Chapter 22

The Assyrian kāru at Dor (ancient Du’ru)

Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon

Tel Dor, in the very western periphery of the Assyr- conquered by Tiglath-pileser III in the course of his ian empire, is located on ’s Mediterranean coast, 734–732 campaigns, possibly en route to and about mid-way between and , tucked possibly during his way back north. The motivation(s) between the Carmel Mountains and the sea (Fig. 22.1). for these campaigns have been debated. Some see Till the early twentieth century ad the site was sur- them as instigated by the need to quench the Damas- rounded by swamps which partially inhibited acces- cus/Israelite rebellion (and answering the summons sibility to the hinterland. Agriculture, for example, of Ahaz of Judah). Others perceive a commercial/ could not be exercised extensively in the site’s imme- economic motivation: an orderly plan to subjugate the diate vicinity. The location, however, had two crucial southern Levantine ports and control maritime trade assets: A bay on the north and a protected lagoon to (Bedford 2009, 44–45). Usually, however, only the har- the south enable anchorage in almost any weather – a bours of and Philistia are referred to in this rare situation along the southern Levantine littoral. respect. Their importance to the empire is underscored Since it is located about the middle of the stretch of 100 by the fact that despite repeated rebellions much impe- nautical miles or so between Phoenician and Philistia, rial effort (and restraint) was invested in keeping them Dor provided a convenient stopover. Second, the Wadi operative (summaries e.g., in Oded 1974; Eph‘al 1979a, Milkh pass through the Carmel range offered easy 182–5; Otzen 1979, 254–5; Elat 1991, 23–9). Scholarship access to the and hence further eastward rarely considered the role of the Carmel coast in the and northward. Throughout the ’s near-continuous Assyrian schemes. Was this coast, with its main port habitation from the Middle to Roman city of Dor also considered commercially important? times the site functioned as a major interface between Otzen (1979, 255) thought that the annexation of the east and west and as an important trans-shipment Carmel coast was a major drive for the Damascus/ point for merchandise travelling up and down the Israel insurgence and Yamada (2005, 75, table 3) is one Levantine littoral (recent summary up to the Iron Age of very few scholars who suggested that this part of in Gilboa, Waiman-Barak & Sharon 2015 and for later the Levantine littoral was indeed important enough to periods in Nitschke, Martin & Shalev 2011). establish an Assyrian kāru, as we argue in this paper. The main purpose of this paper is to present Tiglath-pileser’s conquests of the Galilee and the succinctly the current archaeological information Israelite territories in Transjordan, and deportations regarding the Assyrian occupation period at Dor, inter from these regions are recorded in the (II Kings alia by comparing it to preceding and subsequent 15:29; I Chron. 5:26) and in Assyrian records (for habitation levels in order to afford some diachronic summaries, Eph‘al 1979a, 185, 188), but a takeover of perspective. We touch only briefly upon the relevant Israel’s coast is not mentioned anywhere. Neverthe- written sources, since most of them are well-known. less, Dor’s first excavator, Ephraim Stern (e.g. 2000, 131), repeatedly argued that archaeological evidence Written records pertaining to Du’ru shows that Israelite Dor was violently destroyed by that monarch. Also, again largely following Forrer, it is Following Emile Forrer’s Provinzeinteilung (1920) it generally held that under the Assyrians Dor became a was nearly unanimously agreed that Dor, with the provincial capital – Du’ru (urudu-u’-ru), controlling the entire coastal area of the Israelite kingdom, and with coast and adjoining lowlands roughly between the tip the Galilee to the north and Gile‘ad on the east, was of the Carmel and the Yarkon river. It was supposedly 241 Chapter 22

of Samaria (but Na’aman 2009, 105 claims that the

a Assyrians never agglomerated jurisdictionally coastal e and inland regions). S As opposed, however, to Samaria and Megiddo, n Tyre Dor is not clearly mentioned in any list of eponyms, a

e l e b a n o n despite one suggestion to the contrary by Finkel & n Reade (1998; summary in Na’aman 2009, 97; cf. Radner a Kabri r 2006). Forrer’s conviction was mainly based on the

r galilee allusion to Dor in two fragmentary lists from e ‘Akko p h o e n i c i a t – K.4384 and ADD 919 (K.1521 +K.14257), which he i akko plain Sea of Shiqmona ‘ Galilee d Q interpreted as listing provincial centres (for the texts, i sh e o e.g., Fales & Postgate 1995, 4–6). However, as argued n coast er M R jezreel v i Ri ve uk by Eph‘al (1979b, 285, 287–8), Kessler (1980, 126–8, n. r m Dor valley ar carmel Y 451, including references) and Rainey (1981, 146), there Megiddo is nothing in these lists to suggest such a status (and cf. Radner 2006). On the contrary, both include a variety

of place names – administrative centres, emporia, r

s h a r o n e

v i and others (summaries in Gilboa 1996, 132; Na’aman

R

Samaria

n

a 2009, 97–8 and cf. Fales & Postgate 1995, 4–6, although n R d rko iver r Ya o ADD 919+ appears there under the heading ‘List of J

Provinces’; and similarly in Yamada 2005, 80–81). Na’aman proposed that ADD 919+ should rather be understood as listing Assyrian trading posts or custom houses. The belief that Dor functioned as a provincial Ashdod capital conforms with another widespread conviction, Ashkelon namely that of continuity of imperial administrative divisions in this specific region through the Assyrian (according to some, also Egyptian), Babylonian and N p h i l i s t i a Persian periods (Alt 1959; Rainey 1989, 12–13; Lemaire Tell es-Shari’a 1990, 56; Stern 1990b, 148 with references; 2000, 147, Dead Sea Tell Jemmeh 0 20 km 149; Tal 2005), with Dor continuously serving as a capital (rare exceptions to the continuity concept are Vanderhooft 2003, 238–47; Betlyon 2005, 10). ’s treaty with ‘al Figure 22.1. Location map of Dor with main sites (K.3500 + K.4444 + K.10235), inter alia declares: ‘These mentioned in the text. are the ports of trade and the trade routes which Esarhaddon, King of , [entrusted] to his servant one of three such capitals in the ex-Israelite territories Ba‘al to Akko, Dor, to the entire district of the Philis- west of the Jordan – the other two being Megiddo in tines, and to all the cities within Assyrian territory, on the Jezreel valley and Samaria, Israel’s former capital the seacoast, and to , the Lebanon, all the cities in the northern central hill country (Forrer 1920, 49–69; in the mountains, all (these) being cities of Esarhad- Albright 1925, 44; Alt 1929, esp. 236–8; Noth 1960, 261; don, King of Assyria’ (III: 18’; translation by Parpola Stern 2000, 131 and references to further discussions & Watanabe 1988, 25). Based on this text, claims have in Elat 1991, n. 27; Na’aman 2009, 95–6). When exactly been made that at this time Dor was granted to the this would have happened is debated. Otzen, as men- Tyrians (Jidejan 1969, 46; Elayi 1978, 28; Rainey 1981, tioned, thought that the Dor region was the first to be 146) – a suggestion that is of course not compatible transformed into a province already in 734 bc. Since, with a function as a provincial capital. The crucial however, the Assyrian inscriptions mentioning Dor verb describing the status of all these regions/cities, (see below) are usually dated no earlier than Sargon translated ‘entrusted’ by Parpola and Watanabe, is, II, the establishment of Du’ru has been relegated however, only partially preserved. It is usually read as by others to him or to (Pecirkova 1987; ˹ip-qi˺-[du-ni], as they do, but translations have varied, Oded 1974, 46 n. 43). Conversely, Aharoni (1979, such as ‘appointed’ in Smith 1875, 140; ‘gegeben hat’ 377) suggested that after the highlands of Israel were and ‘zugesteht’ in Weidner 1932–1933, 32; ‘zuwies’ conquered, the province of Dor was annexed to that in Borger 1976, 108; and ‘granted’ in Reiner 1975, 52. 242 The Assyrian kāru at Dor (ancient Du’ru)

