In A. Biran and J. Aviram (eds.), Biblical Archaeology Today 1990.

Proceedings of the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem 1990,

Jerusalem 1993, pp. 56-66.

Environmental Archaeology and Social History:

Demographic and Economic Aspects
of the Monarchic Period
Israel Finkelstein

We are gathered here to celebrate the centennial of modern archaeological research

in Israel. Our discipline has made impressive progress, not only as measured since
Petrie's days, but even within the past decade. Differences between the programs of
this - the second - and the First International Congress on Biblical Archaeology,
held in Jerusalern only six years ago, demonstrate the advances made in fieldwork
and in the realm of theory. While the first congress included sessions dealing with
such topics such as "Archaeology, History and Bible," "Stratigraphy, Chronology
and Terminology," and "Israel's Neighbors in the Iron Age," 1 we now have the likes
of the pre-congress symposium dealing with "Demography, Production and Power"
and a session devoted to "Interdisciplinary Aspects of Biblical Archaeology." New
areas of interest- environment, demography, and economy- were even included
in the current session, whose relatively conservative topic is the First Temple period.
The last decade has witnessed a bitter dispute between advocates of so-called bibli-
cal archaeology and new archaeology. 2 I must confess that I never quite understood
the difference between the two; I was probably naive in believing that the only mean-
ingful distinction is the one between good archaeology and bad archaeology. Years
ago, Sir Mortimer Wheeler noted, in the first sentence of his book Archaeology from
the Earth, that, "there is no right way of digging, but there are many wrong wa:ys. "3
While fully agreeing that there are many wrong ways to dig, I would humbly argue
that there are also many right ways. In the 1990s, good archaeology can follow sev-
eral possible courses. I believe that this conference is a major step toward achieving
a healthy balance between them.
Environmental archaeology has only been practiced in the Near East for a few dec-
ades.4 During the last decade it found its way into the mainstream of archaeological
research in Israel through topics such as demographic history, 5 transformations in set-
tlement patterns,6 social archaeology/ and economic and political reconstruc-
tions.8
56
 ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND SOCIAL HISTORY 57

It goes without saying that there is no environmental archaeology without data

on ancient settlement patterns. Hence, the primary reason for progress in this field
has been the "great leap forward" in surveying. During the first 80 to 90 years of
archaeological research in this land, almost all efforts were devoted to excavation of
large tells. This resulted in a reasonable knowledge of the history of major sites and
a shocking unfamiliarity with archaeological data essential for reconstruction of his-
torical processes, that is, the settlement map during different periods. The absence
of such maps for the Iron Age resulted in significant shortcomings in research: We
could not, for example, estimate the population of the Land of Israel in biblical times.
We could not properly investigate such important topics as population movements
and economic conditions. Consequently, major historical trends could not be traced
nor could processes known from literary sources be clarified.
Large-scale archaeological surveys conducted during the past decade in almost
every part of the country9 supply essential data for the reconstruction of settlement
and demographic patterns in early Israel. Results of these surveys form the backbone
of studies concerning the emergence of early Israel, 10 the consolidation of the monar-
chy, 11 the population of Palestine during Iron II, 12 the settlement history of the
Galilee during Iron II, 13 etc. They have also stimulated new interpretations of biblical
material. 14 The present article utilizes the results of these surveys, indicating possible
directions for further study of demographic and economic develpments during the
period of the monarchy.

