Assyria Levantine Domination

The Empire and the Upper Sea: Assyrian Control Strategies along the Southern Levantine
Coast
Author(s): Yifat Thareani
Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 375 (May 2016), pp. 77-
102
Published by: The American Schools of Oriental Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.375.0077
Accessed: 17-06-2016 07:30 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5615/bullamerschoorie.375.0077?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The American Schools of Oriental Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
This content downloaded from 140.234.253.9 on Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:30:15 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Empire and the Upper Sea:
Assyrian Control Strategies along the
Southern Levantine Coast
Yifat Thareani
The emergence of the Neo-Assyrian Empire marked the beginning of a new phase in the politi-
cal history of the Mediterranean Sea. The Assyrian kings, being land-based rulers and deprived of
their own access to the sea, adopted a flexible policy for administering coastal territories in their
expansion westward. As indicated by extensive archaeological work in Palestines coastal plain
dating to Iron Age IIBC and abundant historical sources, Assyria saw the coast as a distinct
geographical zone rather than as an integral part of the empires non-coastal heartland. In keeping
with their policy elsewhere and in light of the prior geopolitical partition of Palestines coast, the
Assyrians divided it into several ecological subregions. Taking into account the unique geographi-
cal, political, and economic settings of each region, the Assyrians practiced diverse direct and indi-
rect control strategies: annexation, military control, subjugation, and collaboration with imperial
proxies. This analysis of the flexible policies that the Assyrians exercised on their southwestern
border sheds new light on the ways in which the first true empire exerted power and administered
life in its coastal territories.
Keywords: Assyrian; control strategies; southern Levantine coast
Whoever rules the waves, rules the world.

Alfred Thayer Mahan 1889
A
mony of a single Mesopotamian ruler was very influen-
ssyria was the worlds first political power to tial, and recognition of this is crucial for understanding
adopt an imperial structure; to a large extent, the Assyrians world view (K. Yamada 2005: 31).
this would determine the nature of control This same hegemonic perception stood behind Assyr-
adopted by Assyrias Near Eastern successor hegemons. ian expansion and conquests in the Levant during the
Given that the heartland of their country was deprived eighthseventh centuries b.c.e. Cities and kingdoms sit-
of any access to the sea and that Assyria was a landlocked uated along the Mediterranean coast became the target of
power with no real maritime experience, the Assyrians repeated Assyrian invasions. By the zenith of the empires
soon realized that dominance of the Mediterranean Sea territorial expansion in the seventh century b.c.e., As-
held the potential for much wider mobility than that af- syria controlled the entire eastern Mediterranean basin
forded by any exclusively terrestrial rule. (Parpola 2003).
Ancient Mesopotamians believed that the Mediterra- The historical evidence for Assyrian intervention
nean (the Upper Sea) and the Persian Gulf (the Lower in coastal areas has been discussed at length (e.g., For-
Sea) represented the extremities of the entire world. The rer 1920; Alt 1929; Tadmor 1966; 1971; Naaman 1994;
idea that the two seas should be unified under the hege- 1995b; 1998; 2004; 2009), and material reflections from
Iron Age IIBC (eighthearly seventh centuries b.c.e.)
coastal sites have been extensively published (e.g., Do-
Yifat Thareani: Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeol- than 1971; 1993; Humbert 1993; Oren 1993; Reich 1993;
ogy, Hebrew Union College, 13 King David St., Jerusalem, Gilboa 1996; Humbert and Sadeq 2000; Finkelstein and
Israel 94101, tyifat1@gmail.com Singer-Avitz 2001; Frankel et al. 2001; Fantalkin and Tal
2016 American Schools of Oriental Research. BASOR 375 (2016): 77102.
78 YIFAT THAREANI BASOR 375
2008; 2009). However, few studies have focused on the imperial and colonial policies were exercised in a single
nature and practice of Assyrian dominance along the occupied region (see discussion in Bartel 1985).
coast (Allen 1997; Faust and Weiss 2005; Walton 2015). The creation of an imperial space was achieved by
This article assesses the development methods, struc- territorial expansion through conquest and annexation
ture, and administration of imperial facilities in coastal (Liverani 1979; Zaccagnini 1982). Nevertheless, for an
territories. The case study for this is the Assyrian involve- empire to endure, expansion must be accompanied by
ment along the Mediterranean, particularly Palestines processes of consolidation. An administrative provincial
coastal plain during the eighthseventh centuries b.c.e. system of bureaucratic control directed by imperial of-
The archaeological evidence presented is supplemented ficials and representatives had to be created (Liverani
by historical sources and anthropological methods in 1979: 298; Sinopoli 1994: 16263; Tadmor 1997: 327).
order to properly evaluate the nature of land-based im- In light of the above, this study uses the term imperi-
perial involvement in administering coastal zones. But alism to mean a form of dominationthe control by in-
before addressing these issues, several theoretical ob- dividuals or groups (representatives of the state societies)
servations are made concerning the study of imperial over the territory and/or behavior of other individuals
control strategies in antiquity, with an emphasis on the or groups (Horvath 1972: 46; Bartel 1985: 10). All regu-
Assyrian Empire. larities through which imperial powers have controlled
and manipulated native societies and lands are referred
Previous Studies of Imperial to here as imperial strategies.
Control Strategies Of the various theoretical models dealing with the
structure, organization, and maintenance of empires
Imperialism as a system of government was first (Goldstone and Haldon 2009), the Territorial-Hege-
documented in the mid-19th century (Hammond 1948: monic theory is the most flexible. The distinction be-
106, nn. 23). Since that time, social scientists have tried tween territorial and hegemonic refers to a spectrum
to produce a coherent definition for the termattempts of control strategies, involving degrees of rule fortitude
resulting in countless definitions, each stressing a differ- and integration in the imperial space (Feinman 1998:
ent aspect of the imperial phenomenon.1 109). The hegemonic scale is composed of a core-polity
Generally, imperialism is seen as a form of exploita- surrounded by client-polities and semi-autonomous
tion, particularly in the economic sphere (Lenin 1939; groups, which experience varying levels of interaction
Hammond 1948: 1056; Horvath 1972: 46; Ekholm and (DAltroy 1992: 19). The diverse control strategies that
Friedman 1982: 91, 9394; Wallerstein 1990: 28793; the Territorial-Hegemonic model presents have been
DAltroy 1992; Sinopoli 1994: 16061, 165; Bagg 2013: adopted and imported into the discussion of Assyrian
131). Some studies have questioned whether all impe- control strategies.
rial endeavors were launched for economic exploitation.
Brad Bartel (1985: 10), for instance, argued that the vast Assyrian Control Policy in
majority of imperial powers were never economically Theory and Practice
profitable but that their dominance gave them political
leverage in international affairs (see also Langer 1935: The diverse control strategies that the Neo-Assyrian
108; Adams 1979: 395; Walton 2015: 26480). Others Empire exercised in its western frontier have drawn
have seen imperial domination as a means of protecting much scholarly attention since the inception of Meso-
or buffering a politys frontiers from other political enti- potamian archaeology (Olmstead 1908; Forrer 1920; Alt
ties or hostile nomads (Cromer 1910; Chamberlain 1972: 1929; 1945; Morton Cogan 1971; Postgate 1974; 1992;
6667; Garnsey and Whittaker 1978). 1994; Tadmor 1966; 1975; 1999; Lanfranchi 1997; Liv-
Scholarly literature in general differentiates between erani 1992; Naaman 1993; 1995b; Holloway 2002; Bagg
the practices of imperialism and colonialism. In the 2011; Walton 2015). With the arrival of anthropological
former case, few if any permanent settlers from the im- archaeology in Mesopotamian studies, recent works have
perial homeland migrate to the conquered area, while emphasized those specific imperial strategies that were
the latter scenario involves significant numbers of settlers most likely to leave traces in the archaeological record
migrating permanently to the colony (Horvath 1972: 47, (Sinopoli 1994; Parker 1997; 2001; 2002; 2003; Matthews
50). In the case of ancient conquering powers, often both 2003).
Two main theoretical structures dominate the study of
Neo-Assyrian control strategies: cultural history and an-
1 For the difficulties involved in defining ancient imperialism, see thropological archaeology. Cultural history has been the
Postgate 1994: 1, n. 1. main paradigm of archaeology in Mesopotamia and the
2016 ASSYRIAN CONTROL STRATEGIES ALONG THE SOUTHERN LEVANTINE COAST 79
Levant ever since the early days of systematic research, strategies were practiced by the Neo-Assyrian Empire:
and its main concern is to isolate and characterize the spe- annexation and military control.
cifics of each culture in order to explain chronology, geo-
graphical developments, and cultural influences created Annexation. Annexation of territories was practiced
by movements of peoples, objects, and ideas through space by the Assyrians when they confronted local resistance
and time (Bunimovitz 2001; Matthews 2003: 2022).2 The and sought to prevent any future opposition (Sinopoli
bulk of historical and archaeological studies dealing with 1994). Ideologically and practically, annexation meant
Neo-Assyrian control strategies may be seen as following that the territory lost its former pre-imperial character
the cultural history paradigm (Morton Cogan 1971; Post- in favor of a new status as part of the empire. Annexed
gate 1974; 1992; 1994; Ephal 1979; Fales 1981; Lanfranchi regions were turned into the land of Assur and became
1997; Liverani 1992; Naaman 1993; 1995a; Gitin 1997; part of Assyria proper. In Assyrian eyes, the land of
Holloway 2002; Parpola 2003; Bagg 2011). Assur was a homogeneous territory divided into equal-
The practice of anthropological archaeology in the ranking provinces. Each province was controlled through
study of Assyrian control strategies is relatively new. In a few strategically located imperial centers, which were
spite of the extensive historical and archaeological litera- built over destroyed local hubs. Administration and eco-
ture on the subject, it seems that Mesopotamian empires nomic exploitation of these centers was carried out by the
have been less explored from an anthropological per- provincial governors on behalf of the Assyrian king. Pro-
spective than other empires (e.g., the Roman Empire and vincial centers were usually located at strategic points, in
the empires of the New World) (Matthews 2003: 13334) areas with high economic potential. Soon these centers
and therefore lack the systematic research and scholarly became the focus of imperial attention. Architectural
order typical of the study of other empires. constructions and material culture manifestations that
The seminal work of Bradley Parker on Assyrias characterize the imperial core are likely to appear in such
northern frontier was a turning point in the direction of centers (Postgate 1992: 25152; Parker 2003: 552).
research (1997; 2001; 2002; 2003). Parker integrated the Incorporation into Assyria also meant participating
textual and archaeological evidence from three different in the cult of its gods as well as the exertion of Assyrian
areas in the upper Tigris River (southeastern Turkey) and patronage on local deities. This strategy was aimed at cul-
constructed an anthropological-archaeological narrative tivating support among local elites and reinforcing the
describing the diverse imperial control strategies that the Assyrian cultural presence through cultic practices (Hol-
Neo-Assyrians exerted on the empires northern frontier. loway 2002: 33842).
According to Parker (2001), the Assyrians had a variety
of options for exerting their rule as they expanded into Military Control. The permanent establishment of
new territories. These varied from full integration into Assyrian dominion in newly conquered territories ne-
the Assyrian imperial system to clientage agreements cessitated the construction of forts that would function
policies that are likely to leave their imprint on the ar- as garrison outposts in border zonesareas that were
chaeological record. sparsely settled or where the empire confronted enemy
In many ways, Parkers pioneering work inspired the states. An Assyrian letter (Nimrud Letter 48) referring
current study and helped to form the middle-range the- to the establishment of forts in the Iranian Zagros (Saggs
ory of this article. The relevant points that Parker raised 1952: 200202) implies that the construction of forts was
are presented below, together with several other issues generally the first step that the Assyrians took in newly
addressed by Carla Sinopoli (1994) and some adjust- conquered territories. In another letter from Syria (Par-
ments to the needs of the current research. Crucial to the pola 1987: 227, SAA 1 177), the author describes a village
discussion of Assyrian control strategies is the distinc- as a road station of mine; lacks people; the postmaster
tion between direct and indirect Assyrian rule. and the commander of the recruits are there alone and
cannot attend to it. Parker cited this letter as an attesta-
Direct Rule tion to the importance of the village, which was situated
along a communication corridor (2001: 22526). Since
Assyrias direct rule was accompanied by the construc- no people lived there, the author suggested settling the
tion of imperial administrative and military infrastruc- village and appointing an inspector, thereby converting
ture in order to create a recognizably new settlement it into a proper Assyrian outpost.
pattern (Parker 2003: 552). Two main direct domination In areas that were sparsely settled and lacked a cen-
tralized pre-imperial polity upon which the empire could
2 For
a critical overview of the cultural history paradigm, see Ly- base its control system and oversee affairs in the region,
man, OBrien, and Dunnell 1997. Assyrian enclaves, including forts and outposts, were
founded at strategic locations (Parker 1997: 77). These drawn into the imperial system by Assyrias advanced
fostered communication between different Assyrian communications initiativesthe use of a post-road sys-
outposts and acted as bases for potential future imperial tem and the adoption of multiple official languagesand
expansion. were encouraged to integrate by access to long-distance
trade and the acquisition of luxurious items originating
Indirect Rule from remote regions (Allen 1997: 19596, 323).
Treaties were signed between the empire and local
In regions that were not directly annexed by Assyria proxies (mainly leaders of the seminomadic groups who
that is, those territories left as buffer zones due to their resided in these areas and followed traditional lifeways),
proximity to rival kingdoms or because of some special treaties that required the frontier dwellers to remain
functionthe empire adopted a relatively tolerant pol- quiet and to show a kind of loyalty to the empire. Under
icy that respected local autonomy (Parker 2001: 251). Assyrian auspices, local elites were incentivized to settle
This approach continued as long as peace and political in urban environments and to promote both the impe-
stability were maintained. In cases where Assyria met rial and their own tribal economic and political interests
anti-imperial opposition, however, its policy was far less (Thareani 2009). From an archaeological point of view,
hands-off. The havoc wrought by the Assyrians in such whether previous settlement patterns were continued or
areas was extremely aggressive, involving the almost to- intensified, local architecture and material culture as-
tal obliteration of local settlement systems. semblages were likely to preserve their traditional forms,
Two main policies were practiced by the Assyrians in with only a few imperial imprints (often the appearance
areas indirectly ruled by the empire: subjugation and col- of luxurious items and trade-related objects).
laboration with local proxies.
Ecological Conditions and Their
Subjugation. Hegemonic control was imposed by Effects on Palestines Coast
the Assyrians over existing polities through the impo-
sition of clientage arrangements (Postgate 1992: 252, Situated astride the west Asiatic high road at a con-
254). Whether by means of threats or the use of mili- fluence of political contacts and economic advantages
tary power, kingdoms were subordinated to Assyria and (Fig. 1), the geography and topography of Palestines
their ruling dynasties were allowed to maintain their coastal plainthe Via Maris that constituted an impor-
local dominance as long as they submitted peacefully, tant passage for the movement of people and commodi-
respected treaties, and paid tribute (Parker 2001: 250). tieswas decisive in the regions role and significance.
Subjugated kingdoms were ruled by local kings and Nevertheless, the Via Maris was not only a means of
were not considered part of Assyria. Often the Assyrian prosperous commercial activity but was also a route for
king signed treaties with local rulersformal agreements military traffic that occasionally brought horror and de-
aimed at binding the client with the empire through oaths struction, epidemics, and plagues (Smith 1935: 15558;
and invoking both Assur and the local gods. Breaking Amiran 1953: 199).
such an agreementby not paying tribute, for instance Given how ecological factors have repeatedly influ-
amounted to a crime against Assur and would be met enced and shaped settlement dynamics and political
with a severe and often violent Assyrian response (Par- dominance in coastal regions throughout history, we
pola and Watanabe 1988: xxiixxiii; Postgate 1992: 255). should be able to track the relevant logical patterns and
On a practical level, imperial interference in the local recurring trends in order to make a classification of such
affairs of subjugated kingdoms was limited, as was im- phenomena possible.
perial investment in their infrastructure. In some cases, Palestines coast stretches over a length of 190 km,
fortified imperial centers were established at the edges of from Rosh Haniqra (Ras an-Naqura) in the north to the
such areas. These foundations did not become part of the Sinai Peninsula in the southa narrow strip of land that
local settlement system; rather, they were left as isolated is generally divided into northern, central, and southern
imperial installations, with few dependent settlements in plains (Fig. 2). In his La Mditerrane: Lespace et lhistoire,
their vicinities (Parker 2003: 553). Fernand Braudel wrote that the Phoenician coastal towns
seemed as if they wished to estrange themselves from
Collaboration with Local Proxies. Unlike annexed the land, which has too often been revealed as hostile.
and subjugated territories, territories where the Assyri- Given a constant imbalance, cities of this kind can ex-
ans faced no crystallized political entity (e.g., in marginal ist only on the basis of commerce and industry (1977:
regions such as the desert frontier) required flexible in- 1078). This description accords well with the history of
teraction with the imperial authority. Frontier zones were Palestines coast, where communities equally relied on
Fig.1. The Fertile Crescent during the Iron Age II. (Map by N. Zeevi)
support and supplies from the sea (Schmidt 1951: 6). coast. Its relatively wide dune belt (over 5 km) allowed
These populations lived under the dominant presence the development of prosperous settlement systems and
of the Galilee Mountains and the Carmel ridge to the relatively large towns (Finkelstein 1996: 22833).
east. The northern coastal plain therefore constitutes a Contrary to what one would expect from the natural
network of small ports that turn their back to the moun- conditions of Palestine, most settlements are located in
tainous areas and interior regions. the interior, with only a small number of sites in the low-
Farther to the south, the central and southern coastal landsa trend that is clearly indicated by the earliest de-
plains are usually treated as a single ecological zone com- tailed maps of the land in The Survey of Western Palestine
posed of several subregions (see Fig. 2): from Mount Car- (Conder and Kitchener 1880: sheets 126). Moreover, an
mel to the northern Sharon, the southern Sharon down analysis of long-term demographic and settlement pat-
to the Yarkon River, and then the Philistine coast and terns reveals that, unlike Palestines highlands, where
the Gaza strip. Among these coastal plain subregions, continuous occupation and urban stability are the norm,
the Sharonwith its narrow dune belt (less than 1 km the coastal plain is characterized by severe fluctuations
wide)is considered the most sensitive. Its topograph- and variability in settlement, with the most successful
ical restrictedness made the plain of the Sharon vulner- periods in its history taking place under imperial rule
able: it was difficult to protect in times of war, and the (Amiran 1953: 19294; Kark 1990: 69).
proximity of malaria-ridden swamps not only caused Therefore, a rigorous assessment of Assyrian influ-
sickness but also limited agricultural potential in the ab- ence in this coastal region requires a long-term view in
sence of proper drainage (Amiran 1953: 202). The most which various geopolitical variables are integrated. The
promising ecological zone for settlement in the coastal following is a survey of the settlement pattern and socio-
plain was the region south of the Yarkonthe Philistine political organization of Iron Age IIBC Palestines coast
Fig.2. Ecological subregions in Palestines coastal plain. (Map by N.

