faust - judah in the 6th bce. a rural perspective judah (2003)

7/27/2019 FAUST - Judah in the 6th BCE. a Rural Perspective Judah (2003)

1/17

PaLestlllI'C'.lpLuratlUll Quartcr{J. 1:33. 1 (:w0:3:' 37-3:3

JUDAH IN THE SIXTH CENTURY B.C.E. :

A RURAL PERSPECTIVE

AVRAHAM FAlJST

The Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem is an important historical event. For scholars thisdate usually marks the end of the period of the monarchy or even the end of the Iron Age,the beginning of the exilic period, etc. By many, this date was regarded as a 'watershed' (e.g.,Bright 1972, 343). But what \vas the reality in Judah following the events of 586 B.C.E.? TheBible informs us that there were people remaining in the land, bu t seems to give the generalimpression that they were relatively few an d unimportant. This view seems to have beenprevalent in modern scholarship until recently, bu t is now challenged by scholars who claimthat the majority of the population remained in Judah (mainly in rural sites) after theBabylonian destructions. The debate that has e\'oh-ed during the past few years over theissue of the settlement and demographic reality in the sixth century B.C.E. has brought thearchaeological evidence to the front. But, as is widely known, as yet no material culture ofthe 'Babylonian period' has been identified, an d the debate seems to go on. Th e presentpaper aims to tackle the problem from a different direction. After briefly presenting theproblem, I will suggest a ne\v method of soh'ing it: since those wh o claim that Judah wasquite densely populated at the time believe that the inhabitants of the region continued tolive in their hamlets an d villages, an examination of continuity in excavated Iron Age ruralsettlements might hold the key to resolving the issue. The data from various regions will be

analysed and compared in the light of the ne w method, and the similarities and differenceswill then be used to reconstruct the processes the different regions went through during theIron Age-Persian Period transition.

TH E P R O B L E ~ l

As already stated, no t much is knovvn about the sixth century B.C.E . The relative lack ofe\'idence ca n be explained in two contrasting ways:

I . I t could be assumed that, for various reasons, the region was only sparsely settled,therefore leaving only scant remains (e.g., Stern 1997; 1998; 2000; 200 I; see also Vanderhooft2002; Oded 200 I).

2 . On the other hand, the lack of material culture specifically from the Babylonianperiod can be attributed to the fact that we ar e dealing with a very short period, which,though quite unique historically, had no distinct material culture, different from the previousan d following periods. The material culture of the period should be \'iewed as a continuationof that of the late seventh an d early sixth centuries B.C.E. , and as a predecessor of that of thePersian period, \vithout an y major specific characteristics for these fifty years or so. Thisschool, therefore, views the Babylonian period's material culture as a continuation of that ofthe Iron Age - a continuity that lasted \vell into the Persian period (Barkai 1992; Lipschits1997: 1998; Barstad 1996; 200 I). Adherents of this school of thought usually (though no tnecessarily) regard the sixth century as having been much more populated than supportersof the first school. I

Both explanations could, theoretically, account for the lack of detailed and specificknowledge of the sixth-century B.C.E . material culture (as well as for the lack of knowledgeon this period"s settlements), an d itjs difficult to judge between them. It is quite clear why, in


2/17

PALESTI2\TE E X P L O R AT I O ? \ , Q U A R T E R LY

light of th e abow, there is a debate concerning th e demographic reality in Judah during thisperiod: 'empty' or not.

A Rl 'RAL A P P R O A C H

In the first part of my paper I would like to suggest a method by v,hich these contrasting\invs concerning settlement reality or continuity might be examined.

It seems as if th e ke y to the solution is an examination of continuity in settlementpatterns in the rural sector. This sector has no t recei\'ed much attention from the region's' tell-minded' archaeology (Ahlstrbm 1982, 25; see also London 1989; Faust 1995a), whichtended to concentrate on exca\'ating urban sites, mainly tells. Hardly any rural site wasexca\'ated in planned excavations. This situation pre\'ails n'en today, bu t ovving to the manysah-age excavations carried out in recent years (Faust 200 I), we currently possess a relativelylarge body of data on th e rural sector (e.g., Riklin 1993; 1995; 1997; Dar 1986; Seligman1994; C o n ~ l I o - P a r a n1998; l\1aitlis 1989; for a summary, see Faust 1995a; 2000; in press b).It should be noted that this information is still incomplete, and I hope that the situation willimprove in the future. There are enough data, however, to enable th e present discussion.

At an y event, it should stressed that, as \v'e will see below, the rural sector seems to holdth e key t o the answer to th e question discussed here, as well as to many others (a fuller an dmore systematic discussion of the importance of sah-age exca\'ations as a source forsettlement history an d its relations to th e data and conclusions of surveys was presented inFaust 200 I).

The rural sector is important for the present discussion because different factorsinfluence the location of rural and urban sites. The siting of urban centres is a result ofvarious complex considerations, whose 'freedom' was quite limited in ancient times; theneed to concentrate a large population in on e site is somewhat deterministic in choosing thisspot, resulting in a pattern in which urban settlements are repeatedly located in the sameplace. This is on e of the reasons for the formation of tells in this region. Owing to thischaracteristic of urban settlement, an examination of urban settlements' continuity, onwhich there is wealth of information, will prove fruitless for our purposes, since it is likelythat a Persian period centre would be located on to p of an Iron Age one, e\'cn if there is nocontinuity betwt'en the tv,o. Consider, for example, a site in \'\'hich therc is clear late IronAge occupation, and \',here exca\'ations revealed the existence of Persian period city. Canwe fill th e ga p and claim that, since these t\VO periods ar e represented, it is reasonable toassume that th e site existed during the sixth century - - a period with no characteristicmaterial culture? The answer is of course 'no', or , at least, 'not necessarily'. It is very likelythat a ne\\' city erected in the Persian period \',ould have been located in th e same place as itsIron Ag e predecessor, owing to the site's qualities, without any necessary continuity or

connection bet\'\'een th e two. The mere fact that the two settlements ar e located on e on topof th e other cannot sen'e as evidence of continuity, and it is possible that after a ga p of fiftyyears or more, when a ne w city was built, th e same site V\'as chosen again. The situation inth e rural sector, however, is different. Owing to th e smaller size of th e sites, which wereinhabited by a much smaller population, the factors which influenced the siting of a \'illage,a hamlet or a farmstead, were much more local in nature, enabling many possible positionsin an y gi\'en region, or even within the micro-region (as ca n be seen in th e Iron Age, whenhardly any Iron Age II village or farm was built on th e same site as its Iron Age I predecessor,see Faust 1999a; in press a). Therefore, if one identifies a rural site with seventh centuryH.C.E , as well as Persian period occupations, it is reasonable to assume continuity, since aPersian period rural site is not usually expected to be situated on th e same spot as its IronAge predecessor - ~ unless, of course, it existed without interruption. One should always


3/17

j l J D A H I;\J T H E S I X T H CE: '>JTURY B . C . E 39consider th e possibility that a few rural sites will be, incidentally, located on ancient ones,but the overall pattern should count. I f all, or most of, Persian period rural sites are locatedon to p ofIron Age rural sites, on e could speak of continuity, since these sites ar e only severalsuitable places ou t of many possibilities, and the repeated pattern cannot be a mere chance.

