Download this PDF file - University of Alberta - Journal Hosting

“IN CONVERSATION WITH ODED LIPSCHITS” 47border zones (the Negev, the southern Shephelah, the southern part ofthe Judean hills and the Jordan valley). I also have tried to connect thearchaeological situation in the area around Jerusalem to the Babylonianinterdiction against its restoration, like Hadrian’s in a much later periodand for similar reasons.One may also compare the wider picture of regional differencesbetween the former Assyrian provinces in the territory of the formerIsraelite kingdom. There is a clear continuation in the material cultureand no sign for a change in the demographic or geopolitical situationbetween the seventh and the fifth centuries BCE, and the destiny of theconquered Babylonian small kingdoms where a destruction and changecan be noticed mainly in the urban centers and in the peripheral areas.This is also a subject with great importance for understanding of thehistory of the region not only during the Babylonian period, but alsoduring the Persian and up to the Hasmonean period, when thingschanged again in a very drastic and dramatic way. All in all, I can'taccept the ideas of destruction without a plan, or of ruling without apolicy. In this respect, Prof. Albertz made a very importantdifferentiation between the policy of Nabopolasar and Nebuchadrezzarand between the ideology behind their policies. There is much more todiscuss on this subject.The similarities between the Babylonian policy in Ammon and inJudah can't be ignored. 41 It was a different policy from that of theAssyrians, but not so different from the policy of the Persians. TheBabylonians conquered vast territories that were organized by theAssyrians as provinces whose inhabitants had lost their national andcultural identity. Only in the periphery there remained kingdoms withdistinctive national characteristics. These kingdoms were relativelysmall, with well-defined political and religious centers where the eliteresided. Consequently, the Babylonians were able to establish their ruleover those centers or alternately to destroy them, and to deport only (ormainly) the elite of such kingdoms. In doing so, they left in place largesectors of the population, particularly the rural sector, without makingany effort to rehabilitate the economy and administration. 42 TheAchaemenid rule continued with the same policy towards the provincesin the hill country. 43 The weak urban society in the hill country was aresult of the Assyrian and Babylonian destructions and deportations, aswell as the outcome of the agricultural economy, so characteristic to thisregion. 44 We can assume that just like the Babylonians, the41 Lipschits, “Ammon in Transition from Vassal kingdom to BabylonianProvince,” op.cit., no te 4.42 Vanderhooft, op.cit., note 6.43 Lipschits, “Achaemenid Imperial Policy, Settlement Processes inPalestine, and the Status of Jerusalem in the Middle of the Fifth Century BCE.”op.ci t ., note 4.44 See Briant, P., From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire(Transl. Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2002; Englishtranslation of 1996 Histoire de l’empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre: Volumes I-II.Achaemenid History 10. Leiden) 976. The distribution of Greek pottery, assummarized by Lehman, is one more example of the differences between theurban and commercial economy along the coast and the agricultural economy