Zeevi)
along three axes: on the eve of the Assyrian conquest,

during the Assyrian conquest, and under consolidation
of Assyrian rule. Destruction strategies and the question
of deportations are also considered.
The Southern Levantine Coast on

the Eve of the Assyrian Conquest Fig.3. Map of the main Iron Age IIB settlements in Palestines coastal
plain on the eve of the Assyrian invasion (mid-eighth century b.c.e.).
(See Table 1 for the names of the sites by number.) (Map by N. Zeevi)
Begun under Assurnasirpal II (883859 b.c.e.), the
Assyrian expansion toward the west was undertaken sys-
tematically only in the second half of the eighth century
in the days of Tiglath-pileser III (745727 b.c.e.). During
this time, Assyria gradually penetrated and increased its lows the above-mentioned ecological subdivision and is
control over the territories west of the Euphrates River based on evidence retrieved from archaeological surveys
(Liverani 1992). (mainly The Archaeological Survey of Israel conducted by
The eve of the Assyrian conquest (Iron Age IIB, eighth the Israel Antiquities Authority) and excavations (pre-
century b.c.e) found the southern Levantine coast with liminary and final reports). Calculations of total built-
a relatively limited settlement system (Fig. 3). Table 1 up areas and population estimates follow those of Magen
presents a list of occupied Iron Age IIB sites along the Broshi and Israel Finkelstein (1992), and include estima-
coast just prior to the Assyrian invasion. This list fol- tions of small sites with some modifications.
Table 1. Iron Age IIB Sites in the Southern Levantine Coastal Region on the Eve of the Assyrian Conquest
Size
No. Site Subregion (dunams) Settlement References
Frankel and Getzov 1997: site 16.2; Frankel
1 Kefar Rosh Ha-Niqra Northern coastal plain 10 Unfortified
et al. 2001: site 73
2 Achziv Northern coastal plain 70 City Frankel and Getzov 1997: site 6.1; Frankel
et al. 2001: site 15
3 El-Buqbaq Northern coastal plain 10 Burials Frankel et al. 2001: site 12
4 Nahariyya (north) Northern coastal plain 10 Small settlement Frankel et al. 2001: site 10
5 Khirbat al-Mallaha Northern coastal plain 70 Frankel and Getzov 2012: site 10
6 Akko Northern coastal plain 200 City Dothan 1993: 2122
7 Tell Bira Northern coastal plain 70 City Prausnitz 1993: 26263
8 Tell Keisan Northern coastal plain 50 City Briend and Humbert 1980
9 Tel Zivda From Mount Carmel to ? Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 1
the northern Sharon
10 Horvat Gedora From Mount Carmel to 25 Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 2
the northern Sharon
11 Tell es-Subat Mount Carmel to the 15 Small settlement Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 9
northern Sharon
12 Tell Abu Hawam Mount Carmel to the 40 City; fortified? Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 16; Balensi,
northern Sharon Herrera, and Artzy 1993: 910
13 Tell el-Idhm Mount Carmel to the 30 Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 16
northern Sharon
14 Tell en-Nahl Mount Carmel to the 8 Small settlement Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 33
northern Sharon
15 Horvat Qedem Mount Carmel to the 5 Small settlement Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 94
northern Sharon
16 Tel Shiqmona Mount Carmel to the ? Olamy, Ronen, and Romano 2003: site 18
northern Sharon
17 Tel Khreis Mount Carmel to the ? Small settlement Ronen and Olamy 1978: site 2
northern Sharon
18 Tel Qara Mount Carmel to the ? ? Ronen and Olamy 1978: site 34
northern Sharon
19 Dor Mount Carmel to the 100 City Olamy, Sender, and Oren 2005: site 104
northern Sharon
20 Tel Mikhmoret Mount Carmel to the ? Neeman, Sender, and Oren 2003: site 26
northern Sharon
21 Tel Arshaf Southern Sharon to the ? Gophna and Ayalon 1998: site 11
Yarkon
22 Tel Michal Southern Sharon to the ? Small settlement Gophna and Ayalon 1998: site 44
Yarkon
23 Givat Beit Hamitbahayim Philistine coast ? Small settlement Or et al. 1991: site 59
24 Tell Jaffa Philistine coast ? City Or et al. 1991: site 111; Fantalkin and Tal 2008
25 Tel Azor Philistine coast ? Or et al. 1991: site 125
26 Holot Yavn Philistine coast ? Berman, Barda, and Stark 2005: site 2
27 Tel Mor Philistine coast 6 8th-century b.c.e. Berman, Barda and Stark 2005: site 18; Barako
fortress 2007
28 Ashdod Philistine coast 400 City Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005
29 Ashdod-Yam Philistine coast 125 8th- to 7th- century Kaplan 1993: 1023; Fantalkin 2014
b.c.e. fortress
30 Tel Poran Philistine coast ? Small settlement Berman and Barda 2005: site 110
31 Ashkelon Philistine coast > 100 City Berman, Stark, and Barda 2004: site 1
32 Tell er-Ruqeish Gaza strip 80 City Oren 1993
33 Gaza Gaza strip ? City Humbert and Sadeq 2000
34 Raphiah Gaza strip 15 Small city? Aharoni 1974: 88
Total 34 sites 1,439
Additional sites of 300
unknown size (est.)
Total 1,739
The Northern Coastal Plain can be estimated at 1,125 dunams on the eve of the
Assyrian campaigns (Shavit 2003: 16465, fig. 45).
On the eve of the Assyrian invasion, the northern 4. The Gaza strip. The southernmost part of the coastal
coastal plain was under the rule of the Phoenician king- plain was dominated by Tell er-Ruqeish (80 dunams)
dom of Tyre (Briquel-Chatonnet 1992; Van der Brugge and Gaza. Another smaller yet important site was Ra-
and Kleber in press: 4, n. 24). Several central sites domi- phiah (15 dunams) (Aharoni 1974: 88). Keeping in
nated the settlement map of this region during Iron Age mind the partial archaeological exploration of this
IIB: Akko (200 dunams), Achziv (70 dunams), Tell Bira region, the inhabited area is estimated to have been
(70 dunams), Tell Keisan (50 dunams), and Tell Abu Ha- 200 dunams.
wam (30 dunams) (Lehmann 2001: 71 with references,
fig. 3.8). To summarize, the Assyrian campaign found the
Iron Age IIB occupation along the northern coastal southern Levantine coast occupied by a relatively limited
plain just prior to the Assyrian campaigns included ca. number of settlements, under the rule of three distinct
ten settlements covering a total built-up area of 520 local polities: the Phoenicians in the north, the Israelites
dunams (Fig. 4). Following a density coefficient of 25 in the center, and the Philistines in the south.4 Settlement
inhabitants per dunam, the local population just prior along the coast encompassed only 36 Iron Age IIB sites.
to the Assyrian campaign has been estimated at about As presented in Table 1, the total built-up area of Pales-
13,000 people.3 tines coastal plain just prior to the Assyrian campaigns
is estimated at 1,739 dunams and, calculated at 25 people
The Central and Southern Coastal Plains per dunam, was home to some 43,475 people.
The long strip that stretches from Shiqmona in the Assyrian Conquest of the
north to Raphiah in the south is divided into four eco- Southern Levantine Coast
logical subregions: Mount Carmel to the northern Sha-
ron, the southern Sharon down to the Yarkon River, the In about 740 b.c.e. Tiglath-pileser III began expanding
Philistine coast, and the Gaza strip. the borders of Assyria to the areas west of the Euphrates
1. From Mount Carmel to the northern Sharon. This River. Following his annexation of the northern Syrian
subregion was under northern Israelite administra- kingdoms, he conquered vast territories in the southern
tion prior to the Assyrian conquest. Situated between Levant, including the northern and southern coastal
the Sharon and Akko plains, Dor (100 dunams) was plains (734732 b.c.e.). This was the coastal areas first
the only major port before the Assyrian arrival in the taste of the might of the imperial army.5 But although
southern Levant (Gilboa and Sharon 2008: 163, 166). the Assyrians forced the surrender of the Philistine
The rest were small sites (see, e.g., three olive presses city-states (Naaman 2005: 2930; Bagg 2011: 21722),
that were found at Shiqmona [Elgavish 1994: 64]), and Tiglath-pileser IIIs successors in the following century
the total built-up area was thus estimated at 350 du- had to march in his footsteps and reconquer the coast.
nams (Broshi and Finkelstein 1992: 53). While Assyrian sources clearly refer to the conquest
of coastal cities (see below), the use of literary formulas
The following three subregions were under the con- and ideological patterns in this written evidence limits
trol of the Philistine city-states. its contribution to our understanding of the reality of
2. The southern Sharon down to the Yarkon River. No Assyrian conquest along the coast.
large Iron Age IIB sites have been detected here (Tell Given that aspects of the Assyrian conquest and
Qasile was not occupied until the late seventh century control policies affected the archaeological record in
b.c.e. [Mazar 1980:11]), just 15 small sites covering a significant and identifiable ways (Parker 2003: 526),
total built-up area of no more than 85 dunams. the numerous excavations and surveys that have been
3. The Philistine coast. Only ten Iron Age IIB sites have 4 This number is considered relatively low compared with other
been identified in this region, although several are contemporary settled areas located in Palestines interior, such as the
large mounds: Ashdod (400 dunams), Ashdod-Yam Shephelah (above 250 sites in 1,388 dunams, according to Dagan 2004:
(125 dunams), and Ashkelon (over 100 dunams) (Al- table 38.5, fig. 38.3) and the Negev Desert frontier (50 sites spread over
len 2008: 3334). The total built-up area in the region 55 dunams, according to Thareani-Sussley 2007).
5 The preserved segments of the Assyrian annalsin a poor state of
preservationmention only two main areas: the lower Galilee and the
margins of the Jezreel Valley. For a full edition of the inscriptions, see
3 Thisestimate is lower than that of Broshi and Finkelstein (1992: Tadmor and Yamada 2011. For the history of research and literature,
52), whose reconstruction included 25 Iron Age IIB sites in the region, see Naaman 1995a: 105; and Mordechai Cogan 2003: 3334. For the
a total built-up area of 880 dunams, and a population of 22,000 people. biblical description in 2 Kgs 15, see Naaman 1995b: 274.
conducted in the region constitute a crucial source for Age IIB port in the region. Its destruction must have had
discerning the nature of Assyrian control along the Med- a major effect on neighboring sites.
iterranean coast. The descriptions below summarize the
archaeological evidence for Assyrian conquest of the 2. The southern Sharon down to the Yarkon River.
southern Levantine coast. No Assyrian destructions have been detected in this re-
gion, which was only sparsely settled prior to the Assyr-
The Northern Coastal Plain ian conquest.
In 701 b.c.e., the Assyrian king Sennacherib marched 3. The Philistine coast. The interference of Egypt
to the southern Levantine coast in order to punish the along the Philistine coast and the Gaza strip provoked
local cities for their participation in the anti-Assyrian an Assyrian campaign there as early as 734 b.c.e. During
coalition headed by Hezekiah of Judah. The Assyrian this campaign, Hanunu, the rebellious king of Gaza, fled
king mentions Achziv and Akko among the captured to Egypt. The Assyrian king entered the city, erected his
cities of Tyre (Frahm 1997: 5355, lines 3235; Bagg stela in the palace, took its riches back to Assyria, and im-
2011: 249). Contrary to Hayim Tadmor (2006), who as- posed an annual tribute on Gaza. Hanunu then returned
sumes that the two coastal cities surrendered without from Egypt and submitted himself to Tiglath-pileser
resistance, archaeological evidence for the Assyrian (Naaman 2004: 56). Holloway has claimed that Assyrian
assault at Akko indicates that residential mud-brick images were placed in the temple at Gaza and that this
buildings of the day collapsed and were covered by a act carried cultic obligations for Hanunu, who was left
thick layer of ash (1 m deep). According to the excava- on the throne simply because he was more economically
tors of Tell Abu Hawam, Stratum III was also destroyed useful alive (Holloway 2002: 133, 193). The conquest of
in the second half of the eighth century b.c.e. (Balensi, Ashkelon and Gaza, accompanied by the imposition of
Herrera, and Artzy 1993: 10), although no information heavy tributes, was meant to block a possible Egyptian
regarding the nature or exact date of this destruction is advance along the coast (Naaman 1979: 6869).
provided. Fourteen years later, Sargon II led his troops toward
Rebellious cities along the coast were repeatedly Philistia and Gaza. The climax of this campaign was
brought to heel over the course of the seventh century the battle of Raphiah, where the Assyrians defeated an
b.c.e. Both Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal mention the Egyptian-Philistine coalition and took into captivity Ha-
uprisings of Akko, which, by way of response, was recon- nunu, king of Gaza. Sargon destroyed Raphiah, seized
quered, razed, and its inhabitants deported (Pritchard 9,033 people together with their many possessions, and
1969: 300). Accordingly, a second destruction layer at deported them to Assyria (Sargon Annals, lines 2357;
Akkoonly briefly reported uponwas detected above Fuchs 1994: 8990). A new king succeeded Hanunu on
the earlier layer and was dated by the excavators to the the throne of Gaza (Naaman 2004: 57).
second half of the seventh century b.c.e that is, to As- In the year 711 b.c.e., the Assyrian king launched
surbanipals military campaign (Dothan 1993: 21). Stra- another campaign, this time against Ashdod (Naaman
tum 6 at Tell Keisan yielded only a few remains dating 1979: 7071 and references therein). Striking evidence
to the second half of the eighth century b.c.e. (Humbert for the violence of Assyrian retribution against Ashdod
1993: 866). No conclusive evidence has come to light has been uncovered in excavations at this coastal city
from Achziv, while Tell Bira has yet to be excavated. (Strata VIIIVII).6 The massive fortification system
including a wall, a four-entry gate, and storeroomswas
The Central and Southern Coastal Plains completely destroyed (Dothan 1971: 21, 38, 114; Dothan
and Porath 1982: 2833, 5657). Three mass graves were
1. From Mount Carmel to the northern Sharon. The discovered below the Stratum VIII floors, containing
Assyrian conquest of Dor (Stratum IV) most likely oc- the remains of roughly 3,000 individuals. Some bod-
curred as early as the mid-eighth century b.c.e., with ies were beheaded and mutilated by sharp weapons. All
relevant evidence found in most excavated areas. The were gathered soon after death and the skulls arranged
elaborate fortification system and four-chambered gate in groups. In one building, the mass grave was dug in the
were all destroyed in a great fire. Pottery vessels found courtyard and was filled with human bones and offerings
in this layer were dated to the second half of the eighth containing jewelry and pottery (Haas 1971: 21214).
century b.c.e. (Stern 2000: 131). Conquering Ashdod was of special importance to Sar-
The heavy destruction of Dor stands in contrast to the gon, who erected a basalt stela in the captured city, three
rest of the regions sites, where no evidence of large-scale
devastation has been found. The anomalistic razing of 6 This study follows the critical stratigraphical and chronological
Dor is most likely due to its status as the only major Iron review in Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz 2001: 24446.
Fig.4. Map of the main settlements in Palestines coastal plain during the period
of Assyrian rule (late eighthseventh centuries b.c.e.). (See Table 2 for the names
of the sites by number.) (Map by N. Zeevi)
Table 2. Iron Age IIBC Sites in the Southern Levantine Coastal Region during the Neo-Assyrian Period
Size
No. Site Subregion (dunams) Settlement References
Frankel and Getzov 1997: site 16.2;
1 Kefar Rosh Ha-Niqra Northern coastal plain 10 Unfortified
Frankel et al. 2001: site 73
2 Achziv Northern coastal plain 70 City Frankel and Getzov 1997: site 6.1;
Frankel et al. 2001: site 15
3 El-Buqbaq Northern coastal plain 10 Burials Frankel et al. 2001: site 12
4 Nahariyya (north) Northern coastal plain 10 Small settlement Frankel et al. 2001: site 10
5 Khirbat al-Mallaha Northern coastal plain 70 Frankel and Getzov 2012: site 10
Table 2. Continued
6 Akko Northern coastal plain 200 Fortified city Dothan 1993: 2122
7 Tell Bira Northern coastal plain 70 City Prausnitz 1993: 26263
8 Tell Keisan Northern coastal plain 50 City Briend and Humbert 1980
9 Tel Zivda From Mount Carmel to ? Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 1
the northern Sharon
10 Horvat Gedora From Mount Carmel to 25 Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 2
the northern Sharon
11 Tell es-Subat Mount Carmel to the 15 Small settlement Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 9
northern Sharon
12 Tell el-Idhm Mount Carmel to the 30 Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 16
northern Sharon
13 Tell en-Nahl Mount Carmel to the 8 Small settlement Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 33
northern Sharon
14 Horvat Qedem Mount Carmel to the 5 Small settlement Ronen and Olamy 1983: site 94
northern Sharon
15 Shiqmona Mount Carmel to the ? ? Olamy, Ronen, and Romano 2003:
northern Sharon site 18
16 Tel Khreis Mount Carmel to the ? Small settlement Ronen and Olamy 1978: site 2
northern Sharon
17 Tel Qara Mount Carmel to the ? ? Ronen and Olamy 1978: site 34
northern Sharon
18 Dor Mount Carmel to the 100 City. Provincial Olamy, Sender, and Oren 2005: site
northern Sharon capital? 104
19 Tel Mikhmoret Mount Carmel to the ? Neeman, Sender, and Oren 2003:
northern Sharon site 26
20 Tel Arshaf Southern Sharon to the ? Gophna and Ayalon 1998: site 11
Yarkon
21 Tel Michal Southern Sharon to the ? Small settlement Gophna and Ayalon 1998: site 44
Yarkon
22 Tell Qasile Southern Sharon to the ? Small settlement Mazar 1980: 5859
Yarkon
23 Tell Qudadi Southern Sharon to the 2 Assyrian fortress Fantalkin and Tal 2009
Yarkon
24 Givat Beit Hamitbahayim Philistine coast ? Small settlement Or et al. 1991: site 59
25 Tell Jaffa Philistine coast ? Small settlement Or et al. 1991: site 111; Fantalkin and
Tal 2008
26 Tel Azor Philistine coast ? Or et al. 1991: site 125
27 Rishon Letzion Philistine coast 6 Assyrian fortress Levy, Peilstcker, and Ginzburg 2004;
Levy and Peilstcker 2008
28 Holot Yavn Philistine coast ? Berman, Barda, and Stark 2005: site 2
29 Tel Mor Philistine coast 6 8th-century b.c.e. Berman, Barda, and Stark 2005: site
fortress 18; Barako 2007
30 Ashdod Philistine coast 400 City Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005
31 Ashdod-Yam Philistine coast 125 8th- to 7th-century Kaplan 1993: 1023; Fantalkin 2014
b.c.e. fortress
32 Ashdod South Philistine coast 10 Assyrian residence Kogan-Zehavi 2005; 2006
33 Tel Poran Philistine coast ? Berman and Barda 2005: site 110
34 Ashkelon Philistine coast > 100 City Berman, Stark, and Barda 2004: site 1
35 Tell er-Ruqeish Gaza strip 80 City Oren 1993
36 Gaza Gaza strip ? City Humbert and Sadeq 2000
37 Raphiah Gaza strip 15 Small city? Aharoni 1974: 88
38 Tell Abu Salima Gaza strip 2? Assyrian fortress Reich 1984; 1993
TOTAL 38 sites 1,419
dunams
Estimate of additional sites 300 dunams
with unknown size
TOTAL 1,719
dunams
fragments of which were found ex situ. In this royal in- Ayelet Gilboa has maintained that the close re-
scription, the Assyrian king boasts about defeating the semblance of certain vessel types unearthed at Dor to
Hittites. According to Tadmor, the worship of provincial others found in the Habur triangle (Tell Halaf) and the
stelaea visible symbol of Assyrian dominationmight Assyrian-Urartean border region constitutes an indi-
explain the fact that this item was found broken. Smash- cation of the areas from which the deportees had been
ing such stelae meant both breaking the yoke of Assur in transferred. Included among these vessels are carinated
the political sphere and terminating the presence of the bowls with sharp ridges, round bowls with triangular in-
Assyrian imperial gods. If this interpretation is correct, verted rims, burnished bowls with high carination, and
the Ashdod stela may have been destroyed in the after- sharply carinated bowls (Gilboa 1996: 12229, figs. 12).
math of the great revolt against Assyria (Tadmor 1971: Naaman further elaborated on this theory, arguing that
19297). the vessels were produced by deportees who had been
transferred from regions on the outskirts of the land of
4. The Gaza strip. In their texts, the Assyrians men- Assyria, and they produced the pottery according to the
tion several conquests of Gaza and its environs (see p. 85 ancestral tradition in the area from which they were de-
above), but due to the limited scope of archaeological ex- ported, where it was used in daily life (2009: 100).
ploration in this region, no physical evidence in support Carinated bowlsoften identified as imitations of
of these claims has been unearthed to date. We are thus Assyrian Palace Wareare found at sites throughout
obliged to rely solely on Assyrian records. the entire Levant (see, e.g., Jamieson 1999: pl. 2:25).
Therefore, it is unclear whether these bowls indicate a
Assyrian Deportations from and to the Coast Mesopotamian origin, or if they should be seen as part
of a local phenomenon originating in neighboring lo-
The Assyrians were not satisfied with the conquest calities (Naaman and Thareani-Sussely 2006: 64). The
and destruction of rebellious coastal kingdoms; they also wide distribution of this bowl type suggests that it was
carried out deportations. While it is clear that most As- the common ceramic ware during the Iron Age II rather
syrian kings practiced deportations to Palestines Medi- than the product of deportees. Although that suggestion
terranean coast, only a few imperial records refer directly is tempting, any effort to identify the presence of foreign
to this strategy. Sargon II wrote that after the annexation deportees in the archaeological record of Palestine re-
of Ashdod in 711 b.c.e., he settled therein people from quires a contextual approach in which subsistence pat-
the regions of the east (Naaman 1993: 105). Following terns, culinary habits, script, names, and other material
the annexation of Sidon in 677 b.c.e., Esarhaddon settled culture manifestations are compared with those of previ-
in its cities people from the mountain regions and the ous periods in the region.
sea (shore) of the East (Naaman 2009: 100). It is clear that a certain policy of deportation was prac-
Imperial records describing deportations to other ticed by the Assyrians in the northern and central coastal
coastal regions imply that this strategy was also ex- plains. However, the fact that most sites continued to ex-
tensively practiced. Tiglath-pileser III wrote that after ist during the Neo-Assyrian period suggests that these
the annexation of the provinces of Unki and Simirra deportations were limited in scope.
(738 b.c.e.), he transferred their populations from the
