Settlement, economy, and demography under Assyrian rule in the West: the territories of the former Kingdom of Israel as a test case.

• Author: Faust, Avraham
• Position: Essay

THE POLICY OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE IN THE WEST: BACKGROUND

It is commonly agreed that the Assyrians had significant economic interests in the southern Levant and that this consequently brought about a period of stability and peace. These conditions led to economic development, which in turn resulted in settlement expansion, for example, into the inhospitable regions of the Judean Desert and the Negev. There is plentiful evidence for this economic prosperity, the most famous example being the large center for the production of olive oil unearthed in Ekron. During the seventh century Ekron expanded dramatically, reaching a size of over 75 acres. It was a well planned and fortified site in which industrial, domestic, and elite areas of occupation have been identified. Although only 4% of the site has been excavated, some 115 olive oil installations were discovered, with an estimated annual production capacity of at least 500 tons. Gitin (1998: 276), its excavator, has suggested that Ekron was the largest ancient industrial center for the production of olive oil (see also Eitam 1987; 1996). Gitin has explained the reasons for Ekron's economic prosperity as follows:

[I]ts genesis was an ideology of empire based on the mercantile interests of the Neo-Assyrian kings ... The policy resulted from the empire's need for an increasing supply of raw materials and manufactured goods, especially luxury items, as well as for new sources of silver for use as currency. The effect was the formation of a new supernational system of political control in the eastern Mediterranean basin which produced the pax Assyriaca, 70 years of unparalleled growth and development, and an international trading network which spanned the Mediterranean, stimulating Phoenician trade and colonization in the west. (1995: 61) He continues (1995: 62) that "this huge 7th century B.C.E. city, with its well-developed town plan and industrial center, resulted from the same Neo-Assyrian interests that produced new urban and commercial centers and a new economic exchange system throughout the Mediterranean basin," also noting (1995: 69) that Ekron "is a prime example of the innovative Assyrian policy of industrial specialization and mass production which concentrated large-scale industrial activity in one center." According to this view, Ekron was an example of the accomplishment of the "long-standing Assyrian goal of urbanization of its territories" (1989: 48). Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2001: 253) have also stressed active Assyrian involvement, suggesting that Ekron was "upgraded into an important regional centre" by Sargon II.

But this prosperity was not limited to Philistia. Evidence for economic and settlement growth has also been found in the Negev, especially in the Beersheba and Arad valleys, where settlement prospered in the seventh century (Na'aman 1987; Finkelstein 1994; Faust 2008, with many refs.), and evidence for trade, including the large-scale importation of cedars (Lipschits and Biger 1991: 172; Faust and Weiss 2005, with refs.), is abundant. Na'aman (1995: 114) has explained the phenomenon: "[T]he prosperity of the southern frontier of the kingdom of Judah is the direct result of the pax Assyriaca and the growth of the Arabian caravan trade that stemmed from the economic activity of the Assyrian empire" (also Na'aman 1987; 1995: 113).

The same holds for Edom, where the surge in settlement in the late Iron Age and even the formation of the Edomite state in the highlands have been attributed to Assyrian activities and interest. Thus Knauf argued (1995: 98) that "the sudden onset of settlement activity indicates that the factors that constituted the market emerged suddenly, in connection with the establishment of the pax assyriaca: the state ... ; the Edomite copper industry ...; and Edomite participation in long-distance trade ..." Finkelstein (1995: 137) has noted that "Iron Age occupation at Edom reached its peak in the 8th-7th centuries BC, possibly as a result of Assyrian activity in the region." Na'aman (1993: 118), too, has attributed the prosperity in Edom to Assyrian involvement in the Arabian trade and perhaps also in copper mining, and has suggested that deportations, "when combined with planned development, could create settlement growth and economic prosperity" (emphasis added). Elsewhere he has stated (1995: 114) that "the pax Assyriaca and the economic prosperity brought about, for the first time in history, the emergence of a territorial kingdom in this remote arid zone" (see also Gitin 1997). Various scholars have stressed the importance of economic considerations in Assyrian policy (Finkelstein and Ussishkin 2000: 602; Na'aman 2001: 275; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2003: 3).