The beginning of line 22’ in this inscription might Bloch-Smith & Sharon 2015). As opposed to Stern’s also have been important for deducing the nature of conviction (e.g., 2000, 115, 131), Israelite Dor was not the deal with Ba‘al, but here too the crucial verb is violently destroyed in a ‘great fire’. Scant remains missing, reconstructed as ‘Ba‘al [may enter these] cities of burning (ash and charred wood) were traced in ...’ by Parpola and Watanabe. part of the gate area only, perhaps attesting that this Judging from the context, however, it is quite evi- monument only may have been deliberately put dent that no allotment of territories is being described to the torch, possibly as a symbolic act. In all other here. The harsh overtones in the ‘treaty’ (cf. Pettinato excavation areas evidence for violent destruction is 1975, esp. 157–8) negate the reading that its intent was non-existent. The town seems simply to have been to grant Ba‘al vast territorial concessions. It is also dif- abandoned and at least partially dismantled – as ficult to accept that the Assyrians would relinquish evidenced by numerous walls that were preserved one of very few major Levantine harbours under their only at foundation level. direct control (for the contested status of ‘Akko at this Since there are no ‘good᾽ destruction assem- time e.g., Elat 1991, 26 vs. Na’aman 1994). blages, dating Israelite Dor’s demise becomes diffi- Rather, the issue at hand is the regulation of cult. In a few excavation areas, pits that cut through shipping and trade (see Katzenstein 1973, 273; Bun- the Israelite architecture contain pottery of mid-eighth nens 1979, 55; Pettinato 1975, 157; Gilboa 1996, 131–2; century date. The assemblages associated with the Yamada 2005, 70–72; Na’aman 2009, 98; Aubet 2001, latest use of the four-chamber gate also look earlier 59). The concessions granted to the Tyrians at all these than what one would expect for a late eighth century localities must have been limited to the commercial/ horizon and seems to date to the middle rather than maritime sphere. (Conversely, Hirschberg 1932, 69 ff. end of that century. This may indicate that the down- and others have suggested that all these are localities fall of the Israelite centre preceded the establishment with which the Tyrians were forbidden to trade.) of the Assyrian one by at least a few decades. These, In the context of the present paper, the treaty’s though, are preliminary impressions and this pottery importance is that it attests to Dor’s significance in the is currently under study. Such a re-consideration may context of eastern Levantine maritime trade. Notably, reflect on the quite automatic association of Israelite Dor is the only port mentioned between Phoenicia Dor’s termination with Tiglath-pileser (Gilboa 1996; and Philistia. Stern 2000, 131) but at present we shall not speculate on the historical implications of a possible earlier date Archaeological evidence and its interpretations for the end of Israelite Dor. The only architectural element datable to this postulated hiatus between Prior to the Assyrian Centre the Israelite and Assyrian phases, other than the pits, Dor’s Iron Age remains are usually uncovered about is a single wall found sandwiched between the four- 5–8 m below surface and thus their exposure is at chambered and two-chambered gate houses (for the times limited. Still, after three decades of excavation, latter – see below). Since the gatehouse is also the the occupational sequence and its main characteris- only spot where possible evidence of some destruc- tics are well known. Remains of the Israelite town tion was found, one scenario is that after forcing the preceding the Assyrian epoch have been unearthed gates, the enemy (whether Assyrian or otherwise) in several excavation areas, and although they are left the town decrepit. The inhabitants repaired the not always well preserved (an issue we return to gap in the town wall as best they could, but had little further down in this paper), they portray a rather use for the sprawling public structures of the Israel- clear picture. Under the Israelites, Dor was a fortified ite administrative centre. Be that as it may, it seems centre, equipped with at least one four-chambered that when rebuilding took place under the Assyrian gate on the east (Area B; Stern 1990a, 17–20; 2000, empire the town – apart from a girdle of fortifications 113–4 figs. 55–57; for a general plan of the site, see – was pretty much tabula rasa. Gilboa and Sharon 2008). The town consisted mainly of large monumental buildings of obvious public/ Architecture in the Assyrian centre administrative function, with few or no domestic At a certain point in the late eighth or early seventh ones – in marked contrast to the preceding, early Iron century (we cannot for the time being be more exact Age Phoenician town. Despite the fact that Dor was than that), the site was revived. The city wall of the Israel’s main Mediterranean outlet, it is increasingly Israelite centre was re-used with some minor modifi- becoming clear that the Israelite interlude at Dor is cations and a new, two-chamber gate, apparently with the only episode when the site’s role as a major Medi- an outer gate as well, (Fig. 22.2) was constructed in terranean entrepôt cannot be demonstrated (Gilboa, Area B over the ‘Israelite gate’ (see Stern 1990a, 22–4; 243 Chapter 22

N

0 5 m

Figure 22.2. Model of the Eastern Assyrian-period gate and photo of the ridged socket (dark grey represents extant parts and light grey sections are reconstructed based on indirect evidence).