I f the pattern is to th e contrary, and Iron Age rural sites are not succeeded by Persian periodsites, then there seems to be a gap, at least in the rural sector. 2

It should be noted that since many scholars who support th e second theory mentionedabove (i.e., that there was continuity) believe that it was manifested mainly in the rural sector(Barstad 1996, 54-55, 8 I; Lipschitz 1997, 153, 198; see also \Veinberg 1969, 84, 88, 96), itseems as if the model suggested here is especially suited for this period and for the questionunder discussion.

METHODOLOGICAL :\TOTES

It should be stressed that I will use mainly data from excavated sites, as surveys are, in many

cases, ambiguous and, at times, inaccurate, especially for identifying transitional periods (inrelation to another transitional period, see the discussion in Faust I999a; in press a; forseveral examples see also Kh. el-Burj 1973, 26; Bienkowski 1998, 164; Dessel I999, 12- I 4;Cresson 1999, 97; see also \Volff I998, 449) Surveys are, of course, an important tool inreconstructing settlement history. But, when there are enough data from excavations, thelatter should serve as the backbone of any reconstruction, and surveys should be used onlyto supplement this reali ty (Faust 200 I; a full discussion on surveys' reliability and theirrelation to salvage and planned excavations exceeds the scope of th e present paper).

The present study will therefore use mainly data from excavation, and sun'eys will beused only to supplement a picture that is initially supported by, or built from, data fromexca\'ations (it should be stressed that, as will be shown below, in th e present case-study thedata presented in most surveys are in accordance with data from excavations), :\lost of thedata on rural sites is taken from salvage exca\'ations. As mentioned abm'e, this is a result of alack of planned excavations, bu t it does ensure that the data do not result from biasedresearch agenda or collecting methods, The sampling that results from modern constructionacti\'ities, although not spread evenly across th e landscape can, nevertheless, give us a clearpicture, no t influenced by any a priori assumptions. The limitation and uneven distributionof modern activity should be considered, but it is at least 'objective' in terms of sampling an ddata collection. 3

I t should be noted that there ar e two or three regions that seems to have gone throughan exceptional rate of development, therefore producing many salvage excavations. The first

is th e environs of Jerusalem and the second is Samaria's foothills (where th e new towns andcities of EI'ad, Shoam and Modiin were built, Rash Ha-ayin expanded, etc.). The area nearGush-Etzion, southwest of Bethlehem, also went through a relatively intensive development.The main debate concerns th e region of the (former) kingdom ofJudah, and th e area aroundJerusalem falls within the area of interest, as does the area near Gush-Etzion. The data fromthese regions will be supplemented by information from other parts of J udah, vvhere the dataare less detailed but th e accumulated picture is nevertheless significant, and even impressive.The data from Samaria's foothills will serve as a control group, as will be shown below.

RL'RAL S E T T L E M E ~ T SIX JL"DAH DL"RI:\TG THE IRO:\T AGE - - PERSIA:\T PERIOD TRA:\TSITIO:\T

TIe data from Jerusalem's Em'irons

,Many Iron Age rural sites w'ere revealed in and around the modern city of Jerusalem. Theseinclude:


4/17

PA L E S T I ; \ J E E X P L O R AT I O ; \ J Q C A R T E R LY

An. er-Ras I: a farmstead (16700/12820) near Manahat. The farmhouse is of the fourroom type. I t \"as established probably during the eighth century and was destroyed at theend of the Iron Age (Edelstein 2000; Maitlis 1989,82). .

An. er-Ras 2 : another farmstead vvas exca\'ated some 40 m from th e former. During theeighth century a four room house was erected at the place, and during the se\'enth centurymajor changes took place in the building, \'\'hich existed until th e sixth century B.C.E . (Feig

and Abd Rabu 1995,65; Feig 1996) .Halha: a rural site (1673/1286) in th e vicinity of Jerusalem (adjacent to th e formersites). The excavator reported architectural remains - - a storehouse - - dated t o the 'LateIron Age-Persian Period', that \-vas unco\ered on the south part of the spur' (Zeha\'i 1993,66-67), therefore indicating possible continuity het\,\'een the Iron Age and the Persianperiod.

Sahal2)mri: a farmstead (17354/13669), about 1 km cast of Tell el-Ful. The farmsteadis composed of a typical four room house, and adjacent features. I t is dated to the se\'el1lh( ~ 1 a i t l i s1989,51) or th e seventh-sixth centuries B.C .E. (Yoge\' 1985, 29).

77ze French Hill: a farmstead (17330/13465) was exca\'ated in the French Hillneighbourhood of Jerusalem, This farmhouse, too, is probably of th e four room type, an d is

dated to the late Iron Ag e C:'vlaitlis 1989, 52); it was probably established during the eighthcenturY B.C.E . 4

Ketef Hinnom: poorly presen'ed remains of an Iron Age site were exca\'ated near thefamous tombs (Barkai 1995, 12- 13). The finds consist mainly of pottery of domesticcharacter, unlike that of th e nearby tombs. ?\luch of the pottery predates the tombs, and itseems as if the site was founded during the eighth century B.C.E . , an d existed until theBabylonian conquest. The excavator suggested that th e site was an agricultural farmstead ora village (Barkai 1995, 13). 2\0 Persian period remains were reported.

P i . ~ p ' a tZea A: a farmstead (1728- 1733/ I 362- 1368) that was exca\'ated near the mode-mneighborhood of Pis gat Ze'e\" A (Seligman 1994). I t is possible- that this farm was originallyof th e four room type (Faust in press b), but this is l ( ~ s sclear. The pottery is chronologicallyhomogeneous and ckarly dates to th e end of the Iron Age (Seligman 1994, 67, 73).

Pz.Igat Ze 'ev D: a small, probably rural, Iron Age site (1739/1364) was uncovered( ~ a d e l m a n1993, 54-55) ' During the Persian Period a fortress was built on top of the IronAge site. Pottery dated to the Babylonian Period was also reported at the site."

Giva! Homa: a farmstead near Ramat-Rachel (1710.=/12590). Two structures wereexca\'ated, including one three room house. The house was used during the late Iron Age(se\'el1lh-sixth centuries B.C .E . ) (?\lai 1997,93).