I ron II Population

In an attempt to estimate the population of the Land of Israel during Iron II, Broshi
and Finkelstein 15 collected all available data concerning Iron II sites throughout the
country. The following table summarizes site frequency by region, providing a rank-
ing based upon area, total built area and estimated population for the mid-8th century
B.C.E., that is, before the Assyrian deportations and the considerable demographic
changes these wrought. 16
These data indicate a total population of 403,000. In order not to give a false
impression of great accuracy, Broshi and Finkelstein rounded the population estimate
for western Palestine to ca. 400,000. This figure is considerably lower than previous
estimates: Albright 17 calculated the population of the country in the 8th century
B.C.E. at ca. 1,000,000, and Baron 18 argued that the population of the two kingdoms
in the second half of the 8th century B.C.E. was 1,000,000-1,300,000. Behind these
discrepancies lie the nature of the sources utilized for the studies - Albright and
Baron relied on problematic biblical material, while Broshi and Finkelstein based
their work on recent archaeological data. 19
58 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN

Table 1

Total Category 20 l11lzabited Total

Rejiion sites A B c D E area 21 inhabited
22
Populatio11 2J
area
Upper Galilee 84 29* 39* 11* 5* 237 247 25,000
Lower Galilee 54 19 21 13 161 222 22,500
Huleh VaHey 23 7 7 6 l 2 156 185 18,750
Jordan Valley 76 39 27 10 99 136 13,750
Jczreel Valley 55 18 15 17 5 247 272 27,500
Gilboa 4 3 12 12 1,250
Carmel 20 13 7 20 30 3,000
Manassch 163 63* 60* 34* 6 494 494 50,000
Samaria 1 1 148 148 15,000
Ephraim 190 65 94 31 296 326 33,000
Benjamin 100 59 22 18 1 219 222 22,500
Jerusalem 1 1 74 74 7,500
J udean hills 65 16* 20* 25 4 259 296 30,000
Shephelah 100 31 30 32 7 419 494 50,000
Northern Coastal
Plain 22 4 3 10 4 1 180 217 22,000
Carmel coast and
northern Sharon 30 15* 11 * 3* 1 74 86 8,750
Southern Sharon 19 7 11 2 37 37 3,750
Philistia 47 10 23 9 1 3 296 356 36,000
Gaza region and
w estern Negev 38 20 12 4 2 94 111 11,250
Beersheba Basin 6 2 2 2 14 15 1,500
TOTAL 1,098 417 407 228 37 9 3,536 3,980 403,000

The Population of Iron Age States

The Kingdom of Israel west of the Jordan (Upper and Lower Galilee; Huleh,Jordan
and Jezreel Valleys; Samaria and the relevant parts of the coastal plain) covered an
area of 7,300 sq. km., and was, on the basis of our estimates, inhabited by approxi-
mately 222,500 people, giving a population density of 31 per sq. km. To this we
should a.dd the territory of the Kingdom of Israel in Transjordan, about 4,200 sq.
km. 24 There is no reason to suspect that the area east of the Jordan was less densely
inhabited than Cisjordan: in the 2,400 sq. km. of Gilead alone, Glueck and Mittmann
recorded about 130 Iron II sites, without undertaking a full coverage survey.25 There-
fore, the kingdom's total population would have been about 350,000.
The area of the Kingdom of Judah was ca. 5,000 sq. km. (Benjamin,Judean Hills,
 ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND SOCIAL HISTORY 59

the Shephelah and the Beersheba Basin), and its population ca. 110,000. This means
a density of 22 people per sq. km., only two-thirds that of the northern kingdom (see
below).
In order to estimate the population ofJ udah after Sennacherib's campaign, we have
to deduct the Shephelah (50,000), calculate the population of Jerusalem on the basis
of a built area of 150 acres (15,000 people),26 and to add a certain number for refugees
from Israel and the Judean Shephelah who moved into the Judean Hills. This brings
us to roughly the same population as in the 8th century. For the sake of convenience,
we estimate this population to have been ca. 100,000, inhabiting a much smaller area
than before Sennacherib's campaign. Thus, the population density nearly doubled in
25 years, which must have had a profound effect on economic and social conditions
in the J udean state.
The percentage of the population inhabiting the capital city was higher in Judah
than in Israel: In the 8th century, 6.8 percent of Judeans lived in Jerusalem, while
only 4.3 percent of Israelites dwelt in Samaria. In the 7th century, 15 percent of the
population ofJudah lived in Jerusalem. (It is interesting to compare these figures with
the situation during the late Ottoman period, when the country had approximately
the same population as in Iron II: In the 1870s, 7 percent of the sedentary population
of Palestine lived in Jerusalem (calculated according to data presented by Ben
Arieh). 27
The combined population of the two kingdoms in the 8th century was ca. 460,000.
This figure - ca. 75 percent of the total population of Transjordan and Cisjordan
(see below) - demonstrates the relative importance of the Jewish kingdoms in the
geopolitics of the southern Levant. By comparison, the combined population of the
city-states of Philistia (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron and Gaza), the sub-regions of
Philistia and Gaza, and the western Shephelah is estimated at ca. 50,000--half the
population of Judah.
Results of surveys conducted in the southern Transjordanian Plateau indicate that
the population of its steppe states was also relatively limited. One hundred and five
Iron Age sites have been recorded in Moab. 28 If we calculate an average area per site
of ca. 4 acres - which may even be too high considering the marginal character of
the area- we arrive at 370 built-up acres with a population of ca. 37,500. About
the same number of sites have been reported in the comprehensive surveys under-
taken in Edom. 29 But since many of the Edomite sites were apparently established
in the 7th century B.C.E., 30 we should take no more than half of this number for
the 8th century. Many of the Edomite sites were isolated forts or small settlements.
Therefore, the size of an average site could not have exceeded 1 acre. This brings
us to an estimate of ca. 6,000 sedentary inhabitants in Edom.

I
60 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN

Population Growth during the Iron Age

Complete data for all settlements in the Land of Israel at the end of Iron I (ca. 1000
B.C.E.) has not yet been assembled. However, we have a reasonable estimate for the
population of the area of "Israelite settlement" - ca. 65,000. 31 In the central hill
country, the population that numbered 54,000 at the end of the 11th century B.C.E.
grew to approximately 165,000 by the mid-8th century. If the population of other
areas grew at a similar rate, the total population of western Palestine in the year 1000
B.C.E. would have been ca. 150,000. This figure corresponds to estimates for Early
Bronze II-III and Middle Bronze II. 32 It seems that until the end of the 2nd millen-
nium B.C.E., the sedentary population did not exceed 150,000-200,000. Wars, fam-
ines and plagues and the fact that large areas were still not under cultivation, limited
natural increase.
Only with the establishment of a centralized state, which brought a measure of
economic security, did necessary conditions for significant population increase (ca.
0.4 percent per year) exist. The 250 years between the reign of David and the begin-
ning of the Assyrian campaigns were by-and-large a peaceful period. The well-
organized states stimulated large-scale agricultural development, which was followed
by population increase. Shishak's campaign, the wars between Judah and Israel, and
persistent strife between Israel and the Arameans apparently did not check economic
and demographic growth. The turning-point which led to demographic decline came
with the Assyrian campaigns, which caused much destruction (in evidence in excava-
tions throughout the country) and which were followed by mass deportations. 33

Comparative Data

With our population estimates for several periods in the history of Palestine, we can
point to certain demographic trends. Various estimates have been made for Early
Bronze II-III, Middle Bronze II, Iron II, the Byzantine period,34 the early-Ottoman
period,35 and the late-Ottoman period. 36 Data for the first two periods has been
updated according to results of recent surveys in the central hill country. As most of
the sites added are small, the new information does not call for significant revision
of overall estimates, although there is an interesting change in population distribu-
tion.
It has already been noted that the populations of the country did not exceed
150,000-200,000 until the end of the 2nd millennium B.-C,b and that dramatic pop-
ulation growth during the Iron Age was a result of an extended period of relative
peace, of an organized economy better able to endure natural disasters, and of the cul-
tivation of new tracts of mountainous land. There were many upheavals during the
1,300 year period between the fall of Samaria and the demographic apogee in the
Byzantine period. Best known among these are the fall of Judah and the two revolts
against Rome. As during Iron II, efficient administration under the pax Romana
 ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND SOCIAL HISTORY 61

afforded the necessary conditions for significant population increase. Following the
Muslim occupation, deterioration of law and order produced a sharp demographic
decline. The population of Ottoman period Palestine approximated that during Iron
II. Without ignoring the many differences between these two periods, a comparison
between them is illustrative for several important issues.
Particularly interesting is the demographic ratio between fertile lowlands - the
coastal plain, the Shephelah and the northern valleys - and mountainous areas.
There was a gradual rise in the percentage of population residing in the highlands
-from 35 percent in Early Bronze II-III to 40 percent in Middle Bronze II to 52.5
percent in Iron II. Settlement of the highland ecological frontier zones must have
taken centuries,:n reaching its peak in late Iron II. In the Ottoman period, a time of
decline in the coastal plain and relative prosperity in the highlands, 58 percent of the
country's inhabitants lived in the highlands. 38 The ratio of highland to lowland
inhabitants during Iron II and the Ottoman period attests to the importance of the
hill country during both periods.
The distribution of large sites (Category E in Table 2) between the lowlands and
the highlands is also noteworthy: most of the large EB and MB sites are located in
the lowlands, whereas in Iron II, 22 percent of the large sites are found in the high-
lands. During the Byzantine period, only 4 of the 26 large towns were located in
the highlands. 39 In the late-Ottoman period, 6 of the 12 large towns were located
in the highlands, with ca. 56 percent of the total population of all the large towns. 40

The following table presents an absolute and relative site count based upon size
in Early Bronze II-III, Middle Bronze, and Iron II.

Table 2

A B c D E

Early Bronze Total sites 141 71 58 28 12 310

II-III percentages 45% 23% 19% 9% 4%
lowlands (%) 45% 34% 50% 54% 92%
highlands (%) 55% 66% 50% 46% ----sWo
Middle Bronze Total sites 334 101 86 18 17 556
percentages 60% 18% 15% 3% 3%
lowlands (%) 37% 39% 36% 56% 100%
highlands (%) 63% 61 o/o 64% 44%-
Iron II Total sites 417 407 228 37 9 1,098
percentages 38% 37% 21% 3% 1%
lowlands (%) 37% 35% 42% 54% 78%
highlands (%) 63% 65% 58% 46% 22%
62 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN

The table indicates that the percentage oflarge sites (Categories D and E) progres-
sively diminished while the percentage of small sites (Categories A, B and C)
increased between Early Bronze II and Iron II. In Early Bronze II-III about 63 per-
cent of the population lived in settlements larger than 12 acres; in Middle Bronze
II only 49 percent lived in such settlements, while in Iron II the figure dropped to
34 percent (with almost the same rate for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In the
late-19th century C.E., 43 percent of the population of Palestine inhabited towns
and villages larger than 12 acres.41
The average population of an Early Bronze settlement was ca. 500; this number
dropped to ca. 300 in Middle Bronze and 350 in Iron II (ca. 550 in the late-19th
century C.E.).
On the one hand, these data indicate the intensity of the urbanization process in
the Early Bronze Age. On the other hand, the Iron II settlement pattern reflects the
stability and tranquility which opened the way to the foundation of many small
unfortified settlements. In fact, the possibility of establishing such sites accelerated
population expansion into remote and inaccessible parts of the country, particularly
the highlands.

Demographic Data and Historical Processes: The United Monarchy

----
Gradual demographic growth during the Iron Age, the consequent expansion of the
population into areas (the highland frontiers and the southern steppe) which had been
only very sparsely inhabited previously, and the emergence of a national-territorial
state in Canaan were all interdependent processes. Elsewhere, I have argued that
expansion into frontier areas of the highlands stimulated the emergence of the mon-
archy. In order to cope with environmental obstacles, such as terracing steep slopes,
the population was forced to organize beyond the local level. Expansion into the areas
suitable for horticulture triggered agricultural specialization and intra-regional trade,
consequently stimulating the emergence of new institutions.42
In a previous article, I presented results of the Land of Ephraim Survey as a case
study tracing westward expansion during the Iron Age. Demographic trends in early
Iron I, in the 11th century B.C.E. and in late Iron II were compared. In the present
article, an attempt has been made to sharpen these observations by adding data for
the 10th to 9th centuries B.C.E. Three diagnostic pottery types help to identify sites
inhabited during that period. These types are comon at late Iron I sites, including
excavated settlements such as Khirbet ed-Dawwara, but are absent at early Iron I and
late Iron II settlements. Results are summarized in the following table ("East" refers
to desert fringe and central range areas; "West" refers to slopes and foothills).
The table's main message is that expansion into the western frontier areas of the
Land of Ephraim was already well underway in the early stages of Iron II (at least,
as reflected by the number of sites; population was probably still limited).
Expansion into the ecological frontier of the J udean hill country was much slower.
 ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND SOCIAL HISTORY 63

Table 3

East West Total

Early Total sites 46 16 62
Iron I: percentages 75% 25%
population (%) 76% 24% 3,825
Total Total sites 64 47 111*
Iron I: percentages 58% 42%
population (%) 63% 37% 9,400
9-lOth Total sites 48 42 90
century percentage 53% 47%
Late Total sites 93 97 190
Iron II: percentages ---49% 51%
population (%) 53% 47% 31,000

• This is an updated figure, reached after recheckin g pottery; it represents the total of all Iron I sites.

According to Ofer,4 3 the number of sites there grew from 9 to 13 in Iron I, to 17

in the 1Oth century, and to 65 in late Iron II. Ofer estimates that the population of
the Judean Hills grew from 1,500-2,500 in Iron I, to 2,500-3,500 in the 10th cen-
tury and to 18,000-26,000 in late Iron II.
These data shed new light on certain aspects of the United Monarchy. The Judean
hill country was still sparsely inhabited, compared to other parts of the central high-
lands (the map of 1Oth -9th century sites in Ephraim supports this observation- very
few sites were identified in the southern part of the area, while settlement distribution
in the north was relatively dense). In the 1Oth century, the sedentary population of
the J udean Hills was only ca. 3 percent of the total population of the country, as com-
pared to ca. 10 percent in the 8th century B.C.E. and ca. 20 percent in the 7th century
B.C.E. David's power (and Solomon's after him) did not stem, therefore, from a solid
sedentary population, but from the special composition of the population of Judah
(which still had, at that time, a strong non-sedentary element), and from the personal-
ity of the monarch. The demographic dispersal of the 10th century may also explain
one of the reasons for the division of the United Monarchy- the much larger and
wealthier population of the northern part of the central hill country arose against the
dynasty of the poor and underpopulated south. The sparse population of rhe J udean
Hills may also explain why this region is not mentioned in the Solomonic district-
division. Significant demographic growth in the Judean Hills came, therefore, only
after the division of the United Monarchy. In fact, the average population density
of the two Israelite kingdoms (see above) shows that even in the 8th century B.C.E.
Judah was less densely occupied than Israel.
64 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN

Demography and Economy

The obvious relationship between demographic dispersal and economic development

has been discussed in my treatment of the emergence of the monarchy. 44 A clear
example is the pattern of settlement in Judah in the 7th century B.C.E.
The most significant demographic development in Judah oflate Iron II was expan-
sion into its arid zones in the 7th century B.C.E. This is the date of all Iron II sites
in the Judean Desert: the el-Buqeicah sites, 45 the sites along the coast of the Dead
Sea,46 Vered Yeri}fo, 47 l:forvat Shil}fa48 and En-Gedi. 49 The Beersheba valley also wit-
nessed a significant change in the 7th century B.C.E.: Tel Sheva was destroyed, Tel
cira grew to be the largest site in the region, and ne~lements were established
at Aroer, Tel Masos and Horvat cuza. 50
The sudden expansion into marginal areas demands an explanation. Until
Sennacherib's campaign, the economy of the Judean Kingdom was balanced by a vari-
ety of activities conducted in several distinct ecological niches within its territory:
horticulture in the hill country and the Shephelah, dry-farming in the Shephelah and
the eastern and southern flanks of the central range, and animal husbandry in the
J udean Desert. The Assyrian campaigns inflicted a great calamity on the J udean state:
the conquered territories of the Shephelah were handed over to the Philistine city-
states and a torrent of refugees came to Judah from vanquished Israel and from the
destroyed districts of the Shephelah. Judah lost its rich cereal and olive producing
lands in the west, while the population of the hill country grew dramatically (see
above). In addition, a burdensome tax had to be paid to the Assyrian authorities.
Demographic pressures drove part of the population to marginal areas of the king-
dom, 51 which now compensated for the lost dry-farming lands of the Shephelah. The
Beersheba valley alone could produce over 5,000 tons of grain per year, 52 while the
basic needs of its population were no more than 250 tons. This means that the
Beersheba valley could have supplied around 25 percent of the overall needs ofJudah.
It may reasonably be assumed that the expansion into marginal regions took place
at the beginning of the 7th century rather than in its second half. 53 Under Josiah,
Judah took the first opportunity to take back the important territories of the
Shephelah. The towns-list ofJoshua 15, which should most probably be dated to this
period,54 seems to reflect the reorganization of the economy of Judah.
The results obtainable from a combined study of settlement and demographic pat-
terns, paleo-economy, and textual material point the way toward a desirable future
course for biblical archaeology.

Notes

1. Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical ArchaeologyJerusalem, April
1984 Qerusalem, 1985); see review by A.F. Rainey, "Biblical Archaeology Yesterday (and Today),"
BASOR 273 (1989): 87- 96.
2. See for example, W.G. Dever, "The Impact of the 'New Archaeology' on Syro-Palestinian Archaeol-
 ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY AND SOCIAL HISTORY 65
ogy," BASOR 242 (1981): 15-29; D. Ussishkin, "Where Is Israeli Archaeology Going?" BA 45
(1982}: 93 -95.
3. M. Wheeler, Archaeology from the Earth (Harmondsworth, 1954), p. 15.
4. See fo r example, R. McC. Adams, Land Behind Baghdad (Chicago, 1965); idem, Heartland of Cities
(Chicago, 1981 ); R.McC. Adams and H.J. Nissen, The Uruk Countryside (Chicago, 1972).
5. See for example, M. Broshi and R. Gophna, "The Settlements and Population of Palestine During
the Early Bronze Age II-III," BASOR 253 (1984): 41-53; idem, "Middle Bronze Age II Palestine:
Its Settlements and Population," BASOR 261 (1986): 73-90.
6. Sec for example, R. Gophna andY. Portugali, "Settlement and Demographic Processes in Israel's
Coastal Plain from chc Chalcolithic to che Middle Bronze Age," BASOR 269 (1988): 11-28.
7. L.E. Stager, "The Archaeology of the Family in Ancient Israel," BASOR 260 (1985): 1-35.
8. See for example, B. Rosen, "Subsistence Economy of Stratum II," in <rzbet ~ar~ah: An Early Iron Age
Site near Rosh Ha<ayin, Israel, ed. I. Finklestein (BAR 299) (Oxford, 1986), pp. 156-185; T. E. Levi,
Shiqmim I (BAR bJternational Series 356). (Oxford, 1987).
9. See for example, Z. Gal, "The Lower Galilee in the Iron Age" (Unpublished Ph.D . diss., Tel Aviv
University, 1982) (Hebrew with English abstract); A. Zertal, The Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country
of Manasseh (Haifa, 1988) (Hebrew); I. Finkelstein, "The Land of Ephraim Survey 1980-1987: Pre-
liminary Report," Tel Aviv 15-16 (1988-1989): 117-183; A. Ofer, "The Judaean Hill Country-
from Nomadism co Monarchy," inN. Na'aman and I. Finkelstein (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy:
Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel Q e ru~alem, 1990), pp. 155-214 (H ebrew); M.
Haiman, "Preliminary Report of the Western Negev Highlands Emergency Survey," IE] 39 (1989):
173- 191.
10. N. Na)aman and I. Finkelstein (eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects
of Early Israel Qerusalem, 1990) (Hebrew).
11. I. Finkelstein, "The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel: The Envirotzmental arzd Socio-Economic
Aspects," )SOT 44 (1989): 43-74.
12. M. Broshi and I. Finkelstein, "Population of Palestine in Iron Age II," BASOR 28 (1992): 4 7-60.
13. Z. Gal, "The Lower Galilee in the Iron Age II: Analysis of Survey Material and its Historical Interpre-
tation," Tel Aviv 15-16 (1988-1989): 56- 64.
14. See for example, A. Zertal, Arubboth, Hepher and the Third SolomotJic District (T el Aviv, 1985)
(Hebrew); Ofer, "Judean Hill" (see note 9).
15. Broshi and Finkelstein, (sec note 12).
16. N. Na'aman, "Population Changes in Palestine Following Assyrian Deportations," Cathedra 54
(1989): 43-62 (Hebrew).
17. W.F. Albright, "The Administrative Division oflsrael andJudah,"]POS 5 (1925): 24.
18. S.W. Baron, Ancient arJd Medieval j ewish History (New Brunswick, 1972).
19. For a thorough treatment of the problem see Broshi and Finkelstein, (note 12).
20. Category A= 0.25-0.75 acres; B = 1-2.5 acres; C = 2.7-12 acres; D = 12.35-24.5 acres; E =over
25 acres. Asterisk marks estimated data.
21. In Ephraim, the Judean hill country and the Beersheba valley the specific area of each site was calcu-
lated; in the ocher regions the estimate is based on the average site-area by category.
22. This figure incorporates a correction factor which compensates for incomplete data.
23. Using a density coefficient of 25 people per each 0.25 inhabited acre.
24. Calculated according toY. Aharoni and M. A vi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York, 1968),
p. 94, map 147.
25. S. Mittmann, Beitriige zur Siedlungs und Territorialgeschichte des nordlichen Ostjordanlandes (Wiesbaden,
1970); N. Glueck, Explorations in Eastem Palestine, IV. (AASOR 25-28) (New Haven, 1951).
26. SeeM. Broshi, "The Expansion ofJerusalem in the Reign ofHezekiah and Manasseh," IEJ24 (1974):
21-26.
27. Y. Ben Arieh, "The Development of Twelve Major Settlements in Nineteenth Century Palestine,"
Cathedra 42 (1981); Y. Ben Arieh, "The Population of Palestine on the Eve of the Zionist Settle-
66 ISRAEL FINKELSTEIN
ment." in Y. B<.>n Arieh, et al., (eds.), Historicai-Geo~raphicaf Studies it1 the Settlement of Eretz Israel,
Qcrusalem, 1987), pp. 1-14 (Hebrew).
28. J . M . Miller, "Moab in the Iron I," inN. Na)aman and I. Finkelstein (eds.), From Nomadism to Monar-
chy: ArchaeoloJ!ical at1d Historical Aspects of Early Israel Qerusalem, 1990), p.254 (Hebrew).
29. S. Hart, "The Edom Survey Project 1984-1985: The Iron Age ," in Studies in the Archaeology and His-
tory ojjordan III. ed. A. Hadidi, (Amman, 1987), pp. 287- 290; B. Macdonald, The Wadi el Hasa Archae-
ological Survey 1979- 1983, West-Central jordan {Waterloo, Ontario, 1988).
30. JR. Bartlett, Edom ar1d the Edomites (Sheffield, 1989).
31. I. Finkelstein, The Archaeolozy of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 330-335.
32. Broshi and Gophna, "Middle Bronze" (see note 5); idem, "The Settlements" (see note 5).
33. B. Oded, Mass Deportations ar1d Deportees i11 the Neo-Assyria n Empire (Wiesbaden, 1979); Na)aman,
''Population Changes" (see note 16).
34. Broshi and Gophna , "Middle Bronze" (see note 5); idem, "The Settlements" (see note 5); M . Broshi,
"The Population ofWestern Palestine in the Roman-Byzantine Period," BASOR 236 (1980): 1-10.
35. W.D. Hutteroth, and K. Abdulfattah, Historical Geo~raphy of Palestine, TratiSjordarl and Southern Syria
ill the Late 16th Cet1tury (Erlangen, 1977).
36. Ben Arieb (see note 27).
37. Finkelstein, "Land of Ephraim" (see note 9).
38. Calculated on the basis of data in: Y. B en Arieh, "The Popula~ion of Sanjak Acre in the Eighteen-
seventies," Shalem 4 (1984): 307-328 (Hebrew); Y. Ben Arieh, "The Sanjak of Jerusalem in the
1870s," CaLiredra 36 (1985): 73-122 (Hebrew); Y . Ben Arieh, "The Villages in Sanjak Gaza {includ-
ing Jaffa and Ramla) in the Eighteen-seventies," Shalem 5 (1987): 139-187 {Hebrew); Y. Ben A rich
and A. Golan, "Sub-Districts and Settlements of the Sanjak of Nablus in the 19th Century,"
Eretz-Israel 17 {1984): 38 - 65 (Hebrew).
39. According to Broshi, "The Population" (see note 34).
40. Ben Arieh, "The Development" (see note 27).
41. Calculation based upon data in Ben Arieh, "The Population" {see note 38); Ben Arieh, "The Sanjak"
(see note 38); Ben Arieh, "The Villages" {see note 38); Ben Arieh and Golan, "Sub-Districts" (see
note 38).
42. Finkelstein, "The Emergence" (see note 11).
43. Ofer, "j udean Hill" (see note 9).
44. Finkelstein, "The Emergence'' (see note 11 ).
45. L. E. Stager, "Ancient Agriculture in the Judaean Desert. A Case Study of the Buqecah Valley" (Ph .D .
d iss., Harvard University, 1975).
46. P. Bar-Adon , "Excavations in the Judean Desert," <Atiqot 9 (1989) (Hebrew).
47. A. Eitan, "Vered Yericho," Jiadasltot Arkheologiot 82 (1983): 43-44 (Hebrew) .
48. A. Mazar, D. Arnie, and z. Ilan, "The 'Border Road' between Michrnash and Jericho and Excavations
at Horvat Shi lhah," Eretz-Israe/17 {1984): 236-250 (Hebrew).
49 . B. Mazar, T. Dothan, and I. Dunayevsky, "En-Gedi: The First and Second Seasons of Excavations
1961-1962," <Atiqot 5 (1966): 17-38.
50. A. Biran, "Tel Ira and Aroer Towards the End of the Judean Monarchy," Cathedra 42 (1987): 26-33
(Hebrew); Y. Beit Arieh, "Tel Ira and Horvat Uza: Negev Sites in the Late Israelite Period," Cathedra
42 {1987): 34- 38 (Hebrew).
51. Broshi, "The Expansion" (see note 26).
52. Z. Herzog, "From Nomadism ro Monarchy in the Beer-sheba Valley," in N. Na)aman, and I.
Finkelstein (eds.), From Nomadism to Morwrchy: Archaeolo~ical and Historical Aspects of Early Israel
Oerusalem, 1990): 215-241 (Hebrew) .
53. For historical background, see N. Na)aman, "The Negev in the Last Century of the Kingdom of
Judah," Cathedra 42 (1989): 3-15 (Hebrew).
54. N. Na)aman, "The Town-Lists of Judah and Benjamin and the Kingdom of Judah in the Days of
Josiah," Zion 54 (1989): 17-71 (Hebrew) .