2000, 132–4 and figs. 74–77; though the city wall is urban lull. The only site which was certainly fortified not new as claimed by Stern but, as mentioned – a is Assyrian Megiddo, and probably also Samaria – the reuse, as indeed portrayed in Stern 2000: fig. 73, the other provincial centre, but for various reasons evi- ʺcomposite stone/mudbrick wallʺ). Inside the gate dence there is very problematic (Tappy 2001, 352–3). (on the western side) was an open plaza of sorts. The The fortification, therefore, was considered by Stern gate is equipped with a horseshoe-shaped door socket proof that Dor too was indeed a provincial capital (Fig. 22.2; see also Stern 2000, fig. 78) – a feature with (2000, 138). However there is no reason to assume that no local antecedents, but known from Neo-Assyrian the Assyrians in West Asia fortified only provincial architecture in Assyria, (especially) , Iran and centres, and as recently argued by Na’aman (2009, (Reich & Brandl 1985, 44; for Iran see Reade 102–4), this is also supported by textual evidence. For 1995, 39–40; for Anatolia, Matney et al. 2009, 70 fig. 4). instance, a letter from Qurdi-Aššur-lamur, governor In the ex-Israelite territories such sockets are known of Ṣimirra, describes Assyria’s involvement in the only from Megiddo, an unequivocal provincial centre, fortification of the city of Kašpuna – not a provincial and from Gezer, which – as convincingly argued by centre. Fortifying Dor only means that site was con- Brandl and Reich – also apparently had some admin- sidered an important enough asset to be protected. As istrative role under the Assyrians. In most of the Mes- well, as mentioned, at Dor the city wall wasn’t even opotamian and Syrian examples these socket-stones built de novo (though the gate was). Beyond the gate are adorned with elegant stepped mouldings, which and wall there are no seventh century architectural usually extend beyond the outline of the socket, remains to speak of, other than bits of floors and oftentimes to the entire length of the door sill (some walls here and there. Currently we are at a loss to of the best, and most numerous are at Khorsabad, in explain this strange situation. One possibility is that the Nabu temple and in other buildings, e.g., Loud & ‘Assyrian’ remains were obliterated by the extensive Altman 1938,22, pl. 20: A–C). At Dor, this embellish- levelling and building operations of the Persian ment has been transformed to mere ridges carved in period (Nitschke, Martin & Shalev 2011, 133–41). It the soft kurkar sandstone around the socket – a vague is also possible that Assyrian Dor was quite sparsely reference to the ‘originals’ (similarly, for example, at built. Assyrian Magiddu was a tightly built populous , Thureau-Dangin & Dunand 1936, figs. 4, town (Peersman 2000), but this seems to have been 5, plan B). Dor’s socket and a pair at (von the exception for Assyrian-occupied Israel, rather Oppenheim 1950, figs. 65, 66 Pl. 26) are the only exam- than the rule. In Samaria, for instance, little or no ples known from city/fortress gates. architecture can be ascribed to the Assyrian provincial The very fact that Dor was fortified in this period capital (Tappy 2001, chapter IV). Dor’s character and is an anomaly, since the Neo-Assyrian period in for- perhaps role under Assyrian imperial rule can thus mer Israel is typified by a severe demographic and be gleaned mainly from the ‘small finds’. 244 The Assyrian kāru at Dor (ancient Du’ru)

1 2

3 4 5 6

8 7 9

10 0 10 cm

Figure 22.3. Assyrianizing ceramic bowls/goblets.

Small finds Reiche 1995; Anastasio 2010, bowl types BW-01.b, c, d, e. Other Assyrianizing shapes occur rarely, such as Ceramics bottles and basins/coffins (Fig. 22.5; see also Zorn 1997, Architectural paucity notwithstanding, very large 218–9; photographs of some of these vessels appear amounts of late eighth/seventh centuries ceramics are in Stern 2000, figs. 82, 83). No Palace Ware is attested, known both from levels relating to the two-chambered which was confirmed by Alice Hunt in this conference gate and from very large refuse pits scattered about the (contra Stern 2000, 144; 2001, 37). tell, cutting through Israelite buildings. Here we high- In some contexts the Assyrianizing bowls con- light only two characteristics of these assemblages. First stitute as much as 25 per cent of the open shapes – a is the abundance of Assyrianizing shapes – but of a very phenomenon unparalleled anywhere in the southern limited typological range. They include the usual cari- other than perhaps at Megiddo (25 exam- nated bowls/goblets with rounded bases, of a variety ples, e.g. Lamon & Shipton 1939, pls. 23:8–9), but no of shapes, fabrics and decorations (Fig. 22.3), but much quantitative data are available from that site. Beyond more abundantly – several types of bowls with various Dor and Megiddo such bowls occur at Samaria in ridged and grooved rims (Fig. 22.4: 1–13) and infolded unknown quantities (Reisner, Fisher & Lyon 1924, rims (Fig. 22.4: 14–19). Practically identical bowls are fig. 207: 2a; Crowfoot, Crowfoot & Kenyon 1957, fig. wide-spread both in the core sites of Assyria and in 11:1–8; most of them from problematic contexts of its periphery – from Urartu to the southern Levant. Pottery Period 7, see Tappy 2001, 433–5) and very A very partial lists includes Fort Shalmaneser (Oates sporadically at other sites. Preliminary fabric analyses 1959, 139 pl. XXXV: 12–16, 25; for further examples indicate, as expected, that these are not Mesopotamian from Nimrud see Gilboa 1966, fig. 3:1–9); Assur (Haller products, most of them are apparently produced at 1954, pl. 6: aa, ab, ak); Nineveh (Thompson & Mal- Dor, but whether other production centres in the lowan 1933, pl. LXXVIII: 33–17; Khirbet Qasrij (Curtis Levant are represented remains to be determined, 1989, figs. 27:67; 28:81–86, 112–15); Tell el-Hawa (Ball, and a petrography project is underway. This strange Tucker & Wilkinson 1989, figs. 16:8–10; 26:4, 9, 19–20, ceramic profile begs an explanation. The simple cari- 22–24); Tell Sheikh Hamad/Dur Katlimmu (Kreppner nated bowls are perhaps easier to explain. Emulating 2006, pls. 5:2, 4, 5, 8; 6:1, 3–5, fig. 52: Nos. 67200, 67400); metal drinking cups, they are widespread in the Tell Halaf (Hrouda 1962, pls. 56:23; 61:146, 151, 154); Levant as from Assyrian times, especially, though (Lloyd & Gökce 1953, fig. 6:17, 20, 22–24, definitely not only, in sites known to have been Assyr- 28); and Bastam (Kroll 1970, fig. ZT: 3, 5–6; 1972: fig. ian posts (references in Singer-Avitz 2007, 183–5). This I:1); for numerous additional sites see Hausleiter & simple shape is quite easy to reproduce and probably 245 Chapter 22