An. :41ona: a three-room house was exca\'ated at the site (1677 / I 349). I t v,'as poorlypreserved and no pottery was found on the floors. In th e publication, the house was describedas an Iron Age structure (\Yeksler-Bdolah 1997,98), but th e exca\ 'ator informed me that

later analysis revealed that the structure should probably be dated to the Persian period,Iron Age pottery \,\'as found under the floor, out it is not clear whether this indicates anearlier occupation of the same structure (Shlomit Vreksler-Bdolah, personal communication),or no t (Alon De-Groot, personal communication). Since, howC\'er, there ar e some otherIron Age remains nearby, it is clear that, following the abO\'e mentioned method, it ispossible to speak of continuity at this site, though, perhaps, not in th e same building.

J1evassere! Yerushala]im: some parts of an Iron Age \-illage (16330/13346) were uncoverednear Jerusalem (Edelstein and Kislev 1981). It seems as if th e site was not inhabited duringthe Persian Period.

All in all, it seems as if only two ou t of ele\'en exca\'ated farmsteads and villages inJerusalem's area could indicate continuity. Such a small figure could either indicate anextremely lo\\' !eHI of continuity or e\'en be a coincidence. The scarcity of Persian Period


5/17

J U D A H I.\J T H E S I X T H CE:- ;TL'RY B . C . E

settlements \vas observed also by Greenhut (1994, 140). In a paper that discussed thesettlement in Jerusalem's hinterland throughout the ages, only t\VO paragraphs were devotedto this period, an d part of this discussion referred to th e lack of data. On th e positive side,Greenhut "';Tote: 'actually, of all the expeditions \vorking in Jerusalem's region in recent

years, remains from this period were found only by one expedition ~ . ~in Pis ga t Zeev east'.These excavations revealed remains of a poorly preserved rectangular fortress (Greenhut1994, 14 0 ; Greenhut notes that on e should also consider the Persian Period finds at Tell elFul). Greenhut's summary is almost a decade old, but although the more updated listpresented abo\"C included two sites which might indicate continuity (Greenhut did no t findany such site, as a fortress is no t a rural site, see above), his summary gives a correctimpression regarding the scarcity of Persian Period remains in relation to those of the IronAge.

It should be noted that in addition to th e abo\"C mentioned excavated Iron Age ruralsites, several other sites 'Nere surveyed intensively, and though data from surveys ar esomewhat problematic, these sites ca n supplement the above mentioned data. l \ur i t Feig(2000) has recently summarized the data concerning Jerusalem's hinterland during the IronAge, based mainly on Klonn ' s Jerusalem's sun"ey (only partially published; Kloner 2000).I t should be noted that since Feig's paper was not intended to supply all th e informationrele\"ant for the present discussion, there is some difficulty in quantifying the data withabsolute precision. \ \ 'hen examining what Feig defined as 'single structures', 'agriculturalareas', 'towers', 'stone mounds' (though some of these are th e famous 'rojums'), an d 'sherdconcentrations', Persian period material seems to have been found only in tw0 6 ou t of nearlyfifty possible Iron Ag e rural sites (Feig 2000).7 These data seem to correspond with that ofthe excavations summarized above an d seem to indicate that in the rural sector there was noreal continuity between th e Iron Age and the Persian Period. I t is likely that the sites were

abandoned at some point, and when the rural settlement was renewed, much later, most ofthe ne w sites were, naturally, located elsewhere.

Datafram rural sites in other pariS of Judah H

Though the data from Jerusalem's em"irons ar e the most detailed, they can be supplementedby information from other part of Judah (including the Gush-Etzion - Bethlehem region).The data in the follmving section, too, are taken from excavated sites, or , in some cases, fromintensi\"ely sun"eyed sites (where the surveyors were even able to draw th e plan of the site)9.I t should be noted that the rural nature of few of the sites ca n be doubted and it is possible

that on e or t\,,o will eventually prove no t to be such. This, however, would no t change theoverall picture as most of th e sites discussed below are undoubtedly rural.

J la 'ale i\/iclzmas: a seventh cen tury B.C.E. site in the eastern part of th e land of Ben amin(1789/ I 4335). Though the exact nature of the site is not clear, it is very likely that it was afarm of some kind" ~ o Persian period pottery was found at th e site (Riklin 1995).

Anirbet Slzillzah: an Iron Age farmstead or estate in Benjamin's desert's fringe (72 I 1/5278). The site di d no t exist during th e Persian period ( ~ l a z a r ,Amit and Ilan 1996).

Vered Jericho: A site about 6 km south of Jericho (19 1/ I 36). The exact nature of the siteis no t clear, and a royal character is just as likely as a rural one. It, too, existed only duringthe late Iron Age (Eitan 1983), but due to its uncertain nature (Eitan 1986, 30-32), it shouldbe treated very cautiously.

TIe Boke 'a sites: several isolated structures were unco\'ered in this part of the J udeandesert. I t seems as if the structures existed during the se\"enth century B.C.E . an d vvereperhaps engaged in some sort of organized agriculture (Stager 1976). I t seems as if the same


6/17

P A L E S T I ~ EE X P L O R AT I O : \ T Q U A RT E R LY

is true for seyeral nearby Iron Age sites located on the shores of the Dead Sea, e.g., 'Ein clGhuweir, 'Ein et Turba, and perhaps also Rujm el- Bahr, etc. (Bar Adon 1989).

A7zirbet Abu Shau'an: a farmstead (16435/12625) near Beit Jala. The farmstead wascomposed oft\,,o buildings, a ca\'e an d a wine press, and is dated to the late Iron Age (Baruch2001 a).

Eh. el-Qatt: a large farmstead (16411! 187) near Gush-Etzion. The site existed duringthe late Iron Age, i.e., the s e \ ' t ~ n t h -sixth centuries B . C . E . I t should be noted that sC\'eral otherstructures, probably also farmsteads, were identified, bu t no t exca\'ated, nearby (Amit19 89 -9 0a ).

Farmstead southeast cif Hadi Fukin: a large farmhouse (1598/ I 234) near the yillage of\\ 'adiFukin near Gush-Etzion. The farm existed during the eighth-sixth centuries BC E (Amit199 I , 77)

Farmstead at R.P. (16 I 8 / I 239): another farmstead in the same region \",as excavated an dmost of the finds were dated to the Iron Age. I t should be noted that another Iron Agestructure was reported nearby, bu t its rural nature is no t ob\ious (Amit 1991).