areas east of the Tigris and the outskirts of the Iranian Assyrian Rule of the Southern
plateau (Tadmor and Yamada 2011: Ann. 13:36). In a Levantine Coast
separate letter, he mentions deportees who had been
sent from Iasubuanother region east of the Tigristo Once the first stage of Assyrian territorial expansion
the southern end of the province of Simirra (Naaman was achieved, it necessarily gave way to processes of con-
2009: 100). solidation through which conquered territories were in-
Direct archaeological evidence for the presence of de- tegrated into the imperial system (Bagg 2013: 13132).
portees in Palestines coastal cities is limited. A small clay The heavy destruction experienced by some of Iron Age
tablet that records the distribution of rations was found IIB Palestines coastal cities was followed by an imperial
at Tell Keisan (Sigrist 1982). Nadav Naaman (1993: 117) desire for reconstruction. Reorganization of these cities
suggested that this tablet reflects food supplied to for- began with physical rehabilitation; at the symbolic level,
eigners who had been deported to Tell Keisan by Esar- nothing from the preceding chaos was permitted to sur-
haddon or Assurbanipal. A scaraboid and an engraved vive (Liverani 1990: 140).
sherd decorated with the symbol of Sn, the moon god, At this point, the Assyrians had a variety of options
standing on a pedestal (Spycket 1973) also indicate the by which to exert their rule. The form of imperial domi-
presence of deportees at Tell Keisan. nation followed each regions specific ecology, political
structure, and ethnic compositionadaptations that plies that Akko had become the center of Assyrian rule
may be visible in the local archaeological record. That is, in the region, and that the entire plain of Akko must have
different imperial policies were exercised in each terri- been annexed along with the city (Parpola and Wata-
tory, and this variety should ultimately be reflected in the nabe 1988: 25, lines 1821; Naaman 1994: 6). Finally,
local material culture (Horvath 1972: 4748, figs. 12; the destruction of Akko was recorded by Assurbanipal
Schreiber 1987: 266; Bartel 1985: 1422, fig. 1; Sinopoli in 644/643 b.c.e. (Pritchard 1969: 300).
1994: 169). Akko has not been treated to a rigorous archaeologi-
The discussion below samples the diverse control cal investigation of the period under question.9
strategies that the Assyrians utilized on the southern
Levantine coast during the eighthseventh centuries The Central and Southern Coastal Plains
b.c.e. (Fig. 4; Table 2),7 following the ecological subdivi-
sions that characterize the region. 1. From Mount Carmel to the northern Sharon. Dor
was the sole city along the southern Levantine coast that
The Northern Coastal Plain was fully annexed to Assyria and became an integral part
of the Assyrian provincial system (Forrer 1920: 52, 54,
After Sennacheribs conquest in 701 b.c.e., Akko, 6061, 69). The Assyrian sources list Dor as the only city
which prior to the Assyrian conquest had been part of lying between the plain of Akko and Philistia (Bagg 2011:
the kingdom of Tyre, was placed under the direct control 222). In one document (Assyrian Deeds and Documents
of an Assyrian provincial government (Naaman 2005: [ADD] 19+), Dor is included among ports, emporia,
227). The importance of Akko as a main harbor in the and administrative centers connected with the Assyrian
northern coastal plain was enhanced by the abandon- trade network and administered by Assyrian officials (S.
ment of Tell Abu Hawam, the previously thriving harbor Yamada 2005: 8081). Nevertheless, it is difficult to de-
(Lehmann 2001: 95).8 termine whether the city became the seat of an Assyrian
The seventh century b.c.e. was marked by increased governor and a provincial capital.10
Assyrian involvement along the northern coast. Impe- From an archaeological perspective, the heavy de-
rial maritime interests here were revealed by the treaty struction that the city experienced in the late eighth cen-
between Esarhaddon and Baal, king of Tyre, which was tury b.c.e. was followed by a short, as-yet-unexplained
signed after the fall of Sidon in 677 b.c.e. This arrange- occupational gap. During the seventh century b.c.e., Dor
ment sheds light on Assyrian imperial control over ports was rebuilt. A new fortification system was thrown up
and trading posts along the Mediterranean coast (S. Ya- around the city, including an offset-inset wall and a brick
mada 2005). glacis as well as a mighty foundation that probably sup-
The treaty refers to the supervision of Tyrian diplo- ported a mud-brick superstructure. A new two-cham-
matic attitudes by the Assyrian royal deputy (qepu) and bered gate was built directly above its four-chambered
records a law concerning shipwrecked Tyrian ships, ac- predecessor, using a half-crescent basalt slab to cover
cording to which Assyria had the right to confiscate the the socket holea technique found only in Assyrian
cargo of any Tyrian ship that sank along the Philistine construction, where it is common (Stern 1990: 1722;
coast or within the territory of Assyria. This unusual leg- 1993: 13842; 2000: 11116).
islation, which contradicted international maritime con- The pottery assemblage from Assyrian Dor includes
ventions, must have been a heavy burden on Tyrian sea a set of locally produced carinated bowls, often called
trade and most likely was behind the rebellions that often imitations of Assyrian Vessels (see above). This bowl
broke out in Phoenician coastal towns. The list of cities type constitutes only a small portion of the sites ceramic
and districts that Esarhaddon entrusted to Baal includes repertoire, which is basically local and presents a con-
all the territories that the Assyrians controlled along the tinuation of the preceding ceramic tradition in the city
coast (directly or indirectly), including the area south of (Gilboa 1996). Moreover, larger quantities of Assyrian
TyreAcco, Dor, the district of Philistiawhich im- Style Vessels have been detected in other contemporary
strata in Palestine, in areas not directly ruled by the As-
7 Note that the methodological problem of differentiating eighth- syrians such as the Shephelah and the Negev (Naaman
century b.c.e. ceramic assemblages from those of the early seventh cen- and Thareani-Sussely 2006).
tury might lead to confusion in attempts to reconstruct the settlement
pattern of the coastal plain during the Neo-Assyrian period. 9 An archaeological project focusing on the Iron Age II and the
8 Against this background, Mitchell Allen (1997) suggested that Persian periods at Tel Akko was launched in 2014 and may shed light
Akko as well as some other coastal sites had double harbors, one for on this issue.
international trade controlled by the Assyrians and one for local trans- 10 For a thorough discussion of the Assyrian documents and liter-
port and fishing. ature, see Naaman 2009: 97.
Two Assyrian-style cylinder seals were unearthed manifestations originating in the Assyrian heartland; the
at Dor. Ephraim Stern (2000: 142) suggested that these fortress could just as well have been built by a local client
objects attest to the presence of Mesopotamian officials polity acting on imperial orders.
in the city. Tallay Ornan (1997: 304, no. 16; 35758, no. The absence of additional significant Assyrian sites in
152), on the other hand, has maintained that the seals the area between the southern Sharon and the Yarkon
were locally produced imitations and hence cannot be River indicates that the Assyrians treated the entire re-
cited as evidence for Assyrian officials residing in the city. gion from the Carmel down to the Yarkon River as one
Albrecht Alt (1929: 23437), followed by Naaman geopolitical unit.
(2009: 1046), argued that examination of the history
of Dor in the longue durefrom the Iron Age I to the 3. The Philistine coast. Although the district of Philis-
Persian periodshows that the Sharon was not annexed tia was repeatedly attacked by the Assyrian army during
to the areas lying to its east, but rather that Dor often the reigns of Tiglath-pileser III, Sargon II, and Sennach-
became the capital of a separate political unit. Despite the erib, and even if Sargon reorganized part of the territory
ambiguity of the archaeological evidence, the historical of Ashkelon as an Assyrian province, the empire gen-
observations combined with the Assyrian sources prove erally pursued a tolerant policy toward Philistia, mostly
the importance of Dor as an Assyrian port town and allowing its cities to survive as client kingdoms. Several
emporium. important sites existed in the Philistine coast during the
To summarize, a clear imperial economic interest Neo-Assyrian period.
stood behind the rehabilitation of the port town of Dor. Joppa. The area immediately to the south of the Yar-
The city was probably reorganized as an Assyrian prov- kon was not heavily populated. The only limited evidence
ince by Tiglath-pileser III in the final third of the eighth for such has been found at Iron Age IIB Joppa (Fantalkin
century b.c.e. While the importance of Dor for Assyr- and Tal 2008: 242). According to Naaman (1998: 223
ian trade is revealed in Assyrian texts, its precise status 25), this region may have been included in the lands that
within the Assyrian imperial systemnamely, the ques- Sennacherib gave to Padi, king of Ekron, sometime after
tion of whether or not it was a provincial capitalcannot 701 b.c.e.
be determined from either the historical sources or the Rishon le-iyyon West. Below the sand dunes only
archaeological record. 15 km south of Joppa, an Iron Age II fortress was discov-
ered relatively recently (Levy, Peilstcker, and Ginzburg
2. The southern Sharon down to the Yarkon River. 2004; Levy and Peilstcker 2008). Strategically located
This narrowest stretch of the dune belt had been only on a kurkar hill that stood approximately 30 m above the
sparsely settled in the preceding period (see above). The surrounding plain, this squared fortress was built on a
Assyrians seem to have continued that trend, satisfied particularly massive foundation of sun-dried bricks (15.5
with the establishment of the fortress of Tell Qudadi on 15 m), each brick uniform in size (50 30 10 cm). The
the northern bank of the Yarkon River. squared plan incorporated a central space surrounded
Founded in the second half of the eighth century by 11 rectangular compartments, not symmetrically ar-
b.c.e., this newly built fortress was constructed on a ranged. The remains of two parallel walls extending from
squared platform made of roughly hewn local kurkar the fortress, together with other adjoining walls, suggest
stones. The foundation wall supported a row of rooms that the scale of the fortress significantly exceeded the
surrounding an inner courtyard. A renewed study of the confines of the squared structure itself. The northern
fortress has suggested that it originally had a squared slope of the hill was reinforced by a glacis.
plan with an entrance set in its eastern wing. In the sub- Pottery sherds mixed with fallen bricks, found on a
sequent phase, dated to the first half of the seventh cen- floor at the center of the structure, have been dated to the
tury b.c.e., an offset-inset wall was added to the eastern eighth century b.c.e. Ruins of domestic houses were also
facade. The entrance was protected by buttresses and ap- found south of the fortress. The relatively limited ceramic
proached by a paved ramp. The pottery found in the for- assemblage from the adjoining buildings includes so-
tress presents parallels to vessels found at Iron Age IIBC called Assyrian bowls (Levy, Peilstcker, and Ginzburg
sites across northern, southern, and coastal Palestine, as 2004). Nevertheless, as was the case with the fortress at
well as some imported types (Fantalkin and Tal 2009: Tell Qudadi, the Assyrian nature of the material cul-
190, 195; 2015). As Alexander Fantalkin and Oren Tal turethat is, architecture and findscannot be firmly
(2009: 200) have correctly pointed out, the view that the established (Levy and Peilstcker 2008: 2022).
Tell Qudadi fortress served Assyrian imperial interests in Ashdod. Following the Assyrian assault on Ashdod
Palestines coastal plain does not require material culture in 711 b.c.e., which resulted in the violent destruction
of Strata VIIIVII, a limited occupation was established It was most likely fortified on three sides, with only the
here, mainly in the form of squatters (Stratum VI).11 The western wing left open to the sea (Finkelstein and Singer-
sparse remains of this settlement include reused walls, Avitz 2001: 24950).
pottery kilns, pits, and the corner of two walls with no Iron Age IIBC sherds found all across the surface
associated floors (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2005: 5458). and within the fortified compound support an eighth- to
The mass burial of 3,000 individuals (see above) also at- seventh-century b.c.e. date (Kaplan 1993: 103). They at-
tests to post-destruction activity at the site.12 test to the role this site would have had in the Assyrian
On an administrative level, Ashdod was incorporated provincial system of that time (Fantalkin 2014: 53).
into the Assyrian provincial system (Asdudi). Indeed, While it is clear that Ashdod-Yam was closely linked
in 669 b.c.e., the governor of Ashdod was an eponym with, but secondary in status to, the city of Ashdod far-
(limmu). On the other hand, a king is mentioned as hav- ther inland to the southeast, by the seventh century b.c.e.
ing held court in Ashdod for the year 701 b.c.e. Thus, it the latter was abandoned and Ashdod-Yam took its place
appears that Ashdod had a somewhat unusual adminis- as the kingdoms capital.13
trative status: the city was a separate Assyrian province Ashkelon. In the course of the eighth century b.c.e.,
ruled by a local king, side by side with an Assyrian gov- Ashkelon rebelled twice. In 734 b.c.e., the city joined
ernor (Naaman 2001: 26162). an anti-Assyrian coalition against Tiglath-pileser III
An Assyrian residence near Ashdod. Unexpected in an uprising that ended with Ashkelon being sur-
confirmation of this irregular scenario has come from rounded, defeated, and its king Mitinti forced to pay
a salvage excavation southeast of Tel Ashdod, where an tribute to Assyria (Tadmor and Yamada 2011: 13). A
impressive Assyrian residence was found (Kogan-Zehavi second rebellion in 701 b.c.e. saw Ashkelonunder a
2006). The building occupied an area of at least 10 du- new king, Sidqajoin Hezekiahs alliance (Mordechai
nams. Constructed in a clearly Assyrian style, it was built Cogan 2008: 118; Grayson and Novotny 2012: 64, lines
on an artificial podium of red squared mud bricks, which 3941). This insurrection also failed, but unlike Sargon
correspond in size with bricks found at palaces in As- IIs choice for the fate of nearby Ashdod, Sennacherib
syria. The rooms contained several bath-shaped basins preferred to control Ashkelon indirectly rather than an-
made of clay and stone. Many smashed pottery vessels, nex it.
including so-called imitations of Assyrian Ware, were Excavations at Ashkelon have unearthed a large ashlar
also found (in a thick destruction layer). This Assyrian building (ca. 400 m2) that was interpreted by the excava-
residence near Ashdod was most likely the seat of the As- tor as a winery (Stager 1996: 62*65*). Based on the rich
syrian governor of Ashdod and the administrative cen- seventh-century b.c.e. occupation at Ashkelon, with its
ter of the empires southern province, where an Assyrian large ceramic assemblage dominated by storejars, Avra-
ruler (peha) would have held court. ham Faust and Ehud Weiss have concluded that during
Ashdod-Yam. A city called Asdudimmu, often trans- the seventh century b.c.e., Ashkelon and the coastal
lated as Ashdod-Yam, is mentioned by Sargon II as plain specialized in growing and producing wines while
having stood somewhere between Ashdod and Gath grains were imported from Judah (2005: 73, 75, 77, 85).
(Tadmor 1958: 7980, 8384). Located on the coast only Somewhat surprisingly, the Ashkelon ceramic reper-
5 km northwest of Tel Ashdod, the site of Ashdod-Yam toire is characterized by an absence of Assyrian vessel
(Minet Isdud or Minet el-Qala) was first surveyed and types (Master 2003: 5152, fig. 2). Petrographic analyses
then excavated in the mid-1960s (Kaplan 1969). Re- carried out on this assemblage have clearly shown that
newed archaeological excavations at the site have also Ashkelons commercial contacts during the seventh cen-
yielded significant Iron Age IIB remains extending over tury b.c.e. were directed east and southward. No vessels
an area of 150 dunams. were imported from the Syro-Mesopotamian Assyrian
A large earthen rampart with a thick brick core (3 provinces to the north; nor was Ashkelon involved in
4.5 m) was traced in the southern part of the site. The the Assyrian global commerce. Rather, Phoenician fine
enclosuremost probably horseshoe-shapedencom- wares and transport amphorae constitute a significant
passed an area of ca. 67 dunams (Fantalkin 2014: 46). portion of Ashkelons eighth-century b.c.e. stratum
11 For a critical review of the initial excavators opinions, see Fin-
kelstein and Singer-Avitz (2001: 24446). 13 Alt (1945: 14446), followed by Naaman (2001: 26162), argued
12 See Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz (2001: 248), whocontra the that the city of Ashdod, which is often mentioned in seventh-century
excavatorsruled out the existence of a significant seventh-century b.c.e. Assyrian texts, should in fact be identified with the site of Ash-
b.c.e. occupation at Tel Ashdod. dod-Yam.
and the 604 b.c.e. destruction layer (Park 2009: 23640; site attests to the extent of Assyrian involvement in the
Stager, Schloen, and Master 2011: 97102). It appears area and helps to explain why Gaza repeatedly rebelled
that the city was well integrated into a Phoenician mari- during this periodthat is, the ambitious Assyrian proj-
time commercial network (Master 2003: 5657; Walton ect threatened to deprive Gaza of its maritime wealth
2015: 9697). (Naaman 2001: 261).
Such a tolerant policy may reflect an Assyrian desire Tell er-Ruqeish. Following Sargon IIs quelling of the
to create a buffer zone between its provinces, the semi- 720 b.c.e. revolt and the reestablishment of his domin-
nomadic groups, and Egypt (Otzen 1979: 256; Wal- ion over the Philistine coast, he stated: I opened the
ton 2015: 26566)Assyrias traditional enemy to the sealed-off harbour [kru] of Egypt, mingled Assyrians
south. Alternatively, this behavior could be the result and Egyptians together and made them trade with each
of the different control strategy adopted by Sennach- other ... (Tadmor 1958: 34).
erib in the transition from the eighth to the seventh The expression to open the sealed-off harbour of X
century b.c.e. is unique to the Assyrians and means that the discussed
place became a commercial center for Assyrians and
The Gaza strip. This southernmost subregion along Egyptians and was linked with Egypt. The Assyrian em-
Palestines coast was of special importance to the As- porium near the border with Egypt was located by the sea
syrian Empire. Its increased involvement in the region (Ephal 1982: 10111).
was due to Gazas location near the border with Egypt. The Iron Age IIB site of Tell er-Ruqeish lies near
Assyria wanted to control the desert frontier and the Deir el-Balah and occupies an area of approximately 80
seminomadic groups living there.14 The calculated con- dunams. This was a well-planned and heavily fortified
trol strategy that the empire adopted on its southwestern settlement dated to the late eighth century b.c.e. Evi-
border is reflected both in the Assyrian historical sources dence was found here for cremationa burial practice
and the archaeological record of the Gaza strip. typical of the Phoenician cultural traditionas well as
Gaza. The most important Philistine kingdom in for a varied material culture: Phoenician, Cypriot, Greek,
the mid-eighth century b.c.e., the territory of Gaza and Egyptian (Oren et al. 1986; Oren 1993).
stretched between Nahal Shiqma and Nahal Besor, Tell er-Ruqeishits ancient name has not been ascer-
including over 20 km of coastline. Following his sub- tainedwas probably founded by Sargon II and served
mission to Assyria, Hanunu of Gaza was restored to as the main Assyrian harbor on the coast south of Gaza.
the throne and became a loyal vassal. An Assyrian em- Its rich material culture indicates the existence of a thriv-
porium (bt kri) was established at Gaza to control ing multicultural port, operating under imperial auspices
the maritime commerce of the Philistine ports and to and serving as the focus of maritime and land trade on
direct its revenues into the Assyrian imperial treasury the main route between Palestine and Egypt.
(Naaman 2001: 261; 2004).15 Tell Abu Salima (Tell Sheikh Zweid). Following the As-
Silli-Bel, king of Gaza, is listed in the inscriptions of syrian destruction of Raphiah, the entire area, including
Esarhaddon among the Assyrian vassals who were mobi- the seminomadic groups residing there, was subjugated
lized for work in the construction of Nineveh. Assurba- to Assyria. The Assyrian desire to gain control over the
nipals inscriptions mention him among the vassals who route leading south to Egypt resulted in the establish-
participated in the Assyrian campaign to Egypt in 667 ment of a fortress southeast of Raphiah, at Tell Abu Sa-
b.c.e. (Pritchard 1969: 29091). lima in northern Sinai.
While no archaeological remains from the Neo-Assyr- Excavated by William F. Petrie in the 1930s, this Iron
ian period at Gaza have been published to date, excava- Age II fortress (27 37.5 m) incorporated a temple built
tions along the northern coast of the region in the area of of mud brick (1.8 m thick), which was encircled by an
Al-Bilakhiyya have unearthed the remains of a late Iron offset-inset wall. The fortress included several rooms and
Age IIB site. This was Anthedon, a late eighth-century a large courtyard, all built on a platform. Petrie correctly
b.c.e. city that was fortified by a heavy mud-brick wall saw strong Mesopotamian influences in this fortresss ar-
supported by a massive earthen rampart (8 m high and chitecture (Petrie and Ellis 1937: 67, pl. II:67).
6 m thick) (Humbert and Sadeq 2000). This substantial A special room, surfaced with squared bricks, was
located at the southeastern corner of the fortress. It
contained a cella situated at the far end of a hallan ar-
14 For a comprehensive discussion of Assyrias border with Egypt,
chitectural feature that is well known in ninth- to eighth-
see Naaman 1979. For the Assyrian control strategy in the nearby Ne-
gev Desert frontier, see Thareani 2009.
century b.c.e. Assyria and its provinces (Reich 1984:
15 For a similar strategy that the Assyrians exerted in the Phoeni- 3334) but which, to date, constitutes the only building
cian coastal kingdoms to the north, see Postgate 1974: 131, 39091. of this type found in the region.
Assyrian Control Strategies in was dominatedwhether directly or indirectlyby the