2 3 1

5 4

6 7 8

9 10

11 12 13

14 15

16 17

18 19 0 10 cm

Figure 22.4. Assyrianizing ceramic bowls. should indeed be explained as some local emulation Therefore, in Gilboa 1996 it was suggested that of Assyrian paraphernalia (cf. Hunt, this volume). The these bowls were produced by potters with Assyr- ridged etc. bowls, however, embody a rather different ian potting know-how, working for an Assyrian (or phenomenon. The meticulous shaping of their rims Assyrian-enculturated) clientele. Na’aman, on the and bases, for example, mirror in minute details their other hand, proposed that they represent deportees to various Assyrian prototypes. These bowls, however, the site, possibly from Syria or Urartu (Na’aman 2009, as mentioned, are well-known not only from Assyria, 100–2; cf. Na’aman this volume). Both interpretations, but from several sites in Syria and as far as Urartu, we must admit, are not satisfactory, since they do not for example at Bastam and Hasanlu. Unrelated to the account for the very specific selection of Assyrianiz- Assyrian question, we are currently experimenting ing shapes. This particular ceramic phenomenon with modern professional potters in Israel, trying to will have to be solved by a wider consideration of reproduce ancient pottery vessels. This taught us how the production centres of these vessels, the mode of difficult it is – even for a professional potter – to faith- production, the function and meaning of these ves- fully ‘copy’ even simple ceramic shapes, let alone such sels in Assyria and in the peripheries and the specific complicated features as typify those bowls. contexts in which these vessels were used. As a first 246 The Assyrian kāru at Dor (ancient Du’ru)

2 1

3

4 0 10 cm

Figure 22.5. Other Assyrianizing ceramic vessels. step, as mentioned, at Dor we are currently attempting Glyptics to chart production regions. Three seals are linked to Dor’s Assyrian episode, The second ceramic characteristic is the omni- studied by Tallay Ornan (1997, nos. 16, 105, 152; see presence of Phoenician commercial jars in the seventh Gilboa & Sharon 2008, figure on p. 167; Stern 2000, century, represented by the hundreds – complete fig. 85 right). They are, respectively, a barrel-shaped shapes and fragments, usually found in refuse pits stamp-seal depicting a worshipper in front of Ishtar; a (Gilboa 1996, fig. 4; Eliyahu-Beharet al. 2008, 2899–901 scaraboid with three stands(?) and a with figs. 5a: 15; 5b). Someone was dumping huge num- a combat scene. Only the latter was found in associa- bers of Phoenician jars on the tell. No other site in the tion with seventh century ceramics (in a waste pit), Levant produced them in such quantities. Since only and the other two were out of context. All three have a few of these jars were locally made, they unequivo- been determined by Ornan to be provincial products, cally attest to Dor’s role in maritime traffic during this nos. 16 and 152 dating not earlier than Sargon II and period. Ongoing fabric analysis will soon provide data no. 105 assigned to the seventh century (Ornan 1997 regarding their exact origin. The fact that so many of and personal communication). In contrast Stern (2001, them are found in refuse contexts may attest either 67) thought that nos. 16 and 152 were ‘brought from to a very large scale consumption at Dor of some Assyria’ and that no. 105 should be associated with commodity from Phoenicia (Tyre?), or to Dor being the Babylonian occupation of Dor (Stern 2000, 146). a trans-shipment point to substances decanted from the jars and distributed further. To reiterate – this Other finds intense contact with Phoenicia is a new phenomenon, A triangular clay docket, of a type well known espe- following the Israelite interlude during which such cially from Assyria’s core sites and from provincial contacts are minimally attested. In tandem, contact centres in Syria, such as Assur, Kalhu and Nineveh; with Cyprus is evidenced by containers arriving from Tell Halaf/Guzana, Tell Ahmar/Till Barsip, Tell Shio- the island (Gilboa 1999, fig. 9). Close contacts with ukh Fawkani/Burmarina and most notably Tell Sheikh Cyprus, amply attested during Dor’s early Iron Age, Hamad/Dur-Katlimmu, was uncovered in a mixed late are severed under the Israelites, and are now resumed. Iron Age/Persian-period locus. It is the first to be posi- In addition, a few Greek potsherds were uncovered, tively identified in the southern Levant. These dockets, a rare phenomenon in the Levant in this period (cf. usually inscribed in (more rarely in Ara- Fantalkin 2006). maic and Akkadian), usually record loans and other 247 Chapter 22

economic transactions. They are best known during as Iron Age basket-handled amphorae (e.g. at Kabri, Neo-Assyrian times, especially the seventh century, Lehmann 2002, fig. 5.84:1) and East Greek wares (Wald- though the Tell Sheikh Hamad evidence indicates their baum 2011 for Ashkelon). Very few finds might date continued use under the Neo-Babylonians (Fales 1986; to the sixth century (Nitschke, Martin & Shalev 2011, Fales et al. 2005). Our docket mentions a certain šlmy, 141), which, in this context, is very difficult to under- and the rest of the inscription still awaits deciphering. stand. Therefore Stern’s suggestion (2000, 145–8) that On the side is a seal impression of the crescent of Sin Dor came under Judahite control under Josiah cannot and also, apparently, fingernail imprints, which are be substantiated. In fact, the only find cited by him as also known on other such dockets. support for this scenario is one Judahite sheqel weight Lastly, further evidence regarding activities in (Stern 2000, fig. 84 on p. 146). This weight was found Assyrian Dor has been forthcoming from sediment in a locus with overwhelmingly seventh century pot- analyses. One of the huge refuse pits of the period tery (alongside the bottle in Fig. 22.5:1 and the above- produced the wastes of a smithy (in addition, of course, mentioned cylinder seal), though it also had Persian- to hundreds of discarded Phoenician jars). Bronze and period and Roman intrusions. Neither political nor iron slag, hammer-scales and bronze prills attest to specific chronological inferences may be drawn from the recycling of bronze and mainly to secondary iron this weight and like other Judahite weights beyond working (Eliyahu-Behar et al. 2008). Though Akkadian Judah’s borders, it rather attests to economic activi- differentiates between bronze-smiths (nappāh sippari) ties (Kletter 1998, fig. 6). Stern’s suggestion that under and blacksmiths (nappāh parzilli) both metals were often the Babylonians Dor functioned again as a provincial worked in the same workshops, as was the case at Dor. capital is not borne out by any material evidence, and This can be deduced form the texts as well: Assyrian indeed has been qualified in Stern 2001, 316. texts mention allocations of both iron and copper to In the Persian period, a totally new and well- blacksmiths, and objects of both metals are reported in planned town developed. The beginning of this new inventories to have been made by the same shops. For establishment, alongside the revival of the region in the time being the only other smithy known from the general is conventionally linked, on historical grounds, late eighth/seventh centuries in the southern Levant either to Achaemenid imperial initiative, as a base for is that at Tell es-Shari‘a in the northern – a Cambyses II’s Egyptian campaign, or to the Sidonians, Neo-Assyrian centre (Rothenberg and Tylecote, 1991; following the assignment of the Dor to region to Oren, 1993). Remains of a possible iron smithy were them (Stern 1995, 272; 2001, 387–8; Roll and Tal 1999, also uncovered at Megiddo, but their stratigraphical 209 n. 8; also Rainey 1989, 13). The latter transaction attribution to either Stratum IVA (Israelite town) or III is recorded in the well-known funerary inscription of (Assyrian centre) is debated (Gottlieb 2010, 92 with ref- Eshmunazar II, whose precise regnal years in the late erences). Without considering here in detail the minu- sixth to early fifth century bc are debated (Elayi 2004). tiae of the Megiddo stratigraphy, the latter attribution Recent re-consideration of Persian Dor’s chronology seems to us more probable. We therefore entertain the by Yiftah Shalev and Susan Rebecca Martin has shown possibility that the re-cycling of iron and the produc- that on archaeological grounds the earliest datable tion of iron objects, so vital for the maintenance of the finds at Persian-period Dor are not earlier thanc . 480 bc Assyrian apparatus, may have been under imperial and that the town was not seriously rebuilt before regulation (for similar conclusions regarding the pro- c. 450. This pattern is also repeated in other coastal duction of iron under the empire, see Luciani 1995, 980). sites in Dor’s vicinity (Shalev 2009; Nitschke, Martin & Shalev 2011, 141). Thus the revival of Dor and of the The end of Assyrian Dor and subsequent Carmel and Sharon coasts in general cannot antedate developments the end of ’s reign, and most probably occurred even later, under . This revival should The Assyrian centre at Dor came to an end c. the be disconnected from any imperial decree, initiative mid-seventh century; no better precision is currently and even involvement, and is related to re-emerging possible by archaeological considerations, so probably Mediterranean networks at this time. any date within Assurbanipal’s reign is possible. Following this, for a very long time, the site was Summary and discussion either completely abandoned or was so ephemeral that even after 30 years of excavation no trace of it Under Neo-Assyrian hegemony, a new, apparently was unearthed. Notable too is the absence of classes quite sparsely built centre was established at Dor, fol- of pottery that typify late seventh/early sixth centuries lowing the Israelite interlude when the harbour had coastal sites from Syria/Phoenicia to Philistia – such lost its importance and probably after an occupational 248 The Assyrian kāru at Dor (ancient Du’ru)

gap (or very ephemeral habitation), the duration of 252–3 for other proposals). However, kāru’s and bit which has yet to be determined. The new fortified cen- kāri’s were established on the Mediterranean littoral tre attested to Dor’s importance in this period, as also also both before and after the reign of Sargon II (Elat gleaned from the texts. There is no evidence – archaeo- 1978, 26–7; Yamada 2005; Berlejung 2012, 41–42). Dor’s logical or textual – to prove or disprove that this was harbour probably also served the maritime mobiliza- a provincial capital (Gilboa 1996; Na’aman 2009). Dor tion of troops to and Cyprus. was one of the very few sites in ex-Israel’s lowlands Assyria’s handling of economic affairs within its where some sort of ‘urbanism’ survived – mainly sites domains – including inter-regional trade – has been that had a specific function in the imperial administra- frequently discussed and is beyond our scope here. tion, in an otherwise quite desolate demographic land- Recently, this issue has been re-addressed by Faust and scape. The site’s only raison d’être was the connection Weiss (2011), with a focus on the southern Levant, and to the sea. There is nothing bona-fide Assyrian in this several references to earlier considerations are available centre, but only a conjunction of Assyrianizing traits in their paper. According to them the Assyrians did in architecture, ceramics and glyptics. The ‘glyptics not promote economic productiveness in the southern situation’ is different, for example, from that in the pro- Levant, and were even a destructive force in this regard, vincial centres at Megiddo and Samaria and in other especially in the former territories of Israel (Faust and Assyrian holdings such as Gezer and Tell Jemmeh, Weiss 2011, 193–9; similarly, for example, Bagg 2013; where many more seals reproduce Assyrian iconogra- for a different opinion, e.g., Postgate 1979, 199). The phy and style, accompanied by genuine Assyrian seals, Dor case, however, indicates that in the desolate former (and a royal bulla at Samaria; Ornan 1997, table on pp. Israelite territories (recently Faust 2011), the Assyrians 259–64). Regrettably, the possible presence/impact did take affirmative action to endorse maritime trade, of Assyrian construction methods and architectural by re-establishing the port of Dor under their tutelage concepts cannot be gauged, since beyond the gate and after its abandonment (for a similar suggestion regard- associated city wall not much architecture survived. So ing the fortress at Tell Qudadi on Israel’s Sharon coast, why was this centre established? The answer should be see Fantalkin and Tal 2009). This is not just laissez faire clear by now – attested by the Esarhaddon/Ba’al treaty, + taxing, though taxing was surely one of the most by the enormous quantities of Phoenician commercial important ‘activities’ at the site. Lastly, because of the jars, by the Cypriot containers and by the fact that there Babylonian (and early Persian-period) occupational gap apparently was no substantial productive hinterland to at Dor, it is difficult to sustain the view that the Assyrian exploit. Dor’s chief role, again, was to serve maritime province of Dor and Dor itself shaped imperial admin- commercial ends – an Assyrian kāru, established in istrative structures in the following centuries, under order to direct maritime trade, protect it, supervise it Babylonian and Persian rule. Recently Na’aman (2009) and tax it (Gilboa 1996 and more generally Na’aman looked at this proposed continuity from a long durée 2009; for Dor’s maritime role see also Stern 2000, 132; perspective/assessment of Dor’s administrative role. He for the term kāru in Neo-Assyrian times, e.g., Civil et al. suggests that continuously, from the early Iron Age to 1971, 237–9; Fales & Postgate 1995, 162). Archaeology, Achaemenid times, the coastal region from the Carmel for the time being, cannot determine when the kāru to the Sharon was a separate administrative territory, was established. Tiglath-pileser’s reign is a possibil- governed from Dor. We agree that the geographically ity, especially if we accept that controlling maritime well defined Carmel coast (by the Carmel Ridge on trade was a main objective of the 734–732 campaigns. the north and east and by the wide on Another possibility would be Sargon II, as suggested the south) can be considered – to take up Na’aman’s by Stern (2000, 130; and see Na’aman 2009, 98 for a Annales terminology – as a structure/conjuncture, but suggestion that ADD 4348 dates to this emperor’s this was not always so. In some periods Dor did not reign, as opposed to the more customary dating to exist at all, and in others – such as the Neo-Assyrian ). In this case the establishment of the period – it had very little to do with the ‘hinterland’. Dor kāru could be seen in the perspective of a com- No understanding of Dor’s changing fate and role is prehensive plan to champion trade passing through possible without an as accurate as possible chronologi- the southern Levant. The kāru of Egypt, ʺopenedʺ by cal framework and without taking into account histoire Sargon II, may be another part of that same policy. événementielle. A main lingering question pertains to The latter was apparently located in northern Sinai or the identity of Dor’s functionaries and other residents southern Philistia (though whether on the coast or not in this period. Who were the imperial representatives is unknown; see Yamada 2005, 69–70; Reich 1984 for at the site and how extensive was their presence? Who one possible identification out of several; and refer- de facto built the town and took care of daily necessi- ences there and in Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2011, ties? Were they ‘locals’ or perhaps (also?) individuals 249 Chapter 22

or families from Phoenicia with maritime know-how? Bedford, P.R. 2009. The Neo-Assyrian Empire, in The Dynam- As mentioned, when the kāru was established, the ics of Ancient Empires: State Power from Assyria to Byz- site was hardly inhabited and the surroundings quite antium, eds. I. Morris & W. Scheidel. Oxford and New depleted, so this centre had to be peopled somehow. York: Oxford University Press, 30–65. Berlejung, A. 2012. The Assyrians in the west: assyrianization, We cited Na’aman’s suggestion that the Assyrianizing colonialism, indifference, or development policy? in ceramic shapes at Dor attest to deportees to the site Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. M. Nissinen. (Vetus (according to him, from the Habur triangle and the Testamentum Sup. 148), Leiden: Brill, 21–60. vicinity of the Assyrian/Urartian border). All we can Betlyon, J.W., 2005. A people transformed: Palestine in the say at the moment is that ceramics of the seventh cen- Persian period. Near Eastern Archaeology 68(1–2), 4–58. tury at Dor – other than the Assyrianizing shapes and Borger, R., 1976. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von the Phoenician jars – are clearly of ‘local’, i.e. Israelite Assyrien. Osnabrück: Biblio-Verlag. tradition. How far this specific pots=people case can be Bunnens, G., 1979. L’ expansion phénicienne en Méditerranée. taken is presently unclear. As a first step we mean to Brussels: Institut historique belge de Rome. Civil, M., A. Gelb, L. Oppenheim & E. Reiner (eds.), 1971. The establish whether all this pottery (and the Assyrianizing Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the Uni- ceramics) was produced at Dor. Presently these crucial versity of Chicago Vol. VIII. Chicago: Oriental Institute. ‘identity questions’ remain unresolved and here too, a Crowfoot, J. W., Crowfoot, G.M. & Kenyon, K.M., 1957. wider periphery perspective such as attempted in this Samaria-Sebaste: Reports of the Work of the Joint Expedition conference would eventually prove instrumental. in 1931–1933 and of the British Expedition in 1935, III: The Objects. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Acknowledgements Curtis, J., 1989. Excavations at Qasrij Cliff and Khirbet Qasrij. London: . We warmly thank the organizers of the conference, Elat, M., 1978. The economic relations of the Neo-Assyrian John MacGinnis and Tina Greenfield for the opportu- empire with Egypt. Journal of the American Oriental nity to present Dor in this extremely productive confer- Society 98, 20–34. Elat, M., 1991. Phoenician Overland Trade within the Meso- ence and for the friendliness and hospitality extended potamian Empires, in Ah, Assyria:… Studies in Assyrian by them and by the representatives of the McDonald History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented Institute. Between 1980–2000 the excavations to Hayim Tadmor, eds. M. Cogan and I. Eph‘al. Jerusa- were conducted by Ephraim Stern and since 2002 by lem: Magnes, 21–35. the authors. The Project is supported by the Goldhirsh- Elayi, J., 1978. L’essor de la Phénicie et le passage de la domi- Yellin Foundation, the Berman Foundation for Biblical nation assyro-babylonienne à la domination perse. Archaeology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Baghdader Mitteilungen 9, 25–38. the Faculty of Humanities at the University Haifa, Elayi, J., 2004. La chronologie de la dynastie sidonienne and anonymous donors. Research of the Assyrian and d’’Ešmun’azor. Transeuphratène 27, 9–28. Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shilstein, S., Raban-Gerstel, N., Goren, Y., Persian periods at Dor is supported by Israel Science Gilboa, A., Sharon, I., & Weiner, S., 2008. An integrated Foundation grants 797/10 and 570/9, respectively. approach to reconstructing primary activities from pit Figure 22.1 was prepared by Anat Regev. deposits: iron smithing and other activities at Tel Dor (Israel) under Neo-Assyrian domination. Journal of References Archaeological Science 35, 2895–908. Eph‘al, I., 1979a. Israel. Fall and exile, in The Age of the Monar- Albright, W.F., 1925. The administrative division of Israel and chies: Political History, Volume Four–I, eds. A. Malamat Judah. Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 5, 17–54. & I. Eph‘al. Jerusalem: , 180–91. Alt, A., 1929. Das System der assyrischen Provinzen auf Eph‘al, I., 1979b. Assyrian dominion in Palestine, in The Age dem Boden des Reiches Israel. Zeitschrift des Deutschen of the Monarchies: Political History, Volume Four–I, eds. Palästina-Vereins 52, 220–42. A. Malamat & I. Eph‘al. Jerusalem: Masada, 276–89. Aharoni, Y., 1979. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Fales, F.M., 1986. Aramaic Epigraphs on Clay Tablets of the Neo- London: Burns & Oates. Assyrian Period (Studi Semitici N.S. 2.) Rome: Universita Anastasio, S., 2010. Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age. degli studi ‘La Sapienza’. (Subartu 24.) Turnhout: Brepols. Fales F.M. & Postgate, J.N., 1995. Imperial Administrative Aubet, M.E., 2001. The Phoenicians and the West. Cambridge: Records, Part II: Provincial and Military Administration. Cambridge University Press. (State Archives of Assyria Vol. IX.) Helsinki: Helsinki Bagg, A.M. 2013. Palestine under Assyrian rule: a new look University Press. at the Assyrian imperial policy in the west. Journal of Fales, F.M., Radner, K., Pappi, C. & Attardo, E., 2005. The the American Oriental Society 133,119–44. Assyrian and Aramaic texts from Tell Shiukh Fawqani, Ball, W., Tucker, D., & Wilkinson, T.J., 1989. The Tell al-Hawa in Tell Shiukh Fawqani, 1994–1998, eds. L. Bachelot & project: archaeological investigations in the northern F.M. Fales. (History of the Mono- Jazira 1986–1987. Iraq 51, 1–66. graphs VI/2.) Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N, 595–694. 250 The Assyrian kāru at Dor (ancient Du’ru)