Eh. Jarish: a \'illage in the Hebron Hill country near Gush-Etzion (16 I 61 ! 241). Duringthe 1968 sun'ey (Kochayi 1972,38; followed by Carter 1999, 168-69,377; Lipschits 1997,

267) the site was dated to the Persian period (and even Babylonian period, ibid., 23). Later,the site was exca\'ated, and the pottery from the exca\'ation was assigned to the late Iron Age(Amit 1989-90b; Of r 1993:2, 88-89). According to Alon De-Groot (personal communication), howeyer, the exca\'ation also yielded Persian period pottery, and it seems, therefore, asifit exhibits a possible continuity.

Fajer-South - a u:ine-press: a large wine press (16495/1 1345) was exca\'ated near the\'illage of Be it Fajer, an d sherds from an 'enormous amount of storage jars' were uncO\'ered,dating to the eighth-seventh centuries B.C.E . (Of r 1993:2,87-88).

An. abu et- Twein (yillage): a fort and a \'illage in Hebron hill country (1585/1 193), nearGush-Etzion. The \'illage, which is ou r concern here, was probably established during thelate Iron Age, and did no t continue to exist in the Persian period. There was, however, someco n tin uity in the use of the fort or some parts of it (.\1azar 1982). A similar situation probablyexisted in the nearby \'illage (1588/1224) below the fort of el- 'Id (Baruch 1997). This couldbe supplemented by the exca\'ation of several Iron Age field towers in the nearby Betar Forest(no Persian period pottery was found in the excavations). 10

:4rad (village): an Iron Age Fort and a \'illage below it (1 62/075)' ~ o continuity to thePersian period was obsen'ed in the house e x c a ~ ' a t e din the \'illage (Goethert an d Amiran199 6 ).

Eh. 'Cza (\'illage): the small yillage which existed below the fort (1657/0687) ceased toexist by th e end of the Iron Age (Beit-Arieh an d Cresson 1991).

Again, the data from excavated Iron Age rural sites seem to indicate that there is hardly

any continuity between the two periods here discussed.

Intrrmediate mmmal)'

The o\'erall picture from all the abo\'C mentioned sites is quite unambiguous: there is \'Crylo w level of continuity between the Iron Age an d the Persian period in the rural sector in theregions which were part of the kingdom of Judah. 11 Very few sites exhibit a possibility ofcontinuity between the two periods, and it is difficult to judge whether this is an indication ofsmall-scale continuity (\'Cry minor indeed), or that these sites were coincidentally located onto p of earlier ones. I t should be stressed that some Persian period sites ar e identified in ne wlocations (e.g., Kh. Kabbar, see Baruch 200Ib), and sho" . no continuity from the Iron Age,therefore supporting the existence of a break in settlement continuity between the two


7/17

J U D A H 1 :\ T H E S I X T H C E N T U R Y B . C . E 43periods. At any event, there was, at best, extremely low continuity, and, at worst, (almost?)no continuity at all. This conclusion seems to be solid enough, and it should be noted thatwhen additional sites are discO\'ered in the future it is unlikely that they would significantlyalter the above picture.

Rl 'RAL SETTLEME:'-JTS I:'-J OTHER REGIO;\lS

O f course, on c ca n ahvays ask how we know that the method suggested here really works? Ibelieve that broadening our survey a little might solve this problem, and a look at th esituation in Samaria's foothills ca n be used to exemplify it.

The Samaria foothills

As mentioned above, the foothills of Samaria form on e of the regions where majorconstruction activities take place. A large number of farmsteads were identified in this regionin surveys conducted by Israel Finkelstein (1978; 198 I), Shimon D ar (1982), Moshe Kochaviand Izhak Beit-Arieh (1994), and Ram Gophna and Beit-Arieh (1997). Recently, severalintensi\'e and detailed surveys were carried out over some micro-regions in this area(Haiman 2000; Amit and Zilberbod 1998; follO\\'ing the construction activities, and intandem with the excavations which will be discussed below). All the surveys conducted inthis region indicate an impressive continuity from the eighth century B.C.E. to th e Hellenisticperiod, and, much more important, this seems to confirmed by the excavations of suchfarmsteads (as \vell as other rural sites) which took place in the region:

Tirat-Yehuda: a large farmstead, some 87 x 45 m (146/ I 58), which was established

during the Iron Age and existed during the Pnsian an d Hellenistic periods, was excavated(Yeivin an d Edelstein [970). 'Bareqet: an enclosure (22 x 23 m), probably the remains of a farmstead (1481/ [581), was

in\'Cstigated. The scanty finds include sherds from the Iron Age, Persian and Early Romanperiods, therefore, indicating continuity between th e Iron Age an d the Persian Period(Ayalon 1982).

itlz. el-Bireh I and 2: two farmsteads, 1 km apart, were excavated. The first (1476/ 1589)was established during th e late Iron Age and continued to exist during th e Persian period(see Scheftelowitz and Oren 1996,3-5; [999,42*). The second farmstead (1565/1590) wasalso built during th e Iron Age and continued to exist during the Persian period (Oren andScheftelowitz 2000, 50*). In both sites sherds from later periods were also found, bu t this isirrelevant for the present discussion.

itlz. Bumat South I and 2 : t\VO similar farms were excavated at Nahal Bareqet. Both wereestablished during th e Iron Age, existed during the Persian period and ceased to exist duringth e Hellenistic period (Hagit Torge, personal communication).

The picture that emerges from the analysis of the six farmsteads that \vere excavated isstrengthened by the excavations of other rural sites, hamlets or villages, which reveal asimilar pattern:

Rosh-Haa),in: remains ofa village were excavated near th e modern town ofRosh-Haayin(146 1-6/1660-3) ' The village existed throughout th e Iron Age Il, and through the Persianand Hellenistic periods, until th e second century B.C.E. (Avner-Le\y and Torge 1999; HagitTurge, personal communication).

The Shoam ~ y p a s s :remains of a rural site were exca\'ated near Shoam (1455/1556).Stratum VIII was dated to th e end of the Iron Age and th e Persian period (Dahari and 'Ad2000,5 6 *).


8/17

44 PA LES TI : \TE E X P L O R AT I O N Q U A R T E R LYCL,ula: though th e site (1466/ I 605) is later in date (crusader settlement), earlier remains

were found in area 2. Most of the finds were dated to the Hellenistic period, but somepottery \vas dated to the Persian period and the end ot th e Iron Age (:-\vissar and Shabo2000,51 *). It is likely, therefore, that the earlier site \vas established during th e late Iron Age,and it continued to exist during the Persian, and \'\ell into the Hellenistic period (finalconclusions, h o w e \ " ( ~ r ,should await more data).

Te! Gadid: though th e exact nature of th e site (15258/ 1454) is not clear, it is interestingto note that it also exhibits continuation from the Iron Age to the Persian period (Brand199 8 ).