Palestines Coastal Plain land-based Assyrian Empire.
The distinct nature of Palestines coast and its alien- Direct Imperial Rule
ation from the interior determined the character and
pattern of settlement prior to the Assyrian invasion. It The imposition of direct imperial rule was motivated
is clear that the coastal regions were relatively sparsely by Assyrias desire to control the entire Levant down to
populated (see Fig. 4), with fewer than 40 sites occupied the Egyptian border, a strategy that was strongly sup-
along a 190 km stretch of coast on the eve of the As- ported by the empires ideology and propaganda (Liv-
syrian campaigns. This is surprising, given the extensive erani 1979; Tadmor 1997; 1999). The two main direct
archaeological surveys and excavations that have been domination strategies practiced by the Assyrians along
conducted along this coastline since the mid-1920s (see Palestines coast were annexation and military control.
Table 1).16
It seems that the natural environment played an im- Annexation. Only a few of Palestines coastal territo-
portant role in shaping Assyrian control strategies in ries were annexed by Assyria and brought under direct
coastal habitats. As in Lebanon, the geography of Pales- imperial rule. Akko and its territory were annexed by As-
tine called for the political separation of the coastal areas syria in their entirety, as punishment for its involvement
from the interior. Staying loyal to its policy elsewhere, in the rebellions that broke out in the north. Akko became
Assyria avoided any difficult integration of the newly the seat of an Assyrian governor (Naaman 1994: 6).
created coastal provinces with the interior regionsan The annexation of Dor derived from its being the only
approach that would go on to shape the political land- city lying between Akko and Philistia. However, Dors
scape of the coast in the longue dure (Alt 1929: 23437; exact status in the Assyrian provincial system cannot be
Naaman 2009: 1046). fully established (Naaman 2009: 1056).
The continued isolation of this region by the Assyri- The situation in Philistia was far more complex. Sar-
ans is clear in the archaeological record: only a few ports gon IIs conquest and annexation of Ashdod in 711 b.c.e.
and small fortresses and almost no developed hinterland created an irregular scenario in which the city became an
were established by the Assyrian ex nihilo. The strong imperial province ruled by an Assyrian governor side by
evidence for these new small sites having been inhabited side with a local king. Naaman (2001: 26162) has sug-
by a limited number of people implies that demography gested that the annexation of Ashdod was the first step
did not significantly change with the transition to impe- in an overall plan to annex the entire Philistine coast as
rial rule. far as the border with Egypt. However, before he was able
One principal factor underlay coastal Palestines lim- to carry out this plan, Sargon II was killed in battle (705
ited Iron Age IIB settlement pattern and its segregation b.c.e.). His son, Sennacherib, adopted a different policy
from the interior. That is, the political powers that deter- and let the royal house of Ashdod rule over the kingdom.
mined the character of Canaan during Iron Age I, and Thus, the city remained an isolated enclave surrounded
subsequently also the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (the by client kingdoms.
dominant Iron Age II political entities), all originated From an economic point of view, it seems that Assyria
from the hilly interior of Palestine. The coastal areas were was not interested in developing or restoring the infra-
dominated by either the Phoenicians or the Philistines, structures of the annexed territories along the coastal
with the port town at Tell Abu Hawam providing the sole plain. Nevertheless, these territories were heavily taxed
means of sea access for the kingdom of Israel. and exploited by the imperial bureaucracy (Faust 2011:
It is for this reason that Palestines coastal plain should 77; Berlejung 2012: 30).
be treated as a separate zone prior to and during the
Assyrian period. The various ecological subregions that Military Control. Assyria followed this strategy along
comprise this coastal plain region were subjected to di- Palestines coastal plain, specifically in the area to the
verse imperial policies, as reflected in both the historical south of the Yarkon (Table 3). Forts were established
sources and the archaeological record. A comparative along the crucial road that led south from Palestine, in
view of this political mosaic allows us to make some gen- areas that were sparsely settled. These forts served both
eral observations regarding how the Mediterranean coast as communication centers and staging points for Assyr-
ian armies on their way to Egypt.
16 A similar settlement trend characterized the coastal regions in Archaeologically, there is a clear difference between
other periods as well. See, e.g., the southern coastal plain in the Late forts situated in the central coastal plain (Tell Qudadi
Bronze Age and the early Iron Age (Finkelstein 1996: 229, figs. 1, 2). and at Rishon le-iyyon West) and those farther south
Table 3. Fortresses and Residences in the Coastal Plain Founded during the Neo-Assyrian Period
Material
No. Site Region Type Architecture culture Ownership
Southern Sharon Squared platform made of rough
1 Tell Qudadi Fortress Local Client kingdoms?
to the Yarkon local kurkar stones
2 Rishon le- Philistine coast Fortress? Squared fortress made of sun-dried Local and Client kingdoms?
iyyon West bricks on a massive foundation Assyrian?
3 Ashdod South Philistine coast Residence Building made of Assyrian-sized Assyrian Assyrian
square mud bricks on an artificial
podium
4 Tell er-Ruqeish Philistine coast Emporium Well-planned and heavily fortified Multicultural Assyrian with local
and port city seminomadic proxies
5 Tell Abu Salima Philistine coast Fortress Building made of mud bricks on an ? Assyrian
artificial podium and a temple
(Tell Abu Salima). The local character of the architecture 2011: 78; Faust and Weiss 2011: 179; Niemeyer 2002:
and material culture found in the central coastal plain 104).
forts puts into question the extent of Assyrias direct Given the difficulties of quantifying the Assyrian im-
involvement in their construction and maintenance, pact on the local economy of the Phoenician kingdoms
implying that these sites could have been manned by and of accounting for the dynamic nature of tax imposi-
Assyrias local client kingdom garrisons. By contrast, tion and the historical conditions, it seems that a more
forts and residences located farther to the south give balanced view of the evidence is required. The Assyrians
a very different impression. These constructions are desire to expand their rule farther to the westindeed,
characterized by an imposition of Assyrian architectural as far as Cyprus and the Aegeanin order to facilitate
layouts and by other material culture manifestations transportation and increase the imperial revenue from
expressions that are indicative of the physical presence maritime commerce was challenged by their being a
of Assyrian administrative, economic, and military per- land-based empire (Broodbank 2013: 511). It was for
sonnel. This difference highlights the importance to the these reasons that the Phoenician coastal kingdoms were
Assyrians of Palestines southwestern frontier, especially subjugated to the empire and that Phoenician activities
the border with Egypt. in Mediterranean ports were regulated (Kelly 1992;
Naaman 1994). Deprived of their own navy and being
Indirect Imperial Rule culturally alienated from the sea, the Assyrians used the
Phoenicians as their intermediaries.
Two main types of indirect imperial control strategies Other variables should also be considerednamely,
were used by the Assyrians along Palestines coast: subju- the different imperial strategies exerted by different kings
gation and collaboration through local proxies. throughout a century of Assyrian rule, and the dynam-
ics of geopolitical circumstances in different areas, as re-
Subjugation. The two principal coastal regions that flected in the historical sources (Aubet 1993: 52; Markoe
had viable political structures prior to the Assyrian ar- 2000: 98; Walton 2015: 4023).
rival in Palestine were the Phoenician coast in the north A crucial source for understanding the nature of in-
and the Philistine coast in the south. By the mid-eighth teraction between Assyria and its Phoenician clients is
century b.c.e., the Phoenician kingdoms started expand- Esarhaddons treaty with Baal, king of Tyre. The histori-
ing westward. Many studies have explained the Phoeni- cal context of this document has already been discussed
cian expansion as due to the increasing Assyrian demand at length (Naaman 1994; S. Yamada 2005; see above), but
for desirable materials such as silver. In the framework of two points are relevant to this discussion. The first is that
the regional trade system, the Phoenicians were identi- the cargo on Phoenician ships belonged to Esarhaddon.
fied as agents supplying materials and goods to the local The second is that this restriction was valid in Assyrian
kingdoms (Frankenstein 1979: 27374; Gitin 1997: 77 territory onlythat is, on the Levantine coast. Other ter-
78; Allen 1997: 15960). Other scholars have doubted the ritories such as the western Mediterranean are not men-
intensity of Assyrian involvement in the local Mediter- tioned in the treaty (Walton 2015: 4056). Moreover, in
ranean economy; they maintain that Assyria should not the subsequent stipulation, Esarhaddon lists Assyrias
be held responsible for the Phoenician expansion (Faust ports of trade: Acco, Dor to the entire district of the
Philistines, and to all the cities within Assyrian territory royal annals state that Tiglath-pileser III entrusted to the
on the seacoast, and to Byblos, the Lebanon, all the cities Idibilu tribe the office of Gatekeeper over the border of
of the mountains, all (these) being cities of Esarhaddon, Egypt (Tadmor and Yamada 2011: 107, lines 3435).
king of Assyria (Parpola and Watanabe 1988: 25, lines In other words, the Assyrians established the Idibilu as
1821). This indicates that Assyrias main concern was a proxy authority in the Besor region (Tadmor 1966: 89
to protect shipping and secure their import tax on goods 90; Ephal 1982: 9394, 1035: Allen 1997: 297).
entering Assyrian territory through the kru system. Another example of this practice is provided by the
There is no mention of activity outside Assyria (Walton military campaign of Sargon II to the Brook of Egypt.
2015: 406).17 This expedition also involved the settlement of exiles on
The most important ports beyond the boundaries of the border with Egypt and the granting of the entire area
the Assyrian Empire were in Philistia (Naaman 2009: to the Arab prince of the city of Laban (Naaman 1979:
99). The value of these southern regions stemmed from 71, 77; Bagg 2011: 17879). The written sources describe
their locations, lying directly between Assyrias impor- a political system in which Arab tribal leaders settled in
tant southwestern frontier provinces and Egypt (Faust an urban environment and served Assyrian imperial in-
and Weiss 2005: 7273; Walton 2015: 22021). terests (Thareani 2009).
Peripheral cities such as Ashkelon, Gaza, and Raphiah Against this background, it is reasonable to assume
were subordinated rather than ruled directly, in such a that the treaties the Assyrians signed with tribal lead-
way so as to make them buffer zones and economic in- ers came at a certain price: something was given to the
termediaries between Assyria, on the one hand, and the local elites in return for their loyalty. Indeed, Assyrian
Arabian tribes and Egypt, on the other (Holloway 2002: administrative records describe precious items given to
193). delegations visiting the royal court. Among references
Analysis of the archaeological evidence from both to emissaries from Tel Miqne (Ekron), Bit-Ammon,
Phoenicia and Philistia shows that the areas not subjected and the Phoenician coastal cities are mentions of gifts
to direct imperial control flourished during the seventh granted to Arab representatives (Fales and Postgate 1992:
century b.c.e. (Faust 2011: 7677). Neither Phoenicia 7576). These visitors were rewarded or bribed with
nor Philistia kept quiet under Assyrian dominion. The rich garments, footwear, and feasting at the empires ex-
rebellions that often broke out in these regions attest to pense (Postgate 1974: 11314, 127). The Assyrians per-
the bitterness that the coastal kingdoms felt toward the suaded the inhabitants of frontier and marginal areas to
empire, which threatened to deprive them of their in- ally themselves with the empire. In this way, local desert
come from maritime commerce. elites became the focus of Assyrian attention.
Assyrian dominance of coastal cities in Phoenicia and Imperial imprints in the southernmost coastal strip
Philistia was motivated by the empires will to control can be discerned in the archaeological record, mainly in
the trade passing through the Levantine coast. Control the form of Assyrian emporia (at Gaza [Al-Bilakhiyya]
strategies here involved legislation, taxing the revenue and Tell er-Ruqeish). The exotic goods that found their
from trade through inspected harbors, and stationing way to these emporia and the vibrant commercial activity
garrisons and administrators (S. Yamada 2005; Walton that took place in such outlying settlementsthe latter
2015: 4089). playing host to Assyrians, Arabs, Egyptians, Phoenicians,
traders, caravaners, and functionarieswas the driving
Collaboration through Local Proxies. The eighth force of these multicultural hubs. In this way, desert fron-
seventh centuries b.c.e. brought about the development tier dwellers became the beneficiaries of the pax Assyriaca.
of long-distance Arabian trade in the desert frontier
zone. Given this regions economic importance and its Conclusions
proximity to Egypt, it is not surprising that the Assyri-
ans would be interested in keeping the southern border The Assyrian conquest of the Levantine coast marked
as stable as possible (Tadmor 1966: 8990; Otzen 1979: a new phase in the political history of the Mediterranean
25556; Parpola 2003: 1034). and determined the nature of land-based imperial pow-
The Assyrian desire to control the Arabian trade routes ers approach to the region for generations to come. The
is reflected in treaties signed with local Arab tribes. The Assyrians desire to control Palestine was due to the in-
ternational trade route that passed through the region
17 Assyrias
and provided land access to Egypt. Equally, various im-
taxation policy in Phoenicias coastal cities was resisted
by the local population, who would chase or kill the tax collectors
perial powers throughout history have regarded Pales-
stationed at harbors (see discussion and references in Walton 2015: tine not as a goal in itself but rather as the path by which
4068). those empires might reach their objective. Unlike the
insular populations tucked away in the inconspicuous pansion was not achieved through the creation of one
hilly regions of interior Palestine, coastal polities located continuous geographical zone. Instead, Assyrian military
along the high road had little hope of maintaining their invasions were followed by the formation of Assyrian
independence (Schmidt 1951: 2). islands. Thus, the nature of Assyrian control did not
At a more specific level, imperial spatial control of involve vast swathes of land but rather a network of
Palestine shows a high correlation with natural bound- communications among Assyrian strongholds (Liverani
aries (Bagg 2013: 132). As such, the Assyrian rule of Pal- 1988: 86). Whether or not this policy was the first step in
estines coastal plain followed the prior division of the an overall plan to take over the entire Near East, the ar-
coastal subregions. As a result, the coastal plain was not chaeological evidence from the southern Levantine coast
subsumed into the inland territories. In other words, in the late Iron Age reflects just such a flexible mode of
ecology dictated strategy. interaction.
The diverse approaches taken by the Assyrians along An Assyrian desire to strengthen strategic towns and
Palestines coast are a testament to the fact that ancient villages drove the imperial policy of urbanizing the em-
imperial rule could be dynamic and flexible (Tadmor pires frontier through the settlement of deportees in
1975; Parker 2001). In Assyrian eyes, the coast was both already-established and new cities. Nevertheless,
mainly a military and commercial transitory zone, part the pottery and other material culture manifestations are
of the imperial system of communication. Environmen- mostly local, with few Assyrian prototypes and imported
tal limitations dictated the nature and extent of imperial objects. This point illustrates once more that archaeology
roads and fortresses in the region. alone is not sufficient to prove direct or indirect Assyrian
In his seminal article on Assyrian policy in the Middle control or to determine the status of a given site in the
Euphrates, Mario Liverani suggested that imperial ex- Assyrian settlement hierarchy.
Acknowledgments
This study stemmed from a postdoctoral term at the Leon- The author also wishes to express her gratitude to Prof. Na-
Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, dav Naaman for sharing Assyrian secrets. The two anonymous
under the supervision of Prof. Assaf Yasur-Landau. The author reviewers significantly contributed to this study, enlightening
thanks Prof. Yasur-Landau for providing valuable ideas to the and improving it in many ways. Thanks to Noga Zeevi for pro-
undertaking of this study and for his eternal support. ducing maps and figures and Conn Herriott for editing.
References
Adams, R. M. 1945 Neue assyrische Nachrichten ber Palstina und
1979 Common Concerns but Different Standpoints: A Syrien. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins
Commentary. Pp. 393404 in Power and Propa- 67: 12859.
ganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed. M. T. Amiran, D. H. K.
Larsen. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk. 1953 The Pattern of Settlement in Palestine. Israel Explo-
Aharoni, Y. ration Journal 3: 192209.
1974 Survey between Raphia and the Brook of Egypt, A: Aubet, M. E.
The Survey. Atiqot 7: 8890 (Hebrew, English sum- 1993 The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies,
mary p. *14). and Trade. Translated by M. Turton, from Spanish.
Allen, M. J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
1997 Contested Peripheries: Philistia in the Neo-Assyr- Bagg, A. M.
ian World-System. Ph.D. dissertation, University of 2011 Die Assyrer und das Westland: Studien zur histo-
California, Los Angeles. rischen Geographie und Herrschaftspraxis in der
2008 Regional Archaeological Survey. Pp. 2165 in Ash- Levante im 1. Jt. v.u. Z. Orientalia Lovaniensia Ana-
kelon I: Introduction and Overview (19852006), lecta 216. Leuven: Peeters.
ed. L. E. Stager, J. D. Schloen, and D. M. Master. 2013 Palestine under Assyrian Rule: A New Look at the
Harvard Semitic Museum Publications; Final Re- Assyrian Imperial Policy in the West. Journal of the
ports of the Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon 1. American Oriental Society 133: 11944.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Balensi, J.; Herrera, M. D.; and Artzy, M.
Alt, A. 1993 Abu Hawam, Tell. Pp. 714 in The New Encyclope-
1929 Das System der assyrischen Provinzen auf dem dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land,
Boden des Reiches Israel. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Palstina-Vereins 52: 22042. Society and Carta.
Barako, T. J. Chamberlain, M. E.
2007 Tel Mor: The Moshe Dothan Excavations, 1959 1972 Lord Cormers Ancient and Modern Imperialism:
1960. IAA Reports 32. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities A Proconsular View of Empire. Journal of British
Authority. Studies 12: 6185.
Bartel, B. Cogan, Morton
1985 Comparative Historical Archaeology and Archae- 1971 Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah, and
ological Theory. Pp. 837 in Comparative Studies Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries b.c.e.
in the Archaeology of Colonialism, ed. S. L. Dyson. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
BAR International Series 233. Oxford: B.A.R. Cogan, Mordechai
Berlejung, A. 2003 Historical Texts from Assyria and Babylonia: 9th6th
2012 Assyrians in the West: Assyrianization, Colonial- Centuries bce. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew).
ism, Indifference, or Development Policy? Pp. 2008 The Raging Torrent: Historical Inscriptions from As-
2160 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. M. syria and Babylonia Relating to Ancient Israel. Jeru-
Nissinen. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 148. salem: Carta.
Leiden: Brill. Conder, C. R., and Kitchener, H. H.
Berman, A., and Barda, L. 1880 Map of Western Palestine in 26 Sheets from Surveys
2005 Map of Nizzanim-East (88). Jerusalem: Archaeolog- Conducted for the Committee of the Palestine Explo-
ical Survey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority. ration Fund. London: Committee of the Palestine
Berman, A.; Barda, L.; and Stark, H. Exploration Fund.
2005 Map of Ashdod (84). Jerusalem: Archaeological Sur- Cromer, E. B.
vey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority. 1910 Ancient and Modern Imperialism. New York:
Berman, A.; Stark, H.; and Barda, L. Longmans.
2004 Map of Ziqim (91). Jerusalem: Archaeological Sur- Dagan, Y.
vey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority. 2004 Results of the Survey: Settlement Patterns in the La-
Braudel, F. chish Region. Pp. 267492 in The Renewed Archae-
1977 La Mditerrane: Lespace et lhistoire. Paris: Arts et ological Excavations at Lachish (19731994), Vol. 5:
mtiers graphiques. Reprinted Paris: Flammarion, Supplementary Studies, ed. D. Ussishkin. Monograph
1999. Series of Tel Aviv University Sonia and Marco Nadler
Briend, J., and Humbert, J.-B. Institute of Archaeology 22. Tel Aviv: Emery and
1980 Tell Keisan (19711976)une cit phnicienne Claire Yass Publications in Archaeology.
en Galile. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Series DAltroy, T. N.
Archaeologica 1. Fribourg: ditions universita- 1992 Provincial Power in the Inka Empire. Washington,
ires; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht; Paris: DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Gabalda. Dothan, M.
Briquel-Chatonnet, F. 1971 Ashdod IIIII: The Second and Third Seasons of
1992 Les relations entre les cits de la cte phnicienne et Excavations 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967. 2 vols.
les royaumes dIsral et de Judah. Orientalia Lovani- Atiqot 910. Jerusalem: Department of Antiqui-
ensia Analecta 46. Leuven: Peeters. ties and Museums in the Ministry of Education and
Broodbank, C. Culture; Department of Archaeology, Hebrew Uni-
2013 The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Medi- versity of Jerusalem.
terranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the 1993 Acco. Pp. 1724 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeo-
Classical World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. logical Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern.
Broshi, M., and Finkelstein, I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta.
1992 The Population of Palestine in Iron Age II. Bulletin Dothan, M., and Ben-Shlomo, D.
of the American Schools of Oriental Research 287: 2005 Ashdod VI: The Excavations of Areas H and K
4760. (19681969). IAA Reports 24. Jerusalem: Israel
Brugge, C. van der, and Kleber, K. Antiquities Authority.
In press The Empire of Trade and the Empires of Force: Tyre Dothan, M., and Porath, Y.
in the Neo-Assyrian and the Neo-Babylonian Peri- 1982 Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M; The Fortifica-
ods. In Dynamics of Production and Economic Inter- tions of the Lower City. Atiqot 15. Jerusalem:
action in the Near East in the First Half of the First Department of Antiquities and Museums, Min-
Millennium bce: Proceedings of a Colloquium of the istry of Education and Culture; Department of
European Science Foundation, June 2830, 2011 in Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem;
Lille, ed. J. C. Moreno. Oxford: Oxbow. Israel Exploration Society.
Bunimovitz, S. Ekholm, K., and Friedman, J.
2001 Cultural Interpretation and the Bible: Biblical Ar- 1982 Capital Imperialism and Exploitation in Ancient
chaeology in the Postmodern Era. Cathedra 100: World-Systems. Review (Fernand Braudel Center)
2746 (Hebrew). 4: 87109.
Elgavish, J. ed. G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus. Santa Fe, NM:

