under Assyrian Domination under Assyrian Levant Southern The

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Domination under Assyrian Levant Southern The Edited by Shawn Aster and Zelig Avraham Faust University Park, Pennsylvania Eisenbrauns

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Library Material, ansi z39.48-1992.Library National Standard forInformation Sciences—Permanence ofPaper forPrinted Publications onuncoated theminimum requirements stock satisfy ofAmerican ofThe It thepolicy is Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid- Presses.versity The Pennsylvania State University AssociationPress of is amember ofthe Uni Eisenbrauns ofThe an imprint is Pennsylvania State University Press. University Park, PA 16802-1003 Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, Printed intheUnited States ofAmerica reserved rights All Copyright © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University at https:// available record lc lcsh Subjects: Identifiers: lccn “PresentsSummary: aseries ofstudies that address aspects various ofAssyrian Description: University Park, Pennsylvania :Eisenbrauns, [2018] |Includes bibli Title: domination /LevantAssyrian The southern under Aster, Avra ShawnZelig Names: Aster, editor. Shawn Zelig, |Faust, Avraham, editor. ofCongressLibrary Cataloging- Classification: ds69.5. hegemony, and thesources available forsuch studies”—Provided by publisher. in the southern Levant andrule its consequences, under Assyrian as life as well ographical references and index. ham Faust, editors. Assyria—History—Sources. Palestine—Relations—Assyria. | tory. |Assyria—Relations—Palestine. | : Assyria—Civilization. | Assyria—History. | Palestine—His : Assyria—Civilization. 2018007610 |isbn 9781575067971 (cloth paper) :alk. s685 2018s685 |ddc ​lccn ​ in- ​.loc ​P ublication Data ​.gov 933 ​/ ​/2018007610 ​.03—dc23 ​f ree paper. - - - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. An Introduction Chapter Domination:LevantAssyrian 1:The Southern under List ofTablesList ofIllustrationsList L Evidence Hegemony:and Judah under theAssyrian The Ceramic Chapter 8:On Phoenicia’s Trade Philistia Relations with Alex Plain ofIsrael: OldConcepts and New Interpretations Chapter 7:Neo- id Kert Da of Hospitality intheSouthern Levant A ChapterInfluenceAssyrian onthe Architecture 6:The Amit ofJudahImperial Experience Chapter 5:“Your and Son I Servant Am”: oftheAssyrian n ZeligAster Aspects S to Neo- Chapter 4:Treaty Reactions and ofBiblical Prophecy: A Survey Peter Zilberg Sources, Administration, and Control ChapterProvincesAssyrian Levant: ofthe Southern 3:The Avr ontheGround oftheReality An Overview Levant: inthe Southern ChapterCentury Assyrian 2:The Avr ofAbbreviations List ily h v a a a w S a h h a inger- nder F i a a B m F m F ​A ruchi-

ssyrian Politicalssyrian Thought a a a ust ust i ​Avit a 186 nt

a z a ​U i ​A nd

l x nn k ssyrian Involvementssyrian intheSouthern Coastal in

1 S a h

v a ii w x n ZeligAster i

1 19

8

9 1 5 39 6

2 0

1 62 Contents

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. vi

Contents ne Wa Speculations on theCoins from Samaria Chapter 10:Last The Days of in Cuneiform Canaan: Y toward theLevant Chapter Decree 9:TheBeirut and Mesopotamian Imperial Policy Index ofGeographic Names Index and ofBiblical Cuneiform Texts Index ofAuthors ig y a l B H loch orowit z

2 47 2 16

25 7

25 3 2 36

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. 1.2. Empire with ap oftheAssyrian 1.1. 2.2. 2. 2.6. 2. 2.4. 6.1. 2. 3. 1. 5.

graphed by Avraham Faust) of theTel ʿEton photo- expedition; 101, Room D) at Tel ʿEton (courtesy “governor’s (Building residency” ian conquest: room a burnt inthe Sapir) major sites (prepared by Yair M The de Yair Sapir) the southern Levant (prepared by E Sapir) (preparedtioned inthetext by Yair A m Sapir) southern Levant (prepared by Yair unearthed inthe texts of cuneiform Abb. 104) author (based onHeinrich 1984: R Sapir) and regions (prepared by Yair therelevantEmpire with sites S A m ham Faust) photographedexpedition; by Avra- (courtesycities oftheTel ʿEton thefate ofconquered exemplifying Tel ʿEton (Building 101, E), Room The A time Ol chematic map of the Assyrian chematic map oftheAssyrian conomic zones ofproduction in ed House (Assur), floor plan by ive oil production inspaceive oil and ap the sites showing men- ap theconcentration showing

ssyrian destruction layer destruction ssyrian at

vastatingAssyr- effect ofthe 28 2 23 38 46

14 26 35 4

8 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 7.1. 6.6. 6.5. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4. 7.5. 7.6.

author (based onMiglus 2012) P and Shipton 1939: fig. 89) plan by author (based onLamon B Miglus fig. 407) 1999: floor plan(based by author on H pl. CLXXVII) by author (based onYadin 1958: (afterKaplan fig. 2) 1969: the location ofKaplan’s excavation pl. 119) by author (based onTufnell 1953: Ge B R 1969: fig. 3) 1969: tem offortifications (after Kaplan K Philip Sapirstein)Philip to thesoutheast2, a view by (photo reopenedwall, inKaplan’s Section I (photo by Philip Sapirstein) by(photo Philip was located to ofthewall theright from above; a view a favissawall, I Philip Sapirstein)Philip br A clos One ofthech by Pavel Shrago) (drawing by Yulia Gottlieb; photo ron mud- IIB ron mud- IIB alace (Tarbiṣu), floor plan by uilding 1052/1369uilding (Megiddo), floor uilding 3002uilding (Hazor), floor plan List ofIllustrations esidency (Lachish),esidency floor plan aplan’s thesys- Section 1within ouse III, Merkesouse III, Area (Babylon), ick fortification wall (photo by wall ick fortification neral plan ofthesite, showing e-

​u p oftheIron mud- IIB 154

alices from thefavissa ​br ​br 1

71 ick fortification ick fortification ick fortification ick fortification

155

1 76 1 1 73 75

1

53

1 1

51 70

1 ​ 74 14 8

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. essels from thefavissa by (photo 7.7. ist ofIllustrationsist viii 8.1. 8.1.1. 8.1.2. 8.1.6. 8.1.5. 8.1.4. 8.1.3. 8.1.9. 8.1.8. 8.1.7.

L Pavel Shrago) V tia andtia Judah P S fig. 12.84: 9) fig. 12.67: 14) S 2005: fig. 3.102: 4) J 35: 8) Bo 10) Bo fig. 8.85o) Bo 181:9) J fig. 40:12) J 76: 11) J ug (Dothan and Ben- uglet (Singer- uglet (Dothan and Freedman 1967: ug (Singer- torage jar (Singer- torage jar (Singer- hoenician pottery types at Philis- types hoenician pottery wl (Singer-wl (Dothanwl 1971: fig. 59: (Ben-wl

190

191 191 191

​S ​A

190 191

hlomo 2014:

vitz 2016a: fig. 12.vitz

​A ​A 1 vitz 2016a: fig. 12.vitz 89 1 1 vitz 2016a: fig. 12.vitz 90 1 88 76

​A ​A 1 vitz 2016a: vitz vitz 2016a: vitz 91 ​S hlomo 8.1.12. 8.1.11. 8.1.10. 8.2. 10.1. 10.2. 10.3. 10.4.

2015: fig. 5.16: 230) S 157: 20) J J fig. 8.97i) by Yair Sapir) (preparedtioned inthearticle S S S S in press].) [University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, Canaan in Cuneiform Oshima, and Seth L.Sanders, Wayne Horowitz, Takayoshi from permission, duced, with (Repro- inscriptions cuneiform M uglet (Singer- uglet (Ben- tand/goblet (Yezerski and Mazar amaria 5 amaria 6 ites and Judah inPhilistia men- amaria 7 ap ofsites intheLevant with

1 92 192 ​S 2 2 2 242 39 hlomo 2014: 39 39

​A vitz 2016a: fig. 12.vitz 1 93

, 2nded. 1 92

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. ocuments thereign during of 3.1. 3.4. 3.3. 3.2.

Tiglath- D gon II Esarhaddon D Sennacherib D D ocuments thereign during ofSar- ocuments thereign during of ocuments thereign during of

iee III ​pileser 6 2–63

64 63

6 0 3.6. 3.5. 3.8. 3 .7.

Ashurbanipal U D D A Philistia Megiddo ssyrian provinces ofSamariassyrian and ndated documents ocuments thereign during of ocuments to pertaining

80 79 List of TablesList

64

65

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. IA Leichty, 2011. E. RoyalThe Inscriptions ofEsarhaddon, (680–Assyria King of 4 RINAP and Novotny, Grayson, A., J.Royal 2012. The Inscriptions ofSennacherib,King 3 RINAP Tadmor, H.,and Yamada, S. 2011.Royal The Inscriptions of Tiglah Pileser III 1 RINAP ofthe Rulers Early 1991. Assyrian First K. Grayson, Millennium A. BC 2 RIMA Parpola, S., ed. 1998–2011.Prosopography The of the Neo- PNAE Saggs, H. W. F. 2001. The Nimrud Letters, (Cuneiform 1952 Texts from Nim- CTN V Postgate, J. 1973. The Governor’s PalaceArchive (Cuneiform Texts from Nim- CTN II CC A Kwasman, T., and Parpola, S. 1991. Legal Transactions ofthe of Royal Court 6 SAA G., Lanfranchi, and Parpola, S. 1990. The Correspondence ofSargon II, , Part I 5 SAA Starr, I.1990. Queries to the Sun God: Divination and Politics in Sargonid 4 SAA Parpola, S., and Watanabe, 1988. Neo- K. 2 SAA Paropla, S. 1987. The Correspondence ofSargon II. Part I: Letters Assyria from 1 SAA 669 BC) (Royal Inscriptions oftheNeo- Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: (704–681 BC)of Assyria (Royal Inscriptions Period oftheNeo-Assyrian 3). ona Eisenbrauns. Lake: and Shalmaneser V (Royal Inscriptions oftheNeo- University ofToronto Press. (The Royal of Assyrian Inscriptions 2). Mesopotamia,Periods Toronto: volumes. Helsinki Helsinki: University Press. School ofArchaeology inIraq. British London: rud V). School ofArchaeology inIraq. British London: rud II). Society.tion Sources from the Land of Israel Ancientin Times. Jerusalem: Israel Explora- Horowitz, W., and Oshima, T. Cuneiform 2006 in Canaan: Cuneiform Press. Nineveh, Part I, State 6. Helsinki Helsinki: Archives University ofAssyria State 5. Helsinki Helsinki: University Archives Press. of Assyria , State 4. Helsinki Helsinki: UniversityAssyria Archives Press. ofAssyria State Helsinki 2.Helsinki: University Archives Press. ofAssyria Press. and the West, State 1. Helsinki Helsinki: University Archives ofAssyria Eisenbrauns. List of Abbreviations List ​A ​A ssyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, ssyrian Periodssyrian 4).Winona Lake: ​A ssyrian Periodssyrian 1).Win- ​A ssyrian Empire. 6