Continuity was observed also in Kh. Titora, although the nature of the activity in thesite is less clear (GudO\'itz and Feldstein 1998; note that continuity was not observed in e\'eryarea, e.g., Birman and Goldin 1999, 54 *- 55 *). All in aIL some eleven rural sites exca\'atedexhibit clear continuity from the Iron Age to the Persian period. 12 I t should be noted that afe\\' excavations in this region do not show (full) continuity, e.g., at 'Ofarim (Riklin 1993,53-54), but exceptions ar e expected, and they only prove the rule. The \'ast majority ofIronAge rural sites in this region continued to exist during the Persian period (and in many casesalso into the Hellenistic period). This is not the place to discuss th e possible reasons for the

different settlement history of the \'arious regions discussed so far. Suffice it here to stress thefact that th e rural settlements on Samaria's foothills were part of a different political unit,and, were, in fact, th e hinterland of the nearby coastal plain (e.g., Faust 1995b; in press b).

The data from Samaria's foothills ca n sef\'e as a control group indicating that whenthere is continuity, archaeological examination of excavated rural settlements reveals it,therefore supporting th e \'alidity of th e data from Judah. 13

Additional data

The data on rural settlements in other regions ar e much less detailed, therefore pre\'enting asimilar analysis. I would like, hown'er, to mention two other regions (sites exca\'ated in otherregions are usually not discussed):

. orthem Samaria: The SUf\'ey of the land of Manasseh sC'ems also to indicate much morecontinuity between th e discussed periods (Zertal J 992; 2(01), although the different di\'isionof periods on th e one hand, and th e fact that the data are deri\"ed only from surveys on th eother, make any comparison more problematic. I . Any discussion should, therefore, awaitfurther information.

Southern Coastal Plain: quite a few rural sites were reported by Gophna in this region(1963; 1964; 1966; 1970). These reports do no t comprise any systematic surn'y, and althoughsC\'cral of them were ('\'en excavated (on a \'ery small scale), th e data should be treated \'erycautiously. I t should be noted that these sites represent a somewhat different case from theother sites mentioned abo\'e: on th e one hand, the survey was \ 'ery intensi\'e, and in manycases included an examination of trenches dug into th e site during construction oragricultural acti\'ities (usually, sUf\'eys only collect material found abO\'e the ground). On theother hand, th e exca\'ations were in most cases on an extremely small scale (,examinationexca\'ations'). I t is possible that in this particular case, the data from the sun'eys are not lessreliable than that from the exca\'ations.

All in all Gophna reported nineteen Jron Age sites, dating from \'arious parts of the IronAge. Out often sites that existed during the late Iron Age, four sites seem to ha\'e ha d a LateIron Age-Persian period continuity (Gophna 1963, site 5; Gophna 1964, sites 6-8).IS Ifonerefers to th e entire set of data (the te n sites), an interesting picture arises. \\ 'hile a firstexamination seems to indicate that there was a great decline in th e rural sector (again. it is

possible that some th e sites were incidentally located on top of earlier ones, but it is no t likely


9/17


10/17

PA L E S T I : \ I E E X P L O R A T I O N Q U A RT E R LY

One can, of course, raise the claim that the rural sector is no t the important one, an dthat owing to the wars and insecurity conditions w h i c ~probably follovved the Babylonianconquest, it is likely that th e rural sites especially would be abandoned. This is, of course,correct, but it goes along, as ha s already been established by many, with the almost totaldestruction of urban sites, and it stands in contrast to the explicit claims for continuity in therural sector raised by the supporters of the continuity theory (Barstad 1996, .54-5.5, 8 I; seealso Lipschits 1997, 1 5 3 ~ ~ 9 8 ;1998; Berquist 1995, IS, 17; -:\k-:'\utt 1999, 187-88; see also\\ 'einberg 1969, 84, 88, 96). 1\10reO\'er, it is precisely this relative lack of continuity in theurban sector that drove them to this argument, which, I believe, is, as shown abO\'e,extremely problematic. This is no t to deny th e possibility that some of the very fe\\" sites inJudah which do have Iron Age and Persian Period material did continue to functionthroughout the period, including during the sixth century. But the number would be sosmall, as to prove the above conclusion; moreover e\'en if all these sites (with late Iron Ageand Persian material) existed during the sixth century ~ not a \'ery plausible suggestion assuch a small figure might, at least partially, be accidental-- \Ve still witness a major break.

S C M M A RY

In summary, rural settlements in Judah exhibit extremely limited continuity from the IronAge, and indicate that during the sixth century B.C.E . this settlement form was no t \"Crydominant there, in contrast to the situation in other regions. This situation stands in contrastalso with the (recently) popular view that most of the population ofIron AgeJudah continuedto live in such sites during the Babylonian period. Discussion offundamental cultural changeswhich took place in tandem with the processes described above, and a reexamination of thedemographic reality exceeds th e scope of th e present paper, which discusses only the situationin th e rural sector, but I should stress that both examinations ar e in line with the abO\'econclusion concerning major changes and drastic population decline in sixth century B.C.E.Judah. IG

It should be noted that balanced \'in'vs regarding th e situation in Judah during the sixthcentury B.C.E . seem to have been prevalent among scholars in the past (e.g., Aharoni 1979;Bright 1972). Many scholars seems to have stressed, in contrast to th e impression one mightget from the more recent literature, that the land \\'as not literally empty (see also :'\oth 1960,296). Bright (1972, 343-44), for example, wrote that ' . . . th e popular notion of a totaldeportation which left th e land empty and void is erroneous and to be discarded'. He (andothers), however, stressed that ' the catastrophe was nevertheless appalling and on e whichsignaled the disruption of Je,vish life in Palestine . It seems to me that such balanced ,'iewsmatch the archaeological evidence (for more recent studies, see the works of Stern, Odedand Vanderhooft cited abO\e).

As for th e settlement situation, it is most probable that we should accept l\1azar's (1982,105) interpretation of his exca"ations in Kh. Ab u et- Twein, where some scanty remains leadhi m to conclude that the fort building (and only th e fort, and not the "illage) was (re)usedafter the Babylonian conquest: 'The biblical sources prO\'ide clear evidence for thecontinuation of peasant settlement inJudah by ' \ ' inedresser and husbandmen" as Jeremiahdefined them (J er. .52. 16)'. This is an example of the archaeological evidence we possess forthe 'those remaining in th e land' during this period (apart, perhaps, from th e Land ofBenjamin) \'ery scanty indeed.