This commonly held view has had a great influence on other scholars not dealing specifically with the southern Levant. Van De Mieroop, for example, has written that "in the Philistine area, for example, Assyria's influence changed the production of olive oil from a cottage industry to a centralized system that guaranteed supply to Assyria. Thus the empire cannot be considered as driven by mere desire to acquire territory. It was a structure that aimed at maximizing resources for its core" (2007: 252, emphasis added). He continues: "[S]ometimes the production of certain goods, such as olive oil in the Philistine areas, was reconstructed in order to increase supply" (2007: 259).

This view is not shared by all scholars, however. Elat (1978: 87, 88) claimed long ago--before the important discoveries at Ekron were made--that the Assyrians did not initiate the trade, and Stager (1996) attributed the prosperity of Philistia to the period of Egyptian hegemony over Philistia and Judah (see Gitin's 2003 reply). Na'aman has recently claimed that although the the pax Assyriaca and the results of Sennacherib's campaign were the reasons behind Ekron's prosperity, it was not the "result of a deliberate imperial policy of economic development of its vassals" (Na'aman 2003: 81, 87). Schloen (2001: 141-47) has written that the Assyrians were not interested in the economic development of the territories they occupied, but only in what they could confiscate or tax. Faust and Weiss (2005; 2011) have recently suggested that the prosperity of Philistia and Judah resulted from the flourishing Phoenician maritime trade, which "consumed" all the surpluses produced in these polities, and was not a result of Assyrian imperial policy (see also Faust 2011b).

The entire debate, however, has concentrated on the evidence from the southern part of the country, and in the words of Finkelstein and Ussishkin (2000: 602): "It seems that southern Palestine was the focus of Assyrian economic activity in the region, which included the foundation of central emporia and overland trade with Arabia, Transjordan and Egypt." They also state that "the north may have been pivotal in the Assyrian administration in Palestine, but it seems to have played only a secondary role in the thriving international trade of the 7th century B.C.E." The above-mentioned challenge to the consensus regarding the Assyrian policy was based on the one hand on data from the south, and on the other on the absence of similar evidence from the north. It is the reality in the northern parts of the country that we seek to examine here.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL REALITY IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE FORMER KINGDOM OF ISRAEL

The kingdom of Israel was conquered during the Assyrian campaigns of the 730s and 720s B.C.E., and was subsequently divided among a number of Assyrian provinces (Aharoni 1979: 368-79). (1) But what can we say about the demographic, economic, and settlement consequences of the Assyrian conquests? In the following, we will scrutinize closely the available archaeological data, which is by and large much more detailed than that from any other part of the empire. Although the discussion will concentrate on the territories of the former kingdom of Israel, we will also refer to sites that probably belonged to adjacent polities, such as Geshur (Bethsaida, near the Sea of Galilee) and Phoenicia/Tyre (probably Kabri and additional sites on the northern coastal plain), if they were located within the geographical regions discussed here. (2) As we will see below, this does not significantly alter the results. (3)

The following is a review of the relevant excavated sites by geographical (not necessarily political) sub-regions (see Figure 1): (4)

The Galilee

According to Gal (1992: 108-9; 1993: 451), the Galilee was almost empty following the Assyrian destructions and deportations. Indeed, an examination of the few sites that have been excavated in the hilly parts of the Galilee exposes a gloomy picture:

Qarney Hittin: It appears that the "large Iron Age II city" was destroyed in Tiglathpileser III's campaign (Gal 1992: 44).

Horvat Rosh Zayit: After the destruction of the Phoenician fort in the early ninth century, a village, in which a relatively large number of installations for the production of olive oil have been uncovered, was established at the site (Gal and Frankel 1993; Gal and Alexandre 2000: 164-67, 178, 200). The village was abandoned in the late eighth century, probably during the campaign of Tiglath-pileser III (Gal and Alexandre 2000: 178, 201).

Kh. Malta: The Iron Age village, or more likely fortified farmstead, was established in the ninth century and existed until some point in the eighth (Covello-Paran 2008: 46). The site was then abandoned for a few centuries (ibid.: 75).

Tel Gath Hefer: The planned town that existed here in the Iron Age was destroyed in the second half of the eighth century, probably by Tiglath-pileser III, and the site was then abandoned for some 300 years (Alexandre, Covello-Paran, and Gal 2003: 168).

Although the sample is quite small, all the excavated sites in the Galilee ceased to exist following the Assyrian conquest, and the destruction and abandonment seem to have been...