Historical Geography of the Biblical World Research Papers (original) (raw)

Settlement history in the Jezreel Valley and the Central Jordan Valley has long been a subject of scholarly research. However, evaluating changes to regional settlement is best done within a clear context provided by an extended time... more

This research, therefore, focuses on the settlement history of a wide geographical area, namely the northern valleys and their adjacent highlands between 1600 BCE and 700 BCE (from the end of the Middle Bronze Age until the beginning of Iron Age IIC). Settlement trends over this 900-year period are examined in varied topographical regions, and regional trends are compared with overall trends for northern-central Israel. The sub-regions discussed include the Jezreel Valley, the west side of the central Jordan Valley, Ramot Menashe and the Carmel, the southern half of the Lower Galilee, and Northern Samaria.

Although most studies of settlement history are based on surveys, the increasing number of excavations in Cisjordan, both planned excavations and salvage excavations, makes possible the study of settlement history based on excavation data, rather than relying on the less reliable survey data. Excavation data is both more accurate and more nuanced chronologically. Needless to say, planned excavations usually give more accurate information than trial or salvage excavations, because they expose larger areas of the settlement and have more in-depth analysis and documentation. However, salvage excavations are also valuable, because they often give information about small rural sites that are rarely targeted for planned excavations, and often missed in regional surveys. In the present study, surveys are used for comparative purposes.

Methodology
For each region the reports for all the excavated sites are examined, beginning with planned excavations, and followed by partial and salvage excavations. The data is compiled for each sub-period and each transition, and the major trends are noted. For comparative purposes, the data from surveys is also presented, grouped according to the topographical areas defined by the research.

The number of settlements across all regions during each sub-period is then compiled, and the overall degree of continuity or change in the transition to the next period is noted. Differences between regions are examined, checking differing trends in the highlands/lowlands and in larger (urban) settlements in comparison to the smaller (rural) sites.
Different excavators use different terminology to describe their archaeological periods. Therefore, in order to carry out a comparison it is necessary to “translate” the dating systems of the various reports into a standardized terminology.

Regions and Sites

Summary of Regional Trends according to Excavation Data

Three transitional periods stand out for continuity of settlement – the transition from MB IIB to MB IIC, from LB IIB to IR IA and from early IR IIA to late IR IIA. Stability between MB IIB and MB IIC reflects the lack of political changes during this transition, with the continuity of city-states in the Southern Levant. Stability between LB IIB and the IR IA reflects the continuity of Egyptian control in the valleys, at the same time that there was continuity in the new highland settlements of Northern Samaria, which had already begun at the end of the 13th century B.C.E. toward the end of the LB IIB. Continuity between the early and late IR IIA also reflects the policies of a strong centralized government in the highland, despite the multiple dynasty changes in the Northern Kingdom during the early years of the Divided Kingdom.

Several periods show notable settlement increase. Both LB IIA and LB IIB, although by no means settlement peaks in absolute numbers, show high percentages of new settlements, in contrast to the preceding two periods (LB IA and LB IB) in which there had been a dearth of new settlements. In the LB IIA, the el-Amarna period, the high rate of new settlement is coupled with little renewal/growth in existing settlements, and a high level of reduction/abandonment, suggesting a general settlement realignment. This settlement shifts could be caused by Egyptian policy for the Jezreel Valley, which was farmed by corvee workers. This is also the period of the flowering of Egyptian presence at Beit Shean (and other Egyptian enclaves in Cisjordan).

In addition, three transitions stand out for changes to settlement: the transitions from IR IB to IR IIA (early), from IR IIA to IR IIB, and from IR IIB to IR IIC. The latter two transitions are simple to explain, since they follow the Aramean incursions of the late ninth century and the Assyrian incursions of the late eighth century, which brought settlement reduction and abandonment. The limited settlement renewal in IR IIB, at the time of Jehu’s dynasty, is similarly not surprising. However, the settlement changes between the IR IB and the IR IIA are less readily explained. The combination of growth and renewal in more than half of the existing settlements (unprecedented when compared with all the other periods), reduction/abandonment at almost a third of the sites, and a greater than average increase in new settlement, are compatible with the activities of a centralized state in the region.

Little evidence for highland/lowland differences was found. For example, in the LB IB, the Jezreel Valley had a dearth of new sites, at the same time that there was new settlement in the Jordan Valley – both lowlands but showing different settlement trends. In addition, there was little new settlement in the southern Lower Galilee at this time, but there was new settlement in Northern Samaria, both highland areas, but evidencing different settlement trends.

A further example, in LB IIB, there was increased rural settlement in both valleys and highlands. In the Jezreel Valley there were new rural sites on the valley perimeter. Toward the end of the period, there were new rural sites in the highlands of Northern Samaria as well (including three sites that may be linked to cult). Conversely, in other regions (both valley and highland) there was more continuity and less new settlement.

Similarly, in the IR IIB, settlement trends were different in the two lowland regions: in the Jordan Valley there was little evidence for settlement revival, but in the Jezreel Valley there was limited revival. In addition, the highlands of Northern Samaria evidenced settlement revival, while the highlands of Ramot Menashe )and, to a lesser extent, the Southern Galilee (did not. In IR IIC, the same pairing of the Jezreel Valley and Northern Samaria (renewed settlement), and the Jordan Valley, the southern Lower Galilee and Ramot Menashe (death of settlement) can be observed.

Overall, the results suggested that events in the political realm – the routes used by outside conquerors and their policies, or the outcomes of state settlement initiatives, had more effect on the settlement patterns, than did the regional topographical differences.

By using excavation data rather than survey data we were able to analyze settlement change and continuity during each of the sub-periods. Data from salvage excavations, even though partial in the extent of the area excavated, and often reported in only a cursory fashion, proved useful in providing information about smaller, rural settlements, that otherwise would have been overlooked if the analysis had been solely based on planned excavation projects.