area in the centre <strong>of</strong> the Sharon plain (Dorsey 1991: 71).
<strong>The</strong> Carmel coast measures in width from 70 meters in its northernmost point to
3.5 km. in its centre (Nir 1970: 95). It can be divided into two sections. <strong>The</strong> first is the
western Kurkar ridge, situated between Dor and Atlit, a soil type which is unsuited for
agriculture. And the second is the coastal plain north <strong>of</strong> Atlit, which consists <strong>of</strong> Terra
Rosa swept down from Mount Carmel. This soil is better suited to sustain agriculture
(Orni and Efrat 1971: 49).
1.4.2. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo
<strong>The</strong> main geographical units <strong>of</strong> this province are upper and lower Galilee and the
Jezreel Valley (Na'aman 1995: 105, 107; 2001: 430-431). This description <strong>of</strong> the
province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo will follow a north to south direction.
Galilee
<strong>The</strong> Galilee is delimited on the north by the gorge <strong>of</strong> the Litani River. However,
this research will only discuss areas as far north as the contemporary border between
the modern states <strong>of</strong> Israel and Lebenon, i.e. Mount Manor (Efrat 1993: 225). On its
western border is the northern coastal plain. <strong>The</strong> Galilee coastal plain was not part <strong>of</strong>
the province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo and belonged to the Phoenician provinces. This research will
deal only with the areas east <strong>of</strong> the 1800 longitude, as far south as 2600 latitude

according to the Israeli Cassini Soldner (Old Israeli Grid). To the east <strong>of</strong> the Galilee is
the Jordan valley rift. <strong>The</strong> Galilee's southern border is the Harod and Jezreel Valleys
(Orni and efrat 1971: 73-74). <strong>The</strong> Galilee is divided to Upper and Lower Galilee,
which differ in altitude, climate and vegetation. <strong>The</strong>se two units are divided by the
Bet ha-Kerem Valley and the Ammud River. <strong>The</strong> highest elevation <strong>of</strong> the Upper
Galilee is the height <strong>of</strong> Mount Meron - 1208 m. above sea level. In Lower Galilee the
highest mountain is Mount Kamon – 598 m. above sea level (Orni and Efrat 1971: 73-
74).
Upper Galilee can generally be divided into three geographical sub units: the
western mountains, the Mount Meron Block and the eastern mountains (Frankel et. al.
2001: 2). Western Upper Galilee consists <strong>of</strong> mountain ranges dissected by river
valleys, in which altitude reaches 700 m. above sea level. <strong>The</strong> Mount Meron Block,
consists <strong>of</strong> Mount Meron and Mount Peqi'in, and reaches the elevation <strong>of</strong> 2000 m.
above sea level. <strong>The</strong> eastern mountains can be divided into three sub-regions: the
Zefat Mountains, the Dalton-Avivim heights and the Manara Ridge.
Lower Galilee can be divided into three sub regions. Eastern Lower Galilee
consists <strong>of</strong> Basalt plateaus, the largest one being Ramot Yissakhar (Hopkins 1985:
69). Central lower Galilee is split by faults running east to west which form a stepped
sequence <strong>of</strong> mountain ridges and valleys (Hopkins 1985: 68). Western Lower Galilee,
also known as the Allonim Hills is characterized by rounded hills which slope to the
west and border with the coastal plain (Hopkins 1985: 69).
<strong>The</strong> Valleys
This area consists <strong>of</strong> three valleys: the Jezreel Valley, <strong>The</strong> Harod Valley and the
Beit-Shean Valley. All three <strong>of</strong> these valleys have rich soil types which support
agriculture and were, before the modern era, likely to have contained swamps.

<strong>The</strong> Jezreel Valley is situated between the Nazareth Ridge in the north and
Samarian Hills in the south. Its elevation is roughly 20-50 m. above sea level. <strong>The</strong> soil
<strong>of</strong> the Jezreel Valley is fertile and rich in organic matter. <strong>The</strong> Qishon Stream runs
through the valley, before continuing west to the Haifa Bay (Orni and Efrat 1971; 96-
97).
<strong>The</strong> Harod Valley is a north-western continuation <strong>of</strong> the Beit-Shean Valley, yet
differs from the latter in width and soil types (Nir 1970; 303). This valley separates
Samaria from Galilee and connects the Jordan Rift with the Jezreel Valley. It is 18
km. long and about 5 km. wide. <strong>The</strong> valley's elevation varies from about 40 m. above
sea level to 115 m. below sea level. Situated in the Valley is the Harod Spring, which
flows to the Harod Stream (Orni and Efrat 1971: 94-95).
<strong>The</strong> Beit-Shean Valley borders on its north with the Kinneret Region. Its
southern border is between Samaria and the Gilead. In the west it borders with the
Harod Valley, and in the east with the steep slopes <strong>of</strong> the Gilead. Throughout this
valley run a number <strong>of</strong> streams, <strong>of</strong> which Nahal Harod, flowing all year round, is the
most abundant (Orni and Efrat 1971: 92-94).
<strong>The</strong> Mount Amir Ridge
<strong>The</strong> Mount Amir Ridge is situated between the Nablus down-fold in the
southeast and the Menashe Hills in the northwest, as well as with the Sharon Plain on
its southwest and with the Jezreel Valley on its northeast. This region is elevated at
around 500 m. above sea level. <strong>The</strong> Aruna Wadi, through which passes an important
part <strong>of</strong> the "Way <strong>of</strong> the Sea" (Via Maris), is the natural boundary between the Mount
Amir Ridge and the Menashe Hills (Orni and Efrat 1971: 71).

<strong>The</strong> Menashe Hills
<strong>The</strong> Menashe Hills border with the Aruna Wadi in the southeast and the Valley
<strong>of</strong> Nahal Yoqne'am in the northwest, which is the natural southeastern boundary <strong>of</strong>
Mount Carmel. This geographical unit is situated between the coastal plain and the
Jezreel Valley. This region is lower than the Mount Amir ridge and has an average
altitude <strong>of</strong> around 300 m. above sea level. It is an elevated plateau, nearly flat,
excluding its easternmost corner in which rolling hills are located (Orni and Efrat
1971: 72).
<strong>The</strong> main route through the areas <strong>of</strong> the province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo branched from the
coastal route at the city <strong>of</strong> Megiddo, and continued, to the north-east to Hazor and the
Beqa' Valley <strong>of</strong> Lebanon (Dorsey 1991: 93-97). During the rainy season it would
have been impossible to pass through the Jezreel Valley due to the marshy nature <strong>of</strong>
the centre <strong>of</strong> the valley. From the city <strong>of</strong> Hazor the route passed along the western
edge <strong>of</strong> the Hula Valley in order to avoid the swampy areas <strong>of</strong> the valley. In addition
to this main route, there is evidence for at least seven additional lateral routes through
the Galilee, leading from the Galilee coastal plain to the east (Dorsey 1991: 97-102;
157-162).
1.4.3. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Samaria
<strong>The</strong> province <strong>of</strong> Samaria encompassed the Samarian Hills, which boarder in the
north with the Jezreel and Beith-Shean Valleys and this line is also the accepted
northern border <strong>of</strong> the province. In the west, the province might have included the
southeastern part <strong>of</strong> the Sharon Plain (Na'aman 1995a: 103-115). <strong>The</strong> province's
southern boundary is a political line consisting <strong>of</strong> the cities <strong>of</strong> Jericho, Bethel and
Gezer (Na'aman 2001: 423-425). However, there is question among scholars

egarding whether or not these western and southern political borders were moved
following the <strong>Assyrian</strong> withdrawal from Palestine, who might have moved them and
when (Na'aman 2003: 85- 87). Furthermore, during the Persian Period it is clear that
the area <strong>of</strong> Bethel was part <strong>of</strong> the province <strong>of</strong> Judah (Lipschits 2005: 138; 154- 184).
For this reason, the discussion regarding the province <strong>of</strong> Samaria will focus only on
the Samarian hills – an area that was clearly part <strong>of</strong> the province <strong>of</strong> Samaria from the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> conquest up to the Persian Period.
<strong>The</strong> Samarian hills are morphologically variegated. Geographically, the
westernmost part <strong>of</strong> the Samarian highlands is Mount Carmel. <strong>The</strong> Samarian
highlands also include the Menashe Plateau and Mount Amir. However, this western
part <strong>of</strong> the Samarian highlands cannot be placed in a specific provincial territory with
high probability. It might have belonged both to the territories <strong>of</strong> Megiddo (as discussed
above), as well as to Samaria. Due to the questions surrounding it, this area will be omitted
from the present analysis.
<strong>The</strong> Samarian Hills can be primarily divided into two geographical units: the East
Samarian Hills and the Nablus Syncline (Hopkins 1985: 63- 65). <strong>The</strong> East Samarian
Hills are the only direct continuation <strong>of</strong> the Judean fold. This area is characterized by
its dissection by branches <strong>of</strong> valleys which originate from the great rift, the largest
one being wadi Fari'a in the north (Hopkins 1985; 63- 64). <strong>The</strong> Nablus Syncline is the
dominant mass <strong>of</strong> the Samarian highlands and has the highest elevations <strong>of</strong> the region.
<strong>The</strong> Nablus Syncline consists <strong>of</strong> an elevated block <strong>of</strong> Eocene chalk projecting out <strong>of</strong>
its surrounding area (Hopkins 1985: 64- 65). <strong>The</strong> area provides good farming
conditions due to the more ample rains and fertile soil (Orni and Efrat 1971: 68).
<strong>The</strong> main route that passed through the province <strong>of</strong> Samaria is the northern part
<strong>of</strong> the Jerusalem-Jenin route (Dorsey 1991: 117). This route split near the city <strong>of</strong>

Shechem into two branches: One circling Mount Ebal from the east and one from the
west, both ending at Jenin. <strong>The</strong> branch that followed the western route reached the
city <strong>of</strong> Samaria, passing to its east. Furthermore, this main route also branched to
additional alternates (Dorsey 1991: 140-146). Apart from the Jerusalem—Jenin route,
additional routes can be reconstructed in the Samarian Hills, connecting primarily
between central Samaria and the coastal plain, as well as between Samaria and the
areas <strong>of</strong> the Jordan Valley and beyond to the areas <strong>of</strong> Trans-Jordan (Dorsey 1991:
163-180).

2. Methods
When aiming to research the impact <strong>of</strong> foreign rule on the countryside comprised
<strong>of</strong> various geographical units the best tool archaeology has to <strong>of</strong>fer is the
archaeological survey. Although archaeological surveys tend to differ a great deal in
their emphases and resolution, these investigations prove useful in reconstructing
fluctuations in settlement patterns and should be valued for their contribution with
regards to this aspect.
2.1. Site Surface Survey
Visible surface remains <strong>of</strong> past civilizations likeky inspired people's imaginations
far before any documentation or mapping. It seems that the first archaeological
surveys were actually adjuncts to geographical explorations, however, these
explorations set the foundations for future archaeological investigations. European
and American pilgrim voyages to the Middle East's holy places produced attempts to
identify visible archaeological sites and ruins with historical or biblical place names
(Banning 2002: 2, with further literature). This type <strong>of</strong> surveying visible remains was
adopted and improved by archaeologists, who used limited surface collections <strong>of</strong>
artifacts for the assessment <strong>of</strong> the layout and date <strong>of</strong> occupation <strong>of</strong> archaeological
sites (Renfrew and Bahn 2004: 96).
Archaeological surveys are site surface surveys, consisting <strong>of</strong> the actual field
work for collection <strong>of</strong> data and the analysis <strong>of</strong> that data. Due to the fact that this study
encompasses a relatively large area, the archaeological survey is a particularly
appropriate and efficient tool. When looking at wide areas and various geographical
units, any bias or distortion in any particular survey results in only a minimal effect on
the generalizability <strong>of</strong> the findings as a whole. However, in order to present the most

accurate picture, it is important to test the survey results through ongoing comparison
with excavation results, preferably <strong>of</strong> smaller rural sites, whenever possible.
Despite such methodological care, there nonetheless remain limitations in such
research in regards to the data presented and analyzed, which derives from various
publications <strong>of</strong> previous field work and their analysis. <strong>The</strong>se surveys differ in their
method <strong>of</strong> field work, analysis and publication <strong>of</strong> data, which in turn, determine their
resolution. An example which applies to this research can be found in the surveys
conducted and published by the Israel Antiquity Authority which do not
systematically state the size <strong>of</strong> each site surveyed, the amount <strong>of</strong> pottery collected, or
the percentage <strong>of</strong> pottery relative to each period. Another example can be seen in the
fact that some surveys do state an estimate <strong>of</strong> size <strong>of</strong> sites during each period, while
others do not 14 .
2.2. <strong>The</strong> Method Used in this Research
This research is an exersize aimed at understand the relationship between settlemet
dynamics and political events, and see what could be learned from this relationship. In
order for this exersize to be <strong>of</strong> value it needed to be conducted on a large scale,
encompassing many survays conducted in various geographical areas. However,
seeing as this research was conducted as an MA degree thesis, the framework was
limited only to the published data. <strong>The</strong> unpublished ceramic data from the surveys
stored in the Israeli Antiuities Athority's storage house was not checked and the
published material was used as the data base for this research. As the reader can see
below the publications were analized critically, but there was no reason to burden this
14 For a detailed discussion <strong>of</strong> field techniques and archaeological survey aims and methods see
Banning 2002.

composition with ceramic plates that can be found in the various survey publications
themselves. Thus, this composition does not contain ceramic plates, but a reffernce
can be found in the tables <strong>of</strong> sites in the chapters below.
In most archaeological surveys conducted in Israel the Iron II period has been
defined without further sub phases. This period includes some 350 years during which
the area was part <strong>of</strong> independent kingdoms, as well as under the influence <strong>of</strong> three
consecutive foreign entities: the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s, the Egyptians and the Babylonians. <strong>The</strong>
Persian period extended some 200 years during which Palestine retained the same
political status under the same imperial rule.
Some surveyors have tried to define the period <strong>of</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule over northern
Palestine and have called this period Iron Age III (A. Zertal for example). This
attempt to define such a limited period <strong>of</strong> time from the ceramic assemblage collected
in an archaeological survey is usually based on a specific type <strong>of</strong> pottery vessel.
However, the presence or absence <strong>of</strong> a specific type <strong>of</strong> pottery in a specific site may
be coincidental. Due to the problematic nature <strong>of</strong> this division, it was not incorporated
into this research. Furthermore, the vast majority <strong>of</strong> the sites defined as Iron Age III in
the various surveys are also occupied either during the Iron Age II or during the
Persian Period, and sometimes during the entire transition.
Indeed, there is no way to isolate the settlement patterns during the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
imperial rule using archaeological surveys alone. However, by taking into
consideration that the administrative system <strong>of</strong> the former Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel
remained roughly the same from the time <strong>of</strong> its conquer and division by the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s
into independent provincial units, despite any changes in external ruling powers, it
becomes possible to research the impact <strong>of</strong> foreign ruling empires on settlement
patterns in northern Palestine (Lipschits 2005: 36, 48-49).

<strong>The</strong> direct <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule over northern Palestine lasted for around 100 years,
from Tiglath-Pileser III's campaigns in 733-732 BCE, which shaped the future <strong>of</strong> this
area for generations to come, until after the death <strong>of</strong> Ashurbanipal in 627 BCE
(Na'aman 1991b: 40-41). It seems that the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s were responsible for the initial
administrative division <strong>of</strong> this area which was left unchainged by subsequent rules.
Thus, there is no reason to assume that this provincial system was not then inherited
by the Persian Empire (With the exception <strong>of</strong> the province <strong>of</strong> Dor, the coastal plain,
which was probably put under the rule <strong>of</strong> Sidon).
This study will then compare the settlement patterns in the various areas <strong>of</strong>
northern Palestine from Iron Age II with the settlement patterns dating to the Persian
Period. <strong>The</strong> logic behind this comparison is that the settlement patterns recorded in
the Iron Age II depict a picture matching the 8 th century BCE, which was the start <strong>of</strong> a
process, while the settlement patterns recorded in the Persian Period depict the end <strong>of</strong>
that same process. It seems that wherever there were excavations <strong>of</strong> small sites, the
latter would verify the picture presented by the surveys <strong>of</strong> the area as comparisons <strong>of</strong>
a similar character have been conducted as individual studies in other areas <strong>of</strong> ancient
Palestine (Lipschits 1997), as well as in the individual analysis presented in the
surveys themselves.
2.3. Presentation <strong>of</strong> Data
Each Province will be dealt with in an independent chapter. <strong>The</strong> chapters will
comprise <strong>of</strong> evaluation <strong>of</strong> the various relevant surveys and excavations, after which an
analysis will be made regarding settlement patterns in each specific Province. At the
end <strong>of</strong> each chapter two maps will depict the settlement pattern in the province during
the Iron Age II (the 8 th century BCE) and during the Persian Period, as well as a table,

matching the information depicted in the maps, in which the data regarding the sites
will appear.
<strong>The</strong> area included in this analysis will include geographical areas with high
probability <strong>of</strong> belonging to a specific province, so areas whose affiliation to one
province or another has yet to be adequately determined by current research has
therefor been omitted from this study. <strong>The</strong>se areas include the Aruna Passage, the
Manasseh Ridge and the Carmel Mountain, as well as the northern Shephelah. In
addition, areas which have yet to be surveyed or surveys which have yet to be
published will not be included.
<strong>The</strong> settlement patterns in each province will be presented in a visual manner in
two maps: one portrays the settlement pattern in the province during the Iron Age II
(the 8 th century BCE) and the other presents the settlement pattern in the province
during the Persian Period. <strong>The</strong> sites will be portrayed as dots on the maps. By every
dot, signifying a site, the number <strong>of</strong> the site, given to it for this specific research, will
be displayed. <strong>The</strong> province capitals will appear by name. <strong>The</strong> maps will be followed
by the tables detailing the data regarding the sites.
<strong>The</strong> tables adjoined to the maps provide additional information regarding the sites.
Due to the fact that there is no uniformity in the survey publications in regards to
presentation <strong>of</strong> data, it was necessary to create a unified standard. However, when the
survey publications provided additional data, an effort was made to add it to the table
as well. <strong>The</strong> categories presented in the tables will be conducted from left to right:
Map no. - This column will contain a number given especially for this research
and these numbers will be used for identification <strong>of</strong> the sites on the maps. <strong>The</strong>
numbers will run through each chapter in a west to east direction.

Site Name - This column will present the name <strong>of</strong> the site, providing it has one, as
it is given in the survey publication.
ICS/OIG (Israeli Cassini Soldner/Old Israeli Grid) - This column will present the
location <strong>of</strong> each site according to the old Israeli grid in precision <strong>of</strong> four digits.
Type - This column will present the type <strong>of</strong> the site as brought in the survey
publications (Tell, Khirbeh, Scattered Shards, etc.).
IA II – PT (Iron Age II – Pottery) - This column represents the Iron Age II
presence at the site. Due to the fact that some survey publications confirm that pottery
dating to a specific period was found at the site, while others provide details regarding
the number or percentage <strong>of</strong> pottery found, this column will provide the following
data: If the survey publication provides data as to the number and/or percentage <strong>of</strong>
Iron Age II pottery shards found at the site, then this data will be stated in the table.
However, if the only data given is in the form <strong>of</strong> conformation that Iron Age II pottery
shards have been found, then the table will state the word "yes". If no Iron Age II
pottery was found, then it will be blank.
Per – PT (Persian Period – Pottery) – This column represents the Persian Period
presence at the site. Due to the fact that some survey publications only confirm that
pottery dating to a specific period was found at the site, while others provide details
regarding the number or percentage <strong>of</strong> pottery found, this column will provide the
following data: If the survey publication provides data as to the number and/or
percentage <strong>of</strong> Persian Period pottery shards found at the site, then this data will be
stated in the table. However, if the only data given is in the form <strong>of</strong> conformation that
Persian Period pottery shards have been found, then the table will state the word
"yes". If no Persian Period pottery was found then it will be blank.

Reference – This column will provide the reference information for every specific
site. This data will contain the name <strong>of</strong> the publishing scholar, the year <strong>of</strong> publication
and the page number in which the site appears.

3. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Dor (<strong>The</strong> Sharon Coastal Plain)
<strong>The</strong> Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel's former coastal plain was delineated between the Yarkon
River in the south and Mount Carmel in the north, as were the boundaries <strong>of</strong> the
alleged province <strong>of</strong> Dor. In this area a number <strong>of</strong> surveys were carried out some <strong>of</strong>
which were conducted and published during the 1960's and 1970's. This is important
due to the fact that during the last two decades survey theory and techniques have
evolved and improved. That being said, other surveys conducted in this area were
carried out and published in the last few years, so a balanced picture is nontheless
depicted.
3.1. <strong>The</strong> 'Atlit Map
<strong>The</strong> archaeological survey <strong>of</strong> the area <strong>of</strong> 'Atlit was the first survey published in
the series <strong>of</strong> publications <strong>of</strong> the systematic archaeological survey <strong>of</strong> Israel. <strong>The</strong> survey
was conducted during 1964-5 by Ronen and Olami (1978). This survey, as all the
surveys conducted as part <strong>of</strong> the "Archaeological Survey <strong>of</strong> Israel", covered an area <strong>of</strong>
10 x 10 km. <strong>The</strong> surveyors documented and mapped the sites they found according to
their location and the periods <strong>of</strong> occupation.
According to Ronen and Olami there are 15 sites in which Iron Age II or Persian
Period remains were found. Iron Age II pottery was found in four sites. Of these four
sites, two are categorized as tells, one is a well, and one is a site <strong>of</strong> scattered shards. In
site no. 81, i.e. the Crusader cemetery, Iron Age II pottery, as well as Persian Period
pottery was found. Although it is clear that during the Crusader Period this site
functioned as a burial site, it seems that no earlier tombs were found at this site. <strong>The</strong>

Iron Age II and Persian Period pottery was scattered on the surface <strong>of</strong> the site and was
not found in a burial context appropriate to its period (Ronen and Olami 1978: 38-39).
For this reason this site will be analyzed as a scattered shards site. <strong>The</strong> well (site 57)
will not be included in my analysis due to the fact that it is not a potential settlement
site. Persian Period pottery was found in all 15 sites (Ronen and Olami 1978). Of
these sites, four are not settlement sites; two are installations and two are cemeteries
and tombs and therefor these sites will be omitted from from analysis.
Thus, this analysis will include 11 sites. Two <strong>of</strong> the 11 sites in which Iron Age II
and/or Persian Period pottery was found are categorized as scattered shards. Three <strong>of</strong>
the sites are defined as tells; four are defined as khirbeh and one as a harbor. <strong>The</strong>
'Atlit harbor is clearly linked to the settlement at 'Atlit and so they will be counted as
one settlement. Both exhibit Persian Period pottery. According to the research
conducted by A. Raban and A. Haggi, Iron Age II pottery was found in both the
settlement at Atlit and the harbor (Haggi 2006: 43-60). Haggi states that contrary to
the initial publications, the harbor at Atlit was constructed sometime between the late
9 th or early 8 th century BCE (2006: 52).
Of the 10 sites, Iron Age II pottery was found only in four sites. Tel Khries, Tel
Qar'a, Atlit and the Crusader Burial Ground are the only sites which seem to portray
continuity from the Iron Age II in to the Persian Period. <strong>The</strong> additional six sites were
only settled or re-settled during the Persian Period. This depicts a picture <strong>of</strong> growth in
this area during this period.

Figure 1: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the 'Atlit Map Survey
3.2. Map <strong>of</strong> Dor
<strong>The</strong> survey <strong>of</strong> the Map <strong>of</strong> Dor was conducted initially by Olami during the years
1968-1970. In 1996 the map area was surveyed once again by Sender and Oren in an
effort to update the data from Olami's survey. <strong>The</strong> survey was then published by
Sender and Oren.
According to Olami et al. (2005a), 14 sites were found which exhibited Iron Age
II or Persian Period pottery. However, five <strong>of</strong> them are burial or industrial sites. <strong>The</strong>se
sites therefore will be omitted from this analysis. <strong>The</strong> remaining nine sites include
three sites in which Iron Age II shards were found, one <strong>of</strong> which sites is defined as a
tell, one as a khirbeh, and the third is a site <strong>of</strong> scattered shards. Persian Period pottery
was found in eight <strong>of</strong> the nine sites. Two settlements, Dor and Kerem Maharal,
portray continuity. <strong>The</strong> area exhibits growth from the Iron Age II to the Persian
Period.

Figure 2: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Dor Survey
3.3. Map <strong>of</strong> Binyamina
<strong>The</strong> archaeological survey <strong>of</strong> this area was conducted during the years 1971-
1972 by Olami. <strong>The</strong> area was resurveyed in 1996 by Sender and Oren on behalf <strong>of</strong> the
Israeli Antiquities Authority in an effort to update the data previously collected by
Olami and his team. <strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong> this survey were published in 2005.
<strong>The</strong> area surveyed is located along the Mediterranean coastal plain <strong>of</strong> Israel,
south <strong>of</strong> the map <strong>of</strong> Dor. According to Olami et al. (2005b), there are eight sites in
which Iron Age II or Persian Period pottery was found. One <strong>of</strong> these sites is a burial
site, and as such will not be included in this analysis. Persian Period pottery was
found in all <strong>of</strong> the remaining seven sites. Two <strong>of</strong> the sites are defined as tells, four as
khirbeh and one site was defined as a site <strong>of</strong> scattered shards. In only two <strong>of</strong> the sites
Iron Age II pottery was found, however Iron Age pottery was found in two additional
sites, with no ability to determine the sub phase. <strong>The</strong>se two sites were not taken into
account as Iron Age II sites, however, dispite their omission, significant growth in
settlement from Iron Age II to the Persian Period can be seen.

Figure 3: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Binyamina Survey
3.4. Maps <strong>of</strong> Mikhmoret and Hadera
<strong>The</strong> survey <strong>of</strong> this area was carried out during the years 1973 to 1978 by a team
headed by Ne'eman, as part <strong>of</strong> the Archaeological Survey <strong>of</strong> Israel. <strong>The</strong> survey was
completed by Sender and Oren in 1998 and published in 2000. <strong>The</strong> surveyed area is
located in the Sharon region.
According to Ne'eman et al. (2000) there are 18 sites in which Iron Age through
Persian Period Pottery was found. <strong>The</strong> surveyors defined in their work the Iron Age
III period as a distinct period. This sub division is problematic as it is usually based
on specific types <strong>of</strong> pottery, the appearance <strong>of</strong> which may be coincidental (see
"Methods" in chapter 1 above). Ne'eman et al. (2000) do not state in the publication
their methodology or the types <strong>of</strong> pottery which were the basis <strong>of</strong> this division.
However, they do state that from Iron Age II to what they refer to as Iron Age III,
very little changed in the settlement pattern (Ne'eman et al. 2000: 16- 17). Two <strong>of</strong> the
three sites which were defined by them as Iron Age III sites portray continuity from
the Iron Age II to the Persian Period. Only one site seems to have been established
during the Iron Age III, however, this site too portrays continuity to the Persian

Period. For this reason <strong>of</strong> continuity and due to the methodological difficulty <strong>of</strong>
defining this sub phase <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age (Iron Age III), this sub division will be largely
disregarded in the following quantitative discussion.
Of the 18 sites included in the analysis, Iron Age II pottery was found in half. Of
these nine sites, five are defined as tells, two are defined as khirbeh, and two more as
sites <strong>of</strong> scattered shards. Persian Period pottery was found in 15 sites. In five <strong>of</strong> these
sites, Iron Age II pottery was also found which indicated that there was continued
occupation during the transition, four are defined as tells and one as khirbeh. Ten sites
were only settled during the Persian Period. Thus, all <strong>of</strong> the sites defined as tells
portray continuity from Iron Age II through the Persian Period. Three <strong>of</strong> the sites in
which only Persian Period pottery was found are defined as khirbeh, and five <strong>of</strong> the
sites in which only Persian Period was found are defined as sites <strong>of</strong> scattered shards.
Figure 4: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Maps <strong>of</strong> Mikhmoret and Hadera
3.5. Map <strong>of</strong> Herzliyya
Survey
Due to the fact that there is no published data regarding the area between this
area <strong>of</strong> survey and the maps <strong>of</strong> Mikhmoret and Hadera, the survey <strong>of</strong> the map <strong>of</strong>
Herzliyya is the next map to be analyzed. <strong>The</strong> survey was carried out in the years
1977 to 1979 by Gophna on behalf <strong>of</strong> the archaeological expedition <strong>of</strong> the Institute <strong>of</strong>

Archaeology at Tel Aviv University excavating at Tel Mikhal, and as part <strong>of</strong> the
Archaeological Survey <strong>of</strong> Israel. <strong>The</strong> survey was published by Gophna and Ayalon in
1998. <strong>The</strong> area surveyed in the map <strong>of</strong> Herzliyya includes the coastal strip in the west
and the red sand hillocks in the east.
According to Gophna and Ayalon (1998), Iron Age II or Persian Period pottery
was found in seven sites. Of these seven sites one is a site <strong>of</strong> burial caves. Sites no. 10
and 11 will be analyzed as one site due to the fact that they are different locations in
the same site (Tel Arshaf) and are clearly part <strong>of</strong> one settlement. In three out <strong>of</strong> the
five sites analyzed Iron Age II pottery was found, and all are defined as tells. <strong>The</strong>se
three sites also portray continuity to the Persian Period. Persian Period pottery was
found in two additional sites. One <strong>of</strong> these sites is defined as khirbeh and the other is a
site <strong>of</strong> scattered shards.
Figure 5: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the map <strong>of</strong> Herzliyya Survey

3.6. Tel Megadim
Tel Megadim (also known as Tel Sahar) was excavated by M. Broshi in 1967 -
1969. In 1994 S. Wolff conducted a salvage excavation on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Israel
Antiquities Authority (Wolf 2008: 1942-1944). During these excavations three
Persian Period strata were found (Broshi 1969: 124; Stern 1973: 19; Wolff 2008:
1943). <strong>The</strong>se strata (III-I) date from the 5 th to the second quarter <strong>of</strong> the 4 th centuries
BCE. No Iron Age remains were found at the site 15 . In stratum III <strong>of</strong> Broshi's
excavations, well built structures were found, which do not seem to come together to
create a comprehensive city plan (Broshi 1969: 125; Stern 1973: 20). This stratum
was dated to a period from the 5 th century BCE (Stern 1973: 20).
Stratum II was the main stratum to be exposed. This stratum portrayed the
remains <strong>of</strong> a well planned city with rectangular plan and streets that are parallel to the
city wall. <strong>The</strong> occupation <strong>of</strong> this stratum is enclosed by a casemate wall. <strong>The</strong> city was
planned in a Hippodamian plan (Broshi 1969: 125; Stern 1973: 19). In the beginning
<strong>of</strong> the 4 th century BCE this city was destroyed and abandoned (Broshi 1969: 125).
From this stratum emerged a ceramic assemblage which included whole vessels, as
well as figurines and coins (Broshi 1969: 125; Stern 1973: 19-20). <strong>The</strong>se remains <strong>of</strong> a
well planned city give the impression that the city was built with this plan in mind.
Stern states that the finds indicate that it functioned as a harbor city due to imported
pottery that was found among the remains (Stern 1973: 20). This stratum, according
to Stern, should be dated to the end <strong>of</strong> the 5 th century and the beginning <strong>of</strong> the 4 th
century BCE (Stern 1973: 20).
15 However, underwater investigations revealed the presence <strong>of</strong> Iron Age I shipwrecks (Wolff 2008:
1944).