Fantalkin, A. 2006. Identity in the making: Greeks in the east- Jidejan, N., 1969. Tyre through the Ages. Beirut: Dar El-Mashreq. ern Mediterranean during the Iron Age, in Naukratis: Katzenstein, H.J., 1973.The History of Tyre from the Beginning Greek Diversity in Egypt. Studies on East Greek Pottery of the Second Millennium B.C.E. until the Fall of the Neo- and Exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean, eds. A. Vil- Babylonian Empire in 539 B.C.E. Jerusalem: Schocken ling & U. Schlotzhauer. (The British Museum Research Institute. Publication 162). London: British Museum, 199–208 Kessler, K., 1980. Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie Fantalkin, A., and O. Tal. 2009. Re-discovering the Iron Nordmesopotamiens nach keilschriftlichen Quellen des 1. Age fortress at Tell Qudadi in the context of the Neo- Jahrtausends v. Chr. (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Assyrian Imperialistic Policies. Palestine Exploration Vorderen Orients: Reihe B. 26). Wiesbaden: Ludwig Quarterly 141,188–206. Reichert. Faust, A., 2011. The interests of the Assyrian Empire in the Kletter, R., 1998.Economic Keystones. The Weight System of the west: olive oil production as a test-case. Journal of the . (Journal for the Study of the Old Tes- Economic and Social History of the Orient 54, 62–86. tament Supplement Series.) Sheffield: Academic press. Faust, A., and E. Weiss 2011. Between Assyria and the Medi- Kreppner, F.J., 2006. Die Keramik des ‘Roten Hauses’ von Tall terranean world: the prosperity of Judah and Philistia Šēh Ḥ amad/Dūr-Katlimmu: Eine Betrachtung der Keramik in the seventh century bce in context, in Interweaving Nordmesopotamiens˘ aus der zweiten Hälfte des 7. und aus Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to 1st millen- dem 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Berichte der Ausgrabung nia bc, eds. T. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt & J. Bennet. Oxford: Tall Šēh Ḥamad/Dūr-Katlimmu 7.) Wiesbaden: Oxbow, 189–204. Harrassowitz.˘ Finkel, I.L. & J.E. Reade, 1998. Assyrian Eponyms, 873–649 bc. Kroll, S., 1970. Die Keramik aus der Ausgrabung Bastam Orientalia 67, 248–54. 1969. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Neue Folge) Finkelstein, I. & Singer-Avitz, L., 2001. Ashdod revisited.Tel 3, 67–92. Aviv 28, 231–59. Kroll, S., 1972. Die Keramik aus der Ausgrabung Bastam Forrer, E., 1920. Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches. 1970. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (Neue Folge) Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. 5, 69–95. Gilboa, A., 1996. Assyrian-type pottery at Dor and the status Lamon, R.S. & Shipton, G.M., 1939. Megiddo I: Seasons of of the town during the Assyrian occupation period. 1925–34 (Strata I-V). (The University of Chicago Eretz-Israel 25, 122–35 (Hebrew with English summary Oriental Institute Publication 42.) Chicago: Oriental p. 92). Institute. Gilboa, A., 1999. The view from the east: Tel Dor and the Lehmann, G., 2002. Chapter 5: Pottery of the Iron Age, inTel earliest Cypro-Geometric exports to the Levant, in Kabri: The 1986–1993 Excavations, eds. N. Scheftelowitz Cyprus: The Historicity of the Geometric Horizon, eds. & R. Oren. (Monographs of the Institute of Archaeol- M. Iacovou & D. Michaelides. Nicosia: University of ogy 20.) Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 178–222. Cyprus, 119–39. Lloyd S. & Gökce N., 1953. Sultantepe. Anatolian Studies III, Gilboa, A., & Sharon, I., 2008. Between the Carmel and the sea: 27–52. Dor’s Iron Age reconsidered. Near Eastern Archaeology Lemaire, A. 1990. Populations et territoires de Palestine à 71(3),146–70. l’époque perse. Transeuphratène 3, 31–74. Gilboa, A., Bloch-Smith, E., & I. Sharon, I., 2015. Capital of Loud, G. & Altman, C.B., 1938. Khorsabad II: The Citadel and ’s fourth district? Dor under the Israelites, the Town. (Oriental Institute Publications 40.) Chicago: 51–74. University of Chicago. Gilboa, A., Waiman-Barak, P., & Sharon, I., 2015. Dor, the Luciani, M., 1995. Chapter 6 – Area G, in Tell Shiukh Fawqani, Carmel coast and early Iron Age Mediterranean 1994–1998, eds. L. Bachelot & F.M. Fales. (History of exchanges, in Mediterranean Mirror. Cultural Contacts in the Ancient Near East Monographs VI/2.) Padova: the between 1200 and 750 B.C. Proceed- S.A.R.G.O.N, 719–982. ings of the International Conference (Heidelberg, October Matney, T., Greenfield, T., Hartenberger, B., Keskin, A., 6th–8th, 2012), eds. A. F. Babbi, B. Bubenheimer-Erhart. Körogˇlu, K., MacGinnis, J., Monroe, W., Rainville, L., Marín-B. Aguilera and S. Mühl. Heidelberg, 85–109. Shepperson, M., Vorderstrasse, T., & Wicke, D., 2009. Gottlieb. Y., 2010. The advent of the age of iron in the land of Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe 2007–2008. Anatolica 35, Israel: a review and reassessment. Tel Aviv 37, 89–110. 37–84. Haller, A., 1954. Die Gräber und Grüfte von Assur. (Wissen- Na’aman, N., 1994. Esarhaddon’s treaty with Baal and Assyr- schaftliche Veroffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient- ian provinces along the Phoenician coast. Rivista di Gesellschaft 65.) Berlin: Gebr. Mann. Studi Fenici 22, 3–8. Hausleiter, A. & Reiche, A., (eds.), 1995. Iron Age Pottery in Na’aman, N., 2009. Was Dor the capital of an Assyrian prov- Northern , Northern Syria and South-Eastern ince? Tel Aviv 36, 95–109. Anatolia: Papers presented at the Meetings of the Inter- Nitschke, J.L., Martin, S. R. & Shalev, Y., 2011. Between Car- national ‘table ronde’ at Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborów mel and the Sea. Tel Dor: the late periods. Near Eastern (1997) and Other Contributions. (Altertumskunde des Archaeology 74, 132–54. Vorderen Orients 10.) Münster: Verlag. Noth, M., 1960. The History of Israel. New York: Harper & Row. Hrouda, B., 1962. Tell Halaf IV, Die Kleinfunde. Berlin: de Oates, J., 1959. Late Assyrian Pottery from Fort Shalmaneser. Gruyter. Iraq 21, 130–46. 251 Chapter 22

Oded, B., 1974. The Phoenician cities and the Assyrian empire Roll, I. & Tal, O. (eds.), 1999. Apollonia-Arsuf, Final Report of in the time of Tiglath-pileser III. Zeitschrift des Deutschen the Excavation, Vol. I: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods. Palästina-Vereins 90, 38–49. (Tel Aviv University Monograph Series No. 16.) Tel Oppenheim, M. von, 1950. Tell Halaf II, Die Bauwerke. Berlin: Aviv: Institute of Archaeology. de Gruyter. Rothenberg, B. & Tylecote, R.F., 1991. A unique Assyrian Oren, E., 1993. Sera’, Tel, in Encyclopedia of Archaeological iron smithy in the northern Negev (Israel). Institute Excavation in the Holy Land, Vol. 4, eds. E. Stern & A. for Archaeo-Metallurgical Studies 17, 11–14. Lewinson-Gilboa. Jerusalem, New York: Israel Explora- Shalev, Y., 2009. Tel Dor and the urbanization of the coastal tion Society & Simon & Schuster, 1329–35. plain of Israel during the Persian period. Eretz Israel Ornan, T., 1997 Mesopotamian Influence on the Glyptic of Israel 29, 363–71 (Hebrew with English summary p. 294*). and Jordan in the First Millennium B.C. Unpublished PhD Singer-Avitz, L., 2007. On pottery in Assyrian style: a rejoin- dissertation, Tel Aviv University. der. Tel Aviv 34, 182–203. Otzen, B., 1979. Israel under the Assyrians, in Power and Smith, G., 1875. Assyria from the Earliest Times to the Fall of Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. M.T. Nineveh. London: Society for Promoting Christian Larsen. (Mesopotamia 7.) Copenhagen: Akademisk Knowledge. Forlag, 251–61. Stern, E., 1990a. Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the time of Parpola, S. & Watanabe, K., 1988. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Ahab and under Assyrian rule. Israel Exploration Loyalty Oaths. (State Archives of Assyria 2.) Helsinki: Journal 40, 12–30. Helsinki University Press. Stern, E., 1990b. The Dor province in the Persian period in Peersman, J., 2000. Assyrian Magiddu: The Town Planning of light of the recent excavations at Dor. Transeuhpratène Stratum III in Megiddo III: The 1992–1996 Seasons, eds. I. 2, 147–55. Finkelstein, D. Ussishkin and B. Halpern. (Institute of Stern, E., 1995. Historical conclusions, in Excavations at Dor, Archaeology Monograph Series 18.) Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Final Report IA: Areas A and C, eds. E. Stern, J. Berg, University, 524–34. A. Gilboa, B. Guz-Zilberstein, A. Raban, R. Rosenthal- Postgate, J.N., 1979. The Economic Structure of the Assyr- Heginbottom & I. Sharon. (Qedem Reports 1.) Jerusa- ian Empire, in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on lem: Hebrew University, 271–83. Ancient Empires, ed. M.T. Larsen. (Mesopotamia 7.) Stern, E., 2000. Dor, Ruler of the Seas. Jerusalem: Israel Explo- Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 193–221. ration Society. Pecirkova, J., 1987. The administrative methods of Assyrian Stern. E., 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible 2: The Assyr- imperialism. Archiv Orientální 55, 162–75. ian, Babylonian and Persian Periods 732–332 bce. New Pettinato, G., 1975. I rapporti politici di Tiro con l’Assiria alla York: Doubleday. luce del ‘trattato tra Asarhaddon e Baal.’Rivista di Studi Tal, O., 2005. Some remarks on the coastal plain of Palestine Fenici 3, 145–60. under Achaemenid rule–an archaeological synop- Radner, K. 2006. Provinz, C. Assyrien, in Reallexikon der sis, in L’archéologie de l’Empire achéménide: nouvelles Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band. recherches, eds. P. Briant & R. Boucharlat. (Persika 6.) 11/1–2. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2006, Paris: De Boccard, 71–96. 42–68. Tappy, R.E., 2001. The Archaeology of Israelite Samaria II: The Rainey, A.F., 1981. Toponymic problems (cont.): the Way of Eighth Century bce. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. the Sea. Tel Aviv 8, 146–51. Thompson, R.C. & Mallowan, M.E.L., 1933. The British Rainey, A., 1989. The Sharon coastal plain: Historical Geography, Museum excavations at Nineveh, 1931–32. Annals of in Excavations at , Israel, eds. Z. Herzog, G. Archaeology and Anthropology 20, 17–18. Rapp Jr. & O. Negbi. (Publications of the Institute Thureau-Dangin, F. & Dunand, M., 1936. Til Barsip. Paris: of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 8.) Tel Aviv P. Geuthner. & Minneapolis: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv Vanderhooft, D.S., 2003. Babylonian strategies of imperial University & University of Minnesota Press, 10–15. control in the west: royal practice and rhetoric, in Reade, J.E., 1995. Iran in the Neo-Assyrian period, in Neo- Judah and Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period, eds. Assyrian Geography, ed. M. Liverani. (Quaderni di O. Lipschits & J. Blenkinsopp. Winona Lake: Eisen- Geografia Storica 5.) Roma: Università di Roma ‘La brauns, 235–62. Sapienza’, 31–43. Waldbaum, J.C., 2011. Greek pottery, in The Seventh Reich, R., 1984. The identification of the ‘Sealed “kāru” of Century bc, eds. L.E. Stager, D. M. Master & J.D. Egypt’. Israel Exploration Journal 34(1), 32–38. Schloen. (Final Reports of the Leon Levy Expedition Reich, R. & B. Brandl, 1985. Gezer under Assyrian rule. Pal- to Ashkelon 3.) Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 127–338. estine Exploration Quarterly 117, 41–54. Weidner, E.F., 1932–1933. Der Staatsvertrag Aššurnirâris VI. Reiner, E., 1975. Akkadian treaties from Syria and Assyria, von Assyrien mit Mati᾽ilu von Bît Agusi. Archiv für in The Ancient Near East Volume II. A New Anthology of Orientforschung VIII, 17–34. Texts and Pictures, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton: Uni- Yamada, S. 2005. Kārus on the frontiers of the Neo-Assyrian versity Press, 45–69. empire. Orient 40, 56–90. Reisner, G.A., Fisher, C.S. & Lyon, D. G., 1974. Harvard Excava- Zorn, J.R., 1997. More on Mesopotamian burial practices tions at Samaria 1908–1910. Cambridge, MA: Harvard in ancient Israel. Israel Exploration Journal 47, 214–19. University Press. 252