E:\,D:\ 'OTE

As we have seen above, it is quite clear that the rural sector cannot carry the burden assignedto it recently by some scholars (most notably Barstad 1996; see also Lipschits 1997, 1.53-98;


11/17


12/17


13/17


14/17

so PA L E S T I ) ' ! E E X P L O R AT I O ) . ! Q U A R T E R LY

(and therefore different archaeological diyision intosub-periods':, on e should examine the cOlltinuity fromIron Il , through Iron Ill. to the Persian Period ~ s e ealsoGa l 1992). : \ onhern Israel deseryes further discussion,which is beyond the scope of th e present paper.

15 Onl\- three of the te n sites were exca\'ated, an d onlyone of them yielded Persian period pottery (collectedduring the sun'ey of the site, bu t not during theexca\ation). It is therefore no t clear whether the twoclasses of data (exca\'ated an d suryeyed sites) present acontradictory picture (if the site in which Persian Periodpottery was found in the survey is seen as indicatingdiscontinuity, because the exca\'ation did no t yield an ysuch potter)') or a similar one (if the site {n whichPersian Period pottery was found in the s u r n ~ yis \'iewedas indicating continuity).

16 Regarding cultural changes, one should considerthe disappearance of the four room house an d theJudahite tomb during the sixth century R.C.E . (n 'en if.in extremelv rare cases, some of these \HTe used duringthe Persian period). These were p an an d parcel ofIsraelite/J udahite society,: e.g. Faust 1999b, 190- cw6;Bunimm'itz an d Faust 20(2) an d their disappearance

cannot be attributed to anything bu t a severe social an dcultural change. As for the demographic reality, Ishould statc that I feel uncomfortable relying onfigures - - th e gaps in ou r knowledge, even in relationto the best studied periods. do no t allow us to 'countpeoples' (e.g. Postgate 1994.'1. All we ca n do, \Try

cautiously. is compare and contrast the yer\, roughestimation of the demographic reality of the variousperiods. Ll relation to the discussed case stlldy, howncr.it should be noted that it seems to me that past studieshave greatly overestimated the population of Judeaduring this period (not the figures, on which I belie\'elittle ca n be said anyway, hut in comparison to the lateIron Age). This is no t the place to present a full an ddetailed 'estimation', which I illlend to do elsewhere,bu t it seems that during the sixth century the populationof the former kingdom of Judah (with the exception ofthe Land of Benjamin, which desen'e a further studyan d e\'en a n:examination) was, at best, 10% of that ofthe late Iron Age. A fuller discussion of these issues willbe conducted elsewhere.

17 A.s mentioned abO\'e, this \'iew seems to havedevelopcd among biblical scholars an d theologians,without an y necessary reference to 'reality' as observedb\' a r c h a e ~ l o g i s t s(e.g., Carroll J 992; B ~ r g u i s t1995).!\1 uc h of their work is, therefore. irrelevant for thepresent discussion. Hans Barstad was probably the firstscholar who, in addition to a new interpretation of thetexts, referred to the situation in Judah during the sixth

century B.C.E. , an d his influential work is therefore agood starting point.

I H :\ " at e that he did no t refer to the new sun'evsconducted by O f r (1993), Finkelstein (1989), Finkclstein an d Magen (1993). cte., although preliminan'(and even final) results were a\'ailable at the time.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aharoni. Y. 1979. n e Land (if the Bible: Histoncal Geograpl!r (London:.Ahlstr(jm, G. \ \ ' . 1982. Rova! Admimstration and. YatlOna! Rclz:r;irm in Annrnl Palestme :Leidcn !.Amit, D. I 989- ~ } o a .'Elazar ' . ESJ. 9. J .')8-60.- - 19 8 9-9 ob . 'KhirbetJarish' , 1..'S1, 9 1.')7'-5 8.~ - 1991. ' rarmsteadsin:\orthernJudea(Betararca;.survcy.ES1. 10'147-48.Amit. D. an d Zilberbod. I. J(198. '!\lazor, sunTY', SI, lB. 65.A\'issar,:\1. and Shabu. E. 1998. 'Quia ' , ,'-,1. 20,5 1*- 53*'Avner-Lc\}', R., an d Tor.ge. H. 1999. 'Rosh Ha-'Avin. SI. 19.40*.5 8 - 59Ayalon, E. 1982. 'Ban'get (J\1odi'im)'. S1. 1,6.Bar-Adon. P. 1989. Exmvatums m the ]udmn Dcsert (Allqot 9) (Jerusalem) (Hebrew).Barkai, G. 1992. 'The Iron Age II-IIr, in Bel1- Tor. A. ed . The Arrhaeulogr rjAnC1fnt Israel (:\ew Havcn), 302 - 73.- . ~ 1995. ' : \ew exca\'atiollS at Ketcf Hinnom', in Z. Safrai an d A. Faust (eds), Ramt Innovations in the S t u ~ rof

Jerusalem, P70ceedings of he First Confermce (Jerusalem), 8- 15 (Hcbrn\l .Barstad, H.M. 1996. n e J{)'th rifthe 1..'mp{J' Land (Oslo).~ - 2001. 'The myth of the empty land', in O. Lipschits (ecL:, ]udea and ]udmllS in the .\ro-BakrloTllan Pniod,

Summaries (Tel-A\'i\). 7- 8.Baruch, Y. 1997. Kh. e1-Eid - An Iron-Age fortress in the north of !\It. Hebron. in Y. Eshel (ed.). ]udea and

Samarza Research Conference: Proceedings of he (ith Corz.fnerzre - - 199(i (Kedumin-Ariel), 49 :)6 (Hebrew).2000. 'Betar rorest ' , S1, 20.104*.

~ - 200 I a. 'Khirbet Ab u Sha\\an' , Hadashot Arkheologi\'ot, S1, J 13,95 *-c)i*, 14 I - 43- - - 2001 b. 'Khirbet Kabbar' , Hadashot Arkheologiyot, ES1, I 13,97* -9 8 *,143 44Beit-Arieh, I., an d Cresson, B. C. 1991. 'Hon 'at 'Cza. a fortified outpost on the eastern :\"egn' border', BA, 54.,

J 26 - 35.Ben-Arieh, S. 20(JO. 'Sah-age exca\'ations near the Holyland Hotel, Jerusalem " Atiqot, 40, 1-24.Berguist, J .L. 1995. ]udai.rm ill Pn.na's ShadolL': A Social alld Historiml Approarh (!\1inneapolis).Bienkowski, P. 1998. 'Comments on the papers by Kitchen. Whitelam and Finkelstein', in S. Ahitu\, an d E. D.

Oren (eds), n e Orzgin qf Ear!)' iJrarl . ~ Current Debate: Bibli((ll, Historical and Archaeological Perspectil'er ~ B e e r -She\,a), 163-65.