1994 Shiqmona, on the Seacoast of Mount Carmel. Tel School of American Research Press.
Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad; Israel Exploration Finkelstein, I.
Society (Hebrew). 1996 The Philistine Countryside. Israel Exploration Jour-
Ephal, I. nal 46: 22542.
1979 Assyrian Domination in Palestine. Pp. 27689, Finkelstein, I., and Singer-Avitz, L.
36468 in The Age of the Monarchies: Political 2001 Ashdod Revisited. Tel Aviv 28: 23159.
History, Culture and Society, ed. A. Malamat. Forrer, E. O.
World History of the Jewish People 4. New 1920 Die Provinzeinteilung des assyrischen Reiches.
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; Jerusa- Leipzig: Hinrichs.
lem: Massada. Frahm, E.
1982 The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Border of the 1997 Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Archiv fr
Fertile Crescent, 9.5. Centuries b.c. Jerusalem: Orientforschung 26. Vienna: Institut fr Oriental-
Magnes. istik der Universitt.
Fales, F. M. Frankel, R., and Getzov, N.
1981 Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Liter- 1997 Akhziv (1). The Archaeological Survey of Israel.
ary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis; Papers of http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_
Symposium Held in Cetona (Siena), June 2628, en.aspx (accessed on December 7, 2015).
1980. Orientis Antiqui Collectio 17. Rome: Isti- 2012 Amqa (5). The Archaeological Survey of Israel.
tuto per lOriente, Centro per le antichit e la storia http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_
dellarte del Vicino Oriente. en.aspx (accessed on December 7, 2015).
Fales, F. M., and Postgate, J. N. Frankel, R.; Getzov, N.; Aviam, M.; and Degani, A.
1992 Imperial Administrative Records, Part 1: Palace and 2001 Settlement Dynamics and Regional Diversity in An-
Temple Administration. State Archives of Assyria 7. cient Upper Galilee: Archaeological Survey of Upper
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Galilee. IAA Reports 14; Publications of the Israel
Fantalkin, A. Antiquities Authority. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities
2014 Ashdod-Yam on the Israeli Mediterranean Coast: A Authority.
First Season of Excavations. Skyllis 14: 4557. Frankenstein, S.
Fantalkin, A., and Tal, O. 1979 The Phoenicians in the Far WestA Function
2008 Navigating between the Powers: Joppa and Its Vi- of Neo-Assyrian Imperialism. Pp. 4158 in Power
cinity in the 1st Millennium b.c.e. Ugarit-Forschun- and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires,
gen 40: 22576. ed. M. T. Larsen. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen:
2009 Re-Discovering the Iron Age Fortress at Tell Qu- Akademisk.
dadi in the Context of Neo-Assyrian Imperialis- Fuchs, A.
tic Policies. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 141: 1994 Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Gttin-
188206. gen: Cuvillier Verlag.
2015 Tell Qudadi: An Iron Age IIb Fortress on the Central Garnsey, P. D. A., and Whittaker, C. R.
Mediterranean Coast of Israel (with References to 1978 Imperialism in the Ancient World: The Cambridge
Earlier and Later Periods). Colloquia Antiqua 15. University Research Seminar in Ancient History.
Leuven: Peeters. Cambridge Classical Studies. Cambridge: Cam-
Faust, A. bridge University Press.
2011 The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Gilboa, A.
Olive Oil Production as a Test-Case. Journal of the 1996 Assyrian-Type Pottery at Dor and the Status of the
Economic and Social History of the Orient 54: 6286. Town during the Assyrian Occupation Period.
Faust, A., and Weiss, E. Eretz-Israel 25: 12235 (Hebrew, with English
2005 Judah, Philistia, and the Mediterranean World: summary).
Reconstructing the Economic System of the 7th Gilboa, A., and Sharon, I.
Century b.c.e. Bulletin of the American Schools of 2008 Between the Carmel and the Sea: Tel Dors Iron
Oriental Research 338: 7192. Age Reconsidered. Near Eastern Archaeology 71:
2011 Between Assyria and the Mediterranean World: 14670.
The Prosperity of Judah and Philistia in the Seventh Gitin, S.
Century bce in Context. Pp. 189204 in Interweav- 1997 The Neo-Assyrian Empire and Its Western Periph-
ing Worlds: Systemic Interactions in Eurasia, 7th to ery: The Levant, with a Focus on Philistine Ekron.
1st Millennia bc, ed. T. C. Wilkinson, S. Sherratt, Pp. 77103 in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th
and J. Bennet. Oxford: Oxbow. Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text
Feinman, G. M. Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 711, 1995,
1998 Scale and Social Organization: Perspectives on ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-
the Archaic State. Pp. 95133 in Archaic States, Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
Goldstone J. A., and Haldon, J. F. Kark, R.

2009 Ancient States, Empires, and Exploitation: Prob- 1990 The Rise and Decline of Coastal Towns in Palestine.
lems and Perspectives. Pp. 329 in The Dynamics of Pp. 6990 in Ottoman Palestine, 18001914: Stud-
Ancient Empires:State Power from Assyria to Byzan- ies in Economic and Social History, ed. G. G. Gilbar.
tium, ed. I. Morris and W. Scheidel. Oxford Studies Leiden: Brill.
in Early Empires. Oxford:Oxford University Press. Kelly, T.
Gophna, R., and Ayalon, E. 1992 The Assyrians, the Persians, and the Sea. Mediter-
1998 Map of Herzliyya (69). Jerusalem: Archaeological ranean Historical Review 7: 528.
Survey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority. Kogan-Zehavi, E.
Grayson, A. K. and Novotny, J. R. 2005 An Assyrian Building South of Tel Ashdod. Qad-
2012 The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria moniot 130: 8790 (Hebrew).
(704681 bc), Part 1. Royal Inscriptions of the Neo- 2006 Tel Ashdod. Hadashot Arkheologiyot 118.
Assyrian Period 1/3.Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.
Haas, N. aspx?id=340&mag_id=111 (accessed on December
1971 Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Re- 9, 2015).
mains Found in Area D (19621963). Pp. 21214 Lanfranchi, G. B.
in Ashdod IIIII: The Second and Third Seasons of 1997 Consensus to Empire: Some Aspects of Sargon IIs
Excavations 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967, Vol. 1, Foreign Policy. Pp. 8187 in Assyrien im Wandel
ed. M. Dothan. Atiqot 9. Jerusalem: Department of der Zeiten: XXXIXe Rencontre assyriologique inter-
Antiquities and Museums in the Ministry of Edu- nationale, Heidelberg, 6.10. Juli 1992, ed. H. Waet-
cation and Culture; Department of Archaeology, zoldt and H. Hauptmann. Heidelberger Studien
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. zum alten Orient 6. Heidelberg: Heidelberger
Hammond, M. Orientverlag.
1948 Ancient Imperialism: Contemporary Justifications. Langer, W. L.
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 5859: 105 1935 A Critique of Imperialism. Foreign Affairs 14: 102
61. 19.
Holloway, S. W. Lehmann, G.
2002 Aur is King! Aur is King! Religion in the Exer- 2001 Phoenicians in Western Galilee: First Results of an
cise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Culture Archaeological Survey in the Hinterland of Akko.
and History of the Ancient Near East 10. Leiden: Pp. 65112 in Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron
Brill. Age in Israel and Jordan, ed. A. Mazar. Journal for
Horvath, R. J. the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series
1972 A Definition of Colonialism. Current Anthropology 331. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
13: 4557. Lenin, V. I.
Humbert, J.-B. 1939 Imperialism, the Highest State of Colonialism: A
1993 Keisan, Tell. Pp. 86267 in The New Encyclopedia of Popular Outline. New, rev. translation. Little Lenin
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 3, Library 15. New York: International Publishers.
ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Levy, Y., and Peilstcker, M.
Humbert, J.-B., and Sadeq, M. 2008 Rishon Lezion: The Iron Age II Fortress. Pp. 2020
2000 Fouilles de Blakhiyah-Anthdon. Pp. 10520 in 22 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Ex-
Gaza mditerranenne: Histoire et archologie en cavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 5: Supplementary
Palestine, ed. J.-B. Humbert. Paris: Errance. Volume, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration
Jamieson, A. S. Society; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology
1999 Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Tell Ahmar. Pp. 287 Society.
308 in Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Levy, Y.; Peilstcker, M.; and Ginzburg, A.
Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia: Papers 2004 An Iron Age Fortress in the Sand Dunes of Rishon
Presented at the Meetings of the International Table Letzion. Qadmoniot 128: 9294 (Hebrew).
Ronde at Heidelberg (1995) and Nieborw (1997) Liverani, M.
and Other Contributions, ed. A. Hausleiter and A. 1979 The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire. Pp. 297317
Reiche. Altertumskunde des vorderen Orients 10. in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient
Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag. Empires, ed. M. T. Larsen. Mesopotamia 7. Copen-
Kaplan, J. hagen: Akademisk.
1969 The Stronghold of Yamani at Ashdod-Yam. Israel 1988 The Growth of the Assyrian Empire in the Habur/
Exploration Journal 19: 13749. Middle Euphrates Area: A New Paradigm. State Ar-
1993 Ashdod-Yam. Pp. 1023 in The New Encyclopedia of chives of Assyria Bulletin 2: 8198.
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, 1990 Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the
ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society Near East ca. 16001100 b.c. History of Ancient
and Carta. Near East Studies 1. Padua: Sargon.
1992 Studies in the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II, Vol. 2: To- tion. Pp. 89116 in A Comparative Study of Thirty
pographical Analysis. Quaderni di geografia storica City-State Cultures: An Investigation, ed. M. H. Han-
4. Rome: Dipartimento di scienze storiche, archeo- sen. Historisk-filosofiske skrifter 27. Copenhagen:
logiche e antropologiche dellantichit, Universit Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters.
di Roma La Sapienza. Olamy, Y.; Ronen, A.; and Romano, A.
Lyman, R. L.; OBrien, M. J.; and Dunnell, R. C. 2003 Map of HaifaWest (22). Jerusalem: Archaeological
1997 The Rise and Fall of Culture History. New York: Survey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority.
Plenum. Olamy, Y.; Sender, S.; and Oren, E.
Markoe, G. E. 2005 Map of Dor (30). Jerusalem: Archaeological Survey
2000 The Phoenicians. Peoples of the Past. Berkeley: Uni- of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority.
versity of California Press. Olmstead, A. T.
Master, D. M. 1908 Western Asia in the Days of Sargon of Assyria, 722
2003 Trade and Politics: Ashkelons Balancing Act in the 705 b.c. Cornell Studies in History and Political
Seventh Century b.c.e. Bulletin of the American Science 2. New York: Holt.
Schools of Oriental Research 330: 4764. Or, E.; Ayalon, E.; Shacham, F.; and Shalev, S.
Matthews, R. 1991 Archaeological Sites in Tel AvivJaffa and Its Vicin-
2003 The Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Ap- ity. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum (Hebrew).
proaches. Approaching the Ancient World. London: Oren, E.
Routledge. 1993 Ruqeish. Pp. 129394 in The New Encyclopedia of
Mazar, A. Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 4,
1980 Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part 1: The Philistine ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society
SanctuaryArchitecture and Cult Objects. Qedem and Carta; New York: Simon & Schuster.
12. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Oren, E. D.; Fleming, N.; Kornberg, S.; Feinstein, R.; and Nah-
University of Jerusalem. shoni, P.
Naaman, N. 1986 A Phoenician Emporium on the Border of Egypt.
1979 The Brook of Egypt and Assyrian Policy on the Bor- Qadmoniot 19: 8391 (Hebrew).
der of Egypt. Tel Aviv 6: 6890. Ornan, T.
1993 Population Changes in Palestine following Assyrian 1997 Mesopotamian Influence on the Glyptic of Israel
Deportations. Tel Aviv 20: 10424. and Jordan in the First Millennium b.c. Ph.D. dis-
1994 Esarhaddons Treaty with Baal and Assyrian Prov- sertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
inces along the Phoenician Coast. Rivista di studi Otzen, B.
fenici 22: 38. 1979 Israel under the Assyrians. Pp. 25161 in Power and
1995a Rezin of Damascus and the Land of Gilead. Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires, ed.
Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 111: M. T. Larsen. Copenhagen: Akademisk.
10517. Park, S. H.
1995b Tiglath-Pileser IIIs Campaigns against Tyre and 2009 A Morphometric Approach to the Classification
Israel (734732 b.c.e.). Tel Aviv 22: 26878. and Sequencing of the Iron Age II Pottery of Tel
1998 Two Notes on the History of Ashkelon and Ekron Ashkelon, Israel. Ph.D., Harvard University.
in the Late EighthSeventh Centuries b.c.e. Tel Aviv Parker, B. J.
25: 21927. 1997 Garrisoning the Empire: Aspects of the Construc-
2001 An Assyrian Residence at Ramat Rael? Tel Aviv 28: tion and Maintenance of Forts on the Assyrian
26080. Frontier. Iraq 59: 7787.
2004 The Boundary System and Political Status of 2001 The Mechanics of Empire: The Northern Frontier
Gaza under the Assyrian Empire. Zeitschrift des of Assyria as a Case Study in Imperial Dynamics.
Deutschen Palstina-Vereins 120: 5572. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
2005 Ancient Israel and Its Neighbors. Interaction and 2002 At the Edge of Empire: Conceptualizing Assyrias
Counteraction. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Anatolian Frontier ca. 700 bc. Journal of Anthropo-
2009 Was Dor the Capital of an Assyrian Province? Tel logical Archaeology 21: 37195.
Aviv 36: 95109. 2003 Archaeological Manifestations of Empire: Assyrias
Naaman, N., and Thareani-Sussely, Y. Imprint on Southeastern Anatolia. American Jour-
2006 Dating the Appearance of Imitations of Assyrian nal of Archaeology 107: 52557.
Ware in Southern Palestine. Tel Aviv 33: 6182. Parpola, S.
Neeman, Y.; Sender, S.; and Oren, E. 2003 Assyrias Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and
2003 Map of Mikhmoret (52). Jerusalem: Archaeological Its Long-Term Repercussions in the West. Pp. 99111
Survey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority. in Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past:
Niemeyer, H. G. Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the
2002 The Early Phoenician City-States on the Mediter- Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, ed. W. G.
ranean: Archaeological Elements for Their Descrip- Dever and S. Gitin. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Parpola, S., ed. Sinopoli, C. M.

1987 The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part 1: Letters from 1994 The Archaeology of Empires. Annual Review of An-
Assyria and the West. State Archives of Assyria 1. thropology 23: 15980.
Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Smith, G. A.
Parpola, S., and Watanabe, K., eds. 1935 The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. London:
1988 Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Ar- Hodder & Stoughton.
chives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: Neo-Assyrian Text Spycket, A.
Corpus Project. 1973 Le culte du dieu-lune Tell Keisan. Revue biblique
Petrie, W. F., and Ellis, J. C. 80: 38495.
1937 Anthedon, Sinai. British School of Archaeology Stager, L. E.
Publications 58. London: Quaritch. 1996 Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction:
Postgate, J. N. Kislev 604 bce. Eretz-Israel 25: *61*74.
1974 Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. Stager, L. E.; Schloen, J. D.; and Master, D. M., eds.
Studia Pohl, Series Maior 3. Rome: Biblical Institute 2011 Ashkelon 3: The Seventh Century b.c. Harvard Se-
Press. mitic Museum Publications; Final Reports of the
1992 The Land of Assur and the Yoke of Assur. World Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon 3. Winona Lake,
Archaeology 23: 24763. IN: Eisenbrauns.
1994 In Search of the First Empires. Bulletin of the Amer- Stern, E.
ican Schools of Oriental Research 293: 113. 1990 Hazor, Dor and Megiddo in the Time of Ahab and
Prausnitz, M. W. under Assyrian Rule. Israel Exploration Journal 40:
1993 Bira, Tel. Pp. 26263 in The New Encyclopedia of 1230.
Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 1, 1993 Tel Dor, 1992: Preliminary Report. Israel Explora-
ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society tion Journal 43: 12650.
and Carta. 2000 Dor, Ruler of the Seas: Nineteen Years of Excavations
Pritchard, J. B. at the Israelite-Phoenician Harbor Town on the Car-
1969 Ancient Near Eastern Texts: Relating to the Old Tes- mel Coast. Rev. and expanded ed. Jerusalem: Israel
tament. 3rd ed. with suppl. Princeton, NJ: Prince- Exploration Society.
ton University Press. Tadmor, H.
Reich, R. 1958 The Campaigns of Sargon II of Assur: A Chrono-
1984 The Identification of the Sealed kru of Egypt. logical-Historical Study. Journal of Cuneiform Stud-
Israel Exploration Journal 34: 3238. ies 12: 2240, 77100.
1993 Abu Salima, Tell (Sheikh Zuweid). P. 15 in The New 1966 Philistia under Assyrian Rule. Biblical Archaeologist
Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the 29: 86102.
Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: Israel 1971 Fragments of an Assyrian Stele of Sargon II. Pp.
Exploration Society and Carta. 19297 in Ashdod IIIII: The Second and Third Sea-
Ronen, A., and Olamy, Y. sons of Excavations 1963, 1965, Soundings in 1967,
1978 Map of Atlit (1). Jerusalem: Archaeological Survey Vol. 1, ed. M. Dothan. Atiqot 9. Jerusalem: Depart-
of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority. ment of Antiquities and Museums in the Ministry
1983 Map of HaifaEast (23). Jerusalem: Archaeological of Education and Culture; Department of Archae-
Survey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority. ology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Saggs, H. W. F. 1975 Assyria in the West: The Ninth Century and Its Af-
1952 The Nimrud Letters, 1952. Part 4: The Urartian termath. Pp. 3648 in Unity and Diversity: Essays in
Frontier. Iraq 20: 182212. the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient
Schmidt, H. D. Near East, ed. H. Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts. Bal-
1951 Palestine Trends of Power: A Survey of Three Thou- timore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
sand Years of Palestine History. Journal of Near 1997 Propaganda, Literature, Historiography: Crack-
Eastern Studies 10: 112. ing the Code of the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions.
Schreiber, K. J. Pp. 32538 in Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the 10th
1987 Conquest and Consolidation: A Comparison of the Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text
Wari and Inka Occupations of a Highland Peruvian Corpus Project, Helsinki, September 711, 1995,
Valley. American Antiquity 52: 26684. ed. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting. Helsinki: Neo-
Shavit, A. Assyrian Text Corpus Project.
2003 Settlement Patterns in Israels Southern Coastal 1999 World Dominion: The Expanding Horizon of the
Plain during the Iron Age II. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Assyrian Empire. Pp. 5562 in Landscapes: Terri-
Aviv University (Hebrew). tories, Frontiers and Horizons in the Ancient Near
Sigrist, R. M. East; Papers Presented to the XLIV Rencontre as-
1982 Une tablette cuniforme de Tell Keisan. Israel Ex- syriologique internationale, Venezia, 711 July 1997,
ploration Journal 32: 3235. Part 1, ed. L. Milano, S. de Martino, F. M. Fales, and
G. B. Lanfranchi. History of the Ancient Near East Walton, J. T.