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. SAA 17 Dietrich, M. 1998. M. The Dietrich, Neo- 17 SAA A 6Luukko, and M., Van Buylaere, G. 2002. The Political Correspondence ofEsar- 16 SAA and Parpola, Fuchs, S. A., 2001. The Correspondence ofSargon II, , Part III 15 SAA R. 2002. Legal Transactions Mattila, ofthe ofNineveh, Royal Court Part 2, 14 SAA Cole, S. W., and Machinist, P. 1998. Letters fromPriests to Kingsthe Esarhad- 13 SAA Fales, F. M., and Postgate, J. Imperial 1995. Administrative Records, Part 2, 11 SAA Parpola, S. 1997. Prophecies Assyrian , State 9. Helsinki: Archives ofAssyria 9 SAA Fales, F. M., and Postgate, J. 1992. Imperial Administrative Records, Part 1 , 7 SAA ist ofAbbreviationsist xii 1996. Neo- Jas, R. 5 SAAS 1994. The EponymsAssyrian Millard,Empire of A. the , State Archives of 2 SAAS Luukko, M. 2012. The Correspondence of Tiglath- 19 SAA SAAS 11 Mattila, R. 2000.King’s The Mattila, Magnates: A Study of the Highest Officials of the 11 SAAS 1998. DieAnnalen Fuchs, Jahres des A. v.Chr 711 8 SAAS 1997. Radner, K. Dieneuassyrischen Privatrechtsurkunden als Quelle für 6 SAAS

L haddon State 15. Helsinki Helsinki: University Archives Press. ofAssyria State 14. Helsinki Helsinki: University Archives Press. ofAssyria Press.versity don and Assurbanipal, State 13. Helsinki Helsinki: Archives Uni- ofAssyria State 11. Helsinki Helsinki: Archives University ofAssyria Press. Helsinki University Press. State 7. Archives Helsinki Helsinki: ofAssyria University Press. Assyria Studies Helsinki 2.Helsinki: University Press.Assyria Press. Calah/Nimrud, nacherib, University Press. Neo- aus Ninive und, State Studies Assur 8. Neo- Helsinki: Archives ofAssyria University Press. Mensch und Umwelt, State Studies 6. Archives Helsinki Helsinki: ofAssyria ies 5. Helsinki Helsinki: University Press. A ssyrian Textssyrian Corpus Project. syin Empire, State Studies 11. Archives Helsinki Helsinki: ofAssyria ​ Assyrian , State 16. Helsinki Archives Helsinki: University ofAssyria Press. State 17. Archives ofAssyria Helsinki Helsinki: University Press. State 19. Helsinki Helsinki: Archives University ofAssyria ​A ssyrian Judicial Procedures, State Stud- Archives ofAssyria ​Ba bylonian Correspondence ofSargon and Sen- . nach Prismenfragmenten ​Pi leser III andleser III Sargon II from ​

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Interpretations Old Concepts and New Plain of Israel: in theSouthern Coastal Neo- Chapter 7 Ashkelon was an wealthy exceptionally Ashkelon (Stager city 1996, Master 2008; 2001, 2003) and paragraphs). inthefollowing detail Focusing ontheseventh century, suggested it is that throughcommercial thecenturies (see derived power” from activity its“port inmore location. According to Stager (2001), Ashkelon’s dominant role inlocal and international (Shavit itspresumed 2008), and strength by prosperity itsfavorable explained is coastal (Naʾaman thelack ofdeveloped combined with hinterland 2009), rural around thecity In of the modest size view of the kingdom in the seventh of Ashkelon BCE century duringAshkelon the Days of the Neo- excavations at thesite ofAshdod- publication ofarchaeological data and other from coastal Ashkelon sites asrenewed aswell acceptednumber ofwidely areassessment concepts, theydeserve inlight oftheongoing both subjects have received considerable scholarly attention inthe past, resulting in a aspects control certain ofimperial over theregion. asclarify Although Empire—as well role under theNeo- ofAshkelon southern on the coastal sites—in particular, dated to advanced stages to concentrate chapter, oftheIron Age. onthe In this I wish produced abundant and archaeological Egypt border evidence zone between Assyria theframework oftheNeo-within The southern coastal plain“land of ofthe Israel,Philistines,” the played asignificant role Assyrian Involvement ​Assyrian Involvement

​Y ​A am. ssyrian Empire.ssyrian Various sites located sensitive inthis ​A ssyrian Empire ssyrian Alex a nder F a nt ​ A a ssyrian ssyrian l k in

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. domination at thesite. should bedated to thelate seventh BCE—that ofEgyptian from theperiod is, century archaeological remains attestingAshkelon’s to come prosperity fromsolely thelevel that the area ofJaffa—consisting ofBeth Dagon, Bene- Jaffa, sufferedally from Sennacherib’s Ashkelonite the enclave in campaign in701 BCE. Thus erib’s offensive.Ashkelon that only kingdoms,actu- Indeed, among it was the Philistine Ashkelon’s possessions were most probably reduced significantly asa result of Sennach- Neo- IIC. Indeed, to contrary thepresumed the during and ofAshkelon importance prosperity the period ofNeo-the period Neo- and cannot beconsidered604 BCE proof ofAshkelon’s of theperiod during prosperity Greek mercenaries, stationed at ontheeve Ashkelon oftheBabylonian of destruction Greek pottery, however,which included points to thepresencegarrison, of an Egyptian Assyriaca then projected is which to seventh thewhole century, including ofthepax theperiod layer has created theimpression trade maritime (Waldbaum offlourishing 1997, 2011), and most probably confiscated. Schloen 2011), Babylonian of604 BCE thereafter destruction and shortly published (Stager, Master, and nium BCE.” inPalestine cities oneofthemost important - millen inthefirst ofthefirst“became half theseventh during perity century—that to is say, despite Ashkelon, itslimited territory, Naʾaman suggests 356) (2009: sources that point to thedocumentary also Ashkelon’s pros in thelate seventh BCE (Faust century and Weiss 2005, 2011; Tappy spirit, In this 2008). hegemony thedaysduring intheLevant ofthepax ofEgyptian and Assyriaca theperiod was at ofAshkelon thelocaleconomicthat theheart system theport (including Judah) see Naʾaman Fantalkin 2009); (1998; and Tal Fantalkin (2008); (2011); and thefollowing. the Neo- on botharchaeological and historical data, Barstad’s (2012) recent speculations concerning of thereliability rubble. In the month and ofŠebat, [went forth back] he set to Bab[ylon]” (after Glassner 2004: 229). Based he took itinthemonth ofKislev, pillaged and [plu]ndered seized itsking, it.He reduced to aheap thecity of cording to thechronicle, first “The year reign) (of the of Nebuchadnezzar, month of Siwan, in the thekings ofḪatti came intoAll presence, his and he received their massive tribute. He marchedAškelôn; on . he mustered troops his and marched onḪatti. themonth hetraveled ofKislev Until through victoriously. Ḫatti c entury remainsentury discovered at (Fantalkin Ashkelon 2011). dedicated A final report, to the 2. 1 C The d I h

A ​ ​A F Ac urrently, it is safe to say that archaeological forAshkelon’s evidence during prosperity ssyrian domination advocatedssyrian by numerous scholars (including the excavators), the ssyrian domination (Fantalkinssyrian 2011, 2015). or summaries concerning theappearance and disappearance oftheAshkelonite enclave east ofJaffa, ave elsewhere thenature discussed indetail and significance ofthe late seventh- ​B abylonian destruction of Ashkelon shouldbetotally rejected ofAshkelon abylonian destruction (Fantalkin 2017). (e.g., Stager 1996, 1585; 2008: Master 2001, 2003; Faust and Weiss 2005, 2011). This iscovery ofrelativelyiscovery large amounts604 BCE ofGreek inthe pottery destruction 1 reinforces my conclusions regarding the situation Iron during IIB– Age ​A ssyrian domination notyet is attested.ssyrian From ahistorical perspective, ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ​A 2 Moreover, (700 BCE), according cylinder to theRassam ​B araq, and Azur—was targeted andaraq, Azur—was

1 63 - ​

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. sible thatsible Ashkelon’s took mariners and shipbuilders an active inthe creation part ofthe king ofEkron; and Silli- Sennacherib transferred thewestern ofJudah Padi, districts to Mitinti, king ofAshdod; e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 164 rahm (1997: 117), having collated anew, thetext has offered the possibility (already considered) that . mentioned amongthe gentilic may fortheCypriots, thesailors, betaken asthegentilic fortheIonians aswell. 46, lines 57–62a, after Grayson and Novotny 2014b: 82). sailors) theTigris them down downstream sail (Sennacherib with River Opis” to thecity Tyre (and) Sidon, (and) theland Io magnificent ships,a product characteristic oftheir land. I gave orders cities ofthe to sailors Nineveh thepeople ofthe land [Ḫa]tti plundered by [bow(s)] my built and theyskillfully ued theEuphrates down to themouthofriver. The relevant passage reads, “I settled in Nineveh to From Opis. there, theywere dragged overland to theAraḫtu Canal and contin- men were to alarge mobilized build fleet ofshipsthat were the down ferried from Tigris, on theshores ofthePersian Gulf. In order to accomplish theSyrian crafts mission, this connected to Sennacherib’s campaign of694 BCE—aimed at destroying theElamite base shouldbe in 700 BCE therest cities, as for ofthePhilistine and not, 694–early 693 BCE to possible that hypothesize Ashkelon’s148n20). it is In my opinion, reward onlyinlate the account inRassam’s (cf. Gallagher cylinder 135; 1999: Tappy Knauf 397n66; 2003: 2008: them” (Sennacherib 46, after lines 28b–30a, Grayson and Novotny80). 2014b: I added and imposed thepayment tribute, former theirannual (of) gifts giving, (it) upon [Ashdo]d, Ekron, (and) Ashkelon, Gaza, and (thereby) made land smaller. his To the that land ofhis his thecities Ihad plundered and Igave (them) thecities to the king[s of] royallem, his city, abird inacage]. [like blockades up against I set him. I detached from Ekron, and Gaza (117–18): “As for him(Hezekiah), city him inside I confined the Jerusa kingdoms instead ofthree.Ashkelontime, This received itsshare Ashdod, with together kiah’s confiscated inthe lands Shephelah between four mentionedPhilistine divided as 3

The Only inB after4, lines 52–54, Grayson and Novotny 2014a: 65) (in recognition) of my overlordship and imposed (it) upon them. (Sennacherib smaller. To the I added former tribute, their annual giving, the payment (of) gifts Ekron, (and) Ûili- gave (them) and Padî, to Mitinti, Ashdod, theking ofthecity theking ofthecity gate. city his I detached that land of fromhis his the cities I had plundered and I abirdlike inacage. blockades up against I set himand made himdread exiting forhim(Hezekiah),As city himinside the his city,royalJerusalem, I confined A F lthough theboats were manned from Tyre, by sailors Sidon, and Cyprus, Th re is no sufficient explanationre nosufficient as is to why thedifferent account is given 4 in Bull from ull 4, datedull (Frahm to late 1997: 118, 694–early 693 BCE 123), are Heze- be ​ ​ Bē l, king of Gaza. The king of Ashkelon, king ofGaza.l, however,king The of is not mentioned: l, theking ofthelandl, Gaza, [and thereby] made land his [n]ia , whom Ihad, whom captured. They (my troops) let (the 3 it is plau itis - - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. during thereignduring ofTiglath- p (Naʾaman 353). 2009: werethese contributions delivered coastal Philistine and by Ashkelon cities—Gaza two 1 34). In lightSAA 1 34, it is of many assumed between ND 2672 andSAA that similarities thereign during cities ofSargon IItwo mentioned is inaletterfrom Nineveh 568, (ABL werewhich delivered (nāmurtu asagift paid asmadattu 3 talents,to silver,of silver, 40 minas.which was of last deficit year—in all, In addition Sargon II. It consists of2talents ofsilver, 40 minas instead ofsilver and 1talent of[ivory?], thereign during Calah sent thetribute ofAshkelon of describes by theruler (ND 2672) cated from Hezekiah at theend ofSennacherib’s campaign. 701 BCE rearrangementby additional already of theterritory cities confis between thePhilistine either once againin late at Hezekiah’s 694–early 693 BCE, or, expense more probably, fleet in Nineveh. Assyrian mayIf so, have these services been rewardedAssyrians by the booty list included list people assilver.” aswell booty 263–64).1999: light ofnew realities (for additional arguments concerning 4ingeneral, thecompilation ofBull see Russell remains unclear 2012: (Radner 476; Grayson and Novotny 2014a: 12). FrahmAlthough view was adopted open, leftbothoptions this by several scholars. The however,reading, still pattern.Against these sums, however,Rukibtu’s talents 500 ofsilver are rather modest. of tosilver Tiglath- ents ofgold and 2,000 talents Oded ofsilver; 1974). Menahem’s payment of1,000 talents ents of gold, 1,000 talents of silver, and 2,000 horses); or Metenna of Tyre (50 or 150 tal 1,000[?] talents ofsilver); Hulli ofTabal, “a son called explicitly is who (10 tal ofnobody” against “recognition” similar payments made by Hoshea ofIsrael (10 talents ofgold and (Tadmor 1994: 171n16, 276).Rukibtu’s Thus talents 500 ofsilvershouldbe considered installed forobtaining kings, most in return series ofnewly ofthem legitimacy usurpers, Tadmor’s quantities enormous were oftribute observation, paid to Tiglath- “500III [talents ofsilver]” (Ephʿal 1982: 25–27, 83–84; Naʾaman According 352). 2009: to received Ashkelon’s throne most probably asaresult ofacoup d’état, in theeyes ofitsneighbors. blow to thecity’s to abilities sustain its population, notto mention loss thelikely ofstatus the loss ofAshkelonite possessions inthearea oftheYarkon may have been asignificant with further references) further with probably includes theamount of“x+100 talents ofsilver” ileser III from Gazaileser III talents ofsilver).(800 According to Elat (1978: 30n65), it is a relatively 4 5 . . F S Add

urviving documentation concerning the annual (Naʾaman of tribute Ashkelon urviving 2009, or comparative we may purposes, use Elat’s received analysis of thebooty by Tiglath- Ac A lthough Bull 4 is an abbreviatedlthough 4is Bull version ofthe earlier account, theolder seems text to beupdated in cording to Naʾaman use ofthe verb nasāhu “The 352), (2009: itional evidence comes from the tribute payments to the Assyrians. Rukibtu, who who comes Rukibtu, itional evidence payments from thetribute to theAssyrians. , it included special, it included cloths, containersand horses, offish, ofspecial kinds ​ p ileser, although reported only in 2 Kings 15:19–20, the same follows ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ​A p ​ ileser III. Another Assyrian administrative document from Assyrian ileser III. Another ). Another list of contributions delivered ofcontributions list ). Another from probably indicates that thebroken paid to Tiglath- 4 Bethat asit may, p ​ ileser by a 5 received received p ​

ileser ileser 1 65 - - - ​

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. 2006: 31). process that had already started some four hundred years earlier (Naʾaman 1981: 180; Gadot which discussedwas previously, of Jaffa in701 BCE, may betherefore theoutcomea of Or consider taken amount theenormous ofbooty by Adad- gold, 70talents ofsilver, 30 talents ofbronze, and 100 talents ofiron (Yamada 271n124). 2000: of silver, 300 talents ofbronze, and 300 talents ofiron; and from Charchemish: 2talents of 100cus: talents ofgold and 1,000 talents from Patin: ofsilver; 3talents ofgold, 100 talents talents ofsilver. Onemay add even earlier such examples, asShalmaneser III from Damas talents,160 2½minas and (3) Sennacherib ofsilver; from Judah: 30 talents ofgold and 800 from Charchemish: (2) Sargon II 2,100of silver; talents, 34minasfrom Musasir: ofsilver; talents from Tabal:of silver; 1,000 2,000 talents talents from anof silver; country: unknown minor sum compared to what Tiglath- e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 166 erib’s campaign to Palestine (during thedays of of theLate Bronze (RS 19.42; Age RS 19.91; Vidal 2006). mount ofMari’s (Bar- days ofShalmaneser III. made an payment, enormous inlight especially ofthefact that another big payment was delivered the during . ative perspective, see Holladay 323). 2006: account Whatever taken is into consideration, that it is obvious he coastal plain (Gadot 2006, 2008). significantlytightened Ashkelon itstradewiththe central ofthe connection Israelipart been demonstrateddistant localities. Indeed, it has that already theIron during Age I, was forced Ashkelon 2008), to initiate trade thewheat trade) (in particular, more with the city, a hinterland settlements with of rural almost empty (Finkelstein Shavit 1996; toIt stands reason that already of phase inthebeginning inthehistory ofthePhilistine marketplace came from Judah ofAshkelon and theSharon Plain (Weiss and 2004). Kislev kelon ofinterest. is ofcharred piles According wheat at the to botanical analysis, a few are rather modest compared to other inthesouthern Levant localities (cf. Holladay 2006). notfeaturedid prominently correspondence, inthis documented, and when itscontributions concerning tribute- tribute.” Even correct itis if and even taking into consideration thefact that theevidence objects certain buy and the amounts they paid for these objects were deducted from their Naʾaman assumesgoods 353) to were that (2009: Assyria. rulers “the directed Philistine to acted which cities, asmediators and thePhilistine transmitting betweenties Egypt Egyptian at (1978: 30–34), aegis,points outthat in his trade analysis ofPhilistine under Assyrian Philistine doms. Elat’s include(1) Tiglath- examples 6 8 7

. . I El

n the context of this debate,n thecontext ofthis from layer the604 BCE a discovery - destruction ofAsh N T The a Th wo individuals from Ashkelon, most probably from Ashkelon, wo merchants, individuals are attested in Ugarit the final during phase aʾaman suggests that theappearance oftheAshkelonite enclave east ofJaffatime of inthe Sennach- mandattu 8 In of charred accordance the pile understanding, wheat this that with came and nāmurtu, ​r elated correspondence admittedly is sparse, it seems clear Ashkelon that ​H adad) to tribute Adad- “gifts,” presented reflectAssyrians theclose economic to the 7 The appearanceAshkelonite of an enclave inthe area p ​ ileser III and his successors and his ileser III took from other king p ​ S idqa, king of Ashkelon) is the product ofTiglath- king ofAshkelon)idqa, is the ileser III from Arpad: 30 talents from Arpad: ileser III ofgold and 2,000 ​nir ari III varies indifferent III ari accounts (for compar ​nir ari III from Damascus. III ari ​ p 6 ileser - - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. see and Rosenfeld Menirav (2005: 45–50). and go back to ourtowns” (Goodblatt 268–69). meaningFor apossible 1994: ofsidki asawarehouse forgrain, hub ofawell- the Late Antiquity. However, even inthese documented cases from amuch later period, demanding ‘protection’ (Faust money” and Weiss 2011: 198). exchange comes to ofcommodities butrather who prospering abully acted stores, “like seventh- Mediterraneanwider market. In their far- reconstruction, with that theNeo- during century, Faust and Weiss (2005, 2011) took chance this much further, evidence suggesting umbrella imperial between ofthelate Judah under theEgyptian seventh and Ashkelon ticular interest. itcan Although represent nomore than limited orregular trade relations market, destroyed It is theJudahite surprising. is hardly in604 BCE, wheat that ofpar is from theSharon Plain (or perhaps locality) from amore discovered northern at Ashkelon’s Pinchas, son ofYaʾir, “We said, who Jerusalem Talmud—namely, in 220–21; and see Wazana 2003). 219–23, scenariois This 352). based ona restoration 2009: hypothetical lines of 12–13Ann. in 18 (Tadmor 1994: III’s policy, transferred who JaffaAshkelon, and the in 732 BCEkingsurrounding of towns Rukibtu, (1998: to of the southern Levant, forthebroadertions Mediterranean domination economy ofEgyptian theperiod during any substantialBabylonian of604 BCE, does notnecessarily destruction implica signify of Judahite charred wheat wheat that inAshkelon, arrivedthere to prior some the time broader Mediterranean markets and trade. of samea few piles vein, In the the discovery any substantial regional doesthis notnecessarily signify trade implications for activity BCE until theBabylonianBCE until conquest. strongly over suggest rule Palestine that Egyptian was established well inthelate third ofthe seventh century Naʾaman Fantalkin 1991; 2001, 2006, 2015; Schipper 2011). The available archaeological and historical sources of Syria- derhooftinterlude the 64–68), areahistory 1999: Egyptian inthe came underdirect This control of Egypt. troops (Fantalkin 2011). of Jaffa,Latewhich the One during thinks BronzeAge served responsibilities included, inter collecting alia, and protecting supplies for passing Egyptian requestat forthebenefit ofEast Greek Egyptian mercenaries stationedcity, inthe whose regarding thepan- Neo- paragraphs) that may thepresence explain ofJudahite ontheeve wheat inAshkelon of domination. There cedesare ofEgyptian theperiod many plausible scenarios (see previous 10. 9 . The r

​B F A abylonian destruction. Forabylonian destruction. instance, represent it may sent ofalevy part by Judah ​P ollowing thebeginning oftheNeo-ollowing ccording to Tosefta 18:18,Ahilot Ashkelonians wheat “sell (617). intheir basilicas” In alestine has been treated at length and need notbedetailed here and (Miller Hayes 388–89; 1986: ​c entury Mediterraneanentury notinitiate did economic theprosperous system, Assyria ole of Ashkelon as an important hub asan foraregional important ole ofAshkelon wheat trade from known is ​in tegrated regional economic system, localcommodities into funneling the ​M editerranean economic pre system- , which thepax during Assyriaca ​A ssyrian period, Ashkelon was a huge port and served asthemain was ahugeand served Ashkelon period, port ssyrian ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- 10 and it is certainly irrelevant certainly and itis forany far-

S heviʾit 6:I,36c (seeheviʾit Yevamot also 7:2,8a)—we ​A

us ed to go to down themarket (sidki = A ​ ssyrian withdrawal from theLevant, aroundssyrian 640–635 BCE (Van- סידקי r ​ eaching implications forthe

shkelon and wheat buy ) of he ​ r ar thestatement ofRabbi eaching conclusions

A

a v ersion of

1 67 - - 9

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. be it a pile ofwheat orimported pottery,be it apile thatdictate should interpretation. Naʾaman 2004: 320–25). Therefore, it is the givencontext of a and chronology assemblage, at or near themouthofthat basin’s (Bronson major river” 1977: 43). the model “involves the control of a drainage basin opening to the sea by a center located doubtedwho that “upstream- his developed by Bronson (1977; and see Hall According 1985) forSoutheast Asia. to Bronson, extensively to therealities ofseventh- regions ofthesouthern Levant (e.g., Sugerman Pierce 2009; 2015) and has been applied the uplandsofCanaan.” Themodel has been found to and work forothercoastal periods in the configuration of settlement patternslowlands from the andnetworks to economic concentrated ontheEarly and Bronze Middle ages, power port “played adominant role the core, the inland areas while as its periphery. serve According to Stager (2001: 635), who seventh BCE, are century based onStager’s (2001) idea power,” of“port is where theport status inlocal and international commercial through thecenturies, activities including the (šunuti ries administrative center possessingas an agarrison, Egyptian pharaonic with royal grana e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 168 clude that Ashkelon’s of Neo- assumed theperiod during prosperity enormous from the first of the seventhhalf BCE discovered century Ashkelon, so farwe can in con- regardingories however, Ashkelon, Faust and Weiss 2005, 2011).

B andboth thelowlands thehighlands. they are notnarrow, variations and incrops) agriculture (with was practiced in does not fit Bronson’s requirement“basins”; of a lack of landagricultural in the ever, marginal area few sites/resources. this and has very very is Also, Palestine steep drop of the mountains to theShephelah are theroutes more limited. How plain and theShephelah, where north- highland plateau enables north- steep butalso transportation lacking, mountains is separating basins. The Judean to land transport—but thelast notlimited is to dry- modelnot to to this mention Palestine the highlands. Applying demands a shift enablesway water inland. No river from theShephelah transport to thecoast, dry. The rare perennialrivers Ashkelon)(none near can be navigated onlyashort Palestine does not meet theconditions required The model. by this “rivers” are A S M tager’s regarding power” model of“port influenced heavily is Ashkelon by atheory ased ontheavailable sources historical and onrather modest archaeological remains Th s Kletter (2010: model” of the- 13) correctly“port critique insightful inhis observes any historical reconstructions asupraregional that credit with economic Ashkelon ; EA 294: 22; 294: Naʾaman 1981; Higginbotham 131; 2000: Goren, Finkelstein, and ​do ​s wnstream model” could beapplied cross- ​c outh transport; there theentireouth transport; is open coastal entury Ashkelon and itsregion Ashkelon (Masterentury 2001, 2003; s ​ outh routes are notstrenuous. Only inthe ​r iver basins. Not onlywater ​c ulturally, ​A ssyrian ssyrian - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. et al. 2014)—one can observe thetraceset al. 2014)—one can involvement. observe ofdeliberate Assyrian thedistancescoast ofroughly with 20 kmbetween them (Morhange et al. 2005; Marriner and Blakhiya. Revealingly,Ruqeish in most of these harbor settlements—located along the ern coast,ern such asYavneh- Neo- that to asthemajor single outAshkelon trading hub ofthesouthern Levant the during somewhere else.” city implies existence another port such, butitsvery Therefore, it seems based 390), onBraudel’s(2009: concept ofréseau However, goods totrade theAssyrians. and mediating Egyptian insupplying as Malkin Neo- domination almostexaggerated. certainly is Thereis nodoubtthat of theperiod during or an attempt Rabanto detectAshkelon, theinner and see harbor in Tur- fig. 4.31) and (2011:Fantalkin 98). influence (Petrie Assyrian showing 1937; and Ellis Reich 1984, 1993), reinforce point. this Salima that the remains incorporated yielded ofafortress with structure, cultic clearly Bagg 2013; 2014; Younger Ben-Shlomo 2015; Thareani 2016). Theexcavations at Abu Tell (e.g., NaʾamanEgypt 2001, 2004; Fales Fantalkin 2008; and Tal 2015; 2009, Berlejung 2012; obtaining their share of revenues from international trade among and Phoenicia, Philistia, involvement,deliberate stemming Assyrian from the desire to beactively involved inand intheregion Onecan discussed. reasonably rule assume tosponds a ofAssyrian thetime little doubt thatis the date of and operationconstruction of these citiesharbor corre and Sadeq 2000, Burdajewicz 2007; 2000, forBlakhiya). Despite these shortcomings, there Humbert so far form (Oren preliminary for Ruqeish; occurred only in a very et al. 1986, everal limited excavations were conducted and revealing Blakhiya, at Ruqeish the remains ofwell- ships between Tel and Jaffa Ridan 1991, 312).2005: and (Galili Sharvit Yavneh- Yavneh- Thating). is to say, the generalpicture ofthe advanced stages ofthe AgeIron remains at weights—to theand inscribed last third oftheseventh BCE (Fantalkin century - forthcom dated include scarabs, Greek by its finds—which were pottery, in Stratum IX, exposed in the unexcavated lie still The most of the mound. impressive portions AgeIron remains Ruqeish,am, Blakhiya, TellAbu and Salima whatis of termed and it seemsStratum X, fills that more significant remains ofthis phase The modest AgeIron IIB remainsdiscovered in Yavneh- Yavneh- 11. S

​A ​A F ssyrian period does justice little period to other ssyrian contemporary coastal sites ofthe south- ssyrian domination, was coastal an important Ashkelon Phoenicianssyrian city, serving ​Y ​Y am should be taken into consideration, as it provides the only natural shelter for am resembles theexcellent natural Still, thesituation inAshkelon. anchorage of ​Y p ​ lanned and fortified settlements.lanned and fortified Publication ofthe remains, however, has ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ​Y am, Ashdod- ​A ​Y am, and theharbor settlements in Gaza, such as , puts it, “A port, putsit, may city bestudied as ​Y am are attested so far onlyinthe ​C 11 aspa (2008: 88–89, esp.aspa 88–89, (2008:

1 69 -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 170 subchapterajor ofthis part closely Fantalkin follows (2014), results where preliminary of thefirst and Dothan and Ben- ofTelreports see Dothan and Ashdod, Freedman Dothan (1967); (1971); Dothan and Porath (1982, 1993); aims ofrenewedseason and further excavations at Ashdod- of Tel The fateAshdod- ofAshdod. Ashdod and am ParaliosAzotos times) inByzantine is located onthecoast, approximately 5kmnorthwest Ashdod- The site of Ashdod- Figure 7.1. approximately 3.0–4.5-m thickmud- to thefortifications explore (fig. 7.1).fortification elements exposed consisted The of an Ten cross sections were along cut theedges and oftheglacis wall thesegments ofthecity was quite themain aimto limited, theIron explore with ofthesite. fortifications Age Marchuntil excavation, This under the directorship 1968 (1969). however, of J. Kaplan (acropolis/citadelpart onKaplan’s plan), was excavated from November inintervals 1965

perhaps already theIron during Age. of theregion’s center to Ashdod- from Ashdod ofgravity capitalformer (Tsafrir, Di Segni, and Green 1994: 72). It seems, however, that shifting this In thecoastal Paralios ofAzotos period, Byzantine city became more than important its 12.

The I

The m Th ron enclosure Age of Ashdod-

Ge ​Y neral plan ofthesite, thelocation showing ofKaplan’s excavation (afterKaplan fig. 2) 1969: ​S hlomo (2005). ​Y am (Ashdod byam in the the Sea;Neo- (Ashdod Asdudimmu ​Y am was always related to of Ashdod. the capital city ​br ick city wall, which also served asacore served foralarge also which wall, ick city ​Y am, with amoundincorporatedam, with into itssouthern ​Y am were presented in more For detail. excavation Y ​ am can bedetected much earlier, ​A ssyrian sources;ssyrian 12

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. sions inseventh- and early sixth- coastalAshdod- settlement of According to theirreconstruction, Sargon moved theremaining population to thethen small ceasedAshdod immediately or a few years after the by conquestcity Sargon’s of the army. e empire.Ashdod- established Thenewly at city indicates. possessed Istanbul as the aking in598 BCE, still ofNebuchadnezzar II prism then Ashdod took it.Likewise, 669 BCE; and Herodotus (2.157) recounts how Psammetichus I laid siege fortwenty- in the days of both Esarhaddon a governor andAssyria Ashurbanipal; was the eponym of the year of Ashdod wereis mentioned as transferredAshdod, paying tribute kingto of after thecampaignAhimilki, of701 BCE; used hereerminology reflects my understanding development of pottery different during phases Judean to whom appears intheannals territories ofSennacheribking ofAshdod, asaloyal vassal ofAssyria, of theIron Age. BCE. dating ofthecompound to theIron theeighth–early is, IIB—that Age seventh centuries and vessels retrieved by from Kaplan theembankment and inside itsperimeter the allow a much larger site, located oftheenclosure. to thenorth Modest sherds amounts ofpottery of therampart were destroyed by erosion. enclosure Thefortified could have been of part earthen embankment laid onbothsides (fig. 7.2). AccordingKaplan, the to western ends Figure 7.2. Assyria. Ashdod- at fortifications Age 2001; Fantalkin 2014). According of themassive the construction to Iron (1969), Kaplan events and known shouldnotberepeated well is here (see, e.g., Tadmor Rollinger 1958; ofYamaniuprising historical documentation, thecourse of Dueto surviving inAshdod. of three (together cities and Gath) Ashdod with the conquered following by Sargon II arth fortification. Ashdod, however,Ashdod, fortification. asa is mentioned majorarth power ona number ofocca 14. 13.

F 13 inkelstein and Singer- E The t The site, therefore, was Asdudimmu, mentioned asone reasonably with identified xcept 25:20; 9:6),Mitinti, 2:4;Zech Zeph foramention inthelate monarchic prophecies biblical (Jer

K aplan’s thesystem Section offortifications 1within (after Kaplan fig. 3) 1969: ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ​ A ​A Y ​ ​Y vitz (2001) havevitz claimed that anyat significant activity Tel am belongs to Yamani’s preparations fortherebellion against am, together deportees from northeastern ofthe parts with ​c entury historical records. historical entury ​Y am was furnished with amassive brick- with am was furnished 14 Finkelstein and Singer- nine y ​ ears and to Ashdod

​A ​ a vitz vitz nd- 1 71 - ​

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. a chronological seventh BCE gap thewhole during (Ben- at century Ashdod Ashdod- Ashdod remainedprovince. of devastated—althoughcity The not entirely deserted—and at Ashdod- activity Ashdod- rebels empórion at probablyAssyrian established thenewly seized and fortified be seen asalocalevent and asadirect outcome project. building ofthis In this scenario, the trade itofmaritime revenues.depriving Naʾaman suggests that therevolt should at Ashdod city. Sargon’s operations building at site this threatened to block Ashdod’s access to the sea, Ashdod- intervention, the Assyrian late seventh- (Fantalkin claim 2001).was This based on archaeological grounds (such asthe absence of withdrawal fromLevant domination the southern Assyrian after inthearea, starts which the thelastbut onlyduring third oftheseventh ofEgyptian century—that theperiod during is, Shavit I have 2008). argued elsewhere that there indeed is achronological gap at Ashdod, Y in thehistorical sources centuries BCE refer oftheseventh–sixth infact to Ashdod- Berlejung and Fantalkin 2017). remains from theIron and Hellenistic IIB Age (Fantalkin period 2014; Fantalkin et al. 2016; vation seasons have been conducted thus far (2013, 2015, and 2017), revealing impressive Leipzig was launched, under thedirectorship ofmyself and Berlejung. Angelika Three exca Tel Aviv University and theInstitut Alttestamentliche für Wissenschaft oftheof University probably twenty- inhis happened at all) could have occurred after Psammetichus’s most Ashdod, of destruction the better ofthe seventhBCE. The part century transfer Ashdod- ofthe capital to continued to implies ofAshdod existence that bethecapital oftheprovince during thecity located is building ofTel intheimmediate vicinity AdHalom (Ashdod site), Ashdod and its to be the administrative representative palace of the Assyrian (Kogan- and Nahshoni from theIsrael excavated Authority Antiquities theremains ofwhat seems yearsconstruction). length ofthesiege anago, certainly artificial is A few Kogan- about Psammetichus I’s asreliable conquest ofAshdod (although thetwenty- anti- events. According to him,Sargon founded theharbor at Ashdod- Ashdod- have suggested, therefore,Ashdod in 712–711 BCE, of destruction that afterAssyrian the e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 172 line, including the ofthefortification mud-upper part In Kaplan’s excavations, section was created this mechanical removed tools, with which the am. Sargon took advantage oftherevolt, destroyed and brought building his Ashdod,

The Dur S F A ​ tarting in2013,tarting a new excavation project onbehalf oftheInstitute ofArchaeology at ollowing this reconstruction, this Naʾamanollowing (2001) has offered aslightly viewdifferent of Th ssyrian rebellion thatssyrian broke thedeath outupon of Shalmaneser V in720 BCE. Before se reconstructions have donotaccept by been those who criticized of theexistence ​Y ing therenewed excavations, oneofKaplan’s sections was reopened (figs. 7.3–7.5). ​Y am took itsplace asthekingdom’s capital—in other words, mentions ofAshdod am took itsplace asthekingdom’s capital. c ​ entury East GreekAshdod)entury pottery at and also took Herodotus’s information ​ Y am to completion and made established itthecapital ofthenewly ​nin th regnal year, around is 635 BCE which (Tadmor 102). 1966: ​Y am was a small port oftradeam that was thecapital port asmall served ​br ick wall. Fromick wall. theinner side of ​Y am after the hecrushed Zah ​ avi 2007). The The 2007). avi ​S hlomo 2003; ​ nine- ​Y am (if it ​Y ​ Zah am. ​ y ear avi avi - ​

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. 15 cm). Boththemeasurements techniques and theconstruction attested ofthebricks so correspond to foundinanother ×35 those section reported (55 by forthe bricks Kaplan with mud material filled to assure uniformity. The measurements broadlybricks ofthese some gaps causedthin joints, while by adefective arrangement ofthelayers have been ofKaplan’stion system dating ofthefortification to the AgeIronIIB. 7.6–7.7), wasoftheouter foundintheupper part which agood provide glacis, corrobora the surfaces abuttingfrom objects thedefensive as cultic as thefavissa (figs.well wall with outer side. Quite anumber ofIron shards IIB Age and some organic material on exposed centersystem of the fortification withto thea heightmassive of some glacis 5 m, at its and made ofsunbaked 4min width wall—some hamra we cleanedthe fortification, the retaining rampart down to thefoundation ofthe massive Sapirstein) by(photo Philip Figure 7.3. The bricks of the fortification wall were wall tightly of the fortification attachedbricks one to another, with very

I ron mud- IIB ​br ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ick fortification wall, Kaplan’sreopened wall, in ick fortification to the southeastSection 2,a view ​A mud- ​br icks—that stoodicks—that inthe

1 73 -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 174 or thedimensions ofthesun- Dothan and Porath (1982: 13, 19). one. Assyrian that thenotion far thedefensive support represents wall and notan alocalconstruction Sapirstein) by (photo Philip the wall Figure 7.4. rial collectedrial intherenewed excavations can adefinitive provide answer. realm? Neither ceramic northe finds radiocarbon results obtainedfrom theorganic mate- and enlargedof the kingdom of Ashdod and incorporated later into theNeo- beginning and constructed orwas itconstructed by thelocals first independently onbehalf remains.construction Was regime from ruling the itcommenced onbehalf oftheAssyrian intervention. Of course, excludeimperial sarily responsible is forthis thequestion ofwho 15.

F Th

I ron mud- IIB 15 However, architectural theabsence ofAssyrian features does notneces ​br ick fortification wall, a view from above; a view a favissa wall, was locatedick fortification to of theright ​b aked hamra mud- ​br icks from the Ironicks strata Age ofTel see Ashdod, ​ A ssyrian ssyrian -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. an explanation fortheestablishment ofansystem impressive Ashdod- fortification at involvementdirect Assyrian inthesite of Ashdod- administrative Ad Halom structure.has its parallels Assyrian in Ashdod The degree of are slightly different than those orthostatsattestedwall, andthe useof forthefortification the acropolis theexcavations during that took place in2017. dimensions The ofthe bricks by assemblages that included theAssyrian-

dditional impressive seventh- Figure 7.5. I A n any event, oneofthemajor questions concerning thesite’s should provide history

A clos e- ​u p oftheIron mud- IIB ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ​A c ​ entury mud- entury ​br ick fortification wall (photo by Sapirstein) Philip wall ick fortification ​s tyle pottery,tyle were attesteddifferent in parts of b ​ rick architecturalrick remains, accompanied ​Y am, however, remains to beclarified.

​Y 1 am 75

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Figure 7.7. Figure Figure 7.6.

V One ofthech essels from thefavissa by (photo Pavel Shrago) alices from thefavissa (drawing by Yulia Gottlieb; photo by Pavel Shrago)

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. design along theLevantine seacoast are here. ofspecial importance demands imperial and harborinthesouthern Levant,known and ofitskind theAssyrian was erected onthehighest natural spot in order to protect aman- of more opening than to 15 acres, awide thesea. It seems with system that thefortification seem to bedesigned from thebeginning inacrescent- werewall destroyed by erosion toward the sea appears to be inaccurate. Thefortifications in thefirst place.Kaplan’s suggestion that the western end ofthe rampart and defensive ot necessarily because successful problems inthelong run ofthelogistical ofitsmaintenance. huge that as the main hub port served of a well- seventh BCE (e.g., Master century 2003). In subsequent portrayed is studies, Ashkelon asa exercised minimal influenceAshkelon’s over booming Mediterranean economy the during andties geopolitical configurations, some scholars argued that the Neo- ture theidea power,” of“port was developed fortotally different which originally locali and inthesouthern Levant ofthePhilistines” ingeneral.“land Taking asapoint ofdepar has started to emerge regarding therole oftheNeo- In recent years, mainly asaresult ofexcavations conducted paradigm a new inAshkelon, Conclusions correspondence, documented, and when are itscontributions rather modest compared to be considered asany proof ofAshkelon’s ofNeo- theperiod during prosperity tery, as well asof aJudean few piles wheat discovered in the same context, however, cannot trade, maritime of flourishing projected Greek . This ofthepaxto theperiod Assyriaca pot amounts604 BCE ofGreek inthe pottery layer destruction has created impression thefalse domination at thesite. of ofEgyptian from theperiod relativelydiscovery is, The large come solely fromperity levels that shouldbedated to thelate seventh BCE—that century foreign domination—is that imperial archaeological remains attestingAshkelon’s to pros of notnecessarily suitable is power” periods during forthesouthern Levant, especially conducted inAshdod- (seeperiod paragraphs). previous If an attempt to create a man- Israel had almost nonatural haven and operating forbuilding suitable harbors this during at Ashdod- domination. Quite to thecontrary, not feature did Ashkelon prominently in Neo- Mediterranean force Phoenicia behind these asthedriving developments. world, with creating a single multilayered economic that entity connected Judah to and Philistia a wider argued, was butto connected policies it is tion, independent processes notto Assyrian of the Neo- 16.

The pr N ​A ssyrian period (e.g., Faust period ssyrian and Weiss 2005, 2011). integration This and coopera ​Y oblem with these interpretations—beyondoblem with thefact that themodel of“port am intheIron IIB. The Age Mediterranean coastline of ofthe southern part Y ​ ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- am 16 ​A —as topography and remains suggest—this would bethefirst i ​ ntegrated regional economic system during ​A ​sh ssyrian Empire intheaffairs ofthe ssyrian aped defensive over form an area ​m ade harbor was indeed ​ m ade harbor created ​A ssyrian Empire ssyrian ​A A ​ ssyrian ssyrian ssyrian ssyrian

1 77 - - - - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Greek trade (Fantalkin bemaintained. 2006)—cannot a protectionist umbrella forPhoenician trade across theLevantine coast at of theexpense to a great degree the magnitude of Phoenician expansion (Frankenstein 1979) and provided factor—which imperial influenced considering domination, theAssyrian without Assyrian Phoenicians force being the behindsole Mediterranean driving trade of the period during the Levantine coast; however, theircommerce regulated was strictly Theidea of and taxed. andby exclusive thepax access Assyriaca to oftrade a network routes and trade centers along reconstruct thePhoenicians an landscape imperial inwhich enjoyed produced thestability such asEsarhaddon’s Treaty Baʿal ofTyre with (Yamada enough 2005), provide to evidence the purposes of obtaining maximum profit. ofobtainingthe purposes maximum the markets” (Berlejung 2012: creating 51), ageopolitical and atmosphere matrix suitable for sites intheLevant (e.g., Fantalkin and Tal 2015; 2009, Ben- (see, e.g., Parker 1997, in many 2002,is ofa evident 2003). sort This “commission policy” sovereign, as had been common practice inthefrontier zones oftheNeo- coastal inthesouthern Levant network were outby localvassals carried onorders from the thefact that theframework projectswith most construction of theNeo- within nied by population exchanges. Theidea ofminimal investment ininfrastructure accords well majortwo strategies were developed: vassal relationship and often annexation, accompa investments,”with minimum infrastructural profit ofmaximum ciple and forthat purpose, world dominationAs Bagg Assyrian was - based (2013: ontheprin of logic 131) “The putsit, a share revenues (Thareani of, from thetrade and Egypt 2016). among Philistia, Phoenicia, sidered unrelated thedesire to to policies—especially imperial beinvolved in,and obtain Ashdod- it was just oneofmany focalpoints along similar thesouthern coast, such asYavneh- the Neo- However, to single asthemajor outAshkelon trading hub ofthesouthern Levant during city, Phoenician trade goods and to serving mediating the Assyrians. Egyptian in supplying other in thesouthern Levant. localities Despite was coastal an important Ashkelon this, e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 178 manipulating theeconomy ofthesouthern Levant (e.g., Schloen 2001: 146–47; Faust 2011), see Younger (2015). of westerncertain prosperity n thesame vein, Naʾaman “The vassals arose out, (2003: 87) points empire—rather than theresult of adeliberate of economic development policy imperial ofthese state.” producedfrom thestability by and created the pax from thenew economic Assyriaca opportunities by the success—“was ofmega- akind deliberate of the Levant (Bagg Assyrianization 2013). The empire—and fact its this explains ofprofits, however,Morello The maximization forthcoming). wasnot accompanied by emergence and maintenance ofNeo- theperiod during 18. 17.

Thi

F I Th or themost recent astute rebuttal that ofthetheories postulate had nointerestAssyrians that in s network ofcommunicationss network (cf. Liverani and extended its 1988) to thenorth, ​Y ​A am, Ruqeish, and Blakhiya; it was nomoream, Ruqeish, and noless. ssyrian period is unjustified, since unjustified, although is it tradewas period an important station,ssyrian ​ k network with a clear view towards aclear view with network āru/m theresources and 17 The preserved bits pieces Thepreserved and ofinformation, A ​ 18 ssyrian domination cannot beconssyrian - ​ S hlomo 2014; Thareani 2016; ​A ssyrian Empire ssyrian ​A ssyrian ssyrian ​Y am, -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Ben- Barstad, H. M. A. Bagg, References Berlejung, A. Berlejung, Berlejung, A., and Fantalkin, A., A. Berlejung, Bronson, B. Dothan, and M., Ben- Dothan, M. Burdajewicz, M. Dothan, and M., Porath, Y. Dothan, and M., Freedman, D. N. 2003 2012 2013 2012 2017 2014 1977 1971 2000 1982 1967 2005 hoo D. Shlomo, ​

M. Boda, 345–57.M. Boda, Leiden: Brill. In “ West.” Journal ofthe American Oriental 133 Society (1):119–44. “P “ his Sixty- Levant 46 (1):58–88. “ 148, ed. M. Nissinen, 21–60. Leiden: Brill. ment Policy?” In “ “ Palästina- Model of the Coastal State in Southwestern Asia.” In “E Harrassowitz. zur Erforschung Palästinas, 14–16 ber und Magie im antiken Palästina und seiner Umwelt Kolloquium Deutschen des Vereins Culture. Jerusalem: Department and of Antiquities Museums, of Education Ministry and A Errance. méditerranéenne: Histoire etarchéologie enPalestine, “ UniversityArbor: ofMichigan Press. Ann 39–52. Michigan Papers onSouth and Southeast 13, Asia ed. K. L. Hutterer, Interaction in Southwest Perspectives Asia: fromPrehistory, History and Ethnography, Culture. Jerusalem: Department and of Antiquities Museums, of Education Ministry and A and Museums,Antiquities ofEducation and Culture. Ministry A Jerusalem: 24. Israel Reports ity Authority. Antiquities A Gaza pendant les du Bronze périodes moyen et récent et de l’Âge du Fer.” In Ein magischer Moment: Zu einemAschdod- neuenaus Amulettfund The Assyrians inthe Assyrians Assyrianization, The Colonialism, Indifference, West: or Develop The AgeIron Sequence of Aviv Ashdod.”Tel Tel Tell Jemmeh, and theNeo- Philistia Who Destroyed On Some Ashkelon? Who Problems inRelating Text to Archaeology.” shdod VI: The ExcavationsAreas of H and K(1968–1969). Israel Author Antiquities shdod II–III: The Secondshdod II–III: and Third Season of Excavations 1963, 1965. ‘Atiqot 9–10. shdod I: The First Season ofExcavations 1962 . ‘Atiqot 7. Jerusalem: Department of shdod IV: Excavations of Area M; The Excavationsshdod IV: Fortifications of Area M; of the . ‘AtiqotLower City 15. alestine under Assyrian Rule: A New Rule: Imperial Policyalestine under at in Assyrian the Look the Assyrian xchange at theUpstream and Downstream Ends:Notes towards aFunctional Let Us Goup to Zion: Essays in Honour ofH. G ​F ​V ifth Birthday, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 153, ed. I. Provan and ereins 46, ed. M. Witte, R. Schäfer, and J. Kamlah, 513–36.R. Schäfer, and Wiesbaden:J. Kamlah, ereins 46, ed. M. Witte, ​S hlomo, D. ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum ​A . 11. 2014, Mainz, Abhandlungen des Deutschen ​A ssyrian Empire theLate during ssyrian Iron Age.” . M 30:83–107. ed. J.-B. Humbert, 31–39. Paris: . Williamson on the Occasion of Economic Exchange Y ​ am.” In and Social

Gaza Zau 1 79 - - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Fantalkin, A., andFantalkin, Tal, A., O. Fantalkin, A., Johananoff,Fantalkin, A., M., S. and Krispin, e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 180 Fantalkin, A. Faust, A. Fales, F. Ephʿal, I. Elat, M. 2008 2009 2016 2006 2001 2011 Forthcoming 2017 2015 2008 shdod V: Excavations of Area G; The Fourth- 1993 2015 2014 2011 1982 1978

Th

“R B.C.E.” Ugarit- “N “P University, ed. M. Fischer. Tel Institute Aviv: ofArchaeology ofTel Aviv University. Y Assyrian- 28:3–165. of N. Avigad of Jerusalem Excavations Directed E. L by (with References to Earlier and Later Periods): Final on the Hebrew Report University 201–8. and M. Spataro,A. Villing 233–41. Oxbow. Oxford: ArchaeologyThe andKitchen Science of inPottery Ancientthe Mediterranean World, the Southern A Diachronic Levant: Perspective.” In “ 14 (1):45–57. für SKYLLIS—Zeitschrift maritime und limnischeArchäologie und Kulturgeschichte “ “ “I “M Plowshares, In “ B.C Jerusalem: Magnes. Th “ A C “ T “I N. Naʾaman, 87–111. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: IronAge, and Age, Persian Period in Honor ofDavid Ussishkin, Signals ofLachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History ofIsrael in the Late Bronze and U. Schlotzhauer, 199–208. Museum. British London: the Eastern Mediterranean Museum, British Research Publication 162, ed. A. Villing In American Oriental 98:20–34. Society ‘Atiqot 23. Jerusalem: Israel Authority. Antiquities A First Season ofExcavations at Ashdod- Coarse Kitchen and Household Pottery as an PresenceIndicator for in Egyptian On Pax Assyriaca intheEighth–Seventh CenturiesOn Pax BCE Assyriaca and Its Implications.” The RelationsEconomic ofthe Neo- The Interests Empire inthe Assyrian ofthe Olive Oil West: Production asa Test- Why Did Nebuchadnezzar IIWhy Destroy B.C.E.?” 604 in Kislev Ashkelon In , vol. 1, Monographam Reports Series oftheInstitute ofArchaeology ofTel Aviv ell Qudadi: An Iron Age IIB Fortressell IIB Qudadi: Age An Iron on the Central Mediterranean Coast ofIsrael dentity in the Making: Greeks intheEastern intheMaking: Mediterraneandentity theIron during Age.” n Defense ofNebuchadnezzar II theWarrior.” Altorientalische Forschungen (2): 44 ase.” Journal ofthe Economic and Social History ofthe Orient 54:62–86. ersian- e Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders ofthe Fertile Crescent, 9th–5th Centuries Naukratis: Studies on Greek East Greek Diversity in Egypt; Pottery and Exchange in Isaiah’s Vision ofPeace in Biblical and Modern International Relations: Swords into e- avigating between the Powers: Joppa and Its in the 1stVicinity Millennium ezad Hashavyahu: Its Material Aviv Culture and Historical Background.” Tel

​ d “ An IronAn Ceramic Age Assemblage from Yavneh- iscovering theIron Fortress Age at Tell Qu- P ​ meilsi Policies.” Imperialistic ​ eriod Philistian Coins Philistian eriod from Ashdod- ed. and R. Cohen R. Westbrook, 17–35. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. . Colloquia 15. Antiqua Leuven: Peeters. ​ Forschungen 40:225–76. Palestine Exploration Quarterly Palestine Exploration ​A . Sukenik and S. Yeivin, with the Participation ssyrian Empire with Egypt.” Empire with ssyrian Journal ​Y am ontheIsraeli Mediterranean Coast.” Si ​ Y ​ am.” xth Seasons of Excavations 1968–1970. Israel Numismatic Journal Ceramics, Cuisine and Culture: ​ d Y ​ adi intheContext ofNeo am Excavations.” In ed. I. Finkelstein and 141:188–206. 11:23–28. The Fire Yavneh-

of the

ed. ed. ​

​

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Finkelstein, I.,and Singer- Finkelstein, I. Faust, and Weiss, A., E. Frankenstein, S. Frahm, E. Gadot, Y. Grayson, A. K., and Novotny,Grayson, A. K., J. R. Goren, Y., Finkelstein, I.,and Naʾaman, N. Goodblatt, D. Gallagher, W. R. J. and E., Sharvit, Galili, Glassner, J.-J. 1996 2005 2001 1979 1997 2011 2006 2008 2012 2004 1994 1999 1991 2004 2005

J. Bennet, Oxbow. 189–204. Oxford: Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to the 1st Millennia BC, ed. T. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt, and Research System oftheSeventh B.C.E.” Century Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental “ “ “ Institut Orientalistik. für E “ intheSeventhlistia BCE Century inContext.” In “Be in Assyriology 7, ed. M. T. Larsen,in Assyriology 263–94. Copenhagen: Forlag. Akademisk In and History of the Ancient Near East 31, ed. A. Fantalkin and A. Yasur- Near of the Ancient and History East 31, ed. A. Fantalkin and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron in Honour Ages ofIsrael Finkelstein, Culture TermPlain: A Long Perspective.” In “ Schools ofOriental Research 341:21–36. “ versity 23.versity Tel Institute Aviv: ofArchaeology ofTel Aviv University. Eastern Texts . Monograph Series oftheInstitute ofArchaeology ofTel Aviv Uni Studien Judentum zum Antiken 38. Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck. World 19. Atlanta: Literature ofBiblical Society Press. ed. M. Fischer, 303–14. Tel Eretz Aviv: (Hebrew). Their Neighborhood: Studies in Archaeologythe and History of the Judean Coastal Plain, 55–73. Leiden: Brill. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: Th I Th M Sen “U 5:269–96. Israel: Finds from Underwater and Coastal Archeological Research.” Thracia Pontica “ Aphek intheSharonAphek Northern Frontier.” and thePhilistine Bulletin of the American Aviv Revisited.”Ashdod Tel nscribed in Clay: Provenance Study ofthe Amarna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Continuity and Change intheLate Bronze to Iron Transition Age in Israel’s Coastal Classification of Archeological Underwater Sites along the Mediterranean Coast of Judah, Philistia, andJudah, theMediterranean Philistia, World: theEconomic Reconstructing The Philistine The Countryside.”Philistine Israel Exploration Journal 46:225–42. The Phoenicians inthe of Far Neo- A Function West: inleitung in die Sanherib- esopotamian Chronicles esopotamian e Royal Inscriptions ofSennacherib, (704–681 BC) 3, King pt. 1. ofAssyria . RINAP e Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self- nderwater Archaeological Remains at Yavneh- Power and Propaganda: on Ancient A Symposium Empires , Copenhagen Studies nacherib’s Campaign to Judah: New Studies. Leiden: Brill. tween Assyria and theMediterraneantween Assyria World: The of Prosperity Judah and Phi 338:71–92. ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ​A vitz, L. vitz, ​A I ​ . Society of Biblical Literature ofBiblical . Society Writings from theAncient . Archiv für Orientforschung, Beiheft 26.nschriften Beiheft Orientforschung, . ArchivVienna: für 28:231–59. Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology ofIsrael ​Go ​Y vernment in Antiquity. Texte und am.” In Interweaving Worlds: Yavneh, Yavneh- Yavneh, ​ A ssyrian Imperialism.”ssyrian

​Ya ​ L Systemic Systemic andau, m and and m

1 81 - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 182 Higginbotham, C. R. Hall, K. R. Holladay, J. S., Jr. Humbert, J.-B., and Sadeq, M. Master, D. M. I. Malkin, Liverani, M. Lawson Younger, Jr. K., E. A. Knauf, R. Kletter, Kogan- J. Kaplan, Miller, J. M., and Hayes, J. H. Marriner, N., Morhange, D., C., Kaniewski, and Carayon, N. 2000 e Royal Inscriptions ofSennacherib, (704–681 BC) 3, King ofAssyria pt. 2. . RINAP 1985 2014 2006 2007 2000 2001 2009 1988 2015 2003 2010 2007 1969 1986 2003 2014

Th

aai E. ​Zahavi, “H Eg of Hawaii. M Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: Th Leiden: Brill. modation on the Imperial Periphery. Culture Near oftheAncient and History East 2. “L en Palestine, ed. J.-B. Humbert, 105–20. Paris: Errance. “F J. P. Dessel, Winona 309–32. Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: Essays on Ancient Israel in Honor ofWilliam G. Dever, A New Perspective.”600 BC: In A H “ “ Forms ofAnthropogenic Pressure.” Nature 1–11. 4(5554): ScientificReports “ “F Paradigm.” State Archives Bulletin ofAssyria 2:81–98. “ Study.” Israel Exploration Journal 65:179–204. “ 363, ed. L. L. Grabbe, 141–49. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic. nacherib in 701 BCE, Journal fortheStudy oftheOldTestament Supplement Series “70 by J. D. Schloen, ed. ofBiblical Review Literature 9:1–17. R “ “ R J.-B. Humbert, M. Martiniani- archéologique ethistorique, ed. M.-A. Haldimann, letin ofthe American Schools ofOriental Research 330:47–64. Harvarddiss., University. 373–94. Wiley. Oxford: Ancient HarbourAncient Infrastructure Tracking intheLevant: ofNew and Rise theBirth PalaceAssyrian North ofTel Ashdod.” Tel MA thesis, Aviv University (Hebrew). The Seaport of Ashkelon inthe SeventhThe of A PetrographicSeaport BCE: Century Study.” PhD Trade and Politics: Ashkelon’s Balancing ActintheSeventh B.C.E.” Century Bul Empire inthe Assyrian Habur/Middle ofthe The Growth EuphratesArea: A New The Stronghold of YamaniAshdod- at The Assyrian Economic Assyrian ImpactThe Levant onthe Southern RecentLight in the of eber, and M. Sadeq, H. Taha, 35–43. Neuchâtel: Chaman Édition. eview ofExploringeview the Longue Stager Durée:, Essays in Honor ofLawrence E. aritime Trade and State Development in Early Southeast. Honolulu: Asia University ouilles de Blakhiyah—Anthédon.”ouilles In oundations.” In es fouilles archéologiqueses fouilles àGaza.” In yptianization and Elite Emulation Palestine: in Ramesside Governance and Accom ezekiah’s Tribute, Long- 1: Sennacherib at theBerezina.” In istory ofAncient Israel and Judah. Philadelphia: Westminster. A

Companion to Archaic Greece, ​ Di stance Trade, and theWealth ofNations ca. 1,000– Confronting the Past: “Like aBird in aCage”: The Invasion ofSen- ​Y Gaza méditerranéenne: Histoire etarchéologie am.” Israel Exploration Journal 19:137–49. Gaza àla croisée des

ed. K. Raaflaub and H. ed. K. Raaflaub Van Wees, ed. S. Gitin, J. E. Wright, and Archaeological and Historical civilisations: Contexte - - ​

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Morhange, C., Taha, Humbert, M. H., J.-B., and Marriner, N. Morello, N. Naʾaman, N. Parker, B. J. N., S.,Oren, Fleming, and E., Feinstein, Nahshoni, Kornberg, P. R., B. Oded, Raban, A., and Tur- A., Raban, Pierce, G. A. Petrie, W. F., J. C. and Ellis, Radner, K. Reich, R. Reich, 1991 2005 Forthcoming 1981 1998 2001 2004 2003 1997 1986 1974 2009 2015 1937 2003 2002 2012 1993 1984 2008

nal “H Leiden: Brill. ritorial Policies in the Ancient Near East, Policies ontheMediterranean Coast.” In “ “E ranée Centuries B.C.E.” Aviv Tel “ “ Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina- “ of Oriental Research 332:81–91. “Ekr Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina- on the Assyrian Frontier.”on theAssyrian Iraq “ “ “P Honor ofLawrence E. “ Hinterland (ca. 2000–539 B.C.E.).” PhD University diss., Angeles. Los ofCalifornia, tolia.” American Journal ofArchaeology 107:525–57. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 21:371–95. “ A “ “ ed. L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master, 67–96. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: and Carta. and vations in the Holy Land, vol. 1, ed. E. Stern, 15. Jerusalem: Israel Society Exploration “ “ anded. H. Baker, A. Otto, 471–79. K. Kaniuth, Münster: Ugarit Verlag. Long Festschrift Ago: . für Michael D “ “U A Phoenician on the Border Emporium of Egypt.” Abu Salima, TellAbu (Sheikh Zuweid).” In Aviv Tel Residence at Rahel?” Ramat Assyrian An Archaeological Manifestations ofEmpire: Assyria’s Imprint onSoutheastern Ana At theEdge ofEmpire: Conceptualizing Assyria’s Anatolian Frontier ca. 700 B.C.” Ashkelon under the Assyrian Empire.” under theAssyrian Ashkelon In After Eltekeh:Royal Assyrian Court.”Hostages at the from Egypt In Garrisoning oftheConstruction theEmpire: and Maintenance Aspects ofForts

The Kingdom Aviv of Judah under Josiah.” Tel The Identification ofthe ‘Sealed kāru The Boundary The Boundary System and Political Status Empire.” of Assyrian Gaza under the Two Notes and Ekron ofAshkelon intheLate ontheHistory Eighth–Seventh ‘ nthedon, Sinai School ofArchaeology Publications. British 58. Quaritch. London: The Territory Facing Jaffa’: Cultural Landscapes ofa Mediterranean and Port Its conomic Aspects of the Egyptian Occupation ofCanaan.” oftheEgyptian conomic Aspects Israel Exploration Jour- hoenician Cities and the Assyrian Empire intheTimehoenician Cities and theAssyrian ofTiglath- nderwater Survey,nderwater 1985–1987.” In uman Settlement and Coastal Change in Gaza since the BronzeAge.” Méditer- 31:172–85.

on under the Assyrian and Egyptian Empires.” and Egyptian on under theAssyrian Bulletin ofthe American Schools 104:75–78. “Bey ​C ond theRiver, beforeAssyrian theBrook:FortificationsFrontier and aspa, Y.aspa, ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ​A Stager, 25:219–27.

ed. J. D. Schloen, 351–59. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: 59:77–87. ​V ​V Ashkelon 1:Introduction and Overview ereins 120:55–72. ereins 90:38–49. Roaf ofEgypt.’ The New EncyclopediaArchaeological of Exca- ed. S. Bonzano, N. Morello, and C. Pappi. , Alter undAltes Orient Testament 397, Beyond Military: Fortifications and Ter- Exploring the Longue Duree: Essays in 18:1–69.

” Israel Exploration Journal 34:32–38. Qadmoniot 28:260–80. 75–76:83–91 (Hebrew). (1985–2006), ​ p ileser III.”ileser Stories of of Stories

1 83 -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Tadmor, H. M. Sugerman, Stager, Master, L. E., D. M., and Schloen, J. D., eds. Russell, J. M.Russell, B.-Z.,Rosenfeld, and Menirav, J. Rollinger, R. e Southern Levante Southern Domination under Assyrian 184 Stager, L. E. Shavit, A. Schloen, J. D. Schipper, B. 1=Parpola, S.SAA 1958 2009 2011 2008 1966 2001 1999 2005 2001 1996 2008 2001 2011 1987

Th

Eisenbrauns. Essays in Honor ofLawrence E. Stager, 5:1578–86. 59, ed. S. R. Wolff, 625–38. Chicago: Oriental Institute ofthe of University Chicago. boring Lands in ofDouglas L Memory . Esse,Studies Oriental Civilizations inAncient “P sion).” Journal ofCuneiform Studies 12 (3): 77–100. “ “ A “ Trade and Hinterland Production.” In 25:61*–74*. Levant.” In of Judaism 99. Leiden: Brill. M Neo- Intercultural Influences, Melammu 233–64. Symposia 2,ed. R. M. Whiting, Helsinki: Historical Perspective.” In “ “P “ A. Yasur Landau, 135–64. Leiden: Brill. Finkelstein ofIsraelology and the Levant during the Bronze and Iron in Honour Ages ofIsrael “ Harvard Semitic Museum. Near East. Studies intheArchaeology oftheLevant and History 2.Cambridge, MA: Th Leiden: Brill. Near oftheAncient History and J. J. Shirley, ed. S. Bar, D. Kahn, East 52, 268–90. Proceedings ofaConference at the University 2009 ofHaifa,, Culture 3–7 May and “E University Press. Th tions W Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 BCE.” Eretz and 604 BCE.” Kislev theArchaeology Israel ofDestruction: Ashkelon Settlement Patterns City- of Philistine The Ancient GreeksThe and the ImpactAncient ofthe Near East: Textual and Evidence The Campaigns of Sargon IIAssur: A Chronological- of Tel Ashkelon.” New Encyclopedia ofArchaeological Excavations in the Holy Land Trade and Power inLate Bronze Canaan.” Age In shkelon 3:The Seventh B.C Winona Century Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: arkets and Marketing in Roman Palestine. Supplements to theJournal fortheStudy riting on the Wall: ort Powerort in theEarly and theMiddle Bronze TheOrganization Age: of Maritime gyptian Imperialism after the gyptian Dynasty and theNew Kingdom: Southern The26th hilistia under Assyrian Rule.” under Assyrian hilistia Biblical Archaeologist 29:86–102. e Correspondence ofSargon II, Part 1.State 1. Helsinki Helsinki: Archives ofAssyria e House of the Father as Fact and Symbol: . Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: ​A ssyrian Textssyrian Corpus Project. , Culture and Near oftheAncient and History East 31, ed. A. Fantalkin Egypt, Canaan and Israel:Egypt, History, Imperialism, Ideology and Literature; Studies in the Architectural Context of Late Mythology andMythology Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to ed. J. D. Schloen, 439–48. Winona Lake, IN: Studies in the Archaeology ofIsrael and Neigh ​S tates.” In Patrimonialism in Ugarit and the Ancient Bene Israel: Studies in the Archae- Exploring the Longue Duree: ​H istorical Study (Conclu- Assyrian PalaceAssyrian Inscrip - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved. Younger, Jr. L., K. S. Yamada, Weiss, and E., Kislev, M. E. Wazana, N. Waldbaum, J. C. Vidal, J. Vanderhooft, D. Tsafrir, Y., and Di Segni, Green, L., J. Thareani, Y. Tappy, R. E. 2015 2005 2000 2004 2003 1997 2011 2006 1999 1994 2016 e Inscriptions ofTiglath King ofAssyria: Pileser III, 1994 2008

Study.” Israel Exploration Journal 65:179–204. “ “K Nearof theAncient East 3. Leiden: Brill. maneser Iii (859–824 B. Th Ashkelon.” Journal ofArchaeological Science 31:1–13. “P Tool ofPolitical Control In Ḫattu.” Eretz Israel 27:110–21 (Hebrew). “ ter, and J. D. Schloen, 127–340. Winona Lake, Eisenbrauns. IN: History ofthe Orient 49:269–79. “ ofPresence.”nition Bulletin ofthe American Schools ofOriental Research 305:1–17. “ “U Museum Monographs 59. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Th Humanities. nistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods. Jerusalem: Israel Academy ofSciences and T Levantine Coast.” Bulletin ofthe American Schools ofOriental Research 375:77–102. “ 33–47.”xv Vetus Testamentum 58:381–403. “H Th Humanities. tions, Translations and Commentary . Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Greek Pottery.” In Greeks intheEast orGreeks and theEast? ProblemsRecog intheDefinition and

The Empire and the‘Upper Sea’: ControlAssyrian Strategies along the Southern The Assyrian Economic Assyrian ImpactThe Levant onthe Southern RecentLight inthe of ‘I R abula Imperii Romani. lant Remains asIndicators A Case Study from Iron forEconomic Activity: Age e Construction Empire: ofthe Assyrian A Historical Study ofthe Inscriptions ofShal- e Neo- ārus ontheFrontiersārus oftheNeo- garit and theSouthern Levantine Sea- istorical and Geographical Notes ofJudah Districts’ onthe‘Lowland inJoshua emoved theBoundaries ofNations’ (Isa. 10:13): Border Shifts asa Neo- ​ Ba bylonian Empire and Babylon in the LatterProphets . Harvard Semitic ssyrian Involvementssyrian inthe Southern Coastal Plain ofIsrael Neo- ​A Ashkelon 3:The Seventh B. Century C . ) Relating to His Campaigns to the West. Culture and History Iudaea- ​ P alaestina: Eretz Israel and Sinai during the Helle- ​A ssyrian Empire.”ssyrian Orient 40:56–90. ​P orts.” Journal ofthe Economic and Social C Critical Edition, with Introduc ., ed. L. E. Stager, D. M. Mas A ​ ssyrian ssyrian

1 85 - - -

An Imprint of Penn State University Press | Offprint © 2018 The Pennsylvania State University. All rights reserved.