Stratum I was very poorly preserved. Only a few wall fragments remained (Broshi
1969: 124; Stern 1973: 19). This stratum, according to Stern should be dated to a time
from the second quarter <strong>of</strong> the 4 th century BCE (Stern 1973: 20). Wolff concludes that
the site was not only used for maritime trade, but may have also served as a starting
point for traders heading east (2008: 1943).
3.7. Dor
<strong>The</strong> two main excavation projects at Tel Dor are that <strong>of</strong> E. Stern during the years
1980 to 2000, and the renewed expedition directed by I. Sharon and A. Gilboa,
initiated in 2003. During these excavation projects Iron Age II and Persian Period
strata were unearthed.
<strong>The</strong> major building projects <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age IIb at Dor were uncovered in area B
(phase B/7). It seems that during this period a new city wall was constructed, as well
as a four-chambered gate <strong>of</strong> brick on very large limestone boulders. <strong>The</strong> gate seems to
have been in use until the 8 th century BCE, and the assumption is that it went out <strong>of</strong>
use with the <strong>Assyrian</strong> conquest <strong>of</strong> the area, although there is no indication that it was
violently destroyed (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 163).
Following the <strong>Assyrian</strong> conquest, a new two chambered gate (phase B6) was built
over the previous four chambered one, while still employing the same city wall. <strong>The</strong>
fact that Dor was fortified in this period is unusual, in the provinces under <strong>Assyrian</strong>
rule in the former Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel fortifications are attested to only in <strong>Assyrian</strong>
administrative seats <strong>of</strong> various sorts (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 166).
Other than the gate and scattered fragments <strong>of</strong> architecture, there is no structure
at Dor that may be assigned to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule <strong>of</strong> the city and in most areas mostly
pits were found. According to Gilboa and Sharon, this can only be explained in two

ways: <strong>The</strong> first is to assume that the architecture was obliterated by the extensive
building operations <strong>of</strong> the Persian Period. <strong>The</strong> second is to assume that <strong>Assyrian</strong> Dor
was quite small; or that buildings were dispersed and remain undetected (Gilboa and
Sharon 2008: 166). <strong>The</strong>se two options would indicate that the city's layout was quite
different than can be seen in the provincial seat at Megiddo, where dense construction
is known (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 166).
<strong>The</strong> finds in the 7 th century BCE pits supply further significant data regarding
<strong>Assyrian</strong> Dor. <strong>The</strong> pottery recovered from these pits is still Israelite in character and
very different from contemporary assemblages in Phoenicia (Gilboa and Sharon 2008:
167). However, an unusually high proportion <strong>of</strong> tableware, mainly bowls, have
<strong>Assyrian</strong>izing shapes. Most <strong>of</strong> these types are not usually found in other sites, other
than at Megiddo (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 167). Two <strong>Assyrian</strong> seals have also been
found at Dor. In the pits located in area D2, hundreds <strong>of</strong> Phoenician commercial jars
were found dumped, well demonstrating Dor's role in maritime commerce in this
period (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 167). At one time an Iron smithy was dumping its
waste into this pit (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008: 164-165). Of the few other smithies
known in Israel, two (at Megiddo and at Tel Sera' in the northern Negev) also
functioned in <strong>Assyrian</strong> centers (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 167).
According to Gilboa and Sharon, the latest Iron Age finds at Dor date to around
650-630 BCE, and in all excavated areas Persian Period remains are directly
superimposed over them (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 167). In contrast to Stern, who
states that the continuation <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> the city wall indicates that the site was inhabited
during this period (Stern 1995: 273), they argue that during the Babylonian Period
Dor was not occupied (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 167).

Persian Period remains at Dor were found in areas A, C1 and C2. <strong>The</strong> earliest
stratum is stratum VI (Stern 1995: 272). In areas A and C2 two phases <strong>of</strong> stratum VI
were detected. Stern dated the destruction <strong>of</strong> this stratum to around 400 BCE (Stern
1995: 32, 272). In this stratum, although only scanty remains were uncovered, Stern
suggested that the city was built according to a Hippodamian plan (Stern 1995: 29-
34).
<strong>The</strong> second Persian Period stratum, stratum V, exhibits two building phases in
which new fortifications were built and new residential structures were built
according to the previous city plan (Stern 1995: 34-38, 276). In the second phase <strong>of</strong>
stratum V, the fortifications from the previous phase continue to be in use, but new
residential buildings were built (Stern 1995: 34-38, 276).
3.8. Tel Michal
Tel Michal is located on the coastal plain <strong>of</strong> the modern state <strong>of</strong> Israel. From
1977 to 1980 large-scale excavations initiated by the Institute <strong>of</strong> Archaeology at Tel
Aviv University were conducted at the site by the Archaeological Expedition to the
Central Coastal plain <strong>of</strong> Israel (Herzog et al. 1989: 3).
Throughout most <strong>of</strong> its periods <strong>of</strong> occupation, Tel Michal was very likely a
maritime station – military, commercial or both – engaging in international trade and
providing services to ships and seafarers (Herzog et al. 1989: 8). <strong>The</strong> archaeological
data show a clear correlation between the periods <strong>of</strong> developed trade contacts along
the eastern Mediterranean and the periods <strong>of</strong> most intensive occupation at Tel Michal.
Three Iron Age strata were uncovered at Tel Michal. <strong>The</strong> first two were dated to
the Iron Age IIA (10 th century BCE), however, it seems that these dates should be

lowered and redefined as 9 th century BCE strata 16 . <strong>The</strong> third Iron Age stratum, stratum
XII, was dated to the 8 th century BCE, and consists mainly <strong>of</strong> pottery shards found in
fills under later period floors. No architectural remains dating to this period were
found (Moshkovitz 1989: 69, 71-72).
Following a gap in settlement during the 7 th century BCE, the site at Tel Michal
was resettled during the Persian Period (Herzog et al. 1989: 8). Five different strata <strong>of</strong>
the Persian Period were uncovered at Tel Michal. <strong>The</strong> earliest (stratum XI) dates to
between 525 and 490 BCE, while the latest (VII) dates to between 400 and 350 BCE
(Herzog et al. 1989: 8). Stratum XI is represented by the remains <strong>of</strong> one large
structure located on the northern part <strong>of</strong> the high tell and remains <strong>of</strong> pits and ovens on
the central part <strong>of</strong> the high tell. This was interpreted by the excavators as an
administrative headquarters and the remains <strong>of</strong> a military depot (Herzog 1989: 88-91).
Stratum X is represented by the remains <strong>of</strong> sporadic structures in the north and centre
<strong>of</strong> the high tell. It seems that these structures were domestic in character (Herzog
1989: 92-94). Stratum IX is represented by building 344 in the north <strong>of</strong> the high tell,
interpreted as a small administrative centre. In the central and southern parts <strong>of</strong> the
high tell remains <strong>of</strong> additional structures have been found (Herzog 1989: 94-95).
Stratum VIII is characterized by a more flourishing settlement. On the northern
part <strong>of</strong> the high tell a fort was constructed. <strong>The</strong> settlement expands to include the
northern hill. <strong>The</strong> remains <strong>of</strong> stratum VIII are interpreted by the excavators as the
climax <strong>of</strong> the process which began in stratum XI as a military post and became a
multifunctional military-commercial and civilian village. <strong>The</strong> emerging "lower city"
on the northern hill portrays a verity <strong>of</strong> light industries (Herzog 1989: 95-102).
16 This according to Singer-Avitz, verbal communication.

Stratum VII is represented by an increase in the size and quality <strong>of</strong> construction at the
site. Structure 1013 on the northern part <strong>of</strong> the high tell, was clearly an administrative
centre. This interpretation is supported by the clay bulla found in the fill <strong>of</strong> one <strong>of</strong> the
structure's silos. It seems that during this period the peripheral mounds around Tel
Michal were also occupied. <strong>The</strong> excavators suggest that there was a cultural or ethnic
divergence between the inhabitants <strong>of</strong> the peripheral mounds and the inhabitants <strong>of</strong>
the high tell who operated the political and military administration (Herzog 1989:
102-110).
3.9. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Dor (<strong>The</strong> Coastal Plain) in Transition
Following this analysis, in all <strong>of</strong> the surveyed areas a clear increase <strong>of</strong> settlement
sites can be seen from the Iron Age II to the Persian Period. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> sites more
than doubled in the course <strong>of</strong> this transition (from 18 during the Iron Age II to 40
during the Persian Period). Most <strong>of</strong> the sites that were newly settled or resettled
during the Persian Period appear to be smaller, rural settlements. During the Iron Age
II most <strong>of</strong> the settlement was concentrated in large sites, while during the Persian
Period smaller sites started to appear. It seems that during this period the foundation
was set for the settlement arraignment <strong>of</strong> rural settlements around larger settlement
concentrations (Gophna and Ayalon 1998: 11).
However, excavated sites provide a slightly different picture. From the results <strong>of</strong>
the excavations it becomes clear that most <strong>of</strong> the sites were resettled only in the
Persian Period, and so do not seem to portray continuity from the Iron Age II. <strong>The</strong>
only sites that do portray some degree <strong>of</strong> continuity are 'Atlit and Dor. <strong>Assyrian</strong>
records indicate that Dor was an important city to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Empire (Gilboa and
Sharon 2008: 166-167; see also "Geopolitical Introduction" chapter 1 above). One <strong>of</strong>

the main clauses in the treaty signed in 677 BCE between Esarhaddon and Ba'al King
<strong>of</strong> Tyre, concerns the territory <strong>of</strong> Dor. From this inscription some scholars have
deduced that Dor was granted to Tyre, but this was not necessarily the case. <strong>The</strong>se
passages concern the regulation <strong>of</strong> Tyrian shipping and not the allotment <strong>of</strong> territories
(Gilboa ana Sharon 2008: 166; Na'aman 2009: 98-99).
Most scholars agree that Dor was directly ruled by the empire and served as an
administrative seat (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 166). <strong>The</strong>re is some disagreement,
however, as to whether or not it functioned as the capital <strong>of</strong> an independent province
(Na'aman 2009: 96). According to Gilboa and Sharon the only reason for <strong>Assyrian</strong>
presence at Dor would have been to control one <strong>of</strong> the few harbors directly supervised
by the empire. Most port towns under general <strong>Assyrian</strong> jurisdiction were still ruled by
local regimes like the Phoenicians and the Philistines (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 166).
Dor then, according to Gilboa and Sharon, should be viewed as an <strong>Assyrian</strong> karu, a
port <strong>of</strong> trade. <strong>The</strong> finds uncovered indeed corroborate both the assumption that
<strong>Assyrian</strong> administrators were present at the site, and attest to its commercial nature
(Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 166-167).
<strong>The</strong> excavation conducted by A. Raban and A. Haggi between 2002 and 2003,
confirmed that the harbor at 'Atlit continued to function throughout the transition from
the Iron Age II to the Persian Period. 17 It seems that the change from independent rule
to imperial rule did not interrupt the marine trade <strong>of</strong> this city. Nonetheless, the
discovery <strong>of</strong> an <strong>Assyrian</strong> helmet in the water <strong>of</strong> the harbor <strong>of</strong> 'Atlit, indicates <strong>Assyrian</strong>
presence in the city (Radan 1981: 49-57). Excluding these two examples, it seems that
17 See similar results in Raban 1996: 490-508.

the real change in settlement dynamics along the Sharon Coastal Plain occurred
during the 5 th century BCE (Tal 1999: 211; Shalev 2009: 369-370).
Although in most <strong>of</strong> the sites occupied during the Persian Period imported
pottery was found, it is not necessary that all <strong>of</strong> them functioned as maritime sites 18 . It
seems that during the Persian Period the Phoenicians expanded their territory to
incorporate the Sharon Coastal Plain (Elgavish 1994: 93-94; Tal 1999: 210-211).
However, Tal emphasizes that not all the sites located in the Sharon Coastal Plain,
which portray Persian Period occupation, were occupied at the same time. He states
that the regional settlement is related to a period <strong>of</strong> less than 50 years and was
apparently, even if in part, <strong>of</strong>ficially initiated. Most <strong>of</strong> the settlements existed
temporarily, particularly in the 5 th century BCE, and to a lesser extent in the 4 th
century BCE (Tal 1999: 211). Shalev nonetheless, argues that the Persian Period
urbanization process in the coastal plain was gradual, thus indicating that it was not
<strong>of</strong>ficially directed by the empire. He attributes this phenomenon to internal economic
factors, as well as to the empire's support <strong>of</strong> this process, but emphasizes that this
process did not occur due to empire initiative (Shalev 2009: 369).
In the inscription 19 on his sarcophagus which was found near Sidon, Eshmun'azar
king <strong>of</strong> Sidon, states that the Persian king gave him the fertile lands <strong>of</strong> Dor and
Joppa 20 . Interestingly, he does not emphasize the maritime potential <strong>of</strong> this area, but
rather it's potential for agriculture (Elgavish 1968: 42-43). According to Elgavish
18 See Raban's conclusion regarding the absence <strong>of</strong> pre Hellenistic harbor facilities at Dor in Raban
1995: 351; Haggi 2006: 55, in contrast to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> inscriptions.
19 See recent translation and debates in Avishur 2000: 134-151, with earlier literature.
20 Most English translations read "mighty lands <strong>of</strong> (Lord) Dagon", however, this is not the only
translation possible, See Avishur 2000: 134-151.

(1994: 93-94) this, along with the archaeological evidence, represents a shift in
Phoenician thinking during this period.
That being said, most recently Elayi, after Torrey (1903: 373), dated the reign <strong>of</strong>
king Eshmun'azar to the 6 th century BCE (Elayi 2008: 102-104, 107). This is the
highest date given for the reign <strong>of</strong> this king. From this data alone, two options seem
plausible. If indeed the city <strong>of</strong> Sidon was granted additional territory along the coast
<strong>of</strong> ancient Palestine by the Persian king in the days <strong>of</strong> Eshmun'azar, as his funerary
inscription states, and if Elayi's dating <strong>of</strong> this king's reign in correct, then it seems that
the changes in settlement dynamics in the Sharon Coastal Plain, which occurred in the
5 th century BCE might not be the result <strong>of</strong> an <strong>of</strong>ficial imperial initiative. In this case
these changes might be attributed, as Shalev proposed, to internal economic
processes. However, If the intermediate date for Eshmun'azar's reign, which fixes it in
the 5 th century BCE (argued first by Galling 1963: 140-151), is correct, then it would
seem that the change in settlement dynamics along the Sharon Coastal Plain in the 5 th
century BCE might have everything to do with Phoenician intent and Persian imperial
initiative.
Perhaps in this point the archaeological surveys can be useful. Tal, as well as
Shalev based their arguments on fairly large, excavated sites, which also seem to have
increased in numbers during the Persian Period. However, the appearance <strong>of</strong> rural
settlements, which were detected in the surveys, indicates a new utilitarian objective
for the area <strong>of</strong> the Sharon Coastal Plain. It seems that from the Persian Period (or
rather from the time <strong>of</strong> Phoenician domination <strong>of</strong> this area), the Sharon Coastal Plain
exhibits a change in settlement dynamics, which focuses on the agricultural
exploitation <strong>of</strong> this area and not only on the maritime potential <strong>of</strong> this streth <strong>of</strong> land.
This seems to be an <strong>of</strong>ficially directed and deliberate shift, probably by the

Phoenicians and not necessarily by the Persian Empire, but most likely authorized by
it. This change in Phoenician economic thinking probably began at the time <strong>of</strong>
Eshmun'azar himself, but did not necessarily reach full bloom in his days.

Map no. Site Name
1 Tel Mikhal
2 Herfeliyat
3 Tel Arshaf
4 Herzliyya Bet
5
Tel
Mikmoret
6 Tel Gador
7 Tel Qana
8 Mikhmoret
9 Hadera
10
Hibbat
Ziyyon
11 Dor
12 Elyakhin
13
14
Nahal
Hadera
Tel
Mevorakh
15 Tel Zomera
16 Elyakhin
17
H.
Darkemon;
Kh.
Table 1: Sites
located in
ICS/
OIG
1311
1742
1316
1737
1319
1780
1328
1748
1375
2008
1384
2039
1397
1707
1401
2024
1408
2033
1415
2004
1423
2248
1426
2016
1429
2061
1433
2155
1434
2071
1436
2025
Type
the province <strong>of</strong> Dor
IA II -
PT
Per -
PT
Reference
Tell yes yes Gophna and Ayalon 1998: 30
Scattered
shards
Tell yes yes
Khirbeh
yes Gophna and Ayalon 1998: 34
Gophna and Ayalon 1998: 19-
20
yes Gophna and Ayalon 1998: 31
Tell yes yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 31
Tell yes yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 25
Tell yes yes
Scattered
shards
Scattered
shards
Khirbe
Gophna and Ayalon 1998: 44-
53
yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 65
yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 62
yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 73
Tell yes yes Olami et al. 2005: 51-52
Khirbe
Scattered
shards
yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 69-70
yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 53
Tell yes yes Olami et al. 2005: 44-46
Tell yes yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 46-48
Scattered
shards
1437
2245 Khirbeh
18
Dureihima
Kh. El-
Manshiya
1439
2001
Khirbe
19 Nahal Ada s.
1439
2111
Khirbeh
20
Nahal
Maharal
1439
2292 Khirbeh
21
Pardes
Hanna
1440
2090
Scattered
shards
22 Kh. Kevara 1440 Scattered
yes
yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 67
yes Olami et al. 2005: 55-56
yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 74
yes Olami et al. 2005: 61
yes Olami et al. 2005: 17
Ne'eman et al. 2000: 38
yes Olami et al. 2005: 18

Map no. Site Name
23
Nahal
Hadera
24 Atlit
25
26
27
Pardes
Hanna-
Karkur
28 Tel Megadim
29 Tel Qar'a
30
31 Tel Khries
32 H. Rozez
33
H. Geva/Kh.
Istanbul
34 Tel Burga
35 Tel Zeror
36
Pardes
Hanna-
Karkur
37 Biq'at Shir
38 Ein Hod
39
40
Umm et Tut
(S)
Kerem
Maharal
41 Kh. 'Egem
42 Tell Afrein
43 Es Suwweida
44 Kh. Migdal
ICS/
OIG
Type
IA II -
PT
Per -
PT
Reference
2185 Shards
1442
2073
Khirbe yes
Ne'eman et al. 2000: 49
1442
2346
Khirbehcity
yes yes
Ronen and Olami 1978: 40-48;
Haggi 2006: 43-60
1446
2347
Khirbeh
yes Ronen and Olami 1978: 36
1447
2308
Khirbeh
yes Ronen and Olami 1978: 72
1448
2081
Scattered
shards
yes
Ne'eman et al. 2000: 41
1454
2366
Tell
yes Ronen and Olami 1978: 25
1455
2375
Tell
yes Ronen and Olami 1978: 16
1457
2388
Scattered
shards
yes Ronen and Olami 1978: 8
1457
2391
Tell
yes Ronen and Olami 1978: 1-2
1469
2167
Khirbeh yes yes Olami et al. 2005: 32-34
1469
2285 Khirbeh
yes Olami et al. 2005: 26
1473
2142
Tell
yes Olami et al. 2005: 53-55
1476
2039
Tell yes yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 64-65
1476
2067
Scattered
shards
yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 56
1479
2269
Khirbeh yes
Olami et al. 2005: 42
1485
2341
Khirbeh
yes Ronen and Olami 1978: 56
1491
2217 Khirbeh
yes Olami et al. 2005: 67-68
1492
2275
Scattered
Shards
yes yes Olami et al. 2005: 32-34
1493
2149
Khirbeh
yes Olami et al. 2005: 55
1494
2057
Tell yes yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 59
1494
2188
Khirbeh
yes Olami et al. 2005: 21
1497
2017
Khirbe yes yes Ne'eman et al. 2000: 72

4. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo
As stated in the geographical introduction, the province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo probably
included the Galilee (Upper and Lower), the Jezreel valley, and the Beth-Shean
Valley. This analysis will focus on the main surveys which have been recently
published and will be conducted in a north to south direction.
4.1. Upper Galilee
<strong>The</strong> survey report published by Frankel et al. in 2001 is based on the results <strong>of</strong>
two archaeological surveys. <strong>The</strong> first survey began in 1975 and covered an area <strong>of</strong>
approximately 310 sq. km. <strong>The</strong> second project is an extensive survey limited to
known settlements sites, and was carried out from 1986 to 1990. This survey covered
all <strong>of</strong> Upper Galilee, including the coastal plain. However, the northern coastal plain
<strong>of</strong> the Galilee was probably not part <strong>of</strong> the province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo, so the following
analysis will not include the sites located on the coastal plain.
In the survey conducted by Frankel et al. the beginning <strong>of</strong> the IA II is dated to the
middle <strong>of</strong> the 9 th century BCE (2001: 106). This is due to the fact that the main vessel
used by the surveyors to define this period is the cooking pot with a ridged or grooved
rim (Type 33). Using this measure, the period lasted approximately 250 years, during
which the area was part <strong>of</strong> the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel, an <strong>Assyrian</strong> province and for a
short time a Babylonian province (Frankel et al. 2001: 106).
In their survey Frankel et al. defined 23 sites as Iron Age without defining a sub-
phase (Frankel et al. 2001: 104). Two <strong>of</strong> these 23 sites are located in the coastal plain.
Of the 36 sites said to contain Iron Age II remains recorded in the survey 14 are

situated in the coastal plain and thus do not appear in the analysis below. Of the 22
sites which were analyzed, seven are defined as tells, 12 as khirbeh and three are sites
<strong>of</strong> scattered shards.
Settlement pattern in Upper Galilee during the Iron Age II are characterized by
an increase in settlement along the coastal plain and a striking decrease in the western
hills, while settlement in the eastern hills remained substantial. This differs from the
settlement pattern exhibited in this area during the previous Iron Age I period.
According to the surveyors, this situation recorded during the Iron Age II most likely
primarily reflects the situation after the <strong>Assyrian</strong> conquest (Frankel et al. 2001: 106-
107). <strong>The</strong> same trend in settlement pattern then continues into the Persian period.
According to Frankel et al., in Upper Galilee 82 sites were occupied during the
Persian period (2001: 107). Of these, 36 sites appear in the table below, as the
remaining sites are located in the coastal plain and thus were not included in this
study. Nonetheless, a 38% increase in settlements, mostly concentrated in the eastern
part <strong>of</strong> Upper Galilee, is evident. This reflects a picture <strong>of</strong> growth in the east <strong>of</strong> Upper
Galilee during the Persian Period.
Despite the differences in quantity, the Settlement pattern during the Persian
Period is similar to that <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age II, which was most likeky influenced by the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> conquer and rule (Frankel et al. 2001: 107). During the Persian Period, the
number <strong>of</strong> sites along the coastal plain increase, the number <strong>of</strong> sites situated in the
eastern hills grows to an unprecedented peak, while the settlement in the western hills
remains sparse (Frankel et al. 2001: 107). This pattern <strong>of</strong> two distinct settlement
sections – one in the west and the other in the east – can also be seen in the different
ceramic horizons (Frankel et al. 2001: 107). Continuity between the IA II and the

Persian Period can also be seen in the fact that 16 out <strong>of</strong> the 22 Iron Age II sites
(around 73%) continue to be occupied during the Persian Period.
Administratively, Upper Galilee was part <strong>of</strong> the Persian satrapy <strong>of</strong> "<strong>The</strong> Land
beyond the River," which was divided into smaller districts. However, the precise
status <strong>of</strong> the Galilee during this period is not clear. <strong>The</strong> area is not mentioned in any
contemporary document. Alt assumed that the administrative division created by the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> empire continued in relevance during the Persian Period (Alt 1938: 90-93).
This view was somewhat followed by Avi-Yonah (1977: 25) although suggesting that
the province capital was Hazor, as well as by Stern (2001: 373). Frankel et al. suggest
placing the border between the territory belonging to the Phoenician cities <strong>of</strong> the coast
and the inland province to the east, during the Persian Period in the area <strong>of</strong> Mt. Meron
(Frankel et al. 2001: 107- 108). This current research follows this view, portrayed by
Frankel et al. in their survey indicating two different cores <strong>of</strong> influence, perhaps two
separate centers <strong>of</strong> administration in the area, one on the coast and one in the east.
In the west, the Phoenician cities along the coastal plain flourished during the
Persian Period, and were apparently detached from the Galilee (Stern 2001: 315- 316;
379- 380). This Phoenician prosperity, which was probably due to Mediterranean
trade, explains the settlement growth around these cities portrayed in the survey
conducted by Frankel et al (2001).
<strong>The</strong> eastern part <strong>of</strong> Upper Galilee also exhibited continuity and growth in
settlement from Iron Age II to the Persian Period (Frankel et al. 2001: 106). However,
in this area there seems to be no sudden prosperity to attribute it to. Perhaps routes
leading north passed through the eastern part <strong>of</strong> Upper Galilee, along the great rift,
(Dorsey 1991: 156) can explain the growth in settlement. Nonetheless, eastern Upper
Galilee did not enjoy the same dense concentration <strong>of</strong> prosperous cities as the coastal

plain, but rather a growth in rural settlement. In the case <strong>of</strong> eastern Upper Galilee an
assumption regarding this growth in settlement should be further looked into.
Figure 6: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Survey <strong>of</strong> Upper Galilee
4.1.1. <strong>The</strong> Area <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav
According to the analysis <strong>of</strong> the survey conducted by Frankel et al., a shift in
settlement can be seen in the area <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav. During the Persian Period there is a
sharp increase <strong>of</strong> settlements in this area. To what should we attribute this increase <strong>of</strong>
settlements?
It seems that most <strong>of</strong> the settlements in this area are rural. Examples can be seen
in the sites <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav and Tel Sasa. <strong>The</strong> site <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav was excavated and
published by E. M. Meyers (Meyers 1990). <strong>The</strong> excavation uncovered evidence for
the existence <strong>of</strong> a rural settlement at the site during the late Iron II and the Persian
Period. <strong>The</strong> remains found consist mainly <strong>of</strong> pottery shards, however, the Persian
Period pottery was associated by the excavator with stubs <strong>of</strong> walls, probably from the
same period (Meyers 1990: 8-10). Although the Iron Age II pottery was not found in a
secure context associated with any walls, restorable ceramic material was found
(Meyers 1990: 8). <strong>The</strong> excavator does not provide an exact date for this limited

assemblage, however, he places these remains between the 8 th and 6 th centuries BCE.
Thus, it is not clear whether the Iron Age II rural settlement at the site <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav
was first established before or after the <strong>Assyrian</strong> annexation <strong>of</strong> this area. Evidence for
Persian Period occupation has also been found at Tel Sasa. During Stepansky's
salvage excavation at the site, conducted in 1993, Persian Period pottery was found
mainly in an earth fill, which seems to be part <strong>of</strong> a refuse pit (Stephansky et al. 1996:
71).
<strong>The</strong>se two sites which exhibit Persian Period occupation seem to have been rural
sites, leaving open the question <strong>of</strong> the reason for this growth in settlements in this
area. Due to the continuation from the Iron Age II to the Persian Period seen at the
site <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav, it is possible that this site had some significance in this regard.
Perhaps there was a small imperial administrative centre at the site <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav. An
additional inference may be made regarding a possible connection between this area,
along with the entirity <strong>of</strong> eastern Upper Galilee, and the possible administration
centers discovered at Hazor and Ayyelet ha-Shahar.
4.1.2. Hazor and Ayyelet ha-Shahar
Less than one km. to the north-east <strong>of</strong> Tell Hazor, in the area belonging to the
modern kibbutz <strong>of</strong> Ayaelet ha-Sahar, a building complex was excavated in 1950. This
building complex was first dated to the Persian Period (Maisler 1952: 22; Guy 1957:
19- 20; Stern 1982: 8- 9), but later re-interpreted as an <strong>Assyrian</strong> building (Reich 1975:
233- 237; Lipschitz 1990: 96- 99; Kletter and Zwickel 2006: 151- 186; Reich
forthcoming) through a close examination <strong>of</strong> its architecture. <strong>The</strong> building was re-
used during the Persian Period, and so most <strong>of</strong> the pottery found in it during the
excavation was <strong>of</strong> that period. However, a few Iron Age shards were uncovered as

well (Guy 1957: 19- 20; Kletter and Zwickel 2006: 159- 169). Following Reich's
latest examination <strong>of</strong> the architecture <strong>of</strong> this building and his comparison <strong>of</strong> it to
building 3002 at Hazor, he suggests that the building at Ayyelet ha-Shahar was built
first, soon after Tiglath-Pileser III's campaign, while building 3002 at Hazor was built
sometime during the end <strong>of</strong> the 7 th century or even the 6 th century BCE (Reich
forthcoming).
<strong>The</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> these two buildings, the first at Ayyelet ha-Shahar and the
second one at Tell Hazor (3002), although containing only few finds dating to the Iron
Age, indicate that Hazor, functioned as an <strong>Assyrian</strong> administrative centre <strong>of</strong> the
Galilee. This does not suggest, however, that Hazor was a province capital, but rather
that it may have been an administrative center, perhaps under the supervision <strong>of</strong> the
provincal capital at Megiddo. This confluence <strong>of</strong> data suggests that the reason for the
eastward shift in settlement in Upper Galilee was somehow connected with its
proximity to the imperial administration centre in the area.
4.2. Lower Galilee
<strong>The</strong> survey <strong>of</strong> Lower Galilee was conducted between the years 1980 and 1982,
by Z. Gal and was published in 1992. <strong>The</strong> map <strong>of</strong> Gazit, published by Gal in 1991,
presents a more detailed research <strong>of</strong> the limited area, located on the south eastern part
<strong>of</strong> the Lower Galilee. In 1998, Gal published the Maps <strong>of</strong> Har Tavor and 'En Dor and
the Map <strong>of</strong> Shefar'am in 2003. <strong>The</strong> areas surveyed in these maps will be presented
separately, due to their detailed character.
According to Gal, evidence for Iron Age II or/and Persian Period settlements has
been found in 75 sites in Lower Galilee. Of these 75 sites, 26 are located in the areas
published separately by Gal in the Maps <strong>of</strong> Shefar'am, Har Tavor and 'En Dor, and

Gazit, so these were omitted from the current analysis to avoid duplication <strong>of</strong> sites
and will be analyzed as part <strong>of</strong> the individual maps. In addition, two sites have been
omitted from the following analysis, as they will be presented as part <strong>of</strong> the Jezreel
Valley analysis (sites 1.5 and 1.1 according to Gal).
Of the 47 remaining sites, 42 exhibit evidence for Iron Age II occupation, while
only 24 exhibit evidence for occupation during the Persian Period. This repreasents a
57% decrease in the number <strong>of</strong> settlements. Of the 42 Iron Age II sites, 19 (45%)
reflect continuity into the Persian Period, while 25 sites are abandoned (59%). During
this Period 5 new sites appear in addition to the sites which continue to be occupied
from the previous period.
Gal states that according to the survey and excavations, the population <strong>of</strong> Lower
Galilee during the 8 th century BCE, prior to the destruction <strong>of</strong> Tiglath-pileser III, was
about 18,000. Thus, if the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s deported 13,520 prisoners, as Tiglath-pileser III's
annals record, the bulk <strong>of</strong> the population was removed from Lower Galilee (Gal
1998b: 52- 53). Gal claims that the <strong>Assyrian</strong> campaign marked the end <strong>of</strong> the Iron
Age in Lower Galilee and that the region remained relatively deserted throughout the
7 th century BCE. Gal further states that the settlements established during the Persian
Period mark the beginning <strong>of</strong> a new phase in Lower Galilee. In addition, he
emphasizes the strong connection he sees between these new settlements and the large
cities located in the coastal plain. He suggests that these new settlements were
established by people coming from the coastal plain (Gal 1998b: 53).

Figure 7: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-phase in the Survey <strong>of</strong> Lower
4.2.1. Map <strong>of</strong> Shefar'am
Galilee
<strong>The</strong> survey <strong>of</strong> the Map <strong>of</strong> Shefar'am was conducted by Y. Olami during the years
1970-1972, on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Archaeological Survey <strong>of</strong> Israel and the Israel Antiquities
Authority. <strong>The</strong> findings <strong>of</strong> this survey were updated and brought to light by Z. Gal in
2003.
<strong>The</strong>re are 16 sites which show evidence <strong>of</strong> Iron Age or Persian Period occupation
(Olami and Gal 2003: 65). Of these 16 sites, six are located in the western part <strong>of</strong> the
map, i.e. in the coastal plain. Due to the fact that this part <strong>of</strong> the coastal plain is was
not part <strong>of</strong> the province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo, these sites will not be discussed here. Of the
remaining ten sites, one is defined as a well (site 57) and as there is no evidence for a
settlement around it, this site was not included in the analysis below (Olami and Gal
2003: 35). Of the nine sites analyzed, four are said to contain evidence for occupation
during the Iron Age II and all nine contain evidence for occupation during the Persian
Period.

Of the four sites which contain evidence <strong>of</strong> Iron Age II occupation, two are tells
and two are defined as khirbeh. All <strong>of</strong> these sites continue to be occupied during the
Persian Period, while new sites appear. Of the sites which contain evidence <strong>of</strong> Persian
Period occupation, two are tells (which continue in occupation from the Iron Age II),
five are defined as khirbeh and two are sites <strong>of</strong> scattered shreds. It seems that the
larger settlements continued to be occupied during both periods (tells), and smaller
settlements were added in the Persian Period.
That being said, Gal, who analyzed and published Olami's findings insists that:
"settlement during the Iron Age II was terminated at the end <strong>of</strong> the eighth century
BCE, apparently with the conquest <strong>of</strong> Galilee by Tiglath-Pileser III…this region too
was apparently barren <strong>of</strong> settlement at the close <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age…" (Olami and Gal
2003: 12). However, from the table below, the change in settlement pattern during the
transition from the Iron Age II to the Persian Period seems to be represented by an
increase in small to medium sized sites.
Figure 8: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to Period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Shefar'am Survey

4.2.2 Map <strong>of</strong> Gazit
<strong>The</strong> archaeological survey covering the Map <strong>of</strong> Gazit was conducted by Z. Gal in
1975-1976. <strong>The</strong> survey was initiated by the Archaeological Survey <strong>of</strong> Israel, and was
supported by the Israel Antiquities Authority (Gal 1991: 7).
According to the survey, 14 sites portray evidence for Iron Age II or Persian
Period settlements. Iron Age II Pottery was found in 12 sites and Persian Period
pottery was found in 12 sites as well. Ten <strong>of</strong> the 14 sites portray continuity and were
occupied during the two periods. Of these ten sites three are tells and seven are
defined as khirbeh. All <strong>of</strong> the larger sites, defined as tells, portray continuity from the
Iron Age to the Persian Period. It seems that two sites were abandoned after the Iron
Age II and were not resettled in the Persian Period (sites 5 and 62), and two new
settlements were established during the Persian Period (sites 13 and 65).
According to Gal, the majority <strong>of</strong> settlements were destroyed by Arameans in the
middle <strong>of</strong> the 9 th century BCE (Gal 1991: 12). Gal states: "It seems that from the late
8 th century onward and until the Persian Period the area was deserted" (Gal 1991: 12).
Gal emphasizes that in the Persian Period new settlements were established, and gives
H. Qamal (site 5) as an example. However, bassed on this analysis, the number <strong>of</strong>
settlements remained constant during the transition.
Figure 9: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Gazit Survey

4.2.3. Maps <strong>of</strong> Har Tavor and 'En Dor
<strong>The</strong> areas covered by the maps <strong>of</strong> Har Tavor and 'En Dor were surveyed by Z.
Gal in 1977-1980. <strong>The</strong> survey was conducted on behalf <strong>of</strong> the Archaeological Survey
<strong>of</strong> Israel and the Israel Antiquities Authority (Gal 1998: 7).
In the map <strong>of</strong> Har Tavor there are 23 sites in which evidence for Iron Age II or
Persian Period settlement. (Gal 1998: 19). Of these 23 sites, two are industrial sites.
<strong>The</strong>se industrial sites were not included in the analysis below (sites no. 35 and 48). Of
the remaining 21 sites, two sites are said to contain Iron Age Pottery without a
definitive sub phase (sites no. 41 and 63) and these Iron Age sites were also omitted
from the analysis below. Of the 19 sites analyzed, four are tells, 12 are defined as
khirbeh and five are sites <strong>of</strong> scattered shards. <strong>The</strong>re are 13 sites in which Iron Age II
pottery was found, and 17 sites in which Persian Period pottery was found. Of the 13
sites said to contain Iron Age II pottery three were not resettled in the Persian Period.
Only two <strong>of</strong> the larger sites, defined as tells, seem to portray continuity from the Iron
Age II to the Persian Period. Of the sites defined as khirbeh, only 4 seem to portray
continuity.
It seems that in this area there is an increase in settlement sites during the
transition to Persian Period. Only a small number <strong>of</strong> the sites are abandoned during
the transition phase and not resettled. This finding runs counter to Gal, who
nonetheless suggests that the large scale exile following the destruction by Tiglath-
pileser III, resulted in the desolation <strong>of</strong> this area from the 7 th century BCE until the
Persian Period (Gal 1998: 14).

Figure 10: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> Har Tavor Survey
In the Map <strong>of</strong> 'En Dor, 12 sites which contain evidence <strong>of</strong> occupation during the
Iron Age II or the Persian Period were found. One <strong>of</strong> these sites is an industrial site
and one is said to contain Iron Age pottery without further sub phase, thus these two
sites will not be included in the analysis below. Of the ten remaining sites, three are
tells, six are defined as khirbeh and one is a site <strong>of</strong> scattered shards. In nine <strong>of</strong> these
ten sites Iron Age II pottery was found, and Persian Pottery was found in eight <strong>of</strong> the
ten sites. Only six <strong>of</strong> these ten sites portray continuity from the Iron Age II to the
Persian Period. <strong>The</strong> three tells seem to be occupied through the transition, as well as
three sites defined as Khirbeh. Of these three seem to have been abandoned and not
resettled. This data suggest that some shift in the settlement pattern did occur in this
area during the transition phase.

Figure 11: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Map <strong>of</strong> 'En Dor Survey
Combining the data from the various publications regarding Lower Galilee
reveals that 79 sites were occupied in the region during Iron Age II. Of thse, only 48
seem to have been occupied during the Persian Period. This means that some 40% <strong>of</strong>
the sites were abandoned during the transition 21 . This percentage indicates that the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> impact to this region was indeed severe, however, it seems far from Gal's
portrayal <strong>of</strong> this area as remaining "relatively deserted" (Gal 1998b: 53). It seems that
despite the harshness <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> campaign, more than 50% <strong>of</strong> the settlements
were reoccupied, portraying a picture <strong>of</strong> partial continuation. That being said, this
partial continuation is not evident in the sites excavated in Lower Galilee 22 . Based on
Gal's division <strong>of</strong> Lower Galilee into smaller geographical units, the southern sub
21 Gal's data from his broad investigation <strong>of</strong> the Lower Galilee (Gal 1992) differs somewhat from the
data presented in his individual investigations, brought in the maps <strong>of</strong> Gazit (Gal 1991), Har Tavor and
'En Dor (Gal 1998) and Shefar'am (Gal 2003). In these individual maps, which were published as part
<strong>of</strong> the Archaeological Survey <strong>of</strong> Israel, there seem to be more sites presented than in the broader survey
<strong>of</strong> the whole <strong>of</strong> Lower Galilee. This raises the question regarding the degree <strong>of</strong> accuracy <strong>of</strong> this broad
investigation (Gal 1992).
22 Some late Iron Age II remains were uncovered in area M at Karm er-Ras, however, Alexandre states
that there is not enough evidence to interpret these remains as an occupational phase (Alexandre 2008,
HA 120).

egion is the only sub region in which a growth in settlement can be seen. This may be
due to this area's proximity to the Jezreel Valley.
4.2.4. Herbat Rosh Zayit
<strong>The</strong> excavations at Horbat Rosh Zayit were undertaken as part <strong>of</strong> the Lower
Galilee Regional Project, which included the excavations at Tel Mador, and focused
on the western part <strong>of</strong> Lower Galilee. <strong>The</strong> site is located in the intermediate hilly zone
east <strong>of</strong> the coastal plain and west <strong>of</strong> the Lower Galilee Mountains (Gal and Alexandre
2000: 3, 196). <strong>The</strong> latest occupational phase at Horbat Rosh Zayit, stratum I, is dated
to the Iron Age II. During this phase the site was occupied by a rural settlement,
which was dated by Gal and Alexandre to the 9 th —8 th centuries BCE. <strong>The</strong> remains <strong>of</strong>
this Iron Age II village were uncovered in areas A, B and C, as well as in the Fort
area, represented by a squatters phase (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 200).
In area A two single period structures were excavated; Building 49 and Building
400. Both structures show no signs <strong>of</strong> destruction, and seem to have been abandoned
(Gal and Alexandre 2000: 153- 155, 159). In area B, a large, single period structure
was unearthed - Building 100, with its adjacent Courtyard 101. Building 100 is the
western example <strong>of</strong> a four-roomed house plan in the Galilee. In and around the
building seven oil presses were found, four <strong>of</strong> them in situ (Gal and Alexandre 2000:
161- 178). In area C, traces <strong>of</strong> four architectural phases were unearthed, however,
floor levels were only preserved from phase a, the latest phase. With this architectural
phase, building 330 was associated and dated to the 8 th century BCE (Gal and
Alexandre 2000: 179- 195).
Gal and Alexandre state that the final phase <strong>of</strong> the village at Horbat Rosh Zayit
was destroyed and abandoned by the end <strong>of</strong> the 8 th century BCE. <strong>The</strong>y attribute this

abandonment to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> campaign <strong>of</strong> Tiglath-Pileser III in 733/732 BCE (Gal
and Alexandre 2000: 201).
4.3 <strong>The</strong> Megiddo Hinterland Project
<strong>The</strong> Megiddo Hinterland Project was undertaken by the Megiddo Excavation
Team, and was published in 2006. <strong>The</strong> goal <strong>of</strong> the project was to understand the
socio-economic, political and demographic processes which took place during the
Bronze and Iron Ages, and to present a comprehensive picture regarding the area
dominated by Tel Megiddo. <strong>The</strong> area covered was <strong>of</strong> approximately 450 sq. km, and
included the Jezreel Valley and its hills surrounding it. <strong>The</strong> project consisted <strong>of</strong> two
parts. <strong>The</strong> first, to gather all available data from previous surveys and excavations
regarding the area under discussion and the second, was the field work, carried out in
1995 and 1999 (Finkelstein et al. 2006: 705).
<strong>The</strong> area covered by the Megiddo Hinterland Project had been previously
surveyed, however, most <strong>of</strong> the sites were rechecked by the Megiddo Hinterland
Project team (Finkelstein et al. 2006: 705). Due to this integratigation and the current
character <strong>of</strong> this survey it was chosen for the analysis <strong>of</strong> this area.
Most <strong>of</strong> the sites recorded in the Megiddo Hinterland Project are located on the
margins <strong>of</strong> the Jezreel Valley (Finkelstein et al. 2006: 760). As such, technically they
belong to other geographical units which are also discussed in this research as
individual units, and were surveyed as such. However, the sites analyzed here will not
be discussed again in the analysis <strong>of</strong> other geographical units due to their strong
connection to the Jezreel Valley more so than to their technical geographical units. By
this I am referring mainly to sites located in the lower Galilee and the Samarian Hills,
bordering on the Jezreel Valley.

<strong>The</strong>re are two sites which are said to contain Iron Age pottery without further
data regarding sub phases (sites no. 19 and 23). Due to this uncertainty regarding the
Iron Age they will not be defined below as Iron Age II sites. However, these two sites
were most likely occupied during the Persian Period and they will be included in the
analysis as such. According to the data presented in the Megiddo Hinterland Project,
there are 80 sites in which evidence was found for Iron Age II and/or Persian Period
occupation. Out <strong>of</strong> these 80 sites, 50 seem to portray evidence for Iron Age II
occupation and <strong>of</strong> these, 42 sites seem to have continued in to the Persian Period, with
8 sites were abandoned during the transition (16%). Evidence for Persian Period
occupation was found in 57 out <strong>of</strong> the 80 sites, 42 <strong>of</strong> these sites (73%) were occupied
during the Iron Age II as well and 15 are new sites.
As a whole, an increase in settlement sites can be seen from the Iron Age II to the
Persian Period, however, it seems that the size <strong>of</strong> the settlements diminished,
portraying a picture <strong>of</strong> a more rural settlement pattern during the Persian Period,
which surrounded fewer large centers (Finkelstein et al. 2006: 770). It seems that
despite the <strong>Assyrian</strong> take over <strong>of</strong> the city <strong>of</strong> Megiddo, the rural settlement was not
devastated (Finkelstein et al. 2006: 770- 772). This can be seen from the excavation
conducted in small sites for example, Tell Qiri and Tell Qashish.
Figure 12: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Megiddo Hinterland Project

4.3.1 Tell Qiri
Tell Qiri is located on the slopes <strong>of</strong> Mount Carmel, bordering the Jezreel Valley.
<strong>The</strong> site was excavated in 1975-1977 by A. Ben-Tor and Y. Portugali as part <strong>of</strong> the
Yoqne'am Regional Project. <strong>The</strong> excavation was initiated by the Israel Department <strong>of</strong>
Antiquities (today the Israeli Antiquity Authority) as a rescue operation, and was a
joint project <strong>of</strong> the Department <strong>of</strong> Antiquities, the Institute <strong>of</strong> Archaeology <strong>of</strong> the
Hebrew University, and the Israel Exploration Society.
According to the excavators, the settlement at Tell Qiri was a small agricultural
settlement, which existed continuously throughout the Iron Age (Ben-Tor and
Portugali 1987: 5, 53). <strong>The</strong>y also state that in area D, the largest area excavated, most
walls were used in more than one stratigraphical phase, so no new stratum was
completely built above the previous one (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 53).
<strong>The</strong> Iron Age II is represented by stratum VII, which consists <strong>of</strong> three phases
(Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 67- 74). Iron Age III is represented by stratum V/VI,
which consists <strong>of</strong> three phases in area D, as well as further sub phases and <strong>of</strong> two
phases in area C (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 62- 65, 110). During the excavation <strong>of</strong>
area D an <strong>Assyrian</strong> style bottle was found (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 65). In area C
an additional intermediate phase can be seen IV/V, representing the end <strong>of</strong> the Iron
Age/the Beginning <strong>of</strong> Persian Period (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 110). <strong>The</strong> Persian
Period is represented by stratum IV, which consists <strong>of</strong> three phases, and was
uncovered in area A2 (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 15). <strong>The</strong> Persian Period can also
be seen in the Cemetery unearthed in area H (Ben-Tor and Portugali 1987: 20- 26).
Although the sequence <strong>of</strong> Iron Age II – Persian Period was not found in direct
stratigraphical connection, atop each other in one area, it seems that the site does

portray continuity in settlement from the Iron Age II to the Persian Period, indicating
a peaceful transition from one period to the next.
4.3.2 Tel Qashish
Tell Qashish is located in the western part <strong>of</strong> the Jesreel Valley, on the northern
bank <strong>of</strong> Nahal Kishon. <strong>The</strong> Nahal Kishon River encloses the site on two sides (Ben-
Tor et al. 2003: 1). <strong>The</strong> site was excavated by A. Ben-Tor, as part <strong>of</strong> the Yoqne'am
Regional Project. Only two areas were excavated; areas A and B.
Evidence <strong>of</strong> an Iron Age II – Persian Period settlement at the site was found in
area A. <strong>The</strong> Iron Age II is represented at Tel Qashish by stratums IIIC and IIIB. Iron
Age III is represented by stratums IIIA and IIB. <strong>The</strong> Persian Period is represented by
stratums IIA and I (Ben-Tor et al. 2003: 4, 345- 361). Only the relevant strata will be
shortly discussed, i.e., strata IIIA- I.
To stratum IIIA, two walls and an oven should be attributed. According to the
pottery found, this stratum probably dates to the 9 th century BCE (Ben-Tor et al 2003:
352). In relation to stratum II, two phases were found: IIB and IIA. <strong>The</strong> earlier phase
(IIB) is dated to Iron Age II and the later phase (IIA) is dated to the Persian Period.
To stratum IIB, five walls and one floor were attributed. Although not without
disturbance, the pottery indicates an Iron Age III date (Ben-Tor 2003: 352- 353). To
stratum IIA two walls and one floor should be attributed, and the pottery from the
floor dates the phase to the Persian Period (Ben-Tor et al. 2003: 356).
From the sequence described by the excavator <strong>of</strong> Tel Qashish, which was found
in one area and seems to convey direct stratigraphical connection, a picture <strong>of</strong>
continuation emerges. It is quite clear that the Iron Age/ Persian Period transition was
a peaceful one as far as Tel Qashish is concerned.

4.4 <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo in Transition
From the analysis above, it is clear that each one <strong>of</strong> the geographical areas was
affected differently by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> campaigns and the following imperial rule. In
Upper Galilee there is a clear shift in settlement pattern, moving to the west and to the
east, leaving the central part only scarcely inhabited. <strong>The</strong> eastern shift 23 in settlement
might be linked to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> administrative centers established at Hazor and
Ayyelet ha-Shahar, probably due to the main route, which avoided the higher
elevations <strong>of</strong> central upper Galilee and passed on the edge <strong>of</strong> the great rift (Dorsey
1991: 156). As Parker stated:
"Forts served as garrisons outposts… <strong>The</strong>y were military centers, from which
campaigns and intelligence operations were conducted… administrative centers where
the daily affairs <strong>of</strong> the surrounding areas were directed and monitored, and
communication hubs through which news and information were channeled."
(Parker 1997: 77).
It is reasonable to suggest that these structures were established at Hazor and
Ayyelet ha-Shahar with a strong emphasis on location which provided easy access on
the main route to and from Palestine. <strong>The</strong>se imperial structures served the empire as
military centers, administrative centres, and communication hubs along the main
route, but also served as a focal point for the local population, which seems to have
concentrated in close proximity to them.
In Lower Galilee the impact is felt by the abandonment <strong>of</strong> about 40% <strong>of</strong> the Iron II
settlements. <strong>The</strong> area does not stay desolate, however, a decrease in settlements can
be clearly seen. <strong>The</strong>re is only an increase <strong>of</strong> settlements in the southern part <strong>of</strong> the
23 <strong>The</strong> western shift can probably be attributed to the Phoenician cities; however, this area is not
discussed in this research (see "geographical Introduction, chapter 1, above).

area, perhaps due to its proximity to the Jezreel Valley. This raises the question as to
why this area was so heavily impacted by the imperial takeover. I would like to
suggest two possible reasons that in conjunction may shed some light on imperial
thinking. <strong>The</strong> first was posited by Na'aman, who in 1993 proposed that the answer
lays in the limited agricultural potential <strong>of</strong> this area. <strong>The</strong> empire saw no need to invest
in its recovery (Na'aman 1993:106). <strong>The</strong> second does not contradict this latter
assumption, but compliments it. According to Gal, most <strong>of</strong> the deportees taken from
the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel were in fact taken from Lower Galilee (Gal 1998b: 48-53).
According to Dubovsky's reconstruction <strong>of</strong> Tiglath-pileser III's campaign to the
Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel, it seems that the takeover <strong>of</strong> Galilee was one <strong>of</strong> the later events
that took place during this campaign (Dubovsky 2006: 161-164). If so, this might
have something to do with the reason Galilee was dealt such a massive blow. <strong>The</strong>
empire took the deportees retern to Assyria from Palestine. Nonetheless, it seems that
neither the Babylonians nor the Persians saw need to later invest in this area.
<strong>The</strong>se two reasons can be joined with Parker's research regarding imperial
frontiers (Parker 2001). Parker argues that some areas were intentionally not invested
in by the empire and left desolate, in order to serve as buffer zones (Parker 2001:
251). Parker speaks <strong>of</strong> buffer zones between the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire and rival
independent political units, however, this strategy may have been used in the Galilee
in order to serve as an internal buffer zone meant to prevent future attempts <strong>of</strong>
rebellion against the empire.
In sharp contrast, the agricultural potential <strong>of</strong> the the Jezreel Valley was fully
recognized by imperial rule. <strong>The</strong> shift in settlement pattern, from larger sites to
smaller rural settlements, indicates that the empire was interested in the economic
value <strong>of</strong> the Jezreel Valley, and aimed to maximize, oversee, and control it. <strong>The</strong>

choice <strong>of</strong> Megiddo as province capital seems most logical, although located at the
southern part <strong>of</strong> a large province, it reflects the central interest <strong>of</strong> the empire in this
province. <strong>The</strong> rural settlement was left intact, and so encouraged to reach its
maximum agricultural capacity.

Map
No.
1
Site name
Tel Parur (Kh.
Fureir)
2 H. Hanot Qira
3 Tel Par
4 Tel Yoqneam
5 Tel Qashish
6 Kh. el-Harithiya
7 Tel Qiri
8 Givat Kipod
9
Tel Zariq (Tell Abu
Zureiq)
10 Kh. Esh Sh. Bureik
11
12
H. Buzin (Kh.
Buseima)
Tel Shosh (Abu
Shusha)
13 Gil'am
14
15
H. Zeror (Kh.
Musrara)
Beer Tiveon (Tell
Tab`un)
16 H. Govit
17
Tel Hali Ha-
Ma'aravi
18 Nahal Zipori
19 Tel Bar
20
21
Tel Shem (Tell esh-
Shammam)
Tel Risim (Tell er-
Rish)
22 Midrakh 'Oz
23
H. Hazin (Kh. Bir
el-Baida)
24 H. Zefat 'Adi
Table 2: Sites located in the province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo
ICS/
OIG
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
1599
2260
Tell
23
(21.10%)
5
(4.59%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
708-709
1600
2278
Khirbeh yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 713
1601
2419
Tell yes yes Olami and Gal 2003: 51-52
1605
2300
Tell yes yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
725.
1606
2323
Tell yes yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
725.
1606
2364
Inhabited
village
yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
727.
1614
2282
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 715
1621
2242
Khirbeh yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 716
1622
2267
Tell
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 716
1623
2340 Khirbeh
3
(2.08%)
3
(2.08%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
727-728.
1629
2378 Khirbeh
3
(1.50%)
3
(1.50%)
Gal 1992: 17; Finkelstein
et al. 2006: 728.
1634
2245
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 717
1634
2474
Khirbeh yes yes Olami and Gal 2003: 27
1637
2325
Tell
6
(3.45%)
5
(2.87%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
728-729.
1637
2325
Tell
yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
729.
1637
2418
Khirbeh yes yes Olami and Gal 2003: 52
1642
2420
Tell yes yes Olami and Gal 2003: 50
1643
2427 Khirbeh
yes Olami and Gal 2003: 49
1648
2229
Tell
10
(28.57%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 718
1649
2306
Tell
18
(8.61%)
18
(8.61%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
730.
1650
2338
Tell
15
(10.14%)
14
(9.46%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 731
1653
2225
Tell yes yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
719.
1653
2357
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 731
1655
2477 Khirbeh
yes Olami and Gal 2003: 28

Map
No.
Site name
ICS/
OIG
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
25 Nahal Zipori
1658
2414 Khirbeh
yes Olami and Gal 2003: 55
26
1659
2215
Scattered
shards
7
(63.64%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 719
27 el-Hamarrah
1660
2171
Scattered
shards
70% 30% Finkelstein et al. 2006: 709
28 Tel Shur (Tell Tora) 1661
2287
Tell
3
(4.92%)
1
(1.64%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
720.
29
Allonei Abba (Umm
el-`Amed)
1664
2374 Khirbeh
yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
732.
30
Tel Re`ala (Tell
Ghalta)
1666
2321
Tell
8
(19.05%)
9
(21.43%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
732.
31 En Yivqa'
1666
2400
Khirbeh yes yes
Gal 1992: 19; Olami and
Gal 2003: 58
32
1668
2311
Tell yes yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
731-732
33 Einot Nisanit
1673
2223 Khirbeh
yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
722.
34 Shefar'am (south)
1673
2437
Scattered
shards
yes Olami and Gal 2003: 47
35 Tel Megiddo
1675
2212
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 271
36
En Hevraya (`Ein
el-Hawwara)
1676
2365
Scattered
shards
11
(8.40%)
3
(2.29%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
733.
37
Bethlehem (Beit
Lahm)
1676
2378 Khirbeh
2
(1.67%)
2
(1.67%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
733-734.
38 Wadi Suweiseh
1679
2166
Scattered
shards
100%
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 709
39
Zalafeh el-
Gharbiyeh
1679
2172
Inhabited
village
5% Finkelstein et al. 2006: 711
40 H. Qeled
1681
2234 Khirbeh
2
(11.11%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
724.
41 Wadi et-Talybeh
1682
2143
Scattered
shards
15%
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 711
42 Umm ed-Duwaleh
1684
2129
Scattered
shards
50% Finkelstein et al. 2006: 711
43 Tell el-Khudeira
1684
2363
Tell
31
(27.43%)
6
(5.31%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 735
44
H. Seifan (Tell el-
Beida)
1688
2316
Tell yes yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
734.
45 Bab el Hawa
1690
2430
Scattered
shards
yes Olami and Gal 2003: 48
46 Salem (Tell)
1692
2159
Tell 10% 25% Finkelstein et al. 2006: 712
47 Salem
1692
2163
Inhabited
village
14% 33% Finkelstein et al. 2006: 712
48 H. 'Ofrat
1692
2434
Tell yes yes Olami and Gal 2003: 47
49
Mizpe Zevulun (Kh.
el-Musheirifa)
1696
2391
Tell
5
(0.90%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 736
50 Shur el-Msheirifa 1699 Tell 26 10 Gal 1992: 18; Finkelstein

Map
No.
Site name
51 Tel Mador
52 Tel Shimron
53 Tel Kedesh
54 Tell Ta'annek
55
Khirbet Abu
Mudawer Tamra
56 Hurbat Yiphtah'el
57 Hurbat Ya'anin
58 Hurbat Ro'sh Zayit
59
60 Tel Shadud
61 Batn es-Sema'
62 Ma'lul
63 Khirbet el-Lun
64 Hariq esh-Shams
65 Hurbat Shishit
66 es-Sahlat
67 Nab'at Wadi Hasan
68 Jebel Melah
69 en-Naqaqir
70 Kh. Tarbana
71
Sheikh Nebi el-
Heyja
72 Hurbat Gamum
73
Tel Zabdum
(Khirbet Zabid)
74 Khallet esh-Shihab
75 ed-Darajjeh
ICS/
OIG
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
2391 (12.75%) (4.90%) et al. 2006: 736-737
1700
2470
Tell yes yes Gal 1992: 26
1703
2343
Tell yes yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
750-751
1706
2183
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 742
1708
2141
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 742
1708
2486
Khirbeh 55% 25% Gal 1992: 26-27
1710
2400
Tell yes
Gal 1992: 19
1711
2553
Tell 10% 11% Gal 1992: 29
1718
2538
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 28
1719
2362 Khirbeh
3
(2.94%)
4
(3.92%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 752
1722
2295
Tell
13
(23.64%)
5
(9.09%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 746
1724
2095
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 738
1724
2339
Khirbeh yes yes
Gal 1992: 14; Finkelstein
et al. 2006: 753
1731
2456
Khirbeh 23% 25% Gal 1992: 25
1732
2092
Scattered
shards
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 739
1732
2387
Khirbeh 17% 28% Gal 1992: 18
1733
2085 Khirbeh
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 738
1737
2081
Scattered
shards
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 739
1738
2087 Khirbeh
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 738
1738
2105 Khirbeh
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 743
1738
2261 Khirbeh
11
(6.90%)
18
(11.39%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 747
1740
2490
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 27
1740
2521
Tell yes
Gal 1992: 28
1742
2144
Khirbeh yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 744
1743
2076 Khirbeh
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 739
1743
2085 Khirbeh
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 740

Map
No.
Site name
ICS/
OIG
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
76 Tel Hannathon
1743
2432
Tell 16% 10% Gal 1992: 23
77 el-Mu'mar
1748
2075
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 740
78 Wa'arat et-Tin
1751
2086 Khirbeh
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 740
79 Kh. Jadura
1751
2213
Khirbeh yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 744
80 Ein Samereth
1751
2340
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1992: 14
81 es-Safha
1755
2073
Scattered
shards
yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 740
82 Be'ana
1758
2596
Tell 24%
Gal 1992: 29; Frankel et al.
2001: 22
83 Yaphia
1761
2325
Inhabited
village
yes
Gal 1992: 13; Finkelstein
et al. 2006: 753
84 Ein Sippori
1761
2374
Tell 11% ? Gal 1992: 16
85 Khirbet Malta
1767
2352
Khirbeh 26%
Gal 1992: 15
86 Afula
1770
2240
Tell yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
747-748
87 Tel If'ar
1770
2266
Tell
4
(3.57%)
1
(0.89%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 748
88 Hurbat Ruma
1777
2439 Khirbeh
20% Gal 1992: 23-25
89 Jebel Haniyeh
1779
2066
Scattered
shards
yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 741
90 Jenin
1783
2074
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 741
91
H. Madhab (Tell
edh-Dhahab)
1783
2074 Khirbeh
2
(2.99%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 743
92 Hurbat Rigma
1784
2468
Khirbeh 25% 15% Gal 1992: 27
93 Kh. el-Mazra'a
1785
2278
Scattered
shards
2
(1.83%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 748
94
1785
2311
Scattered
shards
6
(5.26%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 754
95 Tel Vavit
1789
2449
Tell 25%
Gal 1992: 25
96 Gib'at Qarad
1789
2545 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1992: 28
97 Merhavya (el-fuleh) 1790
2230
Inhabited
village
yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 749
98
H. Adashim (Tell al
'Adas)
1792
2271
Scattered
shards
47
49 (25%)
(23.98%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 749
99 Tel 'Adashim
1794
2287
Tell
12
(8.76%)
11
(8.03%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006:
749-750
100 Kh. Kharruba
1798
2103
Khirbeh yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 745
101 Tel Gat Hefer 1802 Tell yes yes Gal 1992: 18; Gal 1998:

Map
No.
Site name
ICS/
OIG
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
2382 25-27
102 H. Gayis
1804
2660
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 32.
103 H. 'Eved
1805
2655
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 32.
104 Arrana
1806
2115
Inhabited
village
yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 755
105 Kh. 'Aba
1808
2073
Khirbeh yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 755
106 Tel Jezreel (Zer'in)
1810
2182
Tell yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 756
107 Hurbat Mirgam
1811
2529
Khirbeh 25%
Gal 1992: 28
108 H. Tirya
1812
2338
Tell
yes Gal 1992: 15; Gal 1998: 46
109 Tel Sa'ar
1813
2754
Tell yes
Frankel et al. 2001: 36.
110 Tel Rosh
1815
2718
Tell yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 36.
111
H. Tevet (Kh. Bir-
Tibis)
1816
2270
Tell
274
(60.62%)
9
(1.99%)
Gal 1998: 66; Finkelstein
et al. 2006: 758
112 Karm er Ras
1816
2395
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1992: 19; Gal 1998: 20
113 Tel Hrashim
1816
2636
Tell yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 32.
114 Sulam
1817
2236
Tell yes yes
Gal 1998: 82; Finkelstein
et al. 2006: 758
115
1817
2364
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1998: 33
116 Enot Amittai
1817
2372 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1998: 29
117 Har Yona
1819
2366
Khirbeh 83%
Gal 1992: 16
118 Araba
1820
2505
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1992: 27-28
119 En ha-More
1825
2262
Scattered
shards
yes
Gal 1998: 69
120 Enot Sho'im
1825
2353
Scattered
Shards
yes yes
Gal 1992: 15-16; Gal 1998:
40
121 Ein Mahil
1827
2371
Scattered
Shards
yes Gal 1998: 30
122 Nahal Barak
1828
2356
Scattered
Shards
yes yes Gal 1998: 40
123 Nabi Dahi
1830
2248 Khirbeh
yes
Zori 1977: 55; Gal 1998:
76
124 Hurfeish, el-Khirbeh 1831
2686
Scattered
Shards
yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 33.
125 Ain Mahil
1834
2363
Scattered
Shards
yes Gal 1998: 36
126 Har Kammon
1834
2575
Khirbeh 30% 65% Gal 1992: 29

Map
No.
Site name
ICS/
OIG
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
127 En Lappidot
1835
2379
Scattered
Shards
yes yes Gal 1992: 17; Gal 1998: 31
128 Beit Qad
1837
2084
Inhabited
village
yes yes Finkelstein et al. 2006: 755
129 Kh. Samukhiya
1839
2735 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 36.
130
H. Mezarim (el-
Mazar)
1841
2147
Tell
3
(4.35%)
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 757
131 Har Hiram
1843
2697 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 33.
132 Arabbuna
1845
2132
Inhabited
village
yes
Finkelstein et al. 2006: 757
133 H. Sadir
1847
2641
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 33.
134 En Kivshan
1851
2394
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1992: 18; Gal 1998: 24
135
1852
2246 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1998: 78
136 Tel 'Agol
1852
2263
Tell yes yes Gal 1998: 71
137 Deburieh
1852
2331
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 13; Gal 1998: 48
138 Ghabbatiya
1854
2688 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 34.
139 Mispeh Tur'an
1855
2456
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 25
140 Ain el-Nahla
1855
2509 Khirbeh
22% Gal 1992: 28
141 H. Sarteva
1856
2653 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 34.
142 H. Devora
1857
2336 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1992: 14; Gal 1998: 49
143 Khirbet Hazawa
1859
2504
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 28
144 Tabor
1860
2330
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1992: 14
145 Hurbat Pli'ah
1862
2401
Khirbeh 22% 23% Gal 1992: 19-20
146 Hurbat Netopha
1862
2488
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 27
147 H. Zur
1863
2255
Khirbeh yes yes
Zori 1977: 61; Gal 1998:
74-75
148 Tel Govel
1863
2370
Tell yes
Gal 1992: 17; Gal 1998: 32
149 Giv'at Boleq
1864
2216
Khirbeh yes
Zori 1977: 57-59; Gal
1998: 83-84
150 H. Neriyya
1864
2684 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 34.
151 Sasa (west)
1865
2701 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 36.
152 Shibli 1867 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1998: 50

Map
No.
Site name
ICS/
OIG
2334
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
153 H. Binit
1868
2391 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1992: 19; Gal 1998: 25
154 H. Zafzafot
1869
2277
Tell yes yes Gal 1998: 67
155 H Shefannim
1869
2634
Scattered
Shards
yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 34.
156 Har Tavor
1870
2325 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1998: 50-51
157 Tel Qishyon
1871
2297
Tell yes
Gal 1998: 65
158 En Naurah (S)
1872
2246
Khirbeh yes yes
Zori 1977: 59-60; Gal
1998: 81
159 Sasa
1873
2704
Tell
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 36.
160
Khirbet Zaytun el-
Rami
1879
2500
Tell
27% Gal 1992: 29-30
161 Kh. El-Kharaib
1882
2628 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 34.
162 Khirbet Mughier
1883
2330
Khirbeh 21% 22% Gal 1992: 14
163 H. Rom
1884
2659 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 35.
164 H. Zelef
1885
2327
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1998: 52
165 H. Kadduran
1890
2342
Tell yes yes Gal 1992: 15; Gal 1998: 44
166 En Shehor
1891
2349
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1998: 42
167 H. 'Arpad
1891
2367
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1992: 16; Gal 1998: 37
168 Har Meron Site
1893
2667
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 35.
169 H. Be'er Sheva'
1894
2595 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 32.
170 Hurbat Qeysharun
1895
2411
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 21
171 Lubya
1895
2415 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1992: 21
172
Be'er-Sheba'
Haggelilit
1895
2595
Tell yes
Gal 1992: 30-31
173 H. Tomer
1897
2262
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1998: 73
174 Hurbat Mesah
1900
2320
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 32
175 Hurbat 'Es'ad
1901
2485
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1992: 34
176 Sheikh Musa Kazem 1907
2488
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 34
177 Kh. El-Sammura
1907
2623 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 38.

Map
No.
Site name
ICS/
OIG
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
178 Kh. Da'wajiya
1912
2693 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 38.
179 el-Khirba
1917
2716 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 41.
180 Gush Halav
1919
2701
Tell yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 41.
181 Sifsufa
1920
2685 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 38.
182 Gush Halav (east)
1924
2703 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 42.
183 H. Tehavit
1926
2290
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1991: 20
184 Hurbat Mizzga
1930
2481
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 34
185 Tel Qarney Hittin
1933
2447
Tell yes
Gal 1992: 34
186 Mizpe Yamim
1934
2604
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 38.
187
Tel 'Adami-
Hanneqeb
1935
2394
Tell 75% 10% Gal 1992: 34
188 H. Nesibba
1935
2713
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 42.
189 Tel Rekhesh
1940
2288
Tell yes yes
Gal 1992: 31-32; Gal 1991:
22
190 H. Qamal
1940
2295 Khirbeh
yes Gal 1991: 18
191 Qaddita
1941
2678
Khirbeh yes
Frankel et al. 2001: 39.
192 Kh. Yebla
1943
2203
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1991: 57
193 Denna (s)
1948
2243
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1991: 43
194 Teitaba
1949
2687
Khirbeh yes
Frankel et al. 2001: 39.
195 H. Ze'ev
1953
2276
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1991: 27
196 Sheikh Nashi
1957
2545
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 34-35
197 Tel 'Ein Hadda
1959
2318
Khirbeh 15%
Gal 1992: 33
198 Dalton (north)
1959
2698
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 39.
199 Beth-Gan
1960
2350
Scattered
shards
yes
Gal 1992: 33
200 Kh. Rasheida
1961
2615
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 39.
201 Akbara
1968
2603 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 39.
202 Nahal 'Ammud
1969
2554
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1992: 35
203 El-Tulul 1972 Khirbeh 16% 19% Gal 1992: 33

Map
No.
Site name
204 Ein Be'era
205 Sirin
206 H. Shahal Tahtit
207 H. Ukkal
208 H. Ukkal
209 H. Hovav
210 H. Nevoraya
211 Dishon
212 Tel Yin'am
213 H. 'Akhin
214 Ahuzzat Shoshanna
215 Yabne'el
216 En ha-Yadid
217 Tel Qedesh
218 H. Hagal
219 Sheikh Mazghit
220 Khirbet el-Dir
221 Tel Mashshav
222 H. Mezudat Hunin
223 Hurbat Menora
224 Ein Jinniya Site
225 Giv'at Ha-Shoqet
226 Tel Hazor
ICS/
OIG
2374
Type
IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
1974
2239
Khirbeh 12%
Gal 1992: 31
1975
2288
Khirbeh yes
Gal 1991: 26; Gal 1992: 35
1976
2255
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1991: 38
1976
2278
Tell yes yes Gal 1991: 30
1977
2278
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1991: 29
1978
2766 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 43.
1979
2677
Khirbeh yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 40.
1980
2760 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 43.
1983
2354
Tell yes
Gal 1992: 33
1991
2257
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1991: 40-41
1992
2219
Scattered
Shards
yes Gal 1991: 56
1993
2347
Scattered
shards
yes yes Gal 1992: 33
1996
2218
Tell yes yes Gal 1991: 54
1997
2797
Tell
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 44.
1998
2276
Khirbeh yes yes Gal 1991: 30-31
1999
2300
Scattered
shards
25%
Gal 1992: 32
2005
2295
Tell 20%
Gal 1992: 32
2008
2692
Tell yes
Frankel et al. 2001: 44.
2011
2917
Khirbeh yes
Frankel et al. 2001: 45.
2012
2401
Khirbeh 12%
Gal 1992: 34
2021
2908 Khirbeh
yes Frankel et al. 2001: 45.
2032
2937
Scattered
Shards
yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 46.
2034
2692
Tell yes yes Frankel et al. 2001: 45.

5. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Samaria
<strong>The</strong> province <strong>of</strong> Samaria was established later than the other provinces in
northern Palestine. It included the Samarian hills, the northern part <strong>of</strong> the Shephelah
and perhaps the eastern part <strong>of</strong> the coastal plain. This analysis will not deal with the
northern portion <strong>of</strong> the Shephelah due to the fact that it is not clear if this geographical
unit remained a part <strong>of</strong> the province throughout the <strong>Assyrian</strong>, Babylonian, and Persian
domination (see "Geographical Introduction" Chapter 1, above). <strong>The</strong> analysis below
will focus on the Samarian Hill country.
<strong>The</strong> Settlement patterns in the Samarian Hills were documented in two main
surveys. <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill country was surveyed by A. Zertal, and most <strong>of</strong> his
results have been published. <strong>The</strong> area <strong>of</strong> southern Samaria was surveyed by I.
Finkelstein and Z. Lederman. This discussion will be carried out from north to south.
5.1. <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey
<strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey was initiated in 1978 and field work lasted
14 years (Zertal 1992: 15). <strong>The</strong> results <strong>of</strong> the survey were to be published in five
consecutive volumes, each portraying the settlement patterns in a distinct
geomorphologic unit (Zertal 1992: 21). To date, four volumes have been published:
<strong>The</strong> Shechem Syncline (Zertal 1992), <strong>The</strong> Eastern Valleys and the Fringe <strong>of</strong> the
Dessert (Zertal 1996), From Nahal 'Iron to Nahal Shechem (Zertal and Mirkam 2000)
and From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba (Zertal 2005). In the analysis below, these basic
geographical units were kept, as were the smaller sub-units which were given
numbers by Zertal.

5.1.1. <strong>The</strong> Shechem Syncline
<strong>The</strong> area covered in the first volume <strong>of</strong> the Manasseh Hill Country Survey
stretches from the Dothan Valley in the north to Nahal Shechem in the south. To the
west the area borders with the inner fringes <strong>of</strong> the Syncline, while to the east it
boarders with the country's watershed line. This large area was divided into eleven
geographical sub units.
According to the data presented by Zertal, there are 81 sites which were occupied
during the Iron Age II. Of these 81 sites, 64 continue to be occupied during the
Persian Period, while 17 are abandoned during the transition (about 20%). During the
Persian Period 132 sites were occupied in this geographical unit. Thus, during the
transition, 48% <strong>of</strong> the settlements occupied during the Persian Period were
established. <strong>The</strong> picture depicted here is one <strong>of</strong> partial change and growth regarding
settlement patterns.
According to Zertal there is a growth in settlement numbers in this area during
the Iron Age II. He also states that many <strong>of</strong> the newly established settlements were
located in the Sebastia region (Zertal 1992: 54- 55). Zertal emphasizes that the peak in
settlement numbers during the Persian Period is most evident in the area surrounding
the city <strong>of</strong> Samaria (Zertal 1992: 56- 58).
Figure 13: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-unit in the Shechem Syncline

5.1.2. <strong>The</strong> Eastern Valleys and the Fringes <strong>of</strong> the Desert
<strong>The</strong> second volume <strong>of</strong> <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey portrays the
settlement patterns in the eastern part <strong>of</strong> the Manasseh Hill country. <strong>The</strong> northern
border <strong>of</strong> this unit is Nahal Bezeq. <strong>The</strong> eastern border is the plains <strong>of</strong> the Jordan Rift
Valley. <strong>The</strong> southern border is the geologic break <strong>of</strong> Nahal Tirtza. <strong>The</strong> western border
is the eastern inner boundary <strong>of</strong> the Shechem Syncline (Zertal 1996: 20).
According to the data presented by Zertal (1996), 92 sites in this area were
occupied during the Iron Age II. Of these 92 sites, only 18 continue to be occupied
during the Persian Period, while 74 sites were abandoned during the transition
(around 80%). During the Persian Period, 24 sites were occupied in this area. While
new settlements were established, there is a decrease in settlement sites in this area
during the Persian Period. <strong>The</strong> two relatively large settlements in the area (sites 47
and 151) continue to be occupied throughout the transition. It seems that the picture
depicted here is one <strong>of</strong> sharp decline. However, the areas that seem to portray relative
continuity during the transition are the Zabdah Valley and Maliah Valley.
Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize that these areas also suffer a decline in
settlement numbers.
According to Zertal, during the Iron Age II the area reaches a new peak in
regards to settlement numbers. In addition, he states that about half <strong>of</strong> the sites
occupied during this period were newly established on virgin land. It seems that most
were established during the 8 th century BCE (Zertal 1996: 81- 84). Zertal also points
to the sharp decline in settlement in this area during the Persian Period. He
emphasizes the connection between this decline and the impact <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
conquest (Zertal 1996: 86- 87).

Figure 14: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-unit in the Eastern Valleys
and the Fringes <strong>of</strong> the Desert
5.1.3. From Nahal 'Iron to Nahal Shechem
<strong>The</strong> third volume <strong>of</strong> <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey portrays the settlement
patterns in the western part <strong>of</strong> the Manasseh hill country. <strong>The</strong> north-western border <strong>of</strong>
this unit is Nahal 'Iron. <strong>The</strong> western border is the Sharon plain. <strong>The</strong> north-eastern
border is the Jezreel Valley. <strong>The</strong> southern border is Nahal Shechem (Zertal and
Mirkam 2000: 18).
According to the data portrayed by Zertal and Mirkam (2000), 47 sites were
occupied during the Iron Age II in this geographical unit. Of these 47 sites, 36
continue to be occupied during the Persian Period, while 11 sites were abandoned
during the transition (about 23%). During the Persian Period 64 sites were occupied
and 28 sites were newly established (around 43%). <strong>The</strong> picture depicted here is one <strong>of</strong>
partial change and growth, since most <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age II sites continue to be occupied
and additional sites are settled during the Persian Period. Zertal and Mirkam point out
that during the Iron Age II there is an increase in the number <strong>of</strong> large and fortified
sites in this area, which make up 32% <strong>of</strong> the occupied sites during this period (2000:

47- 48). According to Zertal and Mirkam, in this period the area reaches a peak in
regard to settlement numbers, somewhat like the area <strong>of</strong> the Shehem Sycline (2000:
48). <strong>The</strong>y further emphasize that the largest concentrations <strong>of</strong> sites during the Persian
Period are located at the margins <strong>of</strong> the Jezreel Valley, the Ta'anah Hills and Nahal
'Iron (2000: 48- 49).
Figure 15: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-unit in the area stretching
5.1.4. From Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba
from Nahal 'Iron to Nahal Shechem
<strong>The</strong> fourth volume <strong>of</strong> the Manasseh Hill Country Survey compliments the second
volume and should be viewed as a continuation <strong>of</strong> it (Zertal 2005: 9). <strong>The</strong> area <strong>of</strong> the
survey published in this volume includes more than one geographical sub unit. <strong>The</strong>
first three geographical sub units (the southern Beth-Shean Valley, the Jordan Valley
and Nahal Tirtza Delta) have some characteristics in common, as they are all
connected to the Jordan Rift. <strong>The</strong> fourth sub unit, the Sartaba, is unique in its
characteristics (Zertal 2005: 9-10).
<strong>The</strong> area covered by this volume borders on the north with Nahal Bezeq. <strong>The</strong>
eastern border is the Jordan River. <strong>The</strong> western border is the topographical line

etween the Jordan Rift and the hills <strong>of</strong> the Samarian fringe. <strong>The</strong> southern border is
the edge <strong>of</strong> the Sartaba mountain Range (Zertal 2005: 21).
According to the data presented by Zertal (2005) during the Iron Age II there
were 103 settlements in this geographical unit. Only 10 <strong>of</strong> these settlements continue
to be settled during the Persian Period, with 93 abandoned during the transition
(around 90%). During the Persian Period a sharp decline in settlement numbers can be
seen as in the whole area covered by this volume there are only 14 settlements
occupied during this period. Most <strong>of</strong> these settlements (around 78%) are located in the
southern Beth-Shean Valley. <strong>The</strong> more arid landscapes seemed to have emptied out.
Zertal states that while the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel settled this area intentionally, the
empires did not take an interest in the desert margin (Zertal 2005: 91-93). It seems
that the same can be said regarding the arid areas <strong>of</strong> Trans-Jordan, where remains
dating to the Persian Period are also scarce (Parker 1997: 235- 236).
Figure 16: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period and sub-unit in the area stretching
from Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba

5.1.5. <strong>The</strong> area around Kh. Umm er-Rihan
Despite the partial changes in settlement patterns which can be seen in the survey
results, there is also a partial picture <strong>of</strong> continuity and growth which emerges. In
excavations, as can be seen in the case <strong>of</strong> the area around Kh. Umm er-Rihan, this is
evident. <strong>The</strong> site is located in the north-western part <strong>of</strong> the Samarian Hills. <strong>The</strong> site
was excavated by S. Dar, Z. Safrai and Y. Tepper in 1980—1982, and published by
them in 1986. <strong>The</strong> team also excavated additional ancient remains around the site.
According to Dar et al., the beginning <strong>of</strong> the settlement in the area surrounding
Kh. Umm er-Rihan should be dated to the Iron Age II. In this initial stage only two
farm houses were built. During the <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule (in the 8 th century BCE) additional
farm houses were established. During the Persian Period the larger settlement <strong>of</strong>
Umm er-Rihan itself was established (Dar et al. 1986: 136). This excavation reflects
how settlement patterns at some rural sites remained unaffected by the changes in
ruling powers, and even managed to grow and prosper under these Imperial powers.
However, it should be noted that Umm er-Rihan is located in the north-west <strong>of</strong> the
Samarian hills, in Zertal's geographical unit 3 sub unit 22, in which growth is depicted
according to the survey results.
5.1.6 Salvage Excavation at Maskiyot
In 2006, a salvage excavation conducted by U. Greenfeld and Y. Peleg took
place in the settlement <strong>of</strong> Maskiyot (Greenfeld and Peleg 2009: 28*). This salvage
excavation unearthed the remains <strong>of</strong> three structures which date to the Iron Age IIb.
According to the excavators the structures were built in the 9 th century BCE, and that
the site was most probably abandoned in the late 8 th century BCE (Greenfeld and
Peleg 2009: 28*). Nonetheless, it should be emphasized that this site is located in the

eastern part <strong>of</strong> the Samarian Hills, an area which reflected a sharp decline in
settlement numbers during the transition phase from Iron Age II to the Persian Period.
5.2. <strong>The</strong> Southern Samaria Survey
<strong>The</strong> Southern Samaria Survey conducted by I. Finkelstein and Z. Lederman was
initiated as part <strong>of</strong> a larger regional project which also included the excavations
conducted at the site <strong>of</strong> Shiloh (Finkelstein et al. 1993). <strong>The</strong> survey began in 1980 and
ended prematurely in 1987 due to growing political tensions. <strong>The</strong> survey covered an
area <strong>of</strong> approximately 1050 sq. km., from Shechem in the north to Ramallah in the
south, from the desert fringe in the east to roughly the Green Line (the pre- 1967
border between Israel and Jordan) in the west (Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 1- 3).
According to the data presented in the survey, in 236 sites Iron Age II pottery
was found. However, according to Finkelstein and Lederman, in 17 <strong>of</strong> these sites
occupation is questionable during this period. Of the 219 sites that were probably
occupied during the Iron Age II, only 98 continue to be occupied during the Persian
Period (around 45%). Persian Period pottery was found in 127 sites in the southern
Samaria Hills. However, according to Finkelstein and Lederman in 13 <strong>of</strong> the sites
occupation is questionable during this period. Thus, <strong>of</strong> the 114 sites only 16 sites were
newly established during this period.
<strong>The</strong> picture depicted by the data presented in the Southern Samaria Hills Survey
is <strong>of</strong> a significant decline. Around 50% <strong>of</strong> Iron Age II settlements were lost during the
transition to the Persian Period. Furthermore, according to the data collected and
published, almost half <strong>of</strong> the sites (48%) occupied during the Iron Age II were small
rural sites (measuring up to 0.3 hectors). <strong>The</strong> total <strong>of</strong> large sites (measuring from 2.1
hectors) is about 8%. During the Persian Period the percentage <strong>of</strong> small sites

increased to about 75%, while the percentage <strong>of</strong> large sites diminished to about 1.5%
<strong>of</strong> the total sites occupied during this period. Thus, in additions to settlements being
lost during the transition phase, it seems that there was also a shift in settlement size
and most likely in settlement function.
Figure 17: Number <strong>of</strong> sites according to period in the Southern Samaria Survey
5.3. <strong>The</strong> Province <strong>of</strong> Samaria in Transition
<strong>The</strong> Samarian Hills, which were annexed later than the other areas <strong>of</strong> the
Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel, portray a variety <strong>of</strong> settlement pattern shifts from the Iron Age II
to the Persian Period. <strong>The</strong> Shechem Syncline exhibits change and growth. During the
transition around 20% <strong>of</strong> Iron Age II settlements were lost. During the Persian Period
48% <strong>of</strong> settlements were newly established. Zertal emphasizes that the peak in
settlement numbers during the Persian Period is most evident in the area surrounding
the city <strong>of</strong> Samaria (Zertal 1992: 56- 58).
<strong>The</strong> eastern valleys and the fringe <strong>of</strong> the dessert exhibit a sharp decline in
settlement numbers. Around 80% <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age II sites were lost during the
transition and Zertal emphasizes the connection between this decline and the impact
<strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> conquest (Zertal 1996: 86- 87). It seems that these areas were not <strong>of</strong>

importance to the ruling empires which did not then invest in restoring occupation to
these locations. <strong>The</strong> area surrounding Nahal Tirtza was depopulated, despite the
fertility <strong>of</strong> this area (Zertal 1996: 28). Thus, it is necessary to propose an alternative
reason for this phenomenon. Perhaps this is connected to the international route that
passed through this valley (Dorsey 1991: 172, 174-175; Zertal 1996: 32-34). This
route led to the Jordan Valley and beyond to Trans-Jordan (Dorsey 1991: 174). It is
possible that the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire depopulated this area in order to cut communication
lines between Samaria and the vassal kingdoms <strong>of</strong> Trans-Jordan, in order to prevent
additional uprisings.
<strong>The</strong> third area examined in the Manasseh Hill Country Survey stretches from
Nahal 'Iron to Nahal Shechem. This area exhibits change and growth in settlement
patterns and numbers. Although 23% <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age II sites were abandoned during
the transition, 43% <strong>of</strong> Persian Period settlements were newly established. According
to Zertal and Mirkam, in this period the area reaches a peak in regards to settlement
numbers, somewhat like the area <strong>of</strong> the Shehem Sycline (2000: 48). <strong>The</strong>y further
emphasize that the largest concentrations <strong>of</strong> sites during the Persian Period are located
at the margins <strong>of</strong> the Jezreel Valley, the Ta'anah Hills, and Nahal 'Iron (2000: 48- 49).
This phenomenon should perhaps be linked to the imperial interest in these areas due
to the Jezreel Valley's economic potential and the importance <strong>of</strong> the Nahal 'Iron main
route, most likely used by the empire for transportation and communication.
<strong>The</strong> fourth geographical unit dealt with in the Manasseh Hill Country Survey
stretches from Nahal Bezeq to the Sartaba. This area presents a sharp decline in
settlement numbers. Around 90% <strong>of</strong> the settlements in this area were lost during the
transition to the Persian Period. In addition, 78% <strong>of</strong> the sites that exhibit Persian
Period occupation are located south <strong>of</strong> the Beith-Shean Valley. According to Zertal,

in contrast to the Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel which settled this area intentionally, the desert
margin held little to no interest to the empires (Zertal 2005: 91-93).
In regards to the data presented in the Southern Samaria Survey, a significant
decline can be clearly seen. Around 50% <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age II settlement sites were lost
during the transition phase to the Persian Period. Furthermore, only 14% <strong>of</strong> the
settlement sites occupied during the Persian Period were newly established sites.
Although it is possible that deportees were taken from this area during the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
campaign (due to the diminishing numbers <strong>of</strong> settlements in general and large
settlements specifically), following the initial blow this area seemed to have been <strong>of</strong>
less interest to the empire which neither developed it nor prevented its naturally slow
growth. However, additional archaeological research in this area should help clarify
this phenomenon.

Table 3: Sites
locates in the province <strong>of</strong> Samaria
Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
1 Kh. Dasra 1505 Khirbeh 1 (1.3%) 1 (1.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 171-
1559
172
2 er-Ras 1507 Tell 111 11 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 131-
1489
(51.2%) (5.1%)
133
3 Kh. En-Najjar 1511 Khirbeh 11 (25%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1697
233
4 1513 Scattered 7 (100%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1703 Shards
289
5 1514 Khirbeh 50 8 (9.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 287-
1707
(56.8%)
288
6 er-Ras 1516 Khirbeh yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1592
182
7 Kh. 'Abd en- 1518 Khirbeh 3 (3%) 11 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 173-
Nabi 1529
(11.1%)
174
8 9 1519 Khirbeh 7 (46.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1553
176
9 Kh. Er- 1519 Khirbeh 39
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 230-
Rumeila 1661
(67.2%)
231
10
1520 Inhabited
12 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 135-
Shilta 1472
Village
(15.4%)
136
11 Kh. 'Azzun 1520 Khirbeh 44 29 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 290-
Ibn 'Atma 1700
(35.8%) (23.6%)
291
12 1521 Khirbeh 3 (6.8%) 2 (4.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1547
184
13 Kh. Deir 1521 Khirbeh 26
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Daqla 1621
(40.6%)
241
14 Kh. Beit 1521 Khirbeh 23 4 (10%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
'Amin 1710
(57.5%)
292
15 Tell Assawir 1521
2098
Tell 30% 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 139
16 Ni'lin 1522 Inhabited 4 (17.4
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1505 Village %)
182
17 Kh. Sarsara 1524 Khirbeh 17 11 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 239-
1629
(23.6%) (15.3%)
240
18 Kh. Hannuna 1527 Khirbeh 1 (2.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 185-
1552
186
19 Kh. Ed- 1527 Khirbeh 68
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 235-
Duwar 1601
(81.9%)
236
20 Kh. Burra'ish 1528 Khirbeh 43 2 (1.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 237-
1616
(23.1%0
238
21 Kh. 'Ali 1532 Khirbeh 13
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 243-
1609
(12.9%)
244
22 Kh. Deir 1532 Khirbeh 14 (20%) 11 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 249-
Qassis 1666
(15.7%0
250
23 Kh. Beidus 1532
2068
Khirbeh 10% 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 249
24 Kh. 1533 Tell 10% 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 407

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
Shuweiket er-
Ras
1943
25 Kh. Burin 1535
2035
26 Kh. Nasur 1535
2074
27 Kh. Es-Siyar 1537
1515
28 el-Lubban 1537
1600
29 Shuqba 1538
1547
30 Deir el-Mir 1538
1629
31 Kh. Rujum 1538
1982
32 Zawiya 1540
1670
33 Kh. Kfar Lut 1541
1458
34 Kh. Badd 'Isa 1541
1482
35 Kh. El- 1542
Gharbi 1504
36 Rafat 1542
1650
37 Kh. Shabtin 1544
1528
38 Qubur ed- 1544
Dadaiyat (2) 1973
39 Kh. Najmat 1545
el-Hadali 1453
40 Ain Bduseh 1545
2036
41 Kh. Umm 1545
edh-Dhiyab 2064
42 1548
1609
43 Ibthan 1548
1970
44 Baqa el- 1548
Gharbiyeh 2023
45 El-Meiyadin 1549
2079
46 Site 108 1552
2047
47 Kh. Banat 1554
Barr 1622
48 Kh. 'Arara 1554
1656
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Khirbeh 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 292
Tell 10% 40% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 240
Khirbeh 7 (70%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
187
Inhabited 14 (25%) 3 (5.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 245-
Village
246
Inhabited 16 1 (2.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 188-
Village (35.6%)
192
Khirbeh 99 22 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 247-
(61.9%) (13.8%)
248
Tell 60% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 372
Inhabited 14
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Village (60.9%)
255
Khirbeh 1 (1.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 143-
144
Khirbeh 3 (5.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 148-
149
Khirbeh 8 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(57.1%)
192
Inhabited 19 1 (2.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 254-
Village (44.2%)
255
Khirbeh 1 (2.9%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
194
Khirbeh 5% 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 395
Khirbeh 1 (1.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 145-
146
Khirbeh 25% 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 293
Tell 42% 15% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 251
Khirbeh 6 (66.7%) 1 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(11.1%)
251
Inhabited
5% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 396
Village
Khirbeh 5% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 302
Khirbeh 20% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 243
Khirbeh 5% 30% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 285
Khirbeh 99
(65.1%)
Khirbeh 6 (14.6
%)
32 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 258-
(21.1%)
261
2 (4.9%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 263-
264

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
49 Kh. Bir el- 1557
Isyar (A) 2054
50 Kh. Shamsin 1564
(B) 2031
51 Kh. 1565
Qeisaraya 1654
52 Abud 1566
1580
53 Rujm el- 1566
Ahmar 2105
54 Kharbata 1568
1501
55 Kh. Es-Samra 1568
1708
56 Kh. el- 1568
Mahweh 2068
57 Attil 1570
1973
58 Kh. Susya 1571
1652
59 Kh. Shamsin 1571
2032
60 Biddya 1573
1689
61 Khallet Abu 1575
Laban 1921
62 Abu Rujman 1576
2055
63 El-Khirbeh 1578
1934
64 Kh. 'Aqabeh 1578
2059
65 Tel 'Ara 1579
2122
66 1580
1590
67 El-Beiyadha 1581
2056
68 Beit 'Ur et- 1582
Tahta 1446
69 1582
1685
70 Kh. Beit 1582
Sama 1995
71 Qaffin 1583
2044
72 Klia 1584
1624
73 Kh. 'Ain 1585
Umm es-
Samal
2107
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Tell yes 15% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 268
Khirbeh 10% 70% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 293
Khirbeh 1 (4.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
265
Inhabited 1 (9.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 202-
Village
203
Khirbeh 20% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 130
Inhabited 1 (7.7%) 1 (7.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Village
200
Khirbeh 8 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(33.3%)
296
Khirbeh 90% 5% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 252
Tell 5% 5% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 375
Khirbeh 8 (14.5%) 2 (3.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 268-
269
Khirbeh 20% 30% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 294
Inhabited 1 (16.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 270-
Village
271
Khirbeh 5% 95% Zertal 1992: 337
Khirbeh 7% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 271
Khirbeh 100% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 409
Khirbeh 22% 14% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 273
Tell 8% 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 108
Scattered 2 (4.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Shards
219
Khirbeh 10% 70% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 274
Inhabited 31 4 (2.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 161-
Village (20.9%)
164
Khirbeh yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
279
Tell 5% 5% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 353
Khirbeh 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 286
Khirbeh yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 271-
272
Scattered
23% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 122
shards

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
74 Kh. Ed- 1586 Khirbeh 1 (1.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Dakakin 1516
212
75 et-Tell 1586 Tell 76 15 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 275-
1681
(65.5%) (12.9%)
278
76 Beit 'Iweis 1587 Khirbeh 4 (6.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1519
211
77 Kh. Qabirbu 1588 Khirbeh 1 (0.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 215-
1548
216
78 Kh. Esh- 1589 Khirbeh 33
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 208-
Shuna 1519
(27.5%)
210
79 Kafr Ni'ma 1592 Inhabited 1 (11.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 167-
1485 Village
168
80 Khirbet en- 1593 Tell 10% 40% Zertal 1992: 343
Nerabeh 1914
81 Deir 1594 Inhabited 1 (12.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 281-
Ghassana 1615 Village
282
82 Jebel Qurein 1594
2026
Scattered
shards
40% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 310
83 Qarawat Bani 1595 Inhabited 6 (20%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 299-
Hasan 1706 Village
301
84 Kh. Hmad 1596 Khirbeh 17 5 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 285-
1660
(35.4%) (10.4%)
286
85 Kh. Fardusi 1597 Khirbeh 12 6 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 302-
1712
(27.3%) (13.6%)
303
86 Kh. L'isa 1598 Khirbeh 4 (2.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1443
166
87 Deir 'Ammar 1598 Inhabited 36
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 224-
1527 Village (52.9%)
225
88 EP 342 1598
2099
Khirbeh 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 145
89 Beiit Rima 1599 Inhabited 7 (15.6%) 1 (2.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 279-
1600 Village
280
90 Kh. Esh- 1600 Tell 30% 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 235
Sheikh
Barta'ah
2089
91 Ferasin 1602
2035
Tell 10% 5% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 298
92 Kh. En-Nabi 1603 Khirbeh 5 (5.8%) 1 (1.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 362-
'Annir 1513
364
93 Kh. Tibna 1603 Khirbeh 58 5 (3%0 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 367-
1572
(35.2%)
369
94 Illar 1605
1974
Tell 30% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 379
95 Wadi el- 1606 Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 337
Ashkar 1921
96 Kh. Er-Ras 1607 Khirbeh 19 1 (2.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1650
(46.3%)
431
97 Beit 'Ur el- 1608 Inhabited 87 5 (3.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 303-
Fauqa 1436 Village (56.1%)
305
98 Kh. El-Burak 1608 Khirbeh 114 (81.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 432-

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
1680 433
99 Kh. Kurqush 1610 Khirbeh 12 (8.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1660
439
100 Tell Wadi el- 1612 Tell 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 358
Bir 1994
101 Wadi Shihan 1612
2004
Khirbeh 50% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 343
102 1613 Scattered 14
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1599 Shards (43.8%)
381
103 Kh. Kafr Tut 1613 Khirbeh 1 (1.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 434-
1600
435
104 El-Khellaiyel 1613
1918
Scattered
Shards
100% Zertal 1992: 339
105 1614 Khirbeh 5 (6.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 315-
1496
316
106 Kh. Ras el- 1615 Khirbeh 1 (1.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 312-
Wadi 1475
313
107 el-Janiya 1615 Inhabited 2 (1.9%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1494 Village
314
108 1615 Scattered
4 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1578
Shards
(33.3%)
379
109 1615 Khirbeh 1 (33.3%) 1 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1685
(33.3%)
442
110 Seida 1616
1991
Khirbeh 35% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 360
111 1617 Khirbeh 13
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1594
(59.1%)
380
112 Kh. Matawi 1617 Khirbeh 20 2 (2.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 436-
1651
(22.7%)
437
113 Ain es-Saleh 1619
2119
Scattered
shards
50% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 124
114 Tell esh- 1620 Tell 15% 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 258
Sheikh Sabar 2061
115 Kh. Hablata 1621 Khirbeh 1 (1.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 384-
1571
385
116 Qarawat Bani 1621 Inhabited 3 (7%) 1 (2.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Zeid 1622 Village
443
117 Kfar 1621 Tell 10% 10% Zertal 1992: 339
Rumman 1914
118 Kh. Fassa 1624 Khirbeh 28 11 Finkelstein and Lederman: 386-
1587
(18.8%) (7.4%)
388
119 Rihan Farm 1625
2085
Khirbeh 70% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 241
120 Wadi Yahmur 1625
2099
Khirbeh 25% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 233
121 Kh. Esh- 1627 Khirbeh yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Shuqaf 1646
444
122 Kh. el- 1628 Tell 20% 30% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 327

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
Hamam 2017
123 Umm et-Tut 1629
1942
124 Ras esh- 1632
Shamy 1862
125 Qasr 'Ain 1632
esh-Sheri'ah 2116
126 Kh. El-Hafi 1633
1455
127 1633
1657
128 Kurnet Bir et- 1633
Tell 1660
129 Khirbet el- 1633
Khashneh 1893
130 Deir 'Istiya 1634
1708
131 esh-Sheikh 1635
'Isa 1501
132 Ras abu 1635
Muhammed 1889
133 Kh. Umm er- 1635
Rihan 2100
134 Khirbet 1636
Muwanis 2123
135 Kh. Et-Tell 1638
1690
136 Kh. Rubin 1640
1472
137 Farkha 1641
1640
138 Kh. Esh- 1641
Shallal 1656
139 1641
1701
140 El-Khirbeh 1641
(Ray) 1969
141 Tell el- 1641
'Abeideh 2058
142 1642
1675
143 Khirbet 1643
Qarqaf 1859
144 Khirbet Beit 1644
Jadiyeh 1862
145 Kh. Umm 1644
Kahal 2016
146 Zaqzuq farm 1644
147 Khirbet
Rashin
2097
1645
1922
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Khirbeh 100% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 406
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 352
Tell 5% 8% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 125
Khirbeh 4 (4.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 327-
329
Khirbeh 8 (18.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
446
Khirbeh 125 12 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 447-
(69.4%) (6.7%)
448
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1992: 347
Inhabited 4 (26.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 487-
Village
488
Khirbeh 29
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(46.8%)
389
Khirbeh 15% 20% Zertal 1992: 248
Khirbeh yes yes Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 149
Khirbeh 100% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 118
Tell 35 4 (5.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 451-
(47.3%)
453
Khirbeh 2 (8.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
336
Inhabited 38 3 (2.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 456-
Village (34.9%)
458
Khirbeh 2 (7.1 %) 1 (3.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
459
Scattered 6 (33.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 489-
Shards
490
Khirbeh 30% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 386
Tell 30% 43% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 280
Khirbeh 3 (21.4%) 1 (7.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
450
Tell 10% 5% Zertal 1992: 357
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1992: 353
Khirbeh 90% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 335
Khirbeh 100% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 174
Khirbeh 10% 10% Zertal 1992: 276

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
148 El-'Khrab 1645
2047
149 1646
1736
150 Kh. Tubrus 1646
et-Tahta 2011
151 Khallet el- 1647
'Adas 1899
152 Khirbet 1648
Batiteh 1895
153 Er-Ras 1648
2060
154 Kifi Harith 1649
1694
155 Kaubar 1651
1553
156 Khirbet 1652
Farissiyeh 1932
157 Kh. Ed-Deir 1653
1618
158 Khirbet Ras 1654
el-Kalb 1884
159 Edh-Dhahr 1654
2148
160 Kh. Jarwan 1655
1590
161 Ras es- 1655
Sawaneh 1897
162 Dhahret es- 1655
Safi 1975
163 Kh. Turah 1655
esh-
Sharqiyeh
2081
164 Khirbet el- 1656
Qebubeh 1856
165 Dhahrat esh- 1656
Shutah 1915
166 Jebel 'Illan 1658
1909
167 EP 431 1658
2098
168 Khirbet Dar 1659
el-Isyar 1948
169 Anin 1659
2120
170 Khirbet 1661
Rujjam 2049
171 Ya'bad 1661
2058
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Tell 20% 15% Zertal 1992: 117
Khirbeh 24 4 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(70.6%) (11.8%)
490
Khirbeh 10% Zertal and mirkam 2000: 338
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1992: 384
Tell 10% Zertal 1992: 385
Khirbeh 100% Zertal and mirkam 2000: 263
Inhabited 17 (23%) 3 (4.1 %) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 460-
Village
641
Inhabited 18
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 397-
Village (28.6%)
398
Tell 20% 5% Zertal 1992: 253
Khirbeh 14 2 (2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 462-
(14.3%)
463
Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 395
Khirbeh 100% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 100
Khirbeh 7 (33.3%) 3 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 402-
(14.3%)
403
Khirbeh 5% 50% Zertal 1992: 387
Khirbeh 30% 25% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 382
Tell yes yes Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 237
Khirbeh 10% 25% Zertal 1992: 361
Scattered
30% Zertal 1992: 281
Shards
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 293
Khirbeh 90% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 175
Khirbeh 90% Zertal 1992: 250
Tell 5% 15% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 120
Khirbeh 10% 20% Zertal 1992: 120
Inhabited
Village
30% Zertal 1992: 101

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
172 Darb el-Faur 1661
2144
Khirbeh 45% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 101
173 Arura 1662 Inhabited 57 (39.3%0 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 466-
1610 Village
467
174 Qira 1663 Inhabited 22 5 (8.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1699 Village (38.6%)
472
175 Khirbet 1664 Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 396
Warya 1885
176 Khirbet er- 1664 Khirbeh 10% 10% Zertal 1992: 298
Rujman 1900
177 1665 Scattered 4 (11.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 348-
1430 Shards
349
178 Khirbet el- 1665 Khirbeh 30% 30% Zertal 1992: 355
Babariyeh 1863
179 Kh. el- 1665 Tell 5% 70% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 315
Qureinat 2025
180 El-Borgah 1668
1884
Scattered
Shards
100% Zertal 1992: 398
181 Khirbet Ras 1668 Khirbeh 5% 15% Zertal 1992: 399
el-A'war 1888
182 Kom el- 1668 Khirbeh 10% 10% Zertal 1992: 258
Ghaby 1929
183 Batn Umm 1668 Tell 5% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 364
Nari 1992
184 1669 Scattered 14
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1734 Shards (87.55)
492
185 Es-Sirtassa 1669
1905
Tell 15% Zertal 1992: 296
186 Salfit 1670 Inhabited 63 6 (5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 473-
1653 Village (52.9%)
474
187 Khirbet el- 1670 Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 307
Bab 1899
188 Es-Sal'ah 1671 Scattered 20% 70% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 370
1993 shards
189 Kh. Et- 1671 Inhabited
10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 115
Taiybeh 2137
Village
190 Ajjul 1672 Inhabited 10
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1590 Village (33.3%)
415
191 1672 Khirbeh 20 (87%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1669
478
192 Er-Rujjum 1672
1914
Tell 5% Zertal 1992: 282
193 Kharaiyeq en- 1672 Khirbeh 40% 20% Zertal 1992: 243
Nassarah 1960
194 Batn ed-Deba 1672
2056
Khirbeh 15% 20% Zertal 1992: 102
195 Khirbet Jebel 1674 Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 400
el-Badd 1889
196 Khirbet Nabi 1674 Khirbeh 2% 3% Zertal 1992: 260

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
Lawin 1928
197 Dar Abu 'Abd 1674
2032
198 Kh. Esh- 1675
Shajara 1669
199 Kh. Rujm er- 1676
Rujman 1508
200 1676
1574
201 Zeita 1676
1715
202 Khirbet Wadi 1676
en-Nusrany 1955
203 El-Khirbeh 1678
2018
204 kh. El-Haush 1679
1724
205 Khirbet el- 1679
Khawarej 1881
206 Wadi 'Askar 1679
2058
207 Kh. Et-Turm 1679
2073
208 Kh. Wadi el- 1679
Khashab 2082
209 Kh. Murad 1680
1662
210 Deir Sharaf 1680
1845
211 Samaria 1680
1869
212 Esh-Shawmar 1680
2052
213 Tell Umm 1681
Zeid 2094
214 Kh. Bir Zeit 1682
1525
215 1682
1713
216 Batn et-Tay 1683
1985
217 Khirbet 1685
Miyamas 1859
218 Ajjeh 1685
1965
219 El-Kharaiyeq 1685
2029
220 Kh. Ein
Musharriqa
1686
1588
Type IA II -
PT
Scattered
Per - PT Reference
20% Zertal 1992: 130
Shards
Khirbeh 61
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 475-
(79.2%)
476
Inhabited yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 411-
Village
412
Scattered 1 (14.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 413-
Shards
414
Inhabited 7 (16.3%) 2 (4.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Village
496
Khirbeh 2% 50% Zertal 1992: 245
Tell 20% 25% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 338
Khirbeh 34
(51.5%)
Finkelstein and Lederma 1997: 498-499
Khirbeh 20% 20% Zertal 1992: 401
Khirbeh 100% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 229
Tell 10% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 212
Khirbeh 100% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 194
Khirbeh 3 (12%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
479
Inhabited
Village
5% Zertal 1992: 365
Tell 20% 10% Zeral: 1992: 427
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1992: 103
Tell 15% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 179
Khirbeh 34
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(39.1%)
417
Scattered 3 (23.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 500-
Shards
501
Khirbeh 5% 15% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 374
Inhabited
Village
30% Zertal 1992: 430
Tell 10% 5% Zertal 1992: 239
Scattered
50% Zertal 1992: 136
Shards
Khirbeh yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
423

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
221 Kh. Jarra'a 1686
1739
222 Kh. 'Amuda 1687
1494
223 Kh. Er-Ras 1688
1540
224 Kh. 'Alam el- 1688
Huda 1734
225 El-Qibleh 1688
1844
226 Ras esh- 1688
Shemal 2027
227 Kh. Ras 1689
Qurra 1673
228 Jamma'in 1690
1708
229 Abu Ghazi 1690
1901
230 Abwein 1692
1604
231 En-Naqureh 1692
1857
232 Ain Rushrash 1692
1893
233 Khirbet Kfar 1693
Farat 1844
234 Es-Sunkur 1693
1853
235 Khirbet el- 1693
Jureiban 1961
236 Kufeirat 1693
2055
237 El-Khirbeh 1695
1921
238 1696
1479
239 El-Kurrum 1696
(b) 1879
240 wadi Dilbeh 1696
1889
241 Khirbet 1696
Qarqarah 1971
242 1697
1550
243 Khirbet 1698
Shreim 1874
244 El-Kurrum 1698
(a) 1881
245 Atara 1699
1568
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Khirbeh 1 (3.4%0 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
502
Khirbeh 1 (1.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 354-
355
Khirbeh 9 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 420-
(25.7%)
421
Khirbeh 12 (48%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
501
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1992: 366
Scattered
30% Zertal 1992: 137
Shards
Khirbeh 24 1 (1.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(39.3%)
480
Inhabited 12 2 (3.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 506-
Village (23.1%)
507
Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 300
Inhabited 4 (13.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Village
483
Inhabited
Village
20% Zertal 1992: 441
Khirbeh 5% 10% Zertal 1992: 391
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1992: 369
Khirbeh 25% 15% Zertal 1992: 443
Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 240
Inhabited
Village
10% 10% Zertal 1992: 105
Khirbeh 5% 10% Zertal 1992: 277
Khirbeh 3 (7.9%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
358
Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 417
Khirbeh 60% 30% Zertal 1992: 404
Khirbeh 75% Zertal 1992: 186
Khirbeh 5 (25%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
428
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1992: 415
Khirbeh 10% 5% Zertal 1992: 406
Inhabited
Village
23
(36.5%)
1 (1.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 429-
430

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
246 Ammuriya 1699
1633
247 El-Merah 1699
1920
248 En-Naqb 1699
2023
249 En-Naqb esh-
Sharqi
1700
2020
250 EP 293 1700
2085
251 Ras et- 1701
Tahune 1462
252 Kh. Tarfein 1701
1556
253 Kh. El-Qutt 1701
1653
254 El-Mesateb 1701
1943
255 Khallet esh- 1702
Sheikh 1865
256 Esh-Shuneh 1702
2012
257 Kheir-Allah 1703
1958
258 Kh. Ibn 'Amr 1703
2095
259 El-Khariq 1704
2074
260 1705
1650
261 1705
1708
262 Ijnisiniyah 1705
1865
263 Karm el- 1705
Qasqas 1872
264 Khurbet 'Ain 1705
el-Juhadem 2067
265 Kh. Bir el- 1706
Kharayib 1664
266 Joret el- 1706
Kharubeh 2077
267 Kh. 'Arnutiya 1707
1508
268 Khirbet 1707
Qumy 1832
269 Maqtal 1707
Bil'aish 1852
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Inhabited 4 (12.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Village
484
Scattered
95% Zertal 1992: 290
Shards
Scattered
Shards
Scattered
70% Zertal 1992: 138
100% Zertal 1992: 139
Shards
Khirbeh 65% 15% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 196
Scattered 20 (69%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 512-
Shards
513
Khirbeh 44 3 (1.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 549-
(20.5%)
550
Khirbeh 10
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(47.6%)
597
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1992: 197
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1992: 432
Scattered
shards
5% 85% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 341
Khirbeh 20% 5% Zertal 1992: 247
Tell 5% 15% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 180
Khirbeh 50% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 215
Khirbeh 12 (85%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
596
Khirbeh 11 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 668-
(7.5%)
670
Inhabited
Village
10% 15% Zertal 1992: 433
Khirbeh 20% 20% Zertal 1992; 418
Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 90
Khirbeh 33
(58.9%)
Scattered
1 (1.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 597-
599
50% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 216
shards
Khirbeh 1 (1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
541
Tell 20% 10% Zertal 1992: 377
Khirbeh 10% 70% Zertal 1992: 447

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
270 Tell el- 1707
Muhaffar 2054
271 Khallet 'Ain 1709
Kasheh 1843
272 Tel Taanach 1709
2143
273 El-Mehajjer 1710
1851
274 El- 1710
Hashmiyeh 2078
275 1711
1691
276 El-Majjur 1711
1918
277 Khirbet Bir 1711
el-Bushim 1954
278 Jiljiliya 1712
1597
279 Dhahrat 1712
Nisnas (a) 1867
280 Jebel Dabrun 1712
1913
281 Jaba' 1712
1923
282 El-'Khrab (a) 1712
1939
283 Kh. Dar Dib 1713
1654
284 Qasr Abub'r 1713
1905
285 Joret 'Amer 1713
2062
286 Esh-Sheikh 1713
Shibl 2075
287 Kh. Sal'a 1715
1603
288 Khallet et-Tut 1715
1849
289 Dhahrat 1715
Nisnas (b) 1867
290 Kfar Qud 1715
2070
291 el-Muneitrah 1716
1520
292 Ain musa 1716
1841
293 Kh. Birein 1716
(B) 2087
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Tell 10% 10% Zertal 1992: 108
Khirbeh 10% 10% Zertal 1992: 372
Tell yes yes Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 157
Khirbeh 5% 5% Zertal 1992: 448
Tell 20% 40% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 218
Scattered
Shards
Scattered
24
(39.3%)
5 (8.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 613-
614
10% Zertal 1992: 291
Shards
Khirbeh 5% 40% Zertal 1992: 192
Inhabited yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Village
557
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1992: 434
Scattered
50% Zertal 1992: 292
Shards
Tell 15% 10% Zertal 1992: 280
Scattered
100% Zertal 1992: 207
Shards
Khirbeh 3 (13%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
604
Khirbeh 5% 85% Zertal 1992: 302
Khirbeh 5% 20% Zertal 1992: 93
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1992: 79
Khirbeh 3 (6.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 601-
602
Khirbeh yes Zertal 1992: 455
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1992: 435
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 92
Khirbeh 3 (4.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 552-
553
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1992: 374
Scattered
shards
100% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 198

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
294 el-Q'ada 1718
1477
295 1718
1541
296 Dabth el- 1718
'Afarith 1908
297 Kh. Shatta 1719
1539
298 1719
1656
299 Tell Abu 1719
Zarad 1679
300 Dahrat es- 1719
Senobar 1862
301 El- 1719
Kharaiyyeq 2079
302 Tall 1720
2062
303 Zawiyeh 1721
1980
304 Khallet Seif 1721
2071
305 El-Jerradeh 1722
1849
306 El-Mizan 1723
1881
307 Khirbet Jaffa 1723
1932
308 Kh. Sarisa 1724
1722
309 Arkan 'Alawy 1725
(b) 1848
310 Khirbet 1725
Nukheil 1986
311 El-Meshattah 1725
2031
312 1726
1555
313 Yasuf 1726
1684
314 Arkan 'Alawy 1726
(a) 1847
315 Khallet Habes 1726
1856
316 Bir ez-Zeita 1726
1948
317 Beitin - 1727
Bethel 1481
318 Kh. 'Alyata 1727
1593
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Scattered 2 (9.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Sherds
514
Scattered 1 (14.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Sherds
556
Khirbeh 30% 45% Zertal 1992: 304
Khirbeh 2 (6.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 554-
555
Scattered 1 (12.5%) 2 (25%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Shards
605
Tell 84 23 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 606-
(24.3%) (6.7%)
610
Khirbeh 30% 20% Zertal 1992: 436
Khirbeh 99% Zertal and Mirkam 2000: 219
Khirbeh 10% 50% Zertal 1992: 95
Inhabited
Village
10% 10% Zertal 1992: 190
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1992: 81
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1992: 456
Khirbeh 60% Zertal 1992: 408
Khirbeh 5% 5% Zertal 1992: 265
Khirbeh 3 (7.1%) 2 (4.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 677-
678
Scattered
Shards
yes Zertal 1992: 459
Khirbeh 70% Zertal 1992: 184
Khirbeh 10% 50% Zertal 1992: 132
Khirbeh 2 (6.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
558
Inhabited 3 (10%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Village
618
Khirbeh 40% Zertal 1992: 457
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1992: 450
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1992: 202
Inhabited yes yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Village
518
Khirbeh 44 1 (0.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 560-
(29.7%)
561

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
319 Mirkeh 1727
1988
320 Tell Dothan 1727
2021
321 Esh-Sheikh 1728
'Hmeid 1844
322 Qasr ez- 1728
Zurah 1863
323 El-Khirbeh 1728
(Sanur) 1953
324 Kh. Ghuraba 1729
1611
325 lubban 1729
Sharqiya 1642
326 Kh. 'Atarud 1729
1713
327 Kh. El-Qutt 1730
1633
328 Yabrud 1731
1538
329 1731
1653
330 1732
1532
331 Burj el- 1732
Bardawil 1547
332 Kh. El-'Isyar 1732
1855
333 Dhahrat 1732
Jeffar 1858
334 Khirbet 1732
Mujrabin 1875
335 Einabus 1733
1726
336 Sarmitah 1733
1887
337 Khirbet en- 1733
Naqb 1903
338 1734
1626
339 Khirbet Abu 1734
Kahut 2072
340 Sanur 1735
1957
341 1736
1589
342 1737
1484
343 Kh. Sur 1737
1644
Type IA II -
PT
Inhabited
Per - PT Reference
80% Zertal 1992: 179
Village
Tell 15% 5% Zertal 1992: 141
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 459
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1992: 437
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 195
Khirbeh 14
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 614-
(27.5%)
615
Inhabited 12
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 616-
Village (26.1%)
617
Khirbeh 45 11 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 675-
(23.3%) (5.7%)
676
Khirbeh 7 (10.9%) 1 (1.6 %) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
623
Inhabited 2 (8.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 565-
Village
566
Scattered 24 2 (6.9%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 626-
Sherds (82.8%0
627
Scattered 1 (5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Sherds
567
Khirbeh yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 567-
568
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1992: 452
Scattered
Shards
yes Zertal 1992: 451
Khirbeh 5% 50% Zertal 1992: 421
Inhabited 12 2 (2.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 679-
Village (14.6%)
680
Khirbeh 60% Zertal 1992: 410
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1992: 306
Khirbeh 26 1 (2.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 621-
(59.1%)
622
Khirbeh 30% 30% Zertal 1992: 83
Inhabited
Village
10% 10% Zertal 1992: 225
Khirbeh 3 (13.6%) 1 (4.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
569
Scattered 6 (17.15) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Sherds
527
Khirbeh 7 (16.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 624-
625

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
344 1737 Scattered 6 (54.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1709 Sherds
678
345 Kh. El-Burj 1738 Khirbeh 6 (12%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1615
619
346 Es-Senobar 1738 Scattered 80% Zertal 1992: 411
1883 Shards
347 Khirbet el- 1739 Tell 10% 25% Zertal 1992: 134
Janzur 2034
348 Quza 1740 Inhabited 1 (1.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 682-
1716 Village
683
349 Kh. Ras Zeid 1741 Khirbeh 3 (14.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 684-
1712
685
350 Qa'adat es- 1741 Khirbeh 75% Zertal 1992: 465
Seiyad 1913
351 Khirbet esh- 1743 Khirbeh 2% 28% Zertal 1992: 267
Sheikh 1937
352 Khallet esh- 1743 Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 85
Shihab 2076
353 es-Sawiya 1744 Inhabited 3 (9.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1657 Village
629
354 Khirbet el- 1744 Khirbeh 90% Zertal 1992: 269
Merajjim 1935
355 Kh. Sabatta 1745
1913
Khirbeh 15% 10% Zertal 1992: 467
356 1747 Khirbeh 5 (71.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 628-
1639
629
357 Kh. El-Burj 1748 Khirbeh 11 (6.4%) 2 (1.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 573-
1561
575
358 Kh. Nib 1748
1857
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 453
359 Burqin 1748
2069
Tell 10% Zertal 1992: 97
360 Kh. Et-Tell 1749 Khirbeh 31
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 578-
1587
(21.4%)
579
361 El-khirbeh 1749 Khirbeh 20% 5% Zertal 1992: 145
(Mahrun) 2013
362 1750 Scattered 7 (77.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1631 Shards
635
363 1751 Khirbeh 2 (4.9%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1733
692
364 Kh. Abu el- 1753 Khirbeh 2 (9.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
'Uf 1619
634
365 1752 Scattered 11 1 (7.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1670 Shards (78.6%)
638
366 1753 Scattered 10
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1672 Shards (55.6%)
638
367 Asireh esh- 1753 Tell 5% Zertal 1992: 485
Shemaliyeh 1839
368 Wadi Seiyad 1753 Scattered yes Zertal 1992: 439
1865 Shards
369 Ein es- 1754 Scattered 9 (28.1%) 6 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
Sawiya 1665 Shards (18.8%) 637
370 1754 Scattered 4 (6.8%) 15 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 689-
1721 Shards
(25.4%)
690
371 Kh. En-Nabi 1754 Khirbeh 32 2 (1.0%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 694-
1760
(15.2%)
697
372 Yatma 1755 Inhabited 2 (7.1%) 2 (7.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1684 Village
639
373 Jebel 'Ashur 1756
2064
Khirbeh 98% Zertal 1992: 98
374 Deir Dibwan 1758 Inhabited 1 (5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1464 Village
533
375 1759 Scattered
5 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1693
Shards
(22.7%)
640
376 Kh. Matar 1759 Khirbeh 4 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1730
(10.8%)
691
377 Kh. Esh- 1760 Khirbeh 5 (55.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Shuna 1660
647
378 Kh. Ras ed- 1761 Khirbeh 5 (13.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 640-
Deir 1609
641
379 Kh. Samara 1761 Khirbeh 3 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1686
(42.9%)
649
380 El- 1761 Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1992: 218
Mudawarra 1982
381 1763 Scattered 1 (1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 643-
1620 Shards
645
382 El-Quleh 1763
1815
Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 499
383 El-Qitneh 1763
2041
Khirbeh 25% Zertal 1992: 127
384 Khrbet 1764 Tell 15% 10% Zertal 1992: 227
Kheibar 1954
385 Yasid 1765
1892
Tell 30% 10% Zertal 1992: 469
386 Kh. 'Afrit 1766 Khirbeh 8 (20/5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1684
648
387 Kh. 'Afrata 1766 Khirbeh 5 (19.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 649-
1688
650
388 Qabatiyeh 1766
2019
Tell 5% Zertal 1992: 168
389 er-Ras 1767 Tell 40 7 (7.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 700-
1740
(43.5%)
701
390 Kh. el- 1768 Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1992: 502
Kenisseh 1813
391 El-Khirbeh 1768
1980
Tell 80% Zertal 1992: 221
392 Beita et-Tahta 1770 Inhabited 1 (3.3%0 1 (1.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 703-
1716 Village
704
393 Turmus 'Aiya 1771 Inhabited 1 (4.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1602 Village
651
394 Kh. El- 1771 Khirbeh 17 (50%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
Mazra'a 1754 707
395 Beita el- 1772 Inhabited
4 (19%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Fauqa 1722
Village
704
396 Qabalan 1774 Inhabited 9 (42.9%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1679 Village
656
397 Kh. Seilun 1775 Tell yes yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
(Tel Shiloh) 1625
653
398 1776 Khirbeh 2 (33.3%) 1 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1584
(16.7%)
585
399 Talfit 1776 Inhabited 2 (8.7%) 1 (4.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1660 Village
655
400 Kh. Abu 1776 Khirbeh 13 7 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Taqiya 1735
(48.1%) (25.9%)
705
401 Khirbet 1777 Tell 10% 10% Zertal 1992: 114
Bel'ameh 2058
402 Qaryut 1778 Inhabited 16 3 (4.8%0 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1641 Village (25.4%)
654
403 Kh. el-Hawa 1779
1838
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1992: 488
404 Talluzeh 1779 Inhabited 35% Zertal 1992: 476
1863 Village
405 1782 Scattered yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1616 Shards
657
406 Kh. el-Kuz 1782 Scattered 30% 30% Zertal 1992: 495
1822 Shards
407 Kh. Mgharet 1782 Khirbeh 10% 75% Zertal 1996: 132
el-Kih 1978
408 Khirbet en- 1782 Tell 5% Zertal 1992: 152
Najjar 2056
409 Ein Seilun 1783 Scattered 6 (16.7%) 3 (8.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 658-
1632 Sherds
659
410 et-Taiyiba 1784 Inhabited 23 2 (3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 587-
1513 Village (34.8%)
588
411 Kh. Shurrab 1787 Khirbeh 4 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1746
(36.4%)
712
412 Dawwara 1786 Khirbeh 6 (10.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 709-
1700
710
413 1788 Khirbeh 35
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 711-
1704
(81.4%)
712
414 Kh. Yehuda 1789
1883
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1992: 472
415 El-Qa'adeh 1789
1916
Khirbeh 5% 70% Zertal 1992: 323
416 Abu el-'Ubed 1792
1977
Scattered
Shards
100% Zertal 1996: 134
417 Kh. Ein 'Eina 1793 Khirbeh 4 (30.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1652
667
418 Kh. Heiya 1793 Khirbeh 3 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 717-
1753
(12.5%)
719

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
419 El-Kebarrah 1793
1967
Tell 40% 10% Zertal 1992: 224
420 1795 Scattered 1 (8.3%) 10 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1626 Shards
(83.3%)
663
421 Kh. Rujan 1795 Khirbeh 32 (25%0 1 (0.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 714-
1719
716
422 Usarin 1794 Inhabited 1 (2.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1701 Village
713
423 Kh. 'Ulim 1795 Khirbeh 1 (3.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1733
717
424 Khirbet 1796 Khirbeh 40% 10% Zertal 1992: 162
Za'atara 2036
425 1797 Khirbeh 4 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1779
(44.4%)
718
426 Khirbet Haj 1797 Khirbeh 10% 10% Zertal 1992: 232
Hamdan 1934
427 1798 Khirbeh 1 (20%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 595-
1597
596
428 1798 Khirbeh 1 (7.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 662-
1622
663
429 Kh. Maiyaseh 1798
1860
Khirbeh 60% 30% Zertal 1992: 479
430 Sir 1798
1966
Inhabited
Village
5% Zertal 1996: 143
431 Jalud 1799 Inhabited 6 (9.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 665-
1640 Village
666
432 Musalla esh- 1799 Scattered 62 2 (2.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 667-
Sheikh Hatim 1681 Shards (66.7%)
668
433 Anahum 1799
2009
Khirbeh 2% 8% Zertal 1996: 115
434 Kh. Tartala 1800 Khirbeh 1 (1.6%) 1 (1.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1707
803
435 Kh. El-Qariq 1801 Khirbeh 20 5 (7.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1653
(30.3%)
755
436 1802 Scattered
13 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1531
Shards
(100%)
724
437 Kh. Qarqafa 1802 Khirbeh 34 1 (1.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1667
(51.5%)
757
438 Kh. Najmat 1803 Khirbeh 3 (16.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 754-
Khuneifis 1621
755
439 Kh. Siya' 1804 Khirbeh 25 25 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 725-
1579
(17.2%) (17.2%)
727
440 Bir el-Huwar 1804 Scattered 13
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1605 Sherds (31.7%)
754
441 Khallet ej- 1804 Khirbeh 40% Zertal 1996: 129
ja'ar 1987
442 1805 Khirbeh 10 5 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1692
(35.7%) (17.9%)
762
443 Kh. El-'Urma 1805 Tell 10 (9.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997 805-

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
1726 808
444 Jurish 1806 Inhabited 24
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 759-
1676 Village (25.5%)
761
445 1807 Khirbeh 1 (2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1752
812
446 ez-Zebadeh 1807
1992
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1996: 124
447 El-Hotha 1809
1915
Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 327
448 M'rah el- 1809 Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 163
Khararib 2032
449 Kh. Esh 1810 Khirbeh 21 8 (5.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 815-
Sheikh
Nasralla
1793
(14.3%)
816
450 1811 Khirbeh 18 3 (2.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 764-
1666
(16.2%)
765
451 1813 Scattered 24 4 (7.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1679 Shards (43.6%)
768
452 Salim 1814 Inhabited yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1795 Village
817
453 Kh. Esh- 1815 Khirbeh 5% 10% Zertal 1996: 117
Shekh
Safiriyan
2007
454 Kh. El- 1816 Tell yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 732-
Marjama 1554
733
455 Kh. 'Athfur 1819
1867
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1992: 480
456 Kh. Kulasum 1821 Khirbeh 2 (3.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 746-
1594
747
457 Tel el-Far'a 1821
1881
Tell 20% 5% Zertal 1996: 383
458 qasr Khallet 1821 Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1992: 315
en-Nimr 1938
459 Kh. Nabbuh 1822 Khirbeh 7 (7.8%) 5 (5.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 775-
1651
776
460 Khirbet 1822 Tell 8% 20% Zertal 1992: 166
Tannin 2023
461 Tilfit 1823
2008
Khirbeh 5% 3% Zertal 1996: 120
462 Khallet 1824 Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1992: 318
Kalles 1924
463 1825 Scattered 43
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1654 Shards (67.2%)
778
464 1825 Scattered 12
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1656 Shards (31.6%)
777
465 Kh. El- 1826 Khirbeh 8 (20.5%) 5 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 820-
Kurum 1714
(12.8%)
821
466 1827 Scattered
46 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1607
Shards
(100%)
771
467 1827 Khirbeh 3 (23.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
1632 774
468 Kom 'Aly 1828 Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1992: 321
Sebah 1922
469 Burj el-Far'a 1829
1883
Tell 30% 10% Zertal 1996: 381
470 Kh. En- 1831 Khirbeh 14 (40%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 748-
Najama 1510
749
471 Wa'ar el-Quf 1831
1841
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1996: 393
472 Aqaba 1831
1952
Inhabited
Village
20% Zertal 1996: 147
473 Kh. Kafr 1832 Khirbeh yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Gharib 1692
781
474 Kh. Ghannam 1833 Khirbeh 70 2 (2.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 823-
1738
(77.8%)
824
475 1836 Khirbeh 21 1 (2.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1733
(45.7%)
825
476 1837 Khirbeh 29 1 (2.1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 779-
1680
(61.7%)
780
477 Yanum 1837 Inhabited 6 (13.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1724 Village
822
478 El-Muntar 1839
1898
Scattered
Shards
10% Zertal 1992: 333
479 Kh. El- 1840 Khirbeh 136 2 (1%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 781-
Marajim 1616
(67%)
783
480 Kh. Umm 1840 Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 401
Qasim 1832
481 Kh. Yanum 1842 Khirbeh 52 2 (1.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 828-
1738
(42.3%)
831
482 en-Nabi Nun 1843 Scattered 4 (22.2%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1722 Shards
827
483 Majda Bani 1845 Inhabited 8 (19%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Fadil 1655 Village
787
484 1845 Khirbeh 12
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 787-
1664
(70.6%)
788
485 Kh. Jib'it 1846 Khirbeh 134 11 Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 751-
1598
(45.6%) (3.7%)
753
486 Kh. Er-Risa 1846 Khirbeh yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1708
827
487 Khallet esh- 1847 Khirbeh 60% Zertal 1996: 403
Shukre 1836
488 Duma 1848 Inhabited 3 (7.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 784-
1625 Village
786
489 Kh. Bet Farr 1848 Tell 70% Zertal 1996: 404
(A) 1831
490 esh-Sheikh 1850 Scattered 4 (3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 794-
Mazar 1648 Shards
795
491 Kh. Fuqaha 1850
1933
Tell 15% 10% Zertal 1996: 196

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
492 Kh. Er- 1851 Khirbeh 1 (1.5%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 791-
Rahaya 1615
792
493 Kh. Tana el- 1851 Khirbeh 57 2 (1.3%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 836-
Fauqa 1759
(37.7%)
839
494 Beit Dajan 1851 Inhabited yes Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 839-
1777 Village
840
495 el-'Unuq 1852
1840
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1996: 394
496 Kh. Salhab 1853
1957
Tell 2% 5% Zertal 1996: 148
497 1854 Scattered 1 (1.4%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1606 Shards
789
498 Kh. El- 1854 Khirbeh 62
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 832-
Jarayish 1710
(41.3%)
834
499 Kh. Shuweiha 1856 Khirbeh 2 (1.6%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997: 840-
1786
841
500 Kh. Qrud 1857
1973
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1996: 141
501 Wadi el- 1858 Khirbeh 5% 85% Zertal 1996: 159
Balad 2004
502 Kh. Bani 1860 Khirbeh 1 (100%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Fadil 1653
798
503 1861 Scattered 1 (2.9%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1669 Shards
798
504 Kh. Miras ed- 1861 Khirbeh 25
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Din 1675
(58.1%)
800
505 EP 416 1864
1659
Khirbeh 15% Zertal 2005: 491
506 Tammun 1864 Inhabited 10% Zertal 1996: 326
1878 Village
507 Ras es-Salme 1864
1981
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1996: 181
508 Rabba 1865
1995
Inhabited
Village
15% Zertal 1996: 165
509 Tel Za'anuni 1866
1802
Tell 10% Zertal 1996: 437
510 Kh. Tawil (1) 1869
1673
Khirbeh 31% Zertal 2005: 440
511 Tell Miski 1873
1824
Tell 25% 5% Zertal 1996: 412
512 et-Tughra 1873
1921
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1996: 290
513 Kh. Tana et- 1874 Khirbeh 36
Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Tahta 1732
(21.4%)
845
514 1874 Khirbeh 3 (18.8%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
1735
847
515 el-Khirbeh 1874
1838
Scattered
Shards
2% Zertal 1996: 406
516 Kh. 'Eynun 1875 Tell 5% Zertal 1996: 211

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
1898
517 el-'Ein et- 1877
Tahta 1737
518 Kh. Ibziq 1878
1971
519 Jelamet 1881
'Amer 1897
520 Kh. Bet 1883
Hasan 1826
521 el-Hawakir 1891
1942
522 Mrah es- 1892
Sahleh 1668
523 Qasr esh- 1892
Shekh Ghazal 1960
524 Merah es- 1895
Sahlat 1675
525 EP 173 (1) 1895
1692
526 es-Sahlat 1896
1655
527 Wadi Khallal 1896
el-Fal (1) 1697
528 Wadi Khallal 1898
el-Fal (2) 1697
529 Jebel el- 1898
Mahjarah (2) 1716
530 Joret el- 1899
Karaireh 1734
531 EP 173 (2) 1899
1692
533 EP 115 1901
1682
534 wadi edh- 1901
Dhba' (1) 1723
535 Tell Shibli 1901
1819
536 er- 1903
Ruweihiyeh 1648
537 Wadi edh- 1903
Dhba' (2) 1720
538 EP 195 (2) 1904
1694
539 Jebel el- 1905
Mahjarah (1) 1710
540 wadi edh- 1905
Dhba' (3) 1716
541 EP 105 1907
1665
542 Ain Abu 1907
Daraj (2) 1688
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Scattered 2 (16.7%) Finkelstein and Lederman 1997:
Shards
849
Khirbeh 5% 3% Zertal 1996: 186
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1996: 215
Khirbeh 45% Zertal 1996: 417
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 310
Khirbeh 18% Zertal 2005: 460
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1996: 227
Khirbeh 16% Zertal 2005: 447
Khirbeh 6% Zertal 2005: 422
Khirbeh 16% Zertal 2005: 496
Khirbeh 51% Zertal 2005: 420
Khirbeh 34% Zertal 2005: 418
Khirbeh 65% Zertal 2005: 388
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 2005: 356
Khirbeh yes Zertal 2005: 424
Khirbeh 4% Zertal 2005: 440
Khirbeh 60% Zertal 2005: 368
Tell 2% Zertal 1996: 432
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 2005: 514
Khirbeh 61% Zertal 2005: 371
Khirbeh 21% Zertal 2005: 425
Scattered
Shards
27% Zertal 2005: 404
Khirbeh 48% Zertal 2005: 391
Scattered
Shards
Scattered
Shards
2% Zertal 2005: 463
22% Zertal 2005: 439

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
543 Mughur el- 1909 Khirbeh 11% Zertal 2005: 359
'Avdat 1737
544 Umm ej- 1909 Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1996: 474
Juren 1814
545 Wadi Sadi (2) 1911
1648
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 2005: 515
546 Ain Abu 1910 Khirbeh 50% Zertal 2005: 410
Daraj (1) 1700
547 Jebel el- 1910 Khirbeh 18% Zertal 2005: 402
Mahjarah (3) 1712
548 Wadi Jabr (2) 1911
1701
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 2005: 413
549 Ain Abu 1912 Khirbeh 29% Zertal 2005: 429
Daraj Fort 1699
550 Wadi ez-Zeit 1912 Khirbeh 40% zertal 2005: 394
(2) 1719
551 Umm 1912 Khirbeh 31% Zertal 2005: 380
Sawaneh (3) 1722
552 Beyader 1912 Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1996: 325
Shawish 1884
553 wadi Ahmar 1913 Khirbeh 54% Zertal 2005: 531
(2) 1633
554 <strong>The</strong> Lahmeh 1913 Scattered 5% Zertal 2005: 435
Complex 1699 Shards
555 Kh. el- 1913 Khirbeh 31% Zertal 2005: 350
Butmen 1750
556 Ras Bilam ez- 1913 Scattered 30% 5% Zertal 1996: 476
Zef (B) 1813 Shards
557 Kh. Yarza 1913 Tell 20% 20% Zertal 1996: 300
(A) 1904
558 Wadi Sadi (1) 1914
1647
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 2005: 520
559 Ain el-Mana' 1914
1663
Khirbeh 12% Zertal 2005: 466
560 Kh. 'Atuf 1914
1856
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1996: 343
561 Umm Hallal 1915
1696
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 2005: 438
562 Jebel el- 1915 Scattered yes Zertal 2005: 408
Mahjarah (4) 1712 Shards
563 Umm 1915 Scattered 21% Zertal 2005: 378
Sawaneh (2) 1725 Shards
564 EP 103 1915
1741
Khirbeh 24% Zertal 2005: 355
565 Wadi Jabr (4) 1916 Scattered 7% Zertal 2005: 427
1709 Shards
566 wadi Jabr (1) 1916
1710
Khirbeh 19% Zertal 2005: 407
567 Wadi Ahmar 1917 Khirbeh 5% Zertal 2005: 501
(1) 1652
568 Wadi Ahmar 1918 Khirbeh 22% Zertal 2005: 524

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
(6) 1648
569 Wadi Ahmar 1918
(9) 1648
570 el-Mureighat 1918
(EP 280) 1718
571 Umm 1918
Sawaneh (1) 1732
572 el-Medakakin 1919
1738
573 Umm 1920
Sawaneh (4) 1729
574 Wadi Jabe (3) 1921
1705
575 Kitfet el- 1921
'Usiyeh 1750
576 Ras Mrah el- 1921
Wawiyat 1902
577 Wadi Ahmar 1922
(3) 1659
578 EP 145 1926
1639
579 Iraq er- 1928
Resifeh (4) 1717
580 Mrah el-'Enab 1928
1789
581 Kh. 1928
Muqeysime 1837
582 el-Farshe 1931
1786
583 Urqan el- 1932
Mastarah 1639
584 Iraq er- 1932
Resifeh (2) 1721
585 Iraq er- 1933
Resifeh (3) 1723
586 Kh. es-sefire 1933
1843
587 Kh. Mshebik 1935
1869
588 Yafit (5) 1936
1626
589 Bab ed- 1936
Dayyq 1759
590 Kh. 1936
Bazaliyye 1779
591 <strong>The</strong> Valley 1937
Monument 1624
592 Wadi Salman 1938
(2) 1985
593 Yafit (3) 1939
1628
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Khirbeh yes Zertal 2005: 543
Khirbeh 15% Zertal 2005: 395
Khirbeh 14% Zertal 2005: 363
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 2005: 361
Khirbeh 32% Zertal 2005: 375
Scattered
Shards
23% Zertal 2005: 417
Khirbeh 27% Zertal 2005: 353
Scattered
Shards
17% Zertal 1996: 299
Scattered
Shards
17% Zertal 2005: 509
Khirbeh 9% Zertal 2005: 538
Khirbeh 41% Zertal 2005: 397
Tell 30% 5% Zertal 1996: 456
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1996: 359
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1996: 459
Khirbeh 8% Zertal 2005: 539
Khirbeh 18% Zertal 2005: 386
Khirbeh 15% Zertal 2005: 384
Khirbeh yes Zertal 1996: 345
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1996: 334
Khirbeh yes Zertal 2005: 341
Tell 30% Zertal 1996: 466
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1996: 462
Khirbeh yes Zertal 2005; 344
Khirbeh 58% Zertal 2005: 249
Khirbeh 18% Zertal 2005: 333

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
594 Iraq el- 1939 Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1996: 243
Mardom 1946
595 Kh. Mhallal 1939
1948
Khirbeh 7% Zertal 1996: 245
596 Tell Qa'un 1940
2013
Tell 10% 10% Zertal 2005: 113
597 Yafit (4) 1941
1631
Khirbeh 60% Zertal 2005: 330
598 Habis 'Id 1943
1808
Khirbeh 62% Zertal 1996: 483
599 umm er-Rkab 1943 Khirbeh 60% Zertal 1996: 479
(A) 1819
600 el-Bird 1943
1923
Khirbeh 20% 5% Zertal 1996: 273
601 Khallet Musa 1945
1815
Khirbeh 60% Zertal 1996: 480
602 Kh. Umm el- 1947 Khirbeh yes Zertal 1996: 347
Qatan 1841
603 Wadi Umm 1948 Khirbeh 16% Zertal 2005: 282
Hajar (1) 1708
604 Kh. El- 1948 Khirbeh 60% Zertal 1996: 485
Mutaqallabat 1781
605 Wadi ej- 1949 Khirbeh 36% Zertal 2005: 295
Jeruzaliyeh 1689
606 Yafit (7) 1951 Scattered 20% Zertal 2005: 328
1641 Shards
607 el-'Alam 1951
1755
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1996: 506
608 Jebel el- 1951 Khirbeh 70% Zertal 1996: 504
Massafh (A) 1761
609 Kh. ej-J<strong>of</strong>e 1952
1776
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 490
610 Jebel el- 1954 Khirbeh 34% Zertal 1996: 504
Massafh (B) 1758
611 Khallaiyel 1954 Khirbeh 2% Zertal 2005: 128
Madkhul (2) 2012
612 Kh. Umm el- 1955 Tell 5% Zertal 1996: 311
'Uqbeh (A) 1899
613 Khallaiyel 1955 Khirbeh 40% Zertal 2005: 129
Madkhul (1) 2010
614 Rujm es-Si'a 1956
1694
Khirbeh 15% Zertal 2005: 292
615 Wadi Ras el- 1956 Khirbeh 25% Zertal 1996: 508
Kharube 1757
616 E.P. 147 1956
1908
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1996: 303
617 Masu'a (9) 1959
1666
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 2005: 313
618 1959
1758
Khirbeh 6% Zertal 1996: 586
619 Tell esh- 1960 Tell 15% 30% Zertal 2005: 279

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
Sheikh Mazar 1719
620 1961
1759
621 Yafit (8) 1962
1653
622 Masu'a (3) 1962
1668
623 Tell es- 1962
Simadi 1710
624 E.P. 11 1963
1773
625 Tell Mukehaz 1963
(2) 2000
626 1965
1762
627 Kh. Ras el- 1966
Kharube 1766
628 Tell Mukehaz 1966
(1) 2011
629 Tell 'Abeid 1968
(2) 1660
630 Tell 'Abeid 1968
(1) 1662
631 Kh. Umm 1968
Dhabe 1783
632 Kh. es-Sakut 1968
2018
633 1969
1748
634 1969
1769
635 Kh. Umm 1969
Hajar (B) 1778
636 Kh. Es-Samra 1970
1890
637 Tell ed- 1970
Diblaqa 1934
638 Ras el- 1972
Kharube 1752
639 Kh. Naqb el- 1973
Matar 1767
640 Tell el- 1974
Hammeh 1977
641 1975
1728
642 Tellul el- 1975
Bedha (2) 1728
643 el- 1975
Mashkakara
644 Wadi Ra'us
el-Kuwa'
1849
1975
1896
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Khirbeh 23% Zertal 1996: 585
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 2005: 324
Khirbeh 42% Zertal 2005: 316
Tell 40% 15% Zertal 2005: 284
Scattered
Shards
25% Zertal 1996: 495
Scattered
Shards
35% 2% Zertal 2005: 140
Scattered
Shards
27% Zertal 1996: 584
Scattered
Shards
26% Zertal 1996: 501
Tell 30% 10% Zertal 2005: 133
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 2005: 322
Khirbeh 54% Zertal 2005: 318
Khirbeh 21% Zertal 1996: 488
Tell 10% 7% Zertal 2005: 171
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1996: 586
Scattered
Shards
36% Zertal 1996: 585
Khirbeh 100% Zertal 1996: 492
Khirbeh 2% 2% Zertal 1996: 339
Khirbeh 45% Zertal 1996: 263
Scattered
Shards
6% Zertal 1996: 583
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1996: 502
Tell 40% 15% Zertal 2005: 164
Scattered
Shards
15% Zertal 1996: 589
Scattered
Shards
yes Zertal 2005: 247
Scattered
Shards
50% Zertal 1996: 355
Khirbeh yes Zertal 1996: 526

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
645 Tabqet el- 1975
Hilwe 1915
646 Kh. Esh-Saqq 1975
1945
647 Khallet 1976
Khimyar 1955
648 Ras Umm 1977
Khubeza 1773
649 Kh. Es-Sun'a 1977
1844
650 Kh. Wadi ez- 1977
Zba' 1949
651 Wadi Ras 1978
Umm
Khubeza
1764
652 Tell el-Hilu 1978
1926
653 Tel Abu Sus 1979
2030
654 Kh. Umm 1980
Kharaz 1781
655 Wadi el- 1981
Mughareb 1729
656 Tellul el- 1982
Bedha (1) 1721
657 el-Makhruq 1983
1707
658 el-Makhruq 1984
(2) 1709
659 el-Makhruq 1984
(1) 1715
660 Khallet 1984
Makhul 1847
661 el-Munsahle 1985
1785
662 Siret el- 1987
Ma'azeb (2) 1737
663 es-Sahl (1) 1987
1746
664 es-Sahl (2) 1987
1748
665 Bedhat esh- 1988
Sha'ab 1742
666 Wadi Umm 1989
Khubeza (1) 1767
667 Zahret el- 1987
Meidan (A) 1819
668 Wadi mufye 1989
1831
669 Wadi Umm 1990
Kharubeh 1747
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1996: 519
Khirbeh 80% Zertal 1996: 255
Khirbeh 10% 30% Zertal 1996: 238
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 498
Khirbeh 25% Zertal 1996: 357
Khirbeh 25% Zertal 1996: 241
Scattered
Shards
28% Zertal 1996: 577
Tell 10% 10% Zertal 1996: 283
Tell 16% 4% Zertal 2005: 175
Khirbeh 5% Zertal 1996: 365
Khirbeh 40% Zertal 2005: 248
Khirbeh 45% Zertal 2005: 250
Khirbeh 24% Zertal 1996: 591
Khirbeh 71% Zertal 2005: 257
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 2005: 253
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 355
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 1996: 573
Khirbeh 15% Zertal 2005: 243
Khirbeh 60% Zertal 2005: 235
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 2005: 233
Khirbeh 20% Zertal 2005: 238
Khirbeh 40% Zertal 2005: 219
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 1996: 560
Khirbeh 40% Zertal 1996: 557
Khirbeh 10% Zertal 2005: 225

Map Site name ICS/ Type IA II - Per - PT Reference
no.
OIG
PT
670 Abu Sha'are 1992
1849
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 545
671 Wadi Umm 1993 Scattered 20% Zertal 2005: 216
Khubeza (2) 1766 Shards
672 Ain ed-Deir 1993
1995
Tell 40% Zertal 2005: 154
673 Zbeidat 1995
1748
Khirbeh 17% Zertal 2005: 228
674 Wadi Umm 1995 Scattered 30% Zertal 2005: 217
Khubeza (3) 1765 Shards
675 Hemdat 1995
1845
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 547
676 Abu Firan 1995
1862
Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 542
677 Argaman (2) 1996
1763
Khirbeh yes Zertal 2005: 220
678 Khalil el- 1996 Khirbeh 3% Zertal 1996: 539
'Adse 1877
679 Kh. Es- 1997 Tell 5% Zertal 1996: 530
Suwede 1887
680 Argaman (3) 1998
1759
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 2005: 221
681 Tell el- 1998 Tell 8% Zertal 2005: 144
Ridhghah 2007
682 el-Marma 1999
1960
Khirbeh 12% Zertal 2005: 180
683 Tell ed-Deir 1999 Tell 5% Zertal 2005: 161
(1) 1989
684 el-Mukeimnat 2001
1782
Khirbeh 50% Zertal 2005: 201
685 Wadi Abu 2002 Khirbeh 30% Zertal 1996: 574
Sidre 1769
686 en-Na'ajeh (3) 2003 Scattered 80% 10% Zertal 2005: 208
1772 Shards
687 Habs Qatwi 2005 Khirbeh 10% Zertal 2005: 188
(2) 1915
688 Habs Qatwi 2008 Khirbeh 64% Zertal 2005: 191
(1) 1914
689 el-Mudaraj 2010 Khirbeh 10% Zertal 2005: 197
(1) 1792
690 Iraq Abu 2011 Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1996: 551
Hashish (B) 1841
691 fass ej-Jamal 2015
1926
Khirbeh 7% Zertal 2005: 187
692 Kh. Wadi el- 2018 Scattered 100% Zertal 1996: 565
Gharur (B) 1809 Shards
693 Kh. Wadi el- 2018 Khirbeh 20% Zertal 1996: 562
Gharur (A) 1811
694 Shekh Gharur 2019 Scattered 70% Zertal 1996: 566
1807 Shards
695 Tell Jima'in 2024 Tell yes yes Zertal 2005: 137

Map Site name ICS/
no.
OIG
2015
696 Tell Abu 2026
Sidreh 1784
Type IA II -
PT
Per - PT Reference
Tell yes Zertal 2005: 200

6. <strong>The</strong> Area Surrounding the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Administrative Centres
According to the analysis above, it becomes evident that the areas which exhibit
continuation and even growth in northern Palestine are the areas closest to the main
<strong>Assyrian</strong> administration centers – Megiddo and Samaria. However, does this mean
that these areas were not affected at all by the political transition? What can we learn
from the individual settlement patterns around the main centers in regards to the
function <strong>of</strong> these cities?
In order to address these questions, it is necessary to focus the attention on these
limited areas solely. <strong>The</strong> following examination will deal with the areas surrounding
the two province capitals <strong>of</strong> Megiddo and Samaria, as well as the area surrounding the
city <strong>of</strong> Dor, which perhaps functioned as a province capital. A ten km. radius has been
taken surrounding the province capitals <strong>of</strong> Megiddo and Samaria for this analysis. Dor
is located on the coastal plain and so in this case it was necessary to take the area's
topography into consideration. <strong>The</strong> area examined surrounding Dor includes ten km.
to the north <strong>of</strong> the city, ten km. to the south <strong>of</strong> the city and seven km. to the east,
where the terrain is no longer part <strong>of</strong> the coastal plain.
6.1. <strong>The</strong> Area Surrounding the City <strong>of</strong> Dor
6.1.1 Dor under <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>Rule</strong>
<strong>The</strong> city <strong>of</strong> Dor was most likelt taken over by Tiglath-pileser III, during his
campaign along the coast <strong>of</strong> Palestine (Alt 1929: 235- 237; Otzen 1979: 252- 254;
Stern 2000: 313- 132). During the archaeological excavations conducted at Dor

evidence for the <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule <strong>of</strong> this city were found. <strong>The</strong>se include mainly pottery
and seals; however there is some evidence from architecture as well.
Before the <strong>Assyrian</strong> campaign, Dor was protected by an <strong>of</strong>fset-inset city wall.
<strong>The</strong> city gate was <strong>of</strong> the four chambered type found in area B (phase B/7). According
to Stern, this gate was destroyed during the <strong>Assyrian</strong> take over (Stern 1990: 17-22;
2000: 111-116, 134). Gilboa and Sharon emphasize that the gate seems to have been
in use until the 8 th century BCE, and the assumption is that it went out <strong>of</strong> use with the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> conquest to the area (although there is no indication that it was violently
destroyed), should be disregarded (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 163).
Following the <strong>Assyrian</strong> conquest, a new two chambered gate (phase B6) was
built over the previous four chambered one, while still employing the same city wall. .
According to Stern, this two chambered gate has <strong>Assyrian</strong> characteristics, and was
erected by the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s (Stern 2000: 131-145). Stern compared these fortifications
with the fortifications found at Megiddo stratum III concluding that both functioned
as <strong>Assyrian</strong> province capitals (Stern 2000: 138). <strong>The</strong> fact that Dor was fortified in this
period is unusual as in the provinces under <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule in the former Kingdom <strong>of</strong>
Israel, fortifications are seen only in <strong>Assyrian</strong> administrative seats <strong>of</strong> various sorts
(Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 166). Other than the gate and fragments <strong>of</strong> architecture here
and there, there is no structure at Dor that may be assigned to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule <strong>of</strong> the
city and in most areas mostly pits were found (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 166).
<strong>The</strong> finds in the 7 th century BCE pits supply further significant data regarding
<strong>Assyrian</strong> Dor. <strong>The</strong> pottery found in them is still Israelite in character and very
different from contemporary assemblages in Phoenicia (Gilboa and Sharon 2008:
167). However, an unusually high proportion <strong>of</strong> tableware, mainly bowls, have
<strong>Assyrian</strong>izing shapes. Most <strong>of</strong> these types are not usually found in other sites, other

than at Megiddo (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 167). <strong>The</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> style
pottery vessels in the ceramic repertoire unearthed at Dor was researched by Gilboa
(1996: 122-135) who concluded that these vessels were produced by potters who were
well acquainted with the production techniques used in <strong>Assyrian</strong> pottery, and were not
mearly imitations by local potters (Gilboa 1996: 129). Na'aman suggested that this
pottery was produced by deportees, transferred from regions on the outskirts <strong>of</strong> the
land <strong>of</strong> Assyria, who used the techniques <strong>of</strong> their origin (Na'aman 2009: 100).
Two <strong>Assyrian</strong> seals were also found at Dor. In the pits located in area D2,
hundreds <strong>of</strong> Phoenician commercial jars were found dumped well demonstrating
Dor's role in maritime commerce in this period (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 167). At
one time an iron smithy was dumping its waste into this pit (Eliyahu-Behar et al.
2008: 164-165). Of the few other smithies known in Israel, two (at Megiddo and at
Tel Sera' in the northern Negev) also functioned in <strong>Assyrian</strong> centers (Gilboa and
Sharon 2008: 167).
6.1.2. Analysis
Excavations conducted in sites along the Sharon Coastal Plain provide data
indicating that most <strong>of</strong> the sites were settled only in the Persian Period, and so do not
seem to portray continuity from the Iron Age II. <strong>The</strong> only sites that do portray some
degree <strong>of</strong> continuity are 'Atlit and Dor. However, excluding these two sites, it seems
that the real change in settlement dynamics along the Sharon Coastal Plain occurred
during the 5 th century BCE (Tal 1999: 211; Shalev 2009: 369-370), when the
Phoenicians expanded their territory to incorporate the Sharon Coastal Plain (Elgavish
1994: 93-94; Tal 1999: 210-211). However, Tal emphasizes that not all the sites
located in the Sharon Coastal Plain which portray Persian Period occupation were

occupied at the same time. He states that the regional settlement is related to a period
<strong>of</strong> less than 50 years and was apparently, even if in part, <strong>of</strong>ficially initiated. Most <strong>of</strong>
the settlements existed temporarily, particularly in the 5 th century BCE, and to a lesser
extent in the 4 th century BCE (Tal 1999: 211). Shalev nonetheless argues that the
Persian Period urbanization process in the coastal plain was gradual, thus indicating
that it was not <strong>of</strong>ficially directed by the empire. He attributes this phenomenon to
internal economic factors, as well as to the empire's support <strong>of</strong> this process, but
emphasizes that this process did not occur due to empire initiative (Shalev 2009: 369).
<strong>The</strong> archaeological surveys can be useful in considering this point. Tal as well as
Shalev based their arguments on fairly large, excavated sites, however, the appearance
<strong>of</strong> rural settlements, which were detected in the surveys (an increase in settlement
numbers that more than doubled), indicates a new, additional, utilitarian objective for
the area <strong>of</strong> the Sharon Coastal Plain. <strong>The</strong> data compiled in this study suggests that
from the Persian Period (or rather from the time <strong>of</strong> Phoenician domination <strong>of</strong> this
area), the Sharon Coastal Plain exhibits a change in settlement dynamics which
focused on the agricultural exploitation <strong>of</strong> this area and not only on the maritime
potential <strong>of</strong> his stretch <strong>of</strong> land. This seems to be a deliberate shift, <strong>of</strong>ficially directed,
most likely by the Phoenicians and not necessarily by the empire, but most likely
authorized by it.
In regards to the Sharon coastal plain during the <strong>Assyrian</strong> domination, it seems
that the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire had no lasting effect on this area in terms <strong>of</strong> the rural
settlement. If indeed deportees were taken from the area, it seems most likely that
they would have been taken from the city <strong>of</strong> Dor itself. If indeed deportees were then
brought to the area, they would have been settled in the city alone. This corresponds

to the theory put forth by Na'aman (2009: 101) regarding the <strong>Assyrian</strong> style pottery
found at the city.
It therefor seems reasonable to accept the argument presented by Gilboa and
Sharon that Dor should be viewed as an <strong>Assyrian</strong> karu, a port <strong>of</strong> trade. <strong>The</strong> finds
uncovered indeed corroborate both the assumption that <strong>Assyrian</strong> administrators were
present at the site, and attest to its commercial nature (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 166-
167). And the surrounding archaeological data indicates that the city's main
commercial nature as a maritime site was not impacted by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule. It seems
that the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s seeked only to exploit the city's maritime potential, and were not
interested in developing the area <strong>of</strong> the Sharon coastal plain.
6.2. <strong>The</strong> Area Surrounding the City <strong>of</strong> Megiddo
6.2.1. Megiddo under <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>Rule</strong>
Stratum III at Megiddo, which was exposed by the University <strong>of</strong> Chicago
Expedition in the 1920's, represents the <strong>Assyrian</strong> town <strong>of</strong> the late 8 th and early 7 th
centuries BCE. This stratum at Megiddo was analyzed by J. Peersmann, who
emphasized its town planning and demography (2000: 524-534). Megiddo was
selectively destroyed by Tiglath-pileser III and was rebuilt according to a new
architectonic plan, this according to a destruction layer uncovered at Area H in the
renewed excavations (J<strong>of</strong>fe et al. 2000: 140-160). According to Peersmann the
domestic part <strong>of</strong> the previous stratum (IV) was destroyed, while public buildings were
spared (Peersmann 2000: 526).
<strong>The</strong> public structures <strong>of</strong> stratum III, which include mainly the four chambered
city gate and Buildings 1052 and 1369, are located on the northern part <strong>of</strong> the site.

<strong>The</strong> site is surrounded by an <strong>of</strong>fset-inset city wall (325), which continued in use from
the previous stratum. In these elements Peersmann points to two construction phases.
However, she also states that they could reflect two different measurements used
contemporaneously (Peersmann 2000: 526-527). Palace 1369 portrays a more typical
<strong>Assyrian</strong> method <strong>of</strong> construction, including the characteristic shape, courtyard,
revetments, throne room, and thresholds. Palace 1052 has a lesser number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong>
features. In addition, excavation at area H revealed that palace 1369 penetrated into
palace 1052. Finkelstein and Ussishkin conclude that palace 1052 is earlier than
palace 1369, which was added later, with the construction <strong>of</strong> the well planned city <strong>of</strong>
level III, in the peak <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> activity at Megiddo (Finkelstein and Ussishkin
2000: 602).
<strong>The</strong> urban planning <strong>of</strong> the domestic areas associated with this stratum at the site,
portray substantial regularity, indicating pre-planning. This pre-planning, according to
Peersmann, was put to use in order to maximize the available habitation space
(Peersmann 2000: 527). This domestic area was enclosed by a ring <strong>of</strong> public
buildings. This suggests, according to Peersmann behind this specific arrangement
stood a particular concept <strong>of</strong> social organization, perhaps indicating an intention to
integrate the citizens within the city (Peersmann 2000: 530).
It seems that this stratum at Megiddo was established and populated in the days
<strong>of</strong> Sargon II, although being annexed by Tiglath-pileser III (Peersmann 2000: 532-
533). Peersmann concludes that Sargon II repopulated Megiddo, with around 2000
individuals, mainly due to its location on the main route (Via Maris) in an attempt to
dominate this important path (Peersmann 2000: 533).
Halperin states that according to <strong>Assyrian</strong> texts, sheep and the supply <strong>of</strong> wool to
the empire played an important role in the economy <strong>of</strong> Megiddo during the <strong>Assyrian</strong>

ule (Halperin 2000: 564). He further posits that this activity took place in Galilee and
was coordinated at Megiddo.
6.2.2. Analysis
Based on surveys conducted in the area <strong>of</strong> Megiddo, it seems that during the Iron
Age II there were between 21- 27 sites situated in the immediate surroundings <strong>of</strong> the
city. Two <strong>of</strong> them are large sites ranging in size from 3- 4 hectors. During the Persian
Period there were between 30- 40 sites located around the city <strong>of</strong> Megiddo. Most <strong>of</strong>
these sites are small, rural sites. Only two sites were abandoned during the transition
(around 8%) and 11 new sites were established, however, the majority <strong>of</strong> sites
continued to be settled throughout the transition. Finkelstein et al. emphasize that
despite the increase in the number <strong>of</strong> settlements in the Jezreel Valley from the Iron
Age II to the Persian Period, the total built up area decreased, depicting a picture <strong>of</strong> a
more rural settlement pattern around fewer centers (Finkelstein et al. 2006: 770- 773).
<strong>The</strong> survey and small excavation results indicate a peaceful transition from the
Iron Age II to the Persian Period (Finkelstein et al. 2006: 770). It seems that <strong>Assyrian</strong>
policy towards the area <strong>of</strong> the Jezreel Valley, with its agricultural potential fully
recognized by the imperial rule, was quite lenient. <strong>The</strong> shift in settlement pattern,
from larger sites to smaller rural settlements, indicates that the empire seeked to
harness the economic potential <strong>of</strong> the Jezreel Valley, and saught to increas, oversee
and control its agricultural production. For this reason the rural settlement was left
intact.
<strong>The</strong> remains <strong>of</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule in the city <strong>of</strong> Megiddo suggest the existence <strong>of</strong>
more than one phase. <strong>The</strong> fact that public buildings at Megiddo were spered indicates
that they were used in the new imperial administration. <strong>The</strong> survey suggests that

deportees were not taken from the rural settlement around the city. Thus, if deportees
from this area were taken by Tiglath-pileser III, they must have been taken from the
city sites. Na'aman argued that deportations to areas in Palestine were not conducted
until the days <strong>of</strong> Sargon II (1993: 117). This argument was adopted by Peersmann
who concluded that the well planned city <strong>of</strong> stratum III at Megiddo was constructed
by Sargon II (Peersmann 2000: 533).
<strong>The</strong> accumulated sources <strong>of</strong> data, their analysis, and the use <strong>of</strong> additional source
materials suggest that having already recognized the economic value <strong>of</strong> this area,
Tiglath-pileser III did not devastate the rural settlements by stratiegic design. <strong>The</strong>re
was a need to coordinate <strong>Assyrian</strong> interests in the area in order to pr<strong>of</strong>it from it. Based
on this evidencs it seems logical to assume that in the first stage the Megiddo urban
population remained intact overseen, perhaps by <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials. In the days <strong>of</strong>
Sargon II the well planned city <strong>of</strong> level III at Megiddo was constructed, with its
typical <strong>Assyrian</strong> palace 1369 (Peersmann 2000: 533; Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000:
602). <strong>The</strong> plan <strong>of</strong> stratum III which maximized the domestic area, indicates the need
for additional living space. Peersmann's suggestion regarding the particular concept <strong>of</strong>
social organization that stood behind the city plan is most interesting. If indeed part <strong>of</strong>
the population (or most <strong>of</strong> it) was left by Tiglath-pileser III, perhaps under an the
auspecies <strong>of</strong> an <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial, then when Sargon II intended to take an interest and
invest his efforts in the Jezreel Valley, he had to expand living space in the
administrative centre for newly brought deportees who would share the city <strong>of</strong>
Megiddo with the original inhabitants. This specific city plan perhaps indicates an
intention to integrate all the citizens within the city (Peersmann 2000: 530). Since the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> economy was largely based on the various forms <strong>of</strong> taxes (Oded 1979: 62),
it seems reasonable to postulate that these actions were carried out specifically at

Megiddo in order to reach the full economic capacity <strong>of</strong> this area, taking advantage <strong>of</strong>
the sites's prime location which dominates the Jezreel Valley as well as the main route
through the Aruna Passage (Via Maris) as suggested by Na'aman and Zadok (2000:
181) 24 .
6.3. <strong>The</strong> Area Surrounding Samaria
6.3.1. Samaria under <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>Rule</strong>
Samaria was most likely conquered by Sargon II (see discussion in "Geopolitical
Introduction" Chapter 1, above). Samaria was excavated by two major expeditions.
<strong>The</strong> first is the Harvard University Expedition which excavated the site from 1908 to
1910. Under the direction <strong>of</strong> G. Schumacher, a small scale excavation was conducted,
followed by a more extensive excavation by G. A. Reisner and C. S. Fisher. <strong>The</strong>
second expedition was a joint project comprised <strong>of</strong> five institutions: Harvard
University, the British Palestine Exploration Fund, the British Academy, the British
School <strong>of</strong> Archaeology in Jerusalem and the Hebrew University <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem. This
expedition worked at the site under the direction <strong>of</strong> J. W Crowfoot, during the early
1930's (Avigad 1993: 1302).
<strong>The</strong> archaeological excavations at the site revealed no substantial evidence that
the city was destroyed (Avigad 1993: 1306; Tappy 2007: 275). <strong>The</strong> city's walls most
likely continued in use. Period VII is attributed to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> occupation. Most <strong>of</strong>
the structures associated with <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule were removed by later building activities.
24 According to the survey conducted by Y. Gadot, there is a significant increase in settlement along the
Aruna Passage during the transition phase between Iron Age II and the Persian Period, which does
correspond with Na'aman and Zadok's claim (Gadot 2006: 777-818).

Thus, <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> occupied city there are very few remains, which include a
fragment <strong>of</strong> an <strong>Assyrian</strong> stela attributed to Sargon II, an <strong>Assyrian</strong> style cylinder seal, a
letter to a local governor, as well as <strong>Assyrian</strong> style pottery (Avigad 1993: 1306).
6.3.2. Analysis
According to the archaeological survey conducted in this area by Zertal, during
the Iron Age II 50 sites were settled in the immediate surroundings <strong>of</strong> the city. During
the Persian Period there were 68 occupied sites located around the city. This increase
in settlement numbers corresponds with the increase in settlement numbers which
accrued in the area surrounding the city <strong>of</strong> Megiddo. <strong>The</strong> fact that no distinct evidence
for destruction was found at Samaria also shares likeness to the situation described at
Megiddo prior to the renewed excavations which uncovered such evidence only in a
defined area. Perhaps Samaria, like Megiddo, was selectively destroyed.
Comparing the Iron Age II and the Persian Period settlement patterns reveals that
37 <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age II settlements continue to be occupied during the Persian Periods,
while 11 are abandoned (22%). During the transition, 24 new sites were established (a
35% increase in settlement sites), which were occupied during the Persian Period. <strong>The</strong>
picture that emerges here is one <strong>of</strong> both continuity and change. Most settlements
around Samaria do seem to portray continuity from the Iron Age II to the Persian
Period nonetheless, a number <strong>of</strong> settlements are abandoned during this transition, as
well as new ones established.
Thus the survey results suggest that the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Empire did not depopulate this
area following annexation. Perhaps they recognized here, as they did in the case <strong>of</strong> the
area around Megiddo, the economic agricultural potential <strong>of</strong> this area. However, the
shift in the settlement pattern, which cannot be seen in the area surrounding Megiddo,

does seem to indicate that the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s did deport a percentage <strong>of</strong> the population
from the area surrounding the city <strong>of</strong> Samaria, as well as brining in new inhabitants,
which created new settlement sites. <strong>The</strong> appearance <strong>of</strong> the wedge-shaped decorated
bowl, i.e. the "Cuthaean" bowl, foreign to Palestine, in the assemblages <strong>of</strong> sites in this
area, which Zertal dates to the 7 th and 6 th centuries BCE, provides additional evidence
for the arrival <strong>of</strong> deportees to this area (Zertal 1989: 77-84).
<strong>The</strong> question that arises is why was Samaria and its surrounding areas, treated
differently than Megiddo? Provided it was Sargon who brought deportees to both
cities, why was he not satisfied with bringing deportees to the city <strong>of</strong> Samaria alone,
in other words, why did he not feel it necessary to do so also in the rural areas <strong>of</strong> the
Jezreel Valley? Perhaps an answer can be found in an additional intent. Oded (1979:
41-74) suggested that <strong>Assyrian</strong> deportations were carried out according to certain
aims and objectives. He discusses a number <strong>of</strong> aims and objectives, one <strong>of</strong> which was
related to the tendency <strong>of</strong> deported minority groups to be loyal to the empire (Oded
1979: 46-48). In light <strong>of</strong> the above, this research, in its collation <strong>of</strong> data and sources,
suggests that there were logical reasons behind <strong>Assyrian</strong> actions toward the area
surrounding the city <strong>of</strong> Samaria. Samaria had been a center <strong>of</strong> resistance and revolt
against the <strong>Assyrian</strong> empire since the latter's initial attempts to rule the area (see
"Geopolitical Introduction" Chapter 1, above). In order to subdue this centre <strong>of</strong>
resistance, extreme measures were necessary which can not only be seen in the
deportation <strong>of</strong> people from this area, but also in the settling <strong>of</strong> deportees from other
parts <strong>of</strong> the empire in and around the city. <strong>The</strong>se newcomers were loyal to the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> Empire and their presence was expected to solidify impyreal rule.

7. Summary and Conclusions
This research set out to collate, analyze through the comparitive method, and
draw conclusions regarding the shifts in settlement patterns in the rural areas <strong>of</strong> the
formore Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel anaxed by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Empire. Using archaeological
surveys and excavations, historical records, and the biblical text as a contextual
reference, new understandings and insights have come to light.
<strong>The</strong> impact <strong>of</strong> ruling empires on the areas under their direct control can be
reflected in the archaeological data in various ways. In periods <strong>of</strong> external rule,
especially by a large imperial force, archaeological research tends to focus on the
large sites which usually portray more distinct signs <strong>of</strong> impact. However, the rural
areas too can provide much insight as to issues like the meeting point between
independent kingdoms and imperial provinces and their workings. <strong>The</strong> aims and
objectives <strong>of</strong> an empire, can as well be gleaned providing additional data for analysis
from a different point <strong>of</strong> view. In this study, the impact on the settlement dynamics
with an emphasis on the rural countryside was explored in the hopes <strong>of</strong> shedding
additional light on these issues. For this study, the <strong>Assyrian</strong> provinces established in
the territory <strong>of</strong> former Israelite Kingdom in various geographical areas were explored.
<strong>The</strong> data collected and explored here regarding the specific areas <strong>of</strong> this study
suggests that <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule impacted different geographical areas differently. <strong>The</strong>
coastal plain was not affected by <strong>Assyrian</strong> rule and according to the excavated sites,
the increase in rural settlements occurred only during the Persian Period. This
suggests that the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s were not interested in the agricultural potential <strong>of</strong> this strip
<strong>of</strong> land, but rather in its maritime, commercial, and economic potential in
international trade.

According to the data presented above, the agricultural potential <strong>of</strong> this area was
only recognized by the Phoenician King Eshmun'azar during the Persian Period.
However, it seems that the growth in rural settlements which occurred during the
Persian Period, was initiated, only if in part by imperial rule, and thus there was an
indirect affect <strong>of</strong> imperial impact on the rural countryside.
This point is also relevant when dealing with the immediate surroundings <strong>of</strong> the
city. It seems that Dor differs in this sense from the other province capitals <strong>of</strong>
Megiddo and Samaria. This could provide additional support to the claim that the
coastal plain was not an independent <strong>Assyrian</strong> province. However, there is no doubt
as to its importance during this period. Perhaps we should therefor accept Gilboa and
Sharon's argument regarding Dor's position and status as an <strong>Assyrian</strong> karu (Gilboa
and Sharon 2008).
<strong>The</strong> province <strong>of</strong> Megiddo, which derived from three geographical units, does not
portray unity. Each area was treated differently by the empire. <strong>The</strong> data suggests that
the settlement pattern in Upper Galilee shifted and became concentrated in the
western and eastern areas, leaving the central part relatively desolate. This settlement
shift to the east may then be attributed to the to the <strong>Assyrian</strong> administrative centers
established at Hazor and Ayyelet ha-Shahar, most likely in order to secure the main
route, which avoided the higher elevations <strong>of</strong> central Upper Galilee and passed on the
edge <strong>of</strong> the great rift.
In Lower Galilee, data suggest that the <strong>Assyrian</strong> impact was felt by an
abandonment <strong>of</strong> around 40% <strong>of</strong> the Iron Age II settlement sites. <strong>The</strong> only increase in
settlement sites occurs in the southern part, which borders on the Jezreel Valley. It
therefor could be suggested that a number <strong>of</strong> factors were calculated into this
<strong>Assyrian</strong> action. <strong>The</strong>se could include the limited <strong>Assyrian</strong> economic interest in this

area, as well as the timing chronology <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong> takeover <strong>of</strong> Galilee which was
one <strong>of</strong> the later events that took place during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign. Perhaps
then the deportees were taken as the <strong>Assyrian</strong> forces returned to Assyria. Finally, and
perhaps most compelling, is the posibility that depopulation <strong>of</strong> the Galilee was the
result <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> the 'buffer zone' strategy between the areas formally belonging to
the Kingdoms <strong>of</strong> Aram-Damascus and Israel.
In sharp contrast, data from the Jezreel Valley reflaects continuity and growth in
terms <strong>of</strong> settlement sites. <strong>The</strong> shift to small rural sites indicates that the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
empire recognized the agricultural potential <strong>of</strong> the fertile soil in the area. It seems that
the choice to locate the <strong>Assyrian</strong> provincial capital at Megiddo ensured the empire's
control <strong>of</strong> this resource, and seems to shed light on <strong>Assyrian</strong> objectives.
Survey data suggests that deportees were not taken from the rural settlements
surrounding Megiddo, indicating a peaceful transition. Relaying on Na'aman's
argument that deportees were not reintroduced into Palestine before the reign <strong>of</strong>
Sargon II (1993: 117), and Peersmann's conclusion that the well planned city <strong>of</strong>
stratum III at Megiddo was constructed by Sargon II, thus it might be suggested that,
Tiglath-plieser III did not devastate the rural settlements having already recognized
the economic value <strong>of</strong> this area. He established the administration <strong>of</strong> the area at
Megiddo, most likely posting <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials and using the existing public
buildings, but not removing the original population <strong>of</strong> the city. During the reign <strong>of</strong>
Sargon II, the well planned city <strong>of</strong> stratum III was built with a typical <strong>Assyrian</strong> palace
suggesting that his plan may have been to integrate newly settled deportees with the
already existing inhabitance <strong>of</strong> Megiddo. This possibility is supported by increase in
the number <strong>of</strong> rural settlements reflected in the surveys and since <strong>Assyrian</strong> economy
was largely based on the taxes it received (Oded 1979: 62). It seems therefor

easonable to surmize that this was carried out specifically at Megiddo in order to take
advantage <strong>of</strong> Megiddo's prime location dominating the Jezreel Valley and the main
route through the Aruna passage (via Maris) and to reach full economic capacity.
<strong>The</strong> Samarian Hills were annexed to Assyria later than the other parts <strong>of</strong> the
Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Israel. <strong>The</strong> data from this area reflects a varity <strong>of</strong> shifts and changes in
settlement pattern during the transition phase. Some areas were severely impacted by
the <strong>Assyrian</strong> assault and this was the case in the eastern valleys and the fringe <strong>of</strong> the
desert, where 80% <strong>of</strong> the sites were lost during the transition. Even the fertile lands <strong>of</strong>
Nahal Tirtza were almost compeletely depopulated, the reason for wich may lie in the
imperial desire to isolate the annexed areas from the vassal kingdoms <strong>of</strong> Trans-
Jordan, not unlike their stratigy in the Galilee. <strong>The</strong> area that stretches from Nahal
Bezeq to the Sartaba suffered a similar fate, excluding some continuity which
characterized the area located south <strong>of</strong> the Beith-Shean Valley, and which could be
attributed to the fertile land <strong>of</strong> the valley. <strong>The</strong> data reflects that in southern Samaria a
significant, yet less drastic decline can be seen. <strong>The</strong>re is a noteworthy loss <strong>of</strong> large
settlements during the transition phase from the Iron Age II to the Persian Period, and
it seems that during the Persian Period a natural, gradual growth occurred, without the
empire's active involvement.
An increase in settlements can be seen in the area surrounding the city <strong>of</strong>
Samaria Characterized by a shift in a number <strong>of</strong> settlement sites which were
abandoned and new ones which were established. This shift in settlement pattern,
when combined with the appearance <strong>of</strong> the "Cuthaean" bowl, foreign to Palestine in
this area, indicates that deportees were most likely settled in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> Samaria.
This differs from the situation at Megiddo, which seems to have had newcomers settle
only in the city. At Samaria it seems that deportees were settled around the city as

well. This dissimilarity raises the question <strong>of</strong> why was this area treated differently.
Based on their stratigy in other areas and the archaeological evidence, it could be
suggested that the <strong>Assyrian</strong> intent was to make certain this area ceased to be a
problem for the empire. Using this strategy the <strong>Assyrian</strong>s hoped to solidify their rule
over this centre <strong>of</strong> resistance.
Scholars have argued that this difference regarding the settlement patterns in
various areas should be attributed to the different policies regarding deportations held
by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Kings (Na'aman 1993: 104-124; Younger 1998: 201-227). Although
that may well be an important factor, this study suggests that an alternative approach
may <strong>of</strong>fer new understandings. During the course <strong>of</strong> this research it has became
apparent that some geographical areas were treated in a very different way than
others. Perhaps only in the days <strong>of</strong> Sargon II deportees were brought to Palestine,
however, the specific areas in which they were settled, were chosen for a variety <strong>of</strong>
reasons, which eflect strategic aims and objectives rather than monarchal change
alone. From the data and analysis undertaken in this study it is evident that actions
taken by the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Empire followed a thought process and reflect long term goals,
whose implications for the countryside were devastating in some cases yet were not
carried out arbitrarily.

References
* Aharoni, Y. 1987. Eretz Israel in Biblical Times. Jerusalem. (Hebrew).
* Alexandre, Y. 2008. Karm er-Ras
(Area M). HA-ESI
120. www.hadashot-
esi.org.il.
* Alt, A. 1929. Das System der Assyrischen Provizen auf dem Boden des Reiches
Israel. ZDPV 52: 220- 242.
* Alt, A. 1938. Die Assyrische Provinz Megiddo und ihr Spaters Schicksal.
Palaestina Jahrbuch 34: 80- 93.
* Avigad, N. 1993. Samaria (City). In: Stern, E. (ed.). <strong>The</strong> New Encyclopedia <strong>of</strong>
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 4. Jerusalem. Pp. 1300-1310.
* Avishur, Y. 2000. Phoenician Inscriptions and the Bible. Tel Aviv-Jaffa.
* Avi-Yonah, M. 1977. <strong>The</strong> Holy Land, from the Persian to the Arab Conquests, 536
BC to 640 AD: a Historical Geography. Grand Rapids.
* Banning, E. B. 2002. Archaeological Survey. New York.
* Becking, B. 1992. <strong>The</strong> Fall <strong>of</strong> Samaria: an Historical and Archaeological Study.
Leiden.
* Ben-Tor, A., Bonfil, R. and Zukerman, S. 2003. Tel Qashish: AVillage in the
Jezreel Valley. (Qedem Reports 5) Jerusalem.

* Ben-Tor, A. and Portugali, Y. 1987. Tell Qiri: A Village in the Jezreel Valley.
(Qedem 24) Jerusalem.
* Briant, P. 2002. From Cyrus to Alexander: a History <strong>of</strong> the Persian Empire.
Winona Lake.
* Broshi, M. 1969. Tel Megadim – A Phoenician City and Roman-Byzantine Road
Station. Qadmoniot 8: 124-126. (Hebrew)
* Cogan, M. and Tadmor, H. 1988. II Kings: A New Translation. <strong>The</strong> Anchor Bible
vol. 11. Garden City.
* Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G. M. and Kenyon, M. K. 1957. <strong>The</strong> Objects from
Samaria. London.
* Crowfoot, J. W., Kenyon, K. M. and Sukenik, E. L. 1966. <strong>The</strong> Buildings at
Samaria. London.
* Dar, S., Safrai, Z. and Tepper, Y. 1986. Um Rihan: A Village <strong>of</strong> the Mishnah. Tel-
Aviv. (Hebrew)
* Dorsey, D. A. 1991. <strong>The</strong> Roads and Highways <strong>of</strong> Ancient Israel. Baltimore and
London.
* Driver, G. R. 1958. Geographical Problems. EI 5: 16*-20*.
* Dubovsky, P. 2006. Tiglath-pileser III's Campaigns in 734-732 B.C. Biblica 87:
153- 170.
* Efrat, E. 1993. <strong>The</strong> Land <strong>of</strong> Israel: Physical, Settlement and Regional Geography.
Tel-Aviv. (Hebrew)

Ehrlich, C.S. 1996. <strong>The</strong> Philistines in Transition. A History from ca. 1000-730 B.C.E.
New York.
* Elayi, J. 2008. On Dating the Reigns <strong>of</strong> the Phoenician Kings in the Persian
Period. In: Sagona, C. (ed.) Beyond the Homeland: Markers in Phoenician
Chronology. (Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 28). Paris: 97-112.
* Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shilstein, S., Raban-Gerstel, N., Goren, Y., Gilboa, A., Sharon,
I. and Weiner, S. 2008. An Integrated Approach to Reconstructing Primary Activities
from Pit Deposits: Iron Smithing and Other Activities at Tel Dor (Israel) under Neo-
<strong>Assyrian</strong> Domination. Journal <strong>of</strong> archaeological Science 35: 2895-2908.
* Fales, F.M. and Postgate, J.N. 1995. Imperial Administrative Records, Part II,
Provincial and Military Administration. State Archives <strong>of</strong> Assyria XI. Helsinki.
* Finkelstein, I., Bunimoviz, S. and Lederman, Z. 1993. Shiloh: <strong>The</strong> Archaeology <strong>of</strong>
a Biblical Site. Tel Aviv.
* Finkelstein, I. and Lederman, Z. 1997. Highlands <strong>of</strong> Many Cultures. Tel Aviv.
* Finkelstein, I. and Ussishkin, D. 2000. Archaeological and Historical Conclusions.
In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halperin, B. (eds.). Megiddo III: <strong>The</strong> 1992-1996
Seasons. Vol. II. Tel Aviv. Pp. 576-605.
* Finkelstein, I., Halperin, B., Lehmann, G. and Niemann, H.M. 2006. <strong>The</strong> Megiddo
Hinterland Project. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halperin, B. (eds.) Megiddo
IV: <strong>The</strong> 1998- 2002 Seasons, vol. II. Tel Aviv: 705- 776.
* Forrer, E. 1920. Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrische Reiches. Leipzig.

* Frankel, R., Getzov, N., Aviam, M. and Degani, A. 2001. Settlement Dynamics
and Regional Diversity in Ancient Upper Galilee. Archaeological Survey <strong>of</strong> Upper
Galilee. IAA Reports 14. Jerusalem.
* Gadot, Y. 2006. Magiddo and the International Road: <strong>The</strong> Nahal 'Iron (Wadi 'Ara)
Survey. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halperin, B. (eds.). Megiddo IV: <strong>The</strong>
1998-2002 Seasons. Tel Aviv.
* Gadd, C. J. 1954. Inscribed Prisms <strong>of</strong> Sargon II from Nimrud. Iraq 16: 173-201.
* Gal, Z. 1991: Map <strong>of</strong> Gazit. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
* Gal, Z. 1992. Lower Galilee During the Iron Age. Dissertation Series (American
Schools <strong>of</strong> Oriental Research) no. 8. Winona Lake.
* Gal, Z. 1998a. Map <strong>of</strong> Har Tavor, Map <strong>of</strong> 'En Dor. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
* Gal, Z. 1998b. Israel in Exile. BAR 24, 3: 48-53.
* Gal, Z. and Alexandre, Y. 2000. Horbat Rosh Zayit: An Iron Age Storage Fort and
Village. (IAA Reports 8). Jerusalem.
* Galil, G. 2001. Israel and Assyria. Hifa. (Hebrew)
* Galling, K. 1963. Eshmunazor und der Herr der Konige. ZDPV 79: 140-151.
* Gilboa, A. 1996. <strong>Assyrian</strong>-type Pottery at Dor and the Status <strong>of</strong> the Town during
the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Occupation Period. EI 25: 122-135. (Hebrew)
* Gilboa, A. and Sharon, I. 2008. Between the Carmel and the Sea – Tel Dor's Iron
Age Reconsidered. NEA 71, 3: 146-170.

* Gophna, R. and Ayalon, E. 1998. Map <strong>of</strong> Herzliyya. Jerusalem.
* Gray, J. 1970. I&II Kings. Old Testament Library. London.
* Grayson, A. K. 1991. Assyria 668-635 B.C.: <strong>The</strong> Reign <strong>of</strong> Assurbanipal. In:
Boardman, J. A. (ed.). <strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> and Babylonian Empires and Other States <strong>of</strong> the
Near East, from the Eighth to the Sixth Centuries B.C. 2 nd ed. Cambridge. Pp. 144-
161.
* Grayson, A.K. 2000. <strong>Assyrian</strong> and Babylonian Chronicles. Winona Lake.
* Greenfeld, U. and Peleg, Y. 2009. Early Bronze Age II and Iron Age IIB Remains
at Maskiyot. Excavations and Discoveries in Samaria. Judea and Samaria
Publications vol. 9. Jerusalem.
* Guy, P.L.O. 1957. Ayyelet ha-Shahar. BDASI 5- 6: 19- 20. (Hebrew).
* Haggi, A. 2006. Phoenician Atlit and its Newly-Excavated Harbor: A
Reassessment. Tel Aviv 33: 43-60.
* Hlaperin, B. 2000. Centre and Sentry: Megiddo's Role in Transit, Administration
and Trade. In: Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halperin, B. (eds.). Megiddo III: <strong>The</strong>
1992-1996 Seasons. Vol. II. Tel Aviv. Pp. 535-575.
* Herzog, Z., Rapp, G. Jr. and Muhly, J.D. 1989. Introduction. In: Herzog et al.
(eds.) Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Minneapolis: 3-9.
* Herzog, Z. 1989. Persian period Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata
XI-VI). In: Herzog et al. (eds.) Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel.
Minneapolis. 88-114.

* Hopkins, D. C. 1985. <strong>The</strong> Highlands <strong>of</strong> Canaan: Agricultural Life in the Early
Iron Age. Sheffield.
* Irvine, S. A. 1990. Isaiah, Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitic Crisis. Dissertation
Series Society <strong>of</strong> Biblical Literature 123. Atlanta.
* Jirku, A. 1928. Der angebliche assyrische Bezirk Gile'ad. ZDPV 51: 249-253.
* Joannes, F. 2004. <strong>The</strong> Age <strong>of</strong> Empires. Edinburgh.
* J<strong>of</strong>fe, A. H., Cline, E. H. and Lipschitz, O. 2000. Area H. In: Finkelstein, I.,
Ussishkin, D. and Halperin, B. (eds.). Megiddo III: <strong>The</strong> 1992-1996 Seasons. Vol. I.
Tel Aviv. Pp. 140-160.
* Kletter, R. and Zwickel, W. 2006. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> Building <strong>of</strong> 'Ayyelet ha-Sahar.
ZDPV 122, 2: 151- 186.
* Kuan, J. K. 2001. Samsi-Ilu and the Real Politik <strong>of</strong> Israel and Aram-Damascus in
the Eighth Century BCE. In: Dreaman, J. A. and Graham, M. P. <strong>The</strong> Land that I Will
Show You. Essays on the History and Archaeology <strong>of</strong> the Ancient Near East in Honor
<strong>of</strong> J. Maxwell Miller. Pp. 135-151.
* Kuhrt, A. 1995. <strong>The</strong> Ancient Near East, c. 3000-330 BC. London.
* Kuhrt, A. 2007. <strong>The</strong> Persian Empire. vol. I. London and New York.
* Lamon, R. S. and Shipton, G. M. 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons <strong>of</strong> 1925-34: Strata I-V.
Chicago.
* Lemche, N. P. 1995. <strong>The</strong> History <strong>of</strong> Ancient Syria and Palestine: An Overview. In:
Sasson, J.M. (ed.). Civilizations <strong>of</strong> the Ancient Near East, vol. II. New York.

* Lipinski, E. 2000. <strong>The</strong> Aramaens <strong>The</strong>ir Ancient History, Culture, Religion.
Leuven.
* Lipschitz, O. 1990. <strong>The</strong> Date <strong>of</strong> the "<strong>Assyrian</strong> Residence at Ayyelet ha-Shahar.
Tel Aviv 17: 96- 99.
* Lipschits, O. 2005. <strong>The</strong> Fall and Rise <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem. Winona Lake.
* Lipschits, O. 2006. Achaemend Imperial Policy, settlement Processes in Palestine,
and the Status <strong>of</strong> Jerusalem in the Middle <strong>of</strong> the Fifth Century BCE. In: Lipschits, O.
and Oeming, M. (eds.) Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake.
Pp. 19-52.
* Maisler, B. 1952. Archaeology in the State <strong>of</strong> Israel. BA 15: 18- 24.
* Mazar, A. 1990. Archaeology <strong>of</strong> the Land <strong>of</strong> the Bible: 10,000-586 BCE. New
York.
* Meyers, E. M. 1990. Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue <strong>of</strong> Gush Halav. Meiron
Excavation Project vol. V. Winona Lake.
* Miller, J. M. and Hayes, J. H. 2006. A History <strong>of</strong> Ancient Israel and Judah. 2 nd ed.
London.
* Moshkovitz, S. 1989. Iron Age Stratigraphy and Architecture (Strata
XIV-XII). In: Herzog et al. (eds.) Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel.
Minneapolis: 64-72.
* Na'aman, N. 1990. <strong>The</strong> Historical Background to the Conquest <strong>of</strong>
Samaria (720 BC). Biblica 71: 206-225.

* Na'aman, N. 1991a. Forced Participation in Alliances in the Course <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Assyrian</strong>
Campaigns to the West. In: Cogan, M. and Eph'al, I. (eds.). Ah, Assyria… Studies in
<strong>Assyrian</strong> History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim
Tadmor. (Scripta Hierosolymitana 33). Jerusalem. Pp. 80-98.
* Na'aman, N. 1991b. <strong>The</strong> Kingdom <strong>of</strong> Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3- 71.
* Na'aman, N. 1993. Population Changes in Palestine Following <strong>Assyrian</strong>
Deportations. Tel Aviv 20: 104-124.
* Na'aman, N. 1995a. Province System and Settlement Pattern in
Southern Syria and Palestine in the Neo-<strong>Assyrian</strong> Period. In: Liverani, M.
(ed.) Neo-<strong>Assyrian</strong> Geography. Quaderni di Geografici Storica 5. Rome:
103-115.
* Na'aman, N. 1995b. Tiglath-Pileser III's Campaigns against Tyre and
Israel (734-732 BCE). Tel Aviv 22: 268-278.
* Na'aman, N. 1995c. Rezin <strong>of</strong> Damascus and the Land <strong>of</strong> Gilead. ZDPV
111: 105-117.
* Na'aman, N. 1999. <strong>The</strong> Contribution <strong>of</strong> Royal Inscriptions for a Re-Evaluation <strong>of</strong>
the Book <strong>of</strong> Kings as a Historical Source. JSOT 82: 3-17.
* Na'aman, N. 2001. Solomon's District List (1 Kings 4: 7-19) and the
<strong>Assyrian</strong> Province System in Palestine. Ugarit-Forschungen 33: 419-436.
* Na'aman, N. 2003. Ekron under the <strong>Assyrian</strong> and Egyptian Empires.
BASOR 332: 81- 91.

* Na'aman, N. 2009. Was Dor the Capital <strong>of</strong> an <strong>Assyrian</strong> Province? Tel Aviv 36: 95-
109.
* Na'aman, N. and Zadok, R. 1988. Sargon II's Deportations to Israel and
Philistia (716-708 BCE). JCS 40: 36-46.
* Na'aman, N. and Zadok, R. 2000. <strong>Assyrian</strong> Deportations to the Province
<strong>of</strong> Samaria in Light <strong>of</strong> Two Cuneiform Tablets from Tel Hadid. Tel Aviv 27:
159-188.
* Ne'eman, Y., Sender, S. and Oren, E. 2000. Map <strong>of</strong> Mokhmoret, Map <strong>of</strong> Hadera.
Jerusalem.
* Nir, D. 1970. Geomorphology <strong>of</strong> Israel. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
* Oded, B. 1972. <strong>The</strong> Historical Background <strong>of</strong> the Syro-Ephraimite War
Reconsidered. CBQ 34: 153- 165.
* Oded, B. 1979. Mass Deportations and Deportees in the Neo-<strong>Assyrian</strong>
Empire. Wiesbaden.
* Oded, B. 1984. <strong>The</strong> Kingdoms <strong>of</strong> Israel and Judah. In: Ephal, I. <strong>The</strong> History <strong>of</strong>
Eretz Israel: Israel and Judah in the Biblical Period. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
* Olami, Y., Sender, S. and Oren, E. 2005a. Map <strong>of</strong> Dor. Jerusalem.
* Olami, Y., Sender, S. and Oren, E. 2005b. Map <strong>of</strong> Binyamina. Jerusalem.
* Olami, Y. and Gal, Z. 2003. Map <strong>of</strong> Shefar'am. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
* Oppenheim, A. L. 1979. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait <strong>of</strong> a Dead Civilization. 2 nd
rev. ed., completed by Reiner, E. Chicago.

* Orni, E. and Efrat, E.1971. Geography <strong>of</strong> Israel. 3 rd ed. Jerusalem.
* Parker, B. J. 1997. Garrisoning the Empire: Aspects <strong>of</strong> the Construction
and Maintenance <strong>of</strong> Forts on the <strong>Assyrian</strong> Frontier. Iraq 59: 77-87.
* Parker, S. T. 1997. Transjordan in the Persian through Roman Periods. In: Meyers,
E. M. (ed.). <strong>The</strong> Oxford Encyclopedia <strong>of</strong> Archaeology in the Near East. Oxford. vol.
5: 235-238.
* Parker, B. J. 2001. <strong>The</strong> Mechanics <strong>of</strong> Empire: <strong>The</strong> Northern Frontier <strong>of</strong> Assyria as
a Case Study in Imperial Dynamics. Helsinki.
* Parpola, S. 1987. <strong>The</strong> correspondence <strong>of</strong> Sargon II, Part I: Letters from Assyria
and the West. State Archives <strong>of</strong> Assyria. vol. I. Helsinki.
* Peersmann, J. 2000. <strong>Assyrian</strong> Magiddu: <strong>The</strong> Town Planning <strong>of</strong> Stratum III. In:
Finkelstein, I., Ussishkin, D. and Halperin, B. (eds.). Megiddo III: <strong>The</strong> 1992-1996
Seasons. Vol. II. Tel Aviv. Pp. 524-534.
* Pitard, W. T. 1987. Ancient Damascus. Winona Lake.
* Raban, A. 1995. Dor-Yam: Maritime and Coastal Installations at Dor in their
Geomorphological and Stratigraphic Context. In: Stern, E. (ed.) Excavations at Dor,
Final Report. Vol 1 (Qedem Reports 1) Jerusalem: 285-354.
* Raban, A. 1996. <strong>The</strong> Phoenician Harbor and "Fishing village at 'Atlit. EI 25: 490-
508. (Hebrew)
* Radan, G. 1981. <strong>Assyrian</strong> Helmet Found Off the Coast <strong>of</strong> Atlit. Sefunim 6: 49-57.

* Rainey, A. F. 1981. Toponymic Problems (cont.): <strong>The</strong> Way <strong>of</strong> the Sea. Tel Aviv 8:
146-148.
* Rainey, A. F. 1989. <strong>The</strong> Sharon Coastal Plain: Historical Geography. In: Herzog et
al. (eds.) Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel. Minneapolis: 10-15.
* Redford, D.B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton.
* Reich, R. 1975. <strong>The</strong> Persian Building at Ayyelet ha-Shahar: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong> Palace
<strong>of</strong> Hazor? IEJ 25: 233- 237.
* Reich, R. forthcoming. <strong>The</strong> Origin and Date <strong>of</strong> the Building at Ayyelet ha-Shahar
and Building 3002 (Area B) at Hazor. EI 30. (Hebrew)
* Reich, R. and Brandl, B. 1985. Gezer Under <strong>Assyrian</strong> <strong>Rule</strong>. PEQ 117: 41-54.
* Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P. 2004. Archaeology: <strong>The</strong>ories, Methods and Practice. 4 th
ed. London.
* Ronen, A. and Olami, Y. 1978. 'Atlit Map. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
* Shalev, Y. 2009. Tel Dor and the Urbanization <strong>of</strong> the Coastal Plain <strong>of</strong> Israel during
the Persian Period. EI 29: 363-371.
* Stepansky, Y., Segal, D. and Carmi, I. 1996. <strong>The</strong> 1993 Sounding at Tel Sasa:
Excavation Report and Radiometric Dating. 'Atiqot 28: 63-76.
* Stern, E. 1973. <strong>The</strong> Material Culture <strong>of</strong> the Land <strong>of</strong> the Bible in the Persian Period
(583 – 332 B.C.E.). Jerusalem. (Hebrew)
* Stern, E. 1982. Material Culture <strong>of</strong> the Land <strong>of</strong> the Bible in the Persian Period
(538- 332 B.C.). Warminster.

* Stern, E. 1990. Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time <strong>of</strong> Ahab and under <strong>Assyrian</strong>
<strong>Rule</strong>. IEJ 40: 12-30.
* Stern, E. 1995. Excavations at Dor, Final Report. vol. I (Qedem Reports 1).
Jerusalem.
* Stern, E. 2000. Dor, <strong>Rule</strong>r <strong>of</strong> the Seas: Nineteen Years <strong>of</strong> Excavations at the
Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Carmel Coast (revised and expanded
edition) Jerusalem.
* Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology <strong>of</strong> the Land <strong>of</strong> the Bible. Vol. II: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Assyrian</strong>,
Babylonian and Persian Periods 732- 332 BCE. New York.
* Tadmor, H. 1958. <strong>The</strong> Campaigns <strong>of</strong> Sargon II <strong>of</strong> Assur. JCS 12: 33-40.
* Tadmor, H. 1979. <strong>The</strong> Chronology <strong>of</strong> the First Temple Period. In: Malamat, A.
(ed.) <strong>The</strong> World History <strong>of</strong> the Jewish People IV. <strong>The</strong> Age <strong>of</strong> the Monarchies:
Political History. Jerusalem: 44- 60.
* Tadmor, H. 1994. <strong>The</strong> Inscriptions <strong>of</strong> Tiglath-Pileser III King <strong>of</strong> Assyria.
Jerusalem.
* Tal, O. 1999. <strong>The</strong> Persian Period. In: Roll, I. and Tal, O. (eds.) Apollonia-Arsuf:
Final Report <strong>of</strong> the Excavations. Tel Aviv: 83-222.
* Tappy, R. E. 2007. <strong>The</strong> Final Years <strong>of</strong> Israelite Samaria: Toward a Dialogue
between Texts and Archaeology. In: Crawford, S. W. (ed.). "Up to the Gates <strong>of</strong>
Ekron": Essays on the Archaeology and History <strong>of</strong> the Eastern Mediterranean in
Honor <strong>of</strong> Seymour Gittin. Jerusalem. Pp. 258-279.

* Torrey, C. C. 1903. Additional Notes on the Bod-'aštart inscriptions. JAOS 24:
211-218.
* Vanderho<strong>of</strong>t, D. 2003. Babylonian Strategies <strong>of</strong> Imperial Control in the West:
Royal Practice and Rhetoric. In: Lipschits, O. and Blenkinsopp, J. (eds.) Judah and
the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period. Winona Lake. Pp. 235-262.
* Vanderho<strong>of</strong>t, D. 2006. Cyrus II, Liberator or Conqueror? Ancient Historiography
Concerning Cyrus in Babylon. In: Lipschits, O. and Oeming, M. (eds.) Judah and the
Judeans in the Persian Period. Winona Lake. Pp. 351-372.
* Wolff, S. 2008. Megadim, Tel. In: Stern, E. (ed.) <strong>The</strong> New Encyclopedia <strong>of</strong>
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. Vol. 5 (Supplementary Volume).
Jerusalem: 1942-1944.
* Younger, K. L. 1998. <strong>The</strong> Deportations <strong>of</strong> the Israelites. JBL 177: 201-227.
* Zadok, R. 1976. Geographical and Onomastic Notes. JANES 8: 113-126.
* Zertal, A. 1989. <strong>The</strong> Wedge-Shaped Decorated Bowl and the Origin <strong>of</strong> the
Samaritans. BASOR 276: 77-84.
* Zertal, A. 1992. <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey: <strong>The</strong> Shechem Syncline. Hifa.
(Hebrew)
* Zertal, A. 1996. <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey: <strong>The</strong> Eastern Valleys and the
Fringes <strong>of</strong> the Dessert. Hifa. (Hebrew)
* Zertal, A. and Mirkam, N. 2000. <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey: From Nahal
'Iron to Nahal Shechem. Hifa. (Hebrew)

* Zertal, A. 2005. <strong>The</strong> Manasseh Hill Country Survey: From Nahal Bezeq to the
Sartaba. Hifa. (Hebrew)
* Zori, N. 1977. <strong>The</strong> Land <strong>of</strong> Issachar Archaeological Survey. Jerusalem. (Hebrew)

ביבא לת תטיסרבינוא
חורה יעדמל הטלוקפה
םודקה חרזמה תויוברתו היגולואיכראל גוחה
לארשי ץרא ןופצבש תווחפב ירפכה בחרמה לע ירושאה ןוטלשה תעפשה
ילאירפמיא ןוטלש תחת בושיה תשורפתב תודונת
'הטיסרבינוא
ךמסומ'
תאמ
זר ןרק
ראותל רמג תדובע
ןייטשלקניפ לארשי 'פורפ
תייחנהב
א"
עשת ןושח

ריצקת
לש םיימואלניבה םיסחיב הנפמ תדוקנ התוויה רושאב הכולמה סכל
ב
'ג-ה
רסאלפ-תלגת
לש ותיילע
תובר תוכלממ רובע תוכיפה יתלב תואצות ויה הז ךלמ הוותהש , תירושאה תוינידמב יונישל . הירפמיאה
תא עינכהל קר ושקיב םיירושאה םיכלמה
נ"
הספל
745
תנש דעש הארנ
. הירפמיאה םע עגמב ואבש
. תוירושאה תורטמה ונתשה ,'ג-ה
רסאלפ-תלגת
לש ותיילע םע , תאז םע . םביבסש תויאמצעה תוכלממה
התביבסב תויאמצעה תוכלממה לש ןלוטיב ךות , רושא תולובג תא שדחמ רידגהלו ביחרהל חילצה הז ךלמ
.( Tadmor 1994: 9-10)
םודקה חרזמב שדח רדס תיינקהו רושא לש
, תינופצה לארשי תכלממל םיכייש ויהש םירוזאב בושיה תשורפתב ולחש תורומתב תקסוע וז הדובע
, תווחפ שולש הארנה לככ ומק ולא םיחטשב
. 'ב-ה
ןוגרסו 'ג-ה
רסאלפ-תלגת
ימיב רושאל וחפוס רשא
תועגונה תונקסמ קיסהל תנמ לע , ירפכה בושיה םגדב ולחש םייונישה רחא תוקחתהל תשקבמ וז הדובעו
רשאכ
. םינותנ םירוזאב םיילאירפמיאה םידעיבו תירפכ היסולכוא לע ילאירפמיא ןוטלש תעפשהב
רקסה אוה רתויב בוטה יגולואיכראה ילכה
ולא
םירקחמ
, םינווגמו םיבחרנ םייפרגואיג םירוזאב ןודל םישקבמ
, םהלש היצולוזרהו םישגדה תניחבמ םינווגמ םינושה םירקסהש תורמל
. יגולואיכראה
. תויבושיי תודונת רוזחשל תובר םורתל םילוכי
תואמ שולשכ הכשמנש וז הפוקת . םייניב בלש אלל הרדגוה 'ב
לזרבה תפוקת רקסה תודובע בורב
שולש לש הרישי העפשה תחת םג ומכ תיאמצע הכלממ קלח ויה םירוזאה הכלהמבו
, הנש םישימחו
היה רוזאה םהבש , הנש םייתאמכ הכשמנ תיסרפה הפוקתה
. תילבבהו תירצמה , תירושאה : תורז תויושי
דימ בושיה םגדב ולחש תורומתה תא דדובל ךרד ןיא , ןכא . דיחי ןוטלש לש תילאירפמיא העפשה תחת
ועבק רשא תילהנמה תכרעמהש ןובשחב חקינ םא ךא . דבלב םירקסה תרזעב םיירושאה תועסמה רחאל
יוניש תורמל יוניש אלל הבורב הרתונו תואבה תוירפמיאה
ידי לע הצמוא תווחפה תא םסוסיבב םירושאה
ןוטלש תחת לארשי ץרא ןופצב בושיה ימגדב ולחש תורומתל עגונב תונקסמ קיסהל לכונ , טלושה חוכה
ומייקתהש
ולאל
.( Lipschits 2005: 36, 48-49)
רז ילאירפמיא
'ב
לזרבה תפוקתב ומייקתהש בושיה ימגד תא תוושהל תרשפאמ וז אצומ תדוקנ
לאכ תיסרפה הפוקתלו ךילהת לש ותליחתכ
'ב
לזרבה תפוקתל תסחייתמ וז האוושה . תיסרפה הפוקתב

בצמ תנומת לבקתתש הנעטה תאלעה ךות תיתייעב בשחיהל הלולע וז הדובע תטיש
ג
, תאז םע
. ופוס
בורב הלעמ תוריפח לש ןהיתואצות םע םירקסה ןמ תלבקתמה הנומתה תומיעש ןייצל בושח ךא . תתוועמ
. םירקסה ימוכיסב , ןכומכ םיינטרפ םירקחמב ושענ תומוד תואוושה . המוד הנומתהש םירקמה
( ףוחה תעוצר)
ראד תווחפ
'ב
לזרבה תפוקתמ ףוחה תעוצרב םיבושיה רפסמב תרכינ הילע הלח , םינושה םירקסה תואצות יפל
היה בושיה בור 'ב
לזרבה
תפוקתב . רבעמה תפוקת ךלהמב לפכוה םיבושיה רפסמ . תיסרפה הפוקתל דעו
תיסרפה הפוקתה ךלהמבש הארנ . םינטק םירתא ועיפוה תיסרפה הפוקתבש דועב םילודג םירתאב זכורמ
Gophna and Ayalon ) רתוי םילודג םיזכרמ ביבס םיירפכ םירתא לש יבושייה ןוגראל תיתשתה החנוה
.( 1998: 11
םיבושיה בורש תוריהבמו , הנוש הנומת תוגיצמ
תויגולואיכראה תוריפחה תואצות הז הרקמב , תאז םע
. ףוחה תעוצר לע תיתועמשמ העפשה התייה אל ירושאה ןוטלשלש הארנ ךכמ . תיסרפה הפוקתב קר ומקוה
לאיצנטופב קר אלא , ףוחה תעוצר לש יאלקחה לאיצנטופב ןיינעתה אל ירושאה ןוטלשהש הארנ , ןכ םא
ילוא , תיסרפה הפוקתב קר רכוה ףוחה תעוצר לש
יאלקחה לאיצנטופה . הז ץרא לבח לש ירחסמהו ימיה
תוריפחב םג תרכינ וז הדוקנ . יסרפה ךלמהמ הזה חטשה תא וידיל לביקש , רזענמשא יקינפה ךלמה ימיב
הנוש רוד ריעה הז ןיינעבש הארנ . הפוקתב ריעה יביבסש םינקה םירתאה טועימבו המצע רוד ריעה לש
היה אל ףוחה תעוצרלש הרבסל קוזיחה ןמ הז לדבהב שי
ילואו תווחפ יזכרמכ ושמישש םירעה ראשמ
תוירושאה תודועתה םג ומכ , רודב תוריפחה , תאז םע . ירושאה ןוטלשה ןמזב תיאמצע הווחפ לש דמעמ
רבדב החנהה תא לבקל יאדכש הארנ . ירושאה ןוטלשה ןמזב ילהנמ זכרמכ ריעה לש התובישחל תודיעמ
.( Gilboa and Sharon 2008)
תירושא רחסמ תנחתכ רוד ריעה לש הדמעמ
ודיגמ תווחפ
המחלמה תועסממ הנוש ןפואב העפשוה ןהמ תחא לכו תויפרגואיג תודיחי לש ןווגמ הללכ ודיגמ תווחפ
בושיה םגדב הרורב הזוזת הנשי ןוילעה לילגב
. ןכמ רחאל אבש ילאירפמיאה ןוטלשה ןמו םיירושאה
שי החרזמ הזוזתה תאש הארנ
. תולילדב בשוימ ןוילעה
לילגה זכרמ תא ריתוהו ברעמבו חרזמב זכרתהש

תא חטבאלו חקפל ידכב הארנה לככ , רחשה תלייאבו רוצחב ומקוהש ירושאה ןוטלשה יזכרמב ריבסהל
תירושאה הירפמיאה , רקרפ יפל .( Dorsey 1991: 156)
תא ושמישש קר אל ולא םיזכרמש הארנ . הירפמיאה יבחר
רובע דקומכ ושמיש םג אלא
רפסמב
, םיזוחא םיעבראכ לש
, תויאבצ תונחתו
ד
לודגה רבשה ךרואל הרבעש תימואלניבה ךרדה
לכב תויגטרטסא תודוקנב ולאכ םיזכרמ המיקה
, היצרטסינימדא
, תרושקתל עגונה לכב הירפמיאה
.( Parker 1997: 77)
תימוקמה הייסולכואה
, תרכינ הדיריב תאטבתמ ירושאה ןוטלשה תעפשה ןותחתה לילגב
קר תוארל ןתינ םיבושיה רפסמב הילע . ירמגל ןותחתה לילגה ןוקירב רבודמ ןיא , תאז םע . רוזאב
םיבושיה
הדירי . לאערזי קמעל רוזאה לש ותברקל וז הילע סחייל שיש הארנו ןותחתה לילגה לש ימורדה קלחב
תועסמ ךלהמב השק הכ המולהמ ןותחתה לילגה גפס הניגבש הביסל רשאב הלאשה תא הלעמ וז תרכינ
םירושאה ידי לע וז הלועפ תטיקנל וידחי ואיבהש םימרוג לש בוליש הז היהש הארנ . םיירושאה המחלמה
ןעטש ןמאנ ידי לע עצוה ןושארה םרוגה . םיילאירפמיאה םילוקישה תכרעמ לע רוא ךופשל ידכב ךכב שיו
.( Na'aman 1993: 106)
ולש לבגומה יאלקחה לאיצנטופה לשב הז רוזאב הניינעתה אל הירפמיאהש
Gal 1998b: 48-)
ןותחתה לילגהמ החקלנ 'ג-ה
רסאלפ-תלגת
ידי לע התלגוהש הייסולכואה בור לג יפל
ירושאה המחלמה עסמב רתוי םירחואמה םיבלשה דחא היה לילגה שוביכש ורוזחשב ןעט יקסובוד
תולגהל םירושאה ורחבו ןכתי
, ןכ םא
היסולכואה החקלנ רושאל הרזח םכרדב
.( Dubovsky 2006: 161-164)
.( 53
'ג-ה
רסאלפ-תלגת
לש
. תוציחנו תוחונ לש בוליש לשב הז רוזאמ אקווד הייסולכוא
ואר אל תיסרפה םג ומכ תילבבה הירפמיאהש ןייצל שי . לבגומ ולש יאלקחה לאיצנטופהש רוזאמ תילגומה
רקרפ לש ורקחמב ורוקמש ישילש םרוג ףרצל עיצא ולא םימרוג ינשל . ןותחתה לילגה תא םקשל ןוכנל
תולילדב םיבשוימ ורתונ םימיוסמ םירוזאש ןעט רקרפ .( Parker 2001)
םירוזאל ןווכמ רקרפ םנמא
.( Parker 2001: 251)
, תאז םע , תורחתמ תויאמצע תויושי ןיבל הירפמיאה יחטש
םיילאירפמיא לובג ירוזא יבגל
ץיח ירוזאכ שמשל תילאירפמיא הנווכ ךותמ
ןיב דירפהל ודעונש הירפמיאה לובגב םיאצמנה
לארשי תכלממ יחטש ןיבל קשמד-םרא
יחטש ןיב קתנל דעונש ימינפ ץיח רוזאכ שמיש לילגהו ןכתי
הכלממ
יחטשמ רבעמהש הארנ לאערזי קמעב
. הירפמיאה דגנכ תוידיתע תודירמ עונמל הנווכב
, לילגה לע ירושאה ןוטלשה תעפשהל רומג דוגינב
העגפנ אל תירפכה הייסולכואהש הארנ
. תיסחי ולש ןפואב ףלח ילאירפמיא ןוטלש תחת םיחטשל תיאמצע

הדונת . ןטק םמצע םירתאה לדוג ךא לדג קמעה רוזאב םירתאה רפסמ . םיירושאה המחלמה תועסממ ללכ
לאיצנטופהש
ךכל זמור םיטעמ םיזכרמ ביבס רתוי םינטק םירתא יובירב אטבתמה בושיה םגדב וז
ךכ לע תועיבצמ רקסה תואצות . תרצותב טולשל השקיבש , הירפמיאה ידי לע רכוה קמעה לש יאלקחה
קלח התלגוה ןכא םא
. ודיגמ
, הווחפה תריב ביבס רוזאה ןמ תירפכ היסולכוא החקלנ אל תוילגהבש
תריבכ
ודיגמ לש התריחב . קמעה ביבס רתוי םילוגה םיזכרמה ןמ קר םישנא וחקלנש הארנ , היסולכואהמ
, הווחפה לש ימורדה הצקב אוהש םנמא , ודיגמ לש המוקימ . וז הווחפב ירושאה ןיינעה תא תפקשמ הווחפה
לאערזי קמע לע הפוצ אסיג דחמ ודיגמ . רתויב יחוורהו הרופה רוזאה תא לצנל הירפמיאה תורטמ לע דיעמ
התייה הלוכי ונממש
ילאידיאה םוקמה והז
, ךכ
. הבושחה תימואלניבה ךרדה לע הפוצ אסיג ךדיאמו
. תימואלניבה ךרדב תורבועש תורוחסה לע םגו קמעבש תיאלקחה תרצותה לע םג טולשל הירפמיאה
יפכ ודיגמב בושיה רתונ ןושאר בלשבש הלוע
( Peersmann 2000: 533)
ה
ןמסריפ לש החותינמ
הבו ( III הבכש)
שדחמ ריעה התנבנ 'ב-ה
ןוגרס ימיב . הירפמיאה םעטמ םידיקפ לש ילוא חוקיפב , היהש
היחמה ירוזא תא לידגהל ךרוצ לע הדיעמ III הבכש לש התינכות .( 1369 ןומרא)
יסופיט ירושא ןומרא
גזמלו בלשל התעדל דעונש , ודיגמב III הבכש לש םיוסמ דואמה ןונכתה רבדב ןמסריפ לש התעצה . ריעב
ןמ הירפמיאה יחוור תא ריבגהל שקיב 'ב-ה
ןוגרס , וז הפוקתבש הארנ . רתויב ןיינעמ ריעה יחרזא לכ ןיב
הלכלכהש הדבועה לשב . ודיגמב הבש השדחה ריעב הירפמיאה יבחרמ ואבוהש םילוג בשייו הזה רוזאה
םוקמה םה הביבסש רוזאהו ודיגמ ריעה , ( Oded 1979: 62)
תימואלניבה ךרדה לע טלושהו
םירקסה ןמ
ויה
קמעה לא הפוצה ריעה לש המוקימ לוצינ ךות
םיסימ תלבק לע הבורב הססבתה תירושאה
, וב עיקשהל םלשומה
.( Na'aman and Zadok 2000: 181)
ןורמוש תווחפ
. 'ב-ה
ןוגרס לש וימיב תירושאה הירפמיאל חפוסו שבכנ ןורמושה ירה רוזא
. דיחא ןפואב עפשוה רוזאה לכ אלו בושיה םגדב ושחרתה םייוניש ןווגמש הארנ םייגולואיכראה
םירקסה ןמ ףקתשמ הז בצמ
. וששואתה אלו תירושאה הפקתהה ןמ יתועמשמ ןפואב
ועגפנש םירוזא
. רוזאב םיבושיה רפסמב םיזוחא םינומשכ לש הדירי הלח םהבש , רבדמה רפסו םייחרזמה םיקמעה רוזאב
'ב
לזרבה תפוקת ןיב רבעמה ךלהמב םיבושימ ונקורתה ןכ םג הצרת לחנ ביבסש תוירופה תומדאה

תימואלניבה ךרדב הנומט הצרת לחנ ביבס תיבושייה תונקורתהה רוקמש
ןכתי
ו
. תיסרפה הפוקתל
ןוצר תפקשמ תיבושייה תונקורתההש ןכתי . לחנה ךרואל הרבעו ןדריה רבע לא לארשי ץראמ הליבוהש
. ןדריה רבעב תויאמצע יצחה תוכלממה ןיבל רישי ןוטלש תחת םיאצמנה םיחטשה ןיב ץוצחל ילאירפמיא
קמעב םילבוגה םיקלחב הטעמ תויכשמהל טרפ , ולוכ טעמכ אוה םג ןקורת הבטרסל
קזב לחנ ןיבש רוזאה
אל , הירחא ואבש תוירפמיאה םג ומכ , תירושאה הירפמיאהש הארנ . קמעל סחייל שי התואש , ןאש תיב
אל הז רוזאבש ןייצל
שי
. ןורמושה םורדב םג
, םירקסה יפל
. הזה חיחצה רוזאה חותיפב ןיינע ואר
, תוארל ןתינ םיבושיה רפסמב הדירי
הפוקתבש הארנ , תאז םע . רוזאה ירתא רפסממ םיזוחא םישימחכ לש ןדבואב אלא , תונקורתהב רבודמ
לש תינושארה הכמה רחאלש קיסהל ןתינ ולא םינותנמ . םיזוחא רשע העבראכ לש הלידג הנשי תיסרפה
רוזאל הרשפא תונוטלשה
תומלעתה
. ןורמושה לש הז רוזאב ןיינע הירפמיאה הדביא
, ירושאה עסמה
םיכילהתמ הארנה לככ , העבנשו דבלב םיזוחא המכ לש הלידגב תאטבתמש תיתגרדהו תיטיא תוששואתה
. םיימינפ
'ב
לזרבה תפוקת ןיב רבעמה ךלהמב תיבושיי הלידג הווח םירקסה יפלש ןורמושב דיחיה רוזאה
תנייפואמ וז הלידגש
בולישב
, וז הזוזת
רכינ םירקסה ןמ
. ןורמוש
. םימקומ םישדח םיבושיו םישטינ םיבושי רפסמ
, הווחפה תריב ביבסש רוזאה אוה תיסרפה הפוקתל
, רמולכ
השדח היסולכוא לע דיעהל הלוכי ( Zertal 1989: 77-84)
לארשי ץראל הרזה " תיתוכה"
. בושיה תשורפתב הזוזתב
הרעקה תעפוה
םילוגש הארנ םשש , ודיגמ ביבסש רוזאב רקסב ףקתשמה בצמהמ דואמ הנוש הז בצמ . רוזאב הבשייתהש
תריב ביבס םילוג בשייל הירפמיאה הגאד ןורמוש לש הרקמב אקווד עודמ , ןכ םא . ריעה ךותב קר ובשוי
לש זכרמכו הכלממ לש הריב ריעכ ןורמוש לש הייפואב הנומט הביסהש ןכתי ? הכותב קר אלו הווחפה
, הרז היסולכוא לש התאבה ידי
לע
. תובר םינש ךשמב תירושאה הירפמיאה דגנ ירמו תוממוקתה
םירושאה וויק , התביבסבו ריעב הבושייו , המויק ךרוצל הירפמיאב תידעלבה התולתמ תעבונ התונמאנש
.( Oded 1979: 46-49)
םגדב םילדבההש ונעט ( Na'aman 1993: 104-124; Younger 1998: 201-227)
הז רוזאב םנוטלש תא ססבל
םידחא םירקוח
ךלמ לכ לש טילשהש הנושה תוינידמה ןמ ועבנ ץראב ירושאה ןוטלשה ךלהמב רוזאל
רוזא ןיב בושיה
רקחממ
. םימרוג לש בולישב ורוקמ רוזא לכב םייקתהש דחוימה בושיה םגד יתעדל , תאז תורמל . ירושא

ץראל ואבוה 'ב-ה
ןוגרס לש וימיב קרש ןכתי . ילאירפמיאה ןוטלשהמ הנוש סחי לביק רוזא לכש הלוע הז
רחאלו תוביס רפסמ לשב , הדיפקב ורחבנש םירוזאב ובשוי וללה ךא , הירפמיאה תווצק לכמ םילוג
לארשי
ךלמ לש ותוינידמ ירפ קר ויה אל הירפמיאה יבחרב ועצובש תוינומהה תוילגההש הארנ . יתבשחמ ךילהת
ז
.
רחא וא הז