Monographs 3/1. Padua: Sargon. 2015 The Regional Economy of the Southern Levant
2006 Assyria, Babylonia and Judah: Studies in the History in the 8th7th Centuries bce. Ph.D. dissertation,
of the Ancient Near East. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute; Harvard University.
Israel Exploration Society (Hebrew). Yamada, K.
Tadmor, H., and Yamada, S. 2005 From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea: The Devel-
2011 The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III (744727 opment of the Names of Seas in the Assyrian Royal
bc) and Shalmaneser V (726722 bc), Kings of As- Inscriptions. Orient 40: 3155.
syria. Royal Inscriptions of Neo-Assyrian Period 1. Yamada, S.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 2005 Krus on the Frontiers of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.
Thareani, Y. Orient 40: 5690.
2009 In the Service of the Empire: Local Elites and Pax- Zaccagnini, C.
Assyriaca in the Negev. Eretz-Israel 29: 18491 1982 The Enemy in the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions:
(Hebrew). The Ethnographic Inscription. Pp. 41924 in
Thareani-Sussely, Y. Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn: Politische und
2007 The Archaeology of the Days of Manasseh Re- kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im alten Vorderasien
considered in the Light of Evidence from the Beer- vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Vol. 1, ed. H. J. Nis-
sheba Valley. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139: sen and J. Renger. Berliner Beitrge zum Vorderen
6977. Orient 1. Berlin: Reimer.
Wallerstein, I.
1990 World-Systems Analysis: The Second Phase. Review
(Fernand Braudel Center) 13: 28793.
Copyright of Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research is the property of
American Schools of Oriental Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Assyria Levantine Domination

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Assyria Levantine Domination

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Empire and the Upper Sea: Assyrian Control Strategies along the Southern Levantine

Whoever rules the waves, rules the world.

2016 American Schools of Oriental Research. BASOR 375 (2016): 77102.

Fig.2. Ecological subregions in Palestines coastal plain. (Map by N.

along three axes: on the eve of the Assyrian conquest,

The Southern Levantine Coast on

port and fishing. ature, see Naaman 2009: 97.

11 For a critical review of the initial excavators opinions, see Fin-

Assyrian Control Strategies in was dominatedwhether directly or indirectlyby the

Elgavish, J. ed. G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus. Santa Fe, NM:

Goldstone J. A., and Haldon, J. F. Kark, R.

Parpola, S., ed. Sinopoli, C. M.

G. B. Lanfranchi. History of the Ancient Near East Walton, J. T.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen