Solomon's District List (1 Kings 4: 7-19) and the Assyrian Province System in Palestine

Nadav Na'aman, Tel Aviv

1 Introduction

Following the list of the high officials serving under Solomon (I Kgs 4: 2-6) is a list of prefects appointed to admini ster the twelve districts of his kingdom (vv. 7- 19). The name of each official is followed by a short description of the district's location. Occasionally, a more elaborate demarcation was given.

These short descriptions have been a stumbling-block for scholars, and many works have been written in an attempt to locate the districts and interpret the I ist (Alt 191 3; Abel 1938:79-83 and map 5; Albright 1925:25- 36; Wright 1967; Noth 1968:55- 58, 66- 75; Pintore 1970 ; Mettinger 197 1: 111- 27; Caquot 1972; Aharon i 1976 ; Rosel 1984 ; Kallai 1986:40- 72; Niemann 1993 :27-4 1; 246-5 1, 1997:279-88; Fritz 1995; Neef 1995:285- 297; Ash 1995; Hess I 997; Mulder 1998 : 169- 86; Kamiah 2001 ). Among these works is an art icle of mine (Na'aman 1986 : 167- 201 ), entitled "The District System in the Time of the United Monarchy (1 Kgs 4: 7-19)." Although some textual and geographical problems have been satisfactori ly solved, other questions have either remained unanswered or are still disputed. Recently, scholars raised new questions, not di scussed in the older research. These new questions mainly concern the date and historicity of the district system and the source(s) available to the author.

Discussion of the Solomonic district list was conducted for many years on the assumption that it rested on a document wri tten in the time of Solomon. The histories of David and Solomon, as delineated in the Books of Samuel and Kings, were regarded as evidence for extensive writing in the tenth centllly BCE court of Jerusalem. Thus, scholars suggested that the lists of high officials and prefects in l Kgs 4 were copied from original records written in the court of Je­rusalem for administrative purposes and reflect the reality of Solomon's time. However, these claims of extensive writing in the tenth century cou11 of Jerusa­lem, and of an early development of historiography in Israel, have been severely criticized in recent research and can no longer be upheld. The beginning of hi s­torical writing in Judah probably did not antedate the eighth century BCE. The biblical history of the United Monarchy was recently called into question, and many details included therein have been critically re-examined. Some scholars took these developments into consideration and suggested new solutions to the

420 N. Na'aman (UF 33

Solomonic district list (Ash 1995; Niemann 1993:27-4 1 . 246- 51 ; 1997 :279 88; Kamiah 200 I).

In what follows I will first critically examine these recent works and then analyze in detail the text of I Kgs 4: 7- 19. In light of the results, I will try to ex­amine the date and historical background of the district system, the kind of source which could have reached the author of the Book of Kings, and the way in which it was reworked by a late redactor.

2 Some Recent Studies of the Solo monic District System

As noted in the introduction, it is widely accepted today that wri ting for adm in­istrative purpose in the tenth century court of Jerusalem. was minimal, and that the composition of historiographical works began at much later time. Scribes working in the small cowi of Jemsalem in the tenth century BCE did not pro­duce texts of the kind of Solomon's twelve pre fects and their districts. Some scholars have even suggested that literacy was introduced to the court of Jem­salem only in the eighth century, so that no tmstworthy sources could have been avai lable to the historian who wrote the history of the Un ited Monarchy (see e. g., Davies 1992:67- 70; Thompson 1992:409- 10 ; Lemche 1993; 1994: 183-89; 1997:332- 34; Gelinas 1995). Moreover, the Book of Kings was composed no earlier than the late seventh century BCE, hundreds of years after the time of the United Monarchy, and it is doubtful whether tenth century BCE sources sur­vived in this late period.

In a critical article on the Solomonic district list, Ash (1995) questioned its validity as a source for the time of Solomon. In his opinion , both its relation to Solomon and its relation to any district system are highly questionable. He noted the absence of Yahwistic names among the governors, and concluded that the list of names is early. He then suggested that the district list was drawn from an oral transmission, which would explain the lack of uniformity in the demarca­tion of the districts. However, Ash did not discuss the district list in detail , and his claim of confusion of names and places in the list is exaggerated. Moreover, it is unlikely that the kind of information that was immersed in the dist rict list was transmitted orally. Either the historian had drawn the geographic details- in part or in its entirety- from a written source, or he had composed it- using no early source--on the basis of the reality of his own time.

In a series ofworks, Niemann (1993:27-4 1.246- 51; 1997:279-88; 2000: 61- 74) tried to fit the Solomonic district system to the reality of Solomon's time. His point of depatiUre was the assumption that the list of governors and districts reflects the situation of the tenth century BCE, and must be interpreted in a way that would fit what he conceived to be the rea lity of this time. He sug­gested that the term ni~~abfm does not mean "governors," but rather "represen­tatives." According to his interpretation they were either members of the local or regional elite in the country, or members of the court elite in Jemsalem, who represented Solomon 's interests in the named regions. The districts are not ad-

2001 ) Solomon's District List (I Kings 4; 7-19) 421

mtntstrative units within Solomon's kingdom but rather regions with which Solomon kept close contact, and the twelve representatives were his allies among the local /regional elite. The system reflects the beginning of a transit ion from chiefdom to state, and the effort to stabilize royal influence in the remote areas of the country.

Niemann's reconstruction rests on the presupposition that the district system mirrored the political and social conditions of the tenth century BCE. ll owcver, the text of 1 Kgs 4:7- 19, or its assumed source, were written many years after the time of Solomon, and it is unlikely that original documents dated to the United Monarchy were available to the late author. The assumption of a detailed administrative document written either in Jerusalem or in the Northern Kingdom and representing the district system of the tenth century, cannot be sustained. By a-priori dating a document to a cetiain period and reconstructing its meaning according to the assumed reality of that period, one risks arguing in a circle. There is no evidence that the term ni~~abfm means anythi ng other than "gover­nors"; its interpretation as "representatives" is not suppotied by any biblical ref­erence. The author of I Kgs 4:7- 19 put fotward a list of governors (ni.y~abfm ), appointed to adm inister the twelve named districts, and this straightforward meaning of the text is the point-of-departure for the discussion of its date, sources and composition.

On the basis of an analysis of the I ist of names, Kamiah (200 I) dated the district list to the time of Solomon and suggested that it was composed either in Solomon's time or shortly afterwards. The districts are not part of a well-organ­ized administrative system and have no fixed borders or administrative centres. Their inhabitants did not pay tax or tributes to the royal court of Jerusalem. However, the local eli te in these twelve regions kept close contacts with Solo­mon, and the persons called ni,~~abfm, which according to Kamiah were "Re­gionalftirsten," represented these regions in Solomon's court.

The conclusions of Kamiah are quite similar to those of Niemann and the critical notes directed against Niemann's reconstmction are equally true of Kamiah's interpretation of the district system.

3 The Place of Judah in the District list

To facilitate the discussion, I will firs t designate the districts consecutively :

District I - Mount Ephraim District II - Shaalbim, Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan District III - Sochoh and all the land of Hepher District IV - The region of Dor District V - The western Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys District VI - The Havoth of Jair in Gilead and the region of Argob in Bashan District VII - Mahanaim District VIII - Naphtali District IX - Asher and b'/wt.

422 N. Na'aman [UF 33

District X - Issachar District XI - Benj amin District XII - The land of Judah

According to the MT, Judah was not included in the district system. How­ever, some scholars have proposed that the word ' Judah' was dropped at the end of I Kgs 4: 19 due to haplography. This is suppotied by the text of LXX13

L. Ac­cording to this emendation of MT, the twelfth district is represented as "And there was one officer in the land of Judah," without mentioning the name of the govemor (for discussion, see e. g., Bumey, 1903 :46-47; Montgomery 195 1 : 121- 23 . 126; Noth 1968: 58; Mettinger 197 1 : 121- 24 ; Caquot 1972 :280- 83; Kallai 1986:44-46 ; Mulder 1998: 185- 86).

A decisive argument in favour of the inclusion of Judah in the district list is provided by an analysis of its stmcture. The districts in the centre of the country, covering the territories of the northem Shephelah, the highlands of Ephraim and Manasseh, the eastem plain of Sharon and the western Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys (Districts I- V), are mentioned fi rst. They are followed by the Transjor­danian areas (Districts VI- VII). Then come the noti hern tribes (Districts VIII­X), and finally the area of the kingdom of Judah (Districts XI- XII). V. 19 "Geber, the son of Uri, in the Land of Gilead ... ," adding another Trans­jordan ian district, is obviously out of place, and does not fit in this consecutive arrangement of the districts. The expression 'all Israel' is used twice in this chapter (I Kgs 4 : I . 7), indicating that the author had the enti re kingdom of Israel in mind . It is evident that Judah was part of the district list.

An indication of a textual interference in v. 19 is to be found in the spelling of ,{.~lb . Solomon's prefects are repeatedly called ni!f!fiibfm in the descriptions of his reign (1 Kgs 4:5 .7 . 27 [= MT 5 : 7]; 5: 16 [= MT 5 : 30]; 9: 23). On the other hand, ,{:jiblm , was the title of Israelite governors of foreign countries ( I Sam 10 :5; 13 :3 .4 ; cf. 1 Chr 11: 16; 2 Sam 8:6 .14). Only in the late tradit ion of the Book of Chronicles are the Israelite prefects called n•.~ibfm (2 Chr 8: I 0 [K] ; 17: 2). It is thus clear that the appearance of the title n":jib in I Kgs 4 : 19 came from the hand of a later redactor (Na'aman 1986: 175- 76 ; Ash 1995: 77). 1

As several scholars have suggested, most of v. 19, where a third Transjorda­nian district seemingly appears, must be regarded as an interpolation (Albright 1925:26- 27.34; Mettinger 1971 : 121- 122; see Zadok 1988 : 48). It seems to me that the governor's name (Geber, the son of Uri) is part of the original text, which may be reconsttucted "Geber, the son of Uri , in the land of Judah (b' r!f yhwdh)." A late redactor interpolated a long sentence ("in the land of Gilead ... ; and (there was] one J{:j/b") after his name, thereby detaching the prefect's name

1 For the verb n~b and its derivatives, sec Reindl 1998. The suggestion of Niemann ( 1993:33- 35. 248; 1997: 282- 86) to interpret ni~~abfm in the sense of "representatives", "delegates", is not supported by the analysis of the verb n~·b and its derivatives in the Bible. Kamla 's suggestion (200 1 : 74- 75) to interpret niJJabfm in the sense of "Rcgional­fiirstcn" is not better founded.

200 1] Solomon's District List (I Kings 4: 7 19) 423

(Geber) from its original district (the land of Judah), and leaving the latter dis­trict without governor's name.

I would further suggest that most of v. 19 was inserted in order to garble the statement that the land of Judah had been included in Solomon 's corvee system. The redactor created a third Transjordanian district by combining a variation of District VI (v. 13) with a quotation from the description of the conquest of Transjordan by the Israelite tribes. By the addition of an artificial twelfth dis­trict, the land of Judah remained outside the distri ct list. The insertion may be compared to the insertion of I Kgs 9: 20-22 by a redactor who sought to clear Solomon of the offence of mobilizing his Israeli te subjects for corvee work (Veijola 1966:66 n. 98 ; Wtirthwein 1977 : 109.1 12- 113; Dietrich 1986 : 10-13).2

4 Textual Criticism and Topographical Analysis of the District List

To properly evaluate the district list we must fi rst analyze the text of I Kgs 4: 7-17 and establi sh the setting of the mentioned toponyms. An emphasis wi ll be laid on difficult verses whose interpretation is disputed among scholars.

4.1 The First and Third Districts

The first district is defined as "Mount Ephraim" (v. 8). Its western confines are different from those of the inheritance of Ephraim, which reached the Mediter­ranean, thus including the Sharon coast (Josh 16: 3. 5- 6 . 8), whereas in the dis­trict system the coast was included in a separate entity (District IV ; see below). The southern border of Mount Ephraim reached the di strict of Benjamin (Dis­trict XI) and is identical with that of Ephraim's allotment.

The northern confines of Mount Ephraim are disputed. Some have assumed that it extended over the entire nuclear inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh (Abel 1938:8 1; Loewenstamm 1950: 513; Noth 1953: 125. 127 ; 1960 :60 ; Aha­roni 1967:26- 27. 193; 1976 :8- 9 ; Pintore 1970: 179 . 198 ; Na'aman 1986: 158-66; Neef 1995:289- 290. 296- 297). Others proposed that Mount Ephraim corre­sponded to Ephraim's allotment, i. e., that its noti hern border was identical with the boundaty of the inheritance (Kallai 1986 :47-49. 127.459-461 ). Resolution of the controversy depends on the demarcation of the confines of Mount Ephraim's northern neighbour, the third district.

District III is described thus : "The son of Hesed, in Am both; to him be­longed Sochoh and all the land of Hepher" (v. I 0). Aruboth ('arubb6t), the cen­tre of the district, may safely be identified with the town of Rubutu, which is

2 The Chronicler (2 Chr 2: 17 [ = MT 2: 16]) also ' improved ' the text of 1 Kgs 5 : 13 [ = MT 5: 27] with regard to the forced labour imposed by Solomon on the people of Is­rael.

424 N. Na'aman [UF 33

mentioned in a late 151h century letter discovered at Taanach (TT No. I) (Al­

bright 1944: 19 n, 36).3 Lines 24- 30 of this letter run as fo llows (see Rainey 1999: 156*, Na'aman 2000: 378): "And send back word concerning the servant girl, Kan[.], who is in the town of Rubutu, concerning her welfa re and if it is acceptable, give her for the ransom or (sell her) to a master." Rubutu was lo­cated in the kingdom of Taanach and Riwashur, Taanach 's ruler, hold there the slave girl. Zertal ( 1984:72- 76; 1992a) suggested locating Am both at Khirbet ei­I:Iamam, in the hilly area southwest of the valley of Dothan. However, no Late Bronze pottery has been found in the excavations of the site and his suggested identification must be abandoned. Recently I suggested that Rubutu of the Taanach letter is identical with the Rbt of the topographical I ists of Thutmose Ill and Shi shak and the Rubutu of the A marna letters of Jerusalem (Na'aman 2000). The plain of Dothan is the most likely location of Amboth / Rubutu and Tell el­Mul~afar, which is the largest mound in the plain, is the most likely candidate for this important city.

Sochoh was located in the eastern plain of Sharon (Khirbet Shuweiket er­Ras), on the main road leading from the northern Shephclah to the Jezreel Val­ley. Ze1tal (1992b) identified the city ofHepher (Josh 12: 17) with Tell ei-Mul~a­far, at the no1thcrn fringes of the valley of Dothan. However, a city named Hep­her is neither mentioned among the hundreds of toponyms that appear in second millennium BCE sources nor is it mentioned in post-biblical sources. Even in the Bi ble it appears only in the list of conquered Canaanite cities (Josh 12: 17). Therefore I agree with Lemaire ( 1972: 14- 16; 1977: 61- 62) that Hepher was not a city's name, but rather the name of a vast region (I Kgs 4: I 0) whose five dis­tricts are personified by the names of Hepher's five granddaughters (Num 26: 32-33, 27: I; Josh 17: 2- 3). The regional name Hepher was selected by the author of Josh 12 as representative of the northem Sa marian hill country, which is not includec.<l in the conquest tradition of the Book of Joshua.

The key to the delineation of the third district is the term "the land of He­pher." As fi rst suggested by Lemaire (1972; 1977 :61- 65.287-289; see Zertal 1984 :65-78; Na'aman 1986: 158- 162), it encompassed the territory of the five 'daughters ' (i. e., sub-districts) of Zelophehad, extending between Na~a l Ti rzah (Wadi Far'ah) and the city of Samaria to the south, the Jezreel Valley to the north, and the plain of Sharon to the west. The southern confines of the land of Hepher (i. e., the southern border of the third district) are congruent with the no1them confines of the first district (Mount Ephraim). The territory of the five 'sons' (i. e., sub-districts) of Manasseh extended south of the land of Hepher. Thus, Mount Ephraim comprised the mountainous pmts of Ephraim 's inheri­tance as well as the area of Manasseh 's five 'sons.'

The question remains, to which di strict did the eastern Sharon belong? The third district, as we have just shown, included the mountainous areas called the land of Hepher, as well as a strip of the plain of Sharon indicated by the city of

3 Aleph is often dropped from, or added to the beginning of a word in a transmission of old names to Arabic. Sec Zadok 1978: 164- 165; 1982 : 124.

2001] Solomon's D1stnc1 List ( 1 Kings 4: 7 -19) 425

Sochoh (for similar geographical conclusions, see Albright 1925:29; Wright 1967: 62*- 64*; Mettinger 197 1 : 11 3 116). In the system of the Assyrian prov­inces, the city of Aphck was associated with the district of Samcrlna. Moreover, Assyrian admi nistrative centre and settlements of deportees located in the east­ern plain of Sharon were included in the province of Samenna (Na'aman and Zadok 2000: 179- 182). In this light we may suggest that the eastern parts of the Sharon plain, between Sochoh and Aphek, were divided between Districts I and III.

4.2 The Second District

The district is defined as: "The son of Ocker, in Makaz and in Shaalbim and Beth-shemesh and Elon-beth-hanan" (v. 9) (Puzo 1949; Caquot 1972:276-277; Barthelemy 1982:338; Mulder 1998 : 174-75, with earlier literature). Makaz is mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. Elsewhere (Na'aman 1986: 114- 115) I have suggested that mq$ is an abbreviation of the Hebrew word mq$h ("from the end of'), which appears in other border descriptions (Josh 15: 2b; 18: !Sa), and that the origi nal text may be reconstructed: "from the end of Shaalbim ... " Shaalbim, Beth-shcmesh and Elon are known fro m the city list of Dan (Josh 19: 42-44). The name I:Ianan is mentioned in two inscriptions from Beth­shemesh and Tel Batash, dated to either the tenth or the ninth century BCE (Mazar 1994:254- 56; Bunimovitz and Lederman 1997 : 29- 30). In view of an analogy to the name Abel-beth-maacah (Abel of the clan/ tribe of Maacah), Elon-beth-hanan may be interpreted as Elon of the clan of I.Janan . The name I~Ianan probably refers to a clan which dwelt ncar NalJal Sorck (Wadi e~-$arar), in the northern Shephclah.4

Of the three cities mentioned in the second district, Shaalbim (Selbit) and Bcth-shemesh are identified with certainty. The former is located n01th of Na~al Aijalon (Wadi el-Kabir) and the latter south of Nal~al Sorek (Wadi e~-$arar). Elon is mentioned before Timnah (Tel Batash) in the city list of Dan, and may be located in its vicinity. District II is defined by three towns, one located near Nal~al Aijalon and two near Na~al Sorek. Significantly, the city of Gezer is not included in the district. We may conclude that District II encompassed a small terri tory in the no1thern Shephelah, covering only the easternmost part of Dan's allotment.5

4.3 The Fourth District

District IV is described thus : "The son of Abinadab, in all napa/ Dor." (v . I I a) .

4 Zadok (1988: 47-48) suggested that the toponym Beth Hanan was perhaps named after the Bcnjaminite clan of J:!anan mentioned in I Chr 8:23. 5 For the suggestion that District II encompassed only the eastern parts of the northern Shcphelah, see Mazar 1960:67- 69 ; Fri tz 1995:21 - 22.

426 N. Na'aman (UF 33

The term napah must have designated a particular characteristic of the district of Dor; its exact meaning, however, is disputed (For recent discuss ion, see Mulder 1998 : 176- 77).

The size of the district is unknown, and can be determined only from the de­li neation of its neighbours. As was suggested above, the eastern parts of the Sharon were included in the first and third districts. Consequently, "all napat Dor" possibly covered the narrow strip of the Sharon coast, between Mount Carmel in the north and the Jarkon River in the south. It bordered on the land of the Philistines in the south and the plain of Acco, beyond the Carmel, in the north (this delineation of District IV was fi rst suggested by Albright 1925: 29.3 1- 32).

After conquering and annexing parts of the kingdom of Israel in 733/32 BCE, the Assyrians created a separate province along the seashore, which they called by the name of its capital, Du'ru (Dor). It is mentioned both in an Assy­rian administrative list and in a geographical list (Forrer 1920 :52 .54.60. 69 ; A It 1929:234- 37; Fales and Postgate 1995 : 180: 5 . 6). Finkel and Reade ( 1998: 253) recently suggested that the prefect of Dor was Assyrian eponym (limmu) for the year 693, but the reading of the province's name is uncertain (for the material culture of Dor under the Assyrians, see Gilboa 1996). District IV probably cov­ered the same territory as the Assyrian province of Du'ru, the latter might have replaced the fom1er Israeli te district of the monarchical period .

4.4 The Fifth District

The fifth district is described in great detail: "Baana, the son of Ahilud, in Taanach, Megiddo, and all Beth-shean which is beside Zarethan below Jezreel, and from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah to beyond Jokmeam" (v. 12). The de­scription does not make geographical sense, and all exegetes find it necessary to suggest textual modifications and transpositions in order to arrive at a compre­hensive te'rritorial picture (Mulder 1998: 177- 80, with earlier literature). The best geographical sense was suggested by Albright (1 925 : 26 . 32- 34), who re­constructed the original text as fo llows: "Taanach and Megiddo as far as beyond Jokneam, and all Beth-shean below Jezreel, from Beth-shean to Abel-meholah, which is near Zarethan." According to this rendering, the author systematically delineated the district' s two main geographical regions: fi rst, the western Jezreel Valley, which covers the area between the territories of Taanach and Megiddo and that of Jokneam ; secondly the valley of Beth-shean, located between the cities of Beth-shean and Abel-meholah (possibly Tell Abu ~u~) . the latter being situated near Zarethan (whose location is disputed among scholars). However, Albright's ingenious rendering involves the drastic correction of order from abcdefg to abgcefd, and is not supported by the versions. Other transpositions of the text suggested by scholars are not better founded.

The author of I Kgs 4 :7- 19 probably lived in Jerusalem, far away from the Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys . Lack of acquaintance with the geographical re-

2001) Solomon's District List (I Kings 4 :7 19) 427

ali ty in far off areas may explain why he described all the nott hern and eastern districts (Districts VI, VII, VIII, IX, X) in such an abridged form.6 Why then did he delineate District V in such an exceptionally detailed form? Tentatively (and with a big question mark), I would suggest that the addition of the geo­graphically unintell igible patt of v. 12 is the result of the work of a late redactor, who was unacquainted with the geography of the nmthern plains. 7 According to thi s assumption, the original text included only the fi rst pati of v. 12 ("Baana, the son of Ahilud , in Taanach, Megiddo, and all Beth-shean"). The rest was in­terpolated by the redactor, who mixed up the toponyms in a way that precludes geographical sense from the description.

This, of course, is a conjecture that cannot be veri fied, but it resolves two major problems : (a) the exceptional form of v. 12, which is the only detailed delineation in the district system; (b) the unintelligible order of toponyms in the description.

4.5 The Sixth and Seventh Districts

The description of the sixth district (v. 13) fo llows the pattern of the third dis­trict: fi rst the seat ofthe governor is mentioned (Ramoth-gilead), then the names of the district's geographical regions, preceded by the preposition with pro­nominal suffi x lw (" to him"). These regions are the Havoth of Jair, which are in the Gilead, and the Argob, which is in Bashan. Ramot-gilead, the dis trict's capital, may probably be located at Ramtha (G.R. 247 2 12), on the eastern tinges of Jebel 'Ajlun, east of Irbid. This identification seems preferable to the commonly held location of Ramoth-gilead at Tell er-Rumet or Tell el -f:Io~n

(contra Lemaire 198 1:45; Weippert 1997:32- 33, with earlier literature in n. 67). The Havoth of Jair was apparently a name of the mountainous areas of the Gilead north of the Jabbok River (today Jebel 'Ajlun). It is wott h noting that in Deuteronomic-Deuteronomistie literature, the Havoth of Jair are located in the region of Bashan (Deut 3 : 14 ; Josh 13 :30), whereas in Priestly literature and the Book of Judges it is located in the Gilead (Num 32: 4 1 ; Judg 19:4 ). Scholars noted that two distinct groups of texts that pertains to Transjordan, with different pictures of settlement and conquered kingdoms, appear in biblical histori ogra-

6 For the assumption of a northern origin of the list, sec Albright 1925 :36. Knauf ( 1991 : 178) suggested a possible Om ride date for the list. Niemann ( 1997 : 287- 88) ex­amined three possible solutions for the origin of the text and concluded that the text, in its early form, is very early, and was wri tten either in the court of Jerusalem in the time of Solomon or in the Northern Kingdom under the Omrides. " In any case, whether the basic structure is Solomonic or Omridian, it is still true that it represents a cautious, wide-meshed fi rst phase." (cited from p. 288). Ash ( 1995: 84) suggested that the data included in the text was brought ora lly to Judah after the fall of the Northern Kingdom and then "selected, abbreviated and garbled" by Jerusalemite scribes. 7 For another case of a late redactor, who was not acquainted with the geographical rea l­ity of the Jezrecl Valley and mixed up the narrative clements, sec Na'aman 1990 :426-32 .

42R N. Na'aman [UF 33

phy: group A, which is earl ier and appears in Numbers and Judges, and group B, which is refl ected in Deuteronomy and Joshua (Weinfeld 1983; Kallai 1983; 1986:247- 259; Kaswalder 1986). In the Solomonic district system, the Havoth of Jair are localized in Gilead, according to the tradi tion of the early group (A) and contrary to the picture of the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua.

According to biblical texts, the region of Argob was large, encompassing sixty large fortified cities (Deut 3:4 ; I Kgs 4: 13 ; see Josh 13 : 30 ; I Chr 2 : 23). It was identifi ed with the territoty of Og, the king of Bashan, whose seat was at Ashtaroth (Deut 3: 4 , 13) and bordered with the Aramaic kingdoms of Geshur and Maacah, situated in the Golan Heights (Deut 3: 14 ; see Josh 12: 5). Tenta­tively, the region of Argob encompassed the plain of Bash an, between the Golan Heights in the west, ci-Leja and Jebel Druz in the east, and the course of the Yarmuk river in the south (Hildesheimer 1914; Thompson 1992 : 376 ; Mulder 1998: 180- 182, with earlier literature).8 The citi es of Ashtaroth, Edrei and pos­sibly Salchah must have been the major cities in this region (Deut 3: I 0 ; Josh 12: 4- 5; 13: 11- 12).

The seventh district (v. 14) is marked by a single place, Mahanaim, which was certainly its capital. Of all the twelve districts, the description of the seventh is the least clear. We may ask, why did the author not complete his description, but left such a fragmentaty definition ? Tentati vely, I would suggest that a fter the word 'Mahanaim, ' the description was deliberately truncated by the late redac­tor, who interpolated v. 19. The original description of the district system may have contained a supplementary definition of the seventh district (e. g., "to him was the land of Gad"). Since it conflicted with the interpolated verse by refer­ring to the same area, the redactor cut it from the text and left the district unde­fined.

The seventh district bordered the kingdoms of Ammon and Moab on the east and south. Since the northern border of the kingdom of Moab in the late ninth­seventh centuries BCE reached Wadi ei-Kefren (Na'aman 1995a : II 0- 13, wi th earlier literature), I suggest that this was also the southern border of District VII.

4.6 The Ninth District

District IX is defined thus : "Baana, the son of Hushai, in Asher and Bealoth" (v. 16). Like the eighth and tenth districts, the description of the ninth district opens with a name of a tribe, but is followed by the enigmatic toponym be'a/6t

which is nowhere else connected with this northwestern region. On the basis of the LXX Maala , Maalot , some scholars suggested to emend the text and read b<1m 'lwt (~r) ("in the Ladder of Tyre") (Then ius 1873:37- 38 ; Sanda 191 1 :83; Gray 1970: 139 ; Mulder 1998 : 183- 84, with earli er literature; see Zwickel 1997: 387- 89). However, the coastal region between Tyre and Acco was never

8 There is no textual evidence that supports the identification of the region of Argob with the Yarmuk river (contra Kamiah 200 1 :65 and n. 39).

200 1] Solomon's District List (I Kings 4: 7-19) 429

part of the kingdom of Israel, and there is no indication that Ma'aloth was an old name for this coast, or for part of it.

Three Galilean tribes are mentioned by name (Naphtali, Asher, and Issachar), and only Zebulun appears to be missing. Some scholars assumed that Zcbulun 's name must have been recorded and suggested that b'lwt is a corruption of Ze­bulun. Accordingly, they emended the text to "in Asher and Zebulun" (Ait 1913: 14 n. 2; Abel 1938 :80. 82; Wright 1967:59* and n. 8, Mettinger 197 1: 118; Aharoni 1976: 12).9

This assumption resolves two major problems : (a) the absence of the tribe of Zebulun from the district li st; (b) the appearance of the unknown toponym b'lwt (or 'lwt) . However, an interchange of b'lwt and zbwlwn is epigraphicall y difficu lt (for criticism, see Montgomery 1951 : 126; Kallai 1986 :66- 68; Ahl strom 1979 : 79- 80 ; Fritz 1995: 19- 20). Nor is the suggestion supported by the versions . B'llvt (or 'llvt) was probably a name of a city or a region, its identification had best be left open until a convincing solution is put forward.

. l-1

AI '1o,., \ Tyre

I ( 4J q <l:'

~ ® -- .).,

~ - ~

"' ® ...: ~ z

[!ea:§ij \). Jol< neam ® , •. ~~

"' • # (' L. Meg iddo 1>-c; ' %. • ,ss ) Taanach G)

• 5

Arubolh •

'f b' ;:: Shoal 1m e

LAND OF

ILEPHER (D

Q)

MOUNT

EPHRAIM

BENJAMlN

I .....

• Bylh - Shean ~

• Abei -Mehalah

Mohon aim • " /'>. JobtiO~

(j)

!:; @ • Jerusalem .:::;' [E lon - BelhJ• .:r;. i - l!gngo Belh- Shemesh

Q,

LAND OF

J UDAH

l o<o

~() \>-

®

e Ramolh-Gilead

----._ I o •c.~ II

----------------~--~-------------

9 The conjecture was epigraphically supported by Cross (in Wright 1967: 59*).

430 N. Na'aman (UF 33

5 Date, Sources and Composition of Solomon's District System

It must be emphasized at the outset that the conclusions drawn in this section depend in pa11 on the above literary and topographical discussion. I have sug­gested that the land of Judah was part of the orig inal district li st and that a late redactor inserted a third Transjordanian d istrict to replace the displaced district of Judah. I have further suggested (though with a big question mark) that the second part of v. 12 (after the words " and all Beth-shean") was interpolated by a late redactor and that v. 14 (after the word " Mahanaim") was cut sh011 by the redactor. Crucial to my discussion is the claim that Judah was part of the orig i­nal district list, and that a third Transjordanian district had no part in it. The sug­gested so lutions for vv. 12 and 14 are not necessary for my historical recon­struction.

The d istrict system as related in 1 Kgs 4 : 7- 19 may be divided into four main territorial blocs - northern, central and southern large units west of the Jordan, and another large unit in Transjordan-each sub-divided into a number of d is­tricts. The northern unit is d ivided into three districts (VIII- X) called by the names of tribes (Naphtali , Asher and b'lwt, and Issachar). The southern unit is comprised of two districts (XI- XII) called by tribal and regional names (Benja­min and the land of Judah). One Transjordani an di strict (VI) is de fined by the names of two regions (the Havoth of Jair and the region of Argob ), whereas the second district has only the governor's seat (Mahanaim).

Of the five central west Jordanian districts, Districts I, III are defined by re­gion names (Mount Ephraim and niipat Dor). Describing districts II , III and V must have been more difficult, because they did not overlap with a single well­defined tribal or regional area. The easternmost part of the northern Shephe lah (District II) was defined by the names of three towns. The eastern plain of Sharon and the mountainous areas on its west (District III) were defined by the combination of a city's (Sochoh) and region's (the land of Hepher) names. The nucleus of'District V is the western Jezreel and Beth-shean valleys.

It must be emphasized that d istricts called by names of tribes are not neces­sarily congruent w ith the tribal inheritances as defi ned in Josh 13- 19. The two systems were described at different times by different authors, and have d iffer­ent ideologies and compositional principles (Na'aman 1986 : 84- 95). Unl ike the tribal allotments , the d istrict system does not indicate its author' s interest in the exact demarcat ion of the external and internal borders, and it is not clear whether he had an accurate delineation of the d istricts in mind. When preparing a map of the districts it is impoti ant to delineate what is known and avoid drawing lines in areas where demarcation remains uncertain.

The Solomonic d istrict system is closely related in structure to the system of Assyrian provinces of the late eighth- seventh century BCE in Palestine. The Assyrians established three provinces in the west Jordanian territory of the for­mer kingdom of Israel : Magidu, Du'ru and SamerTna. The Gilead is presented in Tiglath-pil eser III 's inscriptions as an integral part of the "widespread land of BH Haza'ili," i. e. , as a di strict of the kingdom of Damascus, which he conquered

2001) Solomon's District List (I Kings 4: 7- 19) 431

and annexed in 732 BCE (Na'aman 1995a : 105- 106. II 0- 11 4 ). No wonder that it was included in the Assyrian province of Qarnini and was administered from the city of Karnaim (Assyrian Qarnini, modern Sheikh Sa' ad), the province's capital (Kellermann 198 1, with earlier literature ; Schmitt 1985; Na'aman 1995b: I 05- 11 1 ). The province of Magidu covers Districts V, VIII- X; the province of Du'ru is identical to District IV; the province of Samerlna overlaps Districts I and III , and it seems that in both systems the eastern plain of Sharon is pa11 of the highlands district(s) on its east. The province of Qarnini probably covers Districts VI- VII. Finally, the kingdom of Judah, which was a tribute­paying vassal of Assyria, comprises Districts XI- XII .

The territorial hist01y of District II deserves a detailed discussion. It encom­passed a small area on the eastern side of the northern Shephelah. The city of Gezer, located west of the district, was formerly a Israelite city that was annexed by Assyria in 732 BCE (Tadmor 1994: 84. 2 10-11. 23 9 .247--48) and served as one of the administrative centres of the province of Samerlna (Reich and Brandl 1985). Beth-shemesh was a Judahite city in the eighth century BCE as indicated by 2 Kgs 14 : II. It was destroyed during Sennacherib's campaign of70 1 BCE, was not settled in the seventh century, and is missing from the seventh centllly city list of Judah (Josh 15) (Na'aman 199 1:23- 33, with earlier literature). 10

Shaalbim was probably an Israelite town in the ninth- eighth centuries BCE. When Tiglath-pileser III conquered Gezer in 733/32, he might have conquered Shaalbim and annexed it to the province of Samerlna.

It seems to me that District II, whose territ01y extended between Nal~a l Ai­jalon, south of Shaalbim (" from the end of Shaalbim"), and Nal)al Sorek, is con­gruent with the ninth-eighth centuri es Judahite district in the northern Shephe­lah. It bordered in the west with the kingdom of Ekron and in the no ti h with the kingdom of Israel. Following Sennacherib ' s campaign of 701 BCE, most of the second district was transferred to the kingdom of Ekron.

The city of Ekron enjoyed a favoured status in the Assyrian Empire in the seventh century BCE. Its territory was expanded and its extent is possibly re­flected in the biblical inheritance of Dan (Josh 19: 40--46) (Na'aman 1998: 223-225). Ekron's southern border ran south of Nal)al Sorek, and its northern border ran along Nal)al Aijalon, bypassing the city of Gezer. Its western border reached Judah's eastern border near the towns of Zorah and Eshtaol (Josh 15 : 33). It is thus evident that Sennacherib ' s campaign, in which the Judahite district in the northern Shephelah was transferred to Ekron, marks the latest possible date for the composition of the Solomonic district system.

In light of these conclusions, two alternative dates may be suggested for the district list. According to the first , it was composed in the late eighth century BCE and re flects in outline the combined province systems of Assyria and Judah. According to the second, the overlap between Solomon' s district system and the Assyrian provinces is the outcome of historical continuity between the

1° For the excavations of Beth-shemesh, see Bunimovitz and Ledem1an 1993 ; 1997.

432 N. Na'aman (UF 33

Israeli te and Assyrian administrative systems. The Assyrians had inherited the Israelite district system, and organized their province system in accordance with the administrative division that had been established in the land for a very long time. The district list refl ects the combined district systems of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah in the eighth century BCE.

The main problem in the second suggestion is the region of Argob, which was a Damascene territory in the early first millennium BCE and was never in­cluded in the Israelite district system. To overcome the difficulty we must as­sume that originally, the text of v. 13 had only the Havoth of Jair which are in the Gilead, and that a late redactor inse1ted the region of Argob which is in Bashan. The assumption is possible, but is not self-evident. 11 The fi rst alterna­tive involves fewer problems and hence looks preferable ..

What can be said of the twelve officials mentioned in I Kgs 4 :7- 19? Only one of the 18 officials ' names has a YHWH theophoric (Jehoshaphat, v. 17), which is atypical of late eighth century BCE personal names in Judah and Israel (Ash 1995: 80- 81, with earlier literature). It indicates that the list of names is quite old. Moreover, five officials are registered in the combination "son of x" (vv. 8-11 . 13). Naveh (1 990: 108- 23), who discussed the problem of ' nameless people' in detail, demonstrated that thi s informal way of writing personal names is typical of administrative records. Thus it is evident that the names of the offi­cials were copied from an old wri tten source. Whether the names of Solomon 's two daughters (Taphath and Basmath) were copied from the same source is not known.

In light of this evidence, we may draw a comprehensive possible scenario for the formation of the text of I Kgs 4 :7- 19. The author of the original text, who might have worked in Jerusalem in the late eighth century BCE, found an old administrative list of twelve names. Something in the document, possibly the affi liation of the two daughters, suggested to him that that the registered names were Solomon's officials. He reconstructed the twelve distri cts under their su-, pervision according to the reality of his own time. The district system he drew probably reflects a combination of the main outlines of the Assyrian province system of his time and the districts of the kingdom of Judah. However, since various elements in the system overlapped the district system of the Assyrian system's predecessor, the kingdom of Israel, it is possible that the district list was written earlier, during the eighth century BCE, when Israel was still an in­dependent kingdom.

The text of the district list must have been part of a more comprehensive historiographic compositi on, probably the work called "the book of the acts of Solomon" (I Kgs II :41 ).12 In the late seventh century BCE, the "Acts of Solo-

11 Montgomery ( 1951 : 12 1) suggested that the region of Argob is original and that the Havoth of Jair was later insett ed. His suggestion was accepted by Gray 1970 : 135; Kamiah 200 1:59. 6 1. 12 For a recent discussion of this prc-Dcuteronomistic work, see Na'aman 1997 :67-72 .76- 77, with earlier literature.

2001 ) Solomon's District List (I Kings 4:7 19) 433

mon" was revised, expanded and edited by the author of the Book of Kings, who integrated it into his history of Israel. Whether he rev ised the text of I Kgs 4: 7-17 is not clear. In later time a redactor worked the district list, and he is respon­sible for some of the difficulties that have been a stumbling-block for all the scholars who tried to clarify the garbled text and use it to reconstruct the admin­istrative system of Israel in pre-exilic time.

Bibliography

Abel, F. M. , 1938: Geographie de Ia Palestine II. Pari s. Aharoni , Y. , 1967 : The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. Ph iladel­

phia. - 1976: The Solomonic Districts. Tel Aviv 3 : 5- 15. Ahlstrom, G. W., 1979 : A Note on a Textual Problem in 1 Kings 4 : 16. BASOR

235 : 79-80. Albright, W. F., 1925: The Administrat ive Divisions of Israel and Judah. JPOS

5: 17- 54. - 1944: A Prince ofTaanach in the Fifteenth Century B. C. BASOR 94: 12- 27. A It, A., 1913: Israel Gaue unter Salomo. in: A. Alt et al. ( eds.): Alttestamentli­

che Studien Rudolf Kittel zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht. Leipzig : 1- 19 (Reprinted in Alt 1953 : 76- 89).

- 1929: Das System der assyrischen Provinzen auf dem Boden des Reiches Israel. ZDP V 52: 220- 242. (Reprinted in Alt 1953: 188-205.)

- 1953 : Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Band II. Mi.inchen. Ash, P. S. , 1995 : Solomon's? District? List. JSOT 67: 67- 86. Barthelemy, D. , 1982: Critique textuelle de ! 'Ancien Testament. Vol I. Josue,

luges, Ruth, Samuel, Rois, Chroniques, Esdras, Nehemie, Esther. OBO 5011. Fribourg and Gottingen.

Bunimovitz, S. I Lederman, Z., 1993: Beth-Shemesh. in : E. Stern (ed.) : Th e New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. I. Jerusalem: 249- 253.

- and Lederman, Z., 1997 : Six Seasons of Excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh ­A Border Town in Judah. Qadmoniot 30: 22- 37 (Hebrew) .

Burney, C. F., 1903 : Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings . Oxford. Caquot, A. , 1972 : Prefets. Dictionnaire de Ia Bible. Supplement 8. Paris: 273-

286. Davies, P.R. , 1992: In Search of 'Ancient Israel. ' JSOTSup 148 . Sheffield. Dietrich, W. , 1986: Das harte Joch (I Kon 12, 4): Fronarbeit in der Salomo­

Oberlieferung. BN 34: 7- 16. Fales, F. M. I Postgate, J. N. , 1993: Imperial Administrative Records. Part II

Provincial and Militwy Administration. State Archive of Assyria XI. Hel­sinki.

Finkel, I. L. , and Reade, J. E., 1998 : Assyrian Eponyms 873-649 BC. Or. 67: 248- 254.

434 N. Na'aman [UF 33

Forrer, E., 1920: Die Provinzeinteilung des Assyrischen Reiches. Leipzig. Fri tz, V. , 1995: Die Verwaltungsgebiete Salomos nach I Kon. 4, 7- 19. in:

M. Gorg (ed.): Meilenstein. Festgabe fiir Herbert Donner. Agypten und Al­les Testament 30. Wiesbaden: 19- 26.

Gelinas, M. M., 1995: United Monarchy-Divided Monarchy: Fact or Fiction. in: S. W. Holloway I L. K. Handy (eds.): The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Es­says for Costa W. Ahlstrom. JSOTSup 190. Sheffi eld : 227- 237.

Gilboa, A., 1996: Assyrian-Type Pottery at Dor and the Status of the Town duri ng the Assyri an Occupation Period . Eretz lsrael 25: 122-135 (Hebrew).

Gray, J. , 1970 : I & II Kings- A Commentwy. 2"d revised edition. OTL. Phila­delphia.

Tless, R. S., 1997: The Form and Structure of the Solomonic District List in I Kings 4: 7- 19. in : G. D. Young I M. W. Chava las / R. E. Averbeck (eds.): Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons. Studies in Honor ofMichael C. A stow· on His 80'" Birthday. Bethesda: 279- 292.

lli ldesheimer, H., 1914: Beitrage zur Erklarung einigcr geographischer Bibel­stellen. in : S. Eppenstein I H. Hildesheimer I J. Wohlgemuth (eds.) : Fest­schrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstag David Hojjinann. Berlin : 1-25.

Kallai, Z., 1983: Conquest and Sett lement of Trans-Jordan : A Historiographical Study. ZDPV99 : 110- 118.

- 1986: Historical Geography of the Bible. The Tribal Territories of Israel. Jerusalem.

Kamiah, J. , 200 1: Die Liste der Regionalfi.i rsten in I Kon 4, 7- 19 als historische Quellc fiir die Zeit Salomos. BN I 06: 57- 78.

Kaswalder, P., 1986 : Lo schema geografico Deuteronomista: Dt 3, 8- 17. Liber Annuus 36: 63-84.

Kellermann, D., 1981: 'AsUir6t- 'Ast;}r6t Qarnayim- Qarnay im. ZDPV 97: 45-6 1.

Knauf, E. e. ., 1991: King Solomon's Copper Supply. in : E. Lipinski (ed.): Phoenicia and the Bible. OLA 44. Leuvcn : 167- 186.

Lemaire, A., 1972: Le ' Pays de Hepher' et lcs ' fi lles de Zelophehad' a Ia lu­miere des ostraca de Samarie. Semitica 22: 13- 20.

- 1977: Inscriptions Mbrai'ques, vol. I. Les ostraca . Paris. - 1981 : Galaad et Maklr. Remarques sur Ia tribu de Manasse a l'est du Jour-

dain. VT 31 : 39- 61. Lemche, N. P. , 1993: The Old Testament- A Hellenistic Book? SJOT 7: 163