Birman, G., an d Goldin, E. 1999. 'Horhat Tittora'. ES1, 19, j4*-5 j* , 80.Brand, E. 1998. Salvage Exrazation al the Periphery' qfTcI Gadid (TeI-A\j\) (Hebrew).Bright, J. 197 2 . History (if hrae! (Philadelphia;.Bunimo\'itz, S . an d Faust, A. 2002. 'Ideology in stone: understanding the four-room house', BAR, 28/4. 32- 4 I ,

.19- 60.Carroll, R.P. 1992. 'The myth of th e empty land'. SEJfLL S9, i9 93


15/17

] l J D A H I ~ T H E S I X T H C E ; \ ; T C RY B . C . E 51Carter. C. E. 1999. The Emergence rif l"rhud In the Persian Period: a Soczal alld Dmwgraphir S t u ~ }!, Journal flJr the Study of

the Old Testament Supplement Series, 294 L Sheffield.Cowllo-Paran, K. 1998. 'Horbat ~ I a l t a ' ,ESI, 18,27-28.Cresson, B. Area F', in I. Beit-Arieh (cd.). TeI 'Ira, a stronghold in the biblzcal,\egev (Tel A\'i\'), 97 - 102.Dagan, Y. 1998. 'Settlement reality in tht: Shephelah het\vt:en Sennachcrih destruction and the Restoration

period', in O. Lipschits (ed.l, h It possihle to define Ihe Ceramzcs o/Ihe 6th Century sr:E in ]udah) ,Tel-A\'iv) (Hehrew),8.

Dahari, C. an d ~ - \ d ,l ' . 2000. 'Shoam bypass road' , SI, 20 ,56*59* .Dar, S. 1982. ~ - \ n c i e n tagricultural farms near \\ 'adi Beit- ~ - \ r i f ' ,Xofim, 16, 47 - 60 IHebrew;.~ - 1986. 'Hirbet Jt:mein - a first temple village in \\ 'estern Samaria ', in S. Dar and Z. Safrai (eds), Shomron

Studies (TeI-A\'iv) (Hebrew), 13-73.Demand, :'\.H. 1990. {'rban Reloration in Arrhazr alld Classical Greece (Bristol).DesseL JP. 1999. 'Tell 'Ein Zippori an d th e Lower Galilee in the Late BrollZe an d Iron Ages: a village perspecti\'C',

in E . \1. ~ l e y e r s(cd. I, Galzlee through the .4grs (Winona Lake), 1-- 32.Dinnur, l ' . , an n Fcig. :'\. 1993. 'The suney in the eastern part of the map of Jerusalem', in I. Finkelstein an d

I. J\1agen (eds), Archaeological S u n ' ~ ) 'rifthe HzII C a u n l ~ vrifBenjamin (Jerusalem), 339 427.Edelstein, G. 2000. 'A terraced farm at Er-Ras', Atiqal, 4 0 , 39 -63.Edclstein, G., an d Kislev, 1\1. 1981. 'l\le\'asseret Yerushalavim: the ancient settlement an d its agTicultural terraces',

BA, H , 53-56.Eitan, .\ . 1983. ' \ 'ered Ycricho', f..7zada.\hot A r k h e a l o g ~ v o t ,82, 43 -4 4 ,:Hebrew).

- - 1986. 'Antiquities director confronts problem and C'Olltro\'ersies' (BAR Intervin\'s A\Taham Eitan::, BAR, 12/+ : )03 8 .Eph'al, I. 1996. Siege and its Annml. \ear Eastern .IIamfeslatwn UtTusaIem) (Hebrew).Faus!' A. 1995a. 'The Rural Settlement in the Land oflsracl during the Period of the :\lonarchy' (;\1.A. thesis, Bar

Ilan Cni\Trsitv, Ramat-Gan; ,Hebrew;.~ ~ 1995b. 'Settlement on the western slopes ofSamaria at the en d of the Iron Age'. in Z. H. Erlich, an d Y. Eshe!

(eds), ]udea and Samarz(1 Researrh Sludies, ProceedlTlg,1 lift/If .;11z Annual .I Ieetmg - 1.9.9'; (Kedumim-Ariel), 23--29.- I 999a. 'From hamlets to monarchy: a view from the countryside on the formation of the Israelite monarchy',Cathedra, 94, i -3 2 (HebrC\\;.--- 1999b. 'The Social Structure of the Israelite Society during the 8th-7th c(,nturies BC E according to theArchaeological E\idence' (Ph.D. thesis, Bar-Ilall Cniversitv, Ramat-Gan;.

- 2()()0. 'The rural community in allcient Israel during the Iron Age II', B.4S0R, 3 I 7, 17-39.~ 200 I. 'Salvage cxca\'ations as a source for reconstructing the settlement history of th e Land of Israel', an

u n p u / ; l i ~ h e dpaptT presented at a cOllfcn'ncc on 'The Stud\ of the Land of Israel', Yad ltzhak Ben Zvi,Jerusalem 24 September 2()[) I) : Hebrew :.

--- in press a. Abandonment, urbanization, resettlement an d the f(Jrmation of th e Israelite state', , \ear EmtemAr(haeo/agJ'.in press h. 'The farmstead in the highlands of Iron II Israer. ill S. Dar, . \ \I . :\Iaeir. an d Z. Safrai (eds), 7711'

Ruml /.andlrajie ofAnrirnt h m dFeig, :'\., an d : \bd Rabu, O. 1995. Jerusalem, Kh . er-Ras'. A7zada.lhol.4rklzf%g!)'ot.10 3, 9 j 9 9 (Hebrew')_Feig, : \. 1996. ':'\ '\ \ discmTrit'S in th e Rephaim \ 'alky, Jerusalem', PEQ 1:28, 3-- 7.

1999. 'The em'irons of Jerusalem in the Iron Age II'. in S. : \hiwv an d A. ;"lazar (edsi, 7711' lIislor), oj]eru,la/em:77u Rihlzra/ Pmod ' jeru ' ialem) (Hebrew!. 38 7 4-09.

Ft'ldstein, A., Kidr()n, G . Hanin, :'\., Kamaiskv, Y., an d Eitam, D. 1993- T h e sunTY in the southern part of themaps of Ramallah an d el-Bireh an d northern part of the ma p of'Ein Kerem', in I. Finkelstein an d I. ;"Iagened s .4rr/zaeologira/ SliU, e)' o/the I hl l Countr), 0/ Bf'Il)amm (Jerusalem:, I:n 264-.

Finkc>lstein, I. 19713. 'Rural Settlement in t h ~Foothills an d the Yarkon Basin in the Israelite-Hellenistic Periods'~ 1 . . \ .thesis, Tel-:\\iv L'ni\'ersitv, Tel-A\'i\) (Hebrewl.I


16/17

'""2J PA L E S T I N E E X P L O R AT I 0 2 \ J Q U A R T E R LY

GrecIlhut, Z, ICJCJ4. 'Rcccnt archaeological rt'Search in the pniphcrv of Jerusalem', Anr/. 100 01, 133-47I,Hebrew;.

Gudc)\'itz, S, an d Feldstein, :\ , 199H, 'Horbat Tillora', ES1, I H, 7CJ- 8.1.Haiman, 1\1. 2 0 0 0 . 'Rush Ha-'Ayin Area, sun'ey', ES1, 20, 4 j * 46*.Hizmi, H. 1993. T he Surwy in the southern part of the ma p of Beit Sira', in I. Finkelstein and I. 1\lagen (eds),

Arrhaeological S u n l ~ } 'of he lIill Countu qf BflZJamlll (Jerusalem), CJ7- 131.--- 19CJS. ' t lo rbat 'Eli', E , ~ 1 .IS, j I j2 .Kern, P.B. 1999. Ancifllt Siege 11 rn!are (Bloomington).Kh . el-Burj 1973. 'Kh. el-Burj', Anada.lhot A r k h e o l o g ~ J ' o t ,4:), 26 : HebrC\\).Kloner. A. :2000. S u n J ~ ) 'o.f]erwalem, the southern sertor (Archaeological Survey of Israel) (Jerusalem).Kocha\'i, ;\1. 1972. T h e Land of J udah', in ;'1. Kocha\,i (cd.), ]udra, Samana and the Go/an, Ar(haeolo,!!,lrai S u r u ~ )

ly67 1968 (Jerusalem), 19H9 (Hebrew).Kocha\'i, !\1.. an d Beit-Arich, 1. 1994. Jlap Ilf Ro.l!z Ha.:1Vlll (Archaeological Survey ofIsrael (Jerusalem).Lipschits, O. 1997. 'The "Yehud" Prm,ince under Babvlonian Rule (S86 39 B.C.E.): Historic Realitv and

Historiographic Conceptions' (Ph.D. thesis, Tel-:'\\'i\' C n i \ ' t ~ r s i t \ ' ,Tel-A\'i\'\ ;Hebn'\\:,199H. 'The material culture of the people that remained in J udah' , in O. Lipschits (ed.). h It posslblc to define the

Crramics of he 6th CentuT) BC E II I ]udah) (Tel-A.\i\), 21- 23 (Hebrcw),~ - 1999. 'The history of the Benjamin region under Babylonian rule', Tel.h'il', 26, I j j 9 0 .--- 200 I. 'Demographic changes in Judah between the 7th an d Sth centuries B . C . E . ' , in O. Lipschits (cd.). }udah

alld ]Udtall" ill the, \eo-Bakrionian hr iod, 5ummanf.1 (Tel-A\'i\), 28 - 29 ' an d a handout).London, G. 1989. 'A comparison of two life styles of the late second millennium B.C. ' , BA50R, 273, 37 55.Magen, Y. 199j. 'The Land of Benjamin in th r Second Temple Period', in Z. H. Erlich an d Y. Eshel. ]udea and

Samaria Research Studic.\, Proreedin/!,.I of he Fourth Annual .Heeling 1.9.94 i. Kedumim-Ariel), 7 102 (Hebrew).l'vIarcus, J, and Flanncry, K. \ '. 1996. ;::apotec CIl'ili.::.at/on: HalL Crban SorzeU evohed in .\lexlco J Oaxara I l l ~ ) '(I ,ondon).l\Iay,::\. 1999. Jerusalem, Gi\ 'a t Homa', 51,19, 6.=-/6(j*.Maitlis, Y. I ) H 9 .'. \gricultural Srnlements in th e \'icinity of Jerusalem ill the Late Iron Age' (l \L\., thesis, Th e

Hebrew Cniversity of Jrrusalem) (Jerusalem).!'IIazar, A. 1982. ' I ron Age feJrlresses in theJudean hills', P(6 I q , 87 1 0 9 .;,1azar, A,., Amit, D. , an d Ilan, Z. 1996. 'Hun 'at Shilhah: an Iron Age site in the Judean desert', in J. D. Seger

(cd.), Rrtriering thc Past: El.lars 011 .Jl'rliafOlo/!,lcal Research and .llctlwdolug), in Ifonol' qf C;us II'. rail Beek ,:\\'illollaLake!,193 21 1.

~ I c : \ 'un , p, \1 . I ) 9 9 .RerOlntrurtlng the Sow{r (!lAnrimt hrae/\Louisyille;.~ v l i k v e s k i ,1. 1996-97. 'Settlemellt patterns in IIorthern J udah durim; the Achaemenid period, according to the

Hill Country of Benjamill an d J erusalcm sun'ey', Bulletin of hr Anglo hrarl. 1 rharo logu ni Sone!]' I j , 7 -2


17/17

J U D A H I:'-J T H E S I X T H CE: - -JTURY B . C . E 53\\'cinbcrg, S, S. r 9 69. Past-Entir Paintine . ~ ,In archaeological report. Proceedings of the Israel .-\cademy of Sciences

an d Humanities, VI , 5 (.Jerusalem), 78-'97.\\'cksler-Bdolah, S, 1999, ~ - \ l o n a ' ,1:'51,19, 68*-70*'\\'olff, S. 199 8 . 'An Iron Age I site at 'E n Hagit (northern Ramal l\Ienashe),. in S. Gitin. A. l\Iazar. an d E. Slern

(cds) . . lediterranean Peoples In Trall.lltlOn (Jerusalem), 449 54.Yei\'in, Z. an d Edelstein. G. 1970. 'Excavations at Tirat Yehuda', Atlqat, 6,56 - 67 :Hebrew).Yogn', O. 1985. ' ;\ahal Zimra', Khada.lhot A r k h e o l o g ~ ) ' o t ,87,29-30 (Hebrew).Zehavi, A. 1993. Jerusalem, l\Ianahal', 51, 12,66-67.Zertal, A. 1992. n e Hanasselz Hill Country Survey, n e Sheclzem S,yncline (Tel-A\iv).~ - . -200 r. 'The hills of Samaria: population, economy an d history in the 7th 6th centuries B C E ' , in O. Lipschits

(ed.). Judah and Judeans In the Xeo-BakJllonlan Penod. Summaries (Tel-Avi\'), 3 0 .Zilberbod, 1.. an d Amit. D. 1999. ' l\Iazor (EI'ad), sites 2 I an d 38', Hadmhot Arklzeolog!vot: S1. 109, 63 * -64 *.

faust - judah in the 6th bce. a rural perspective judah (2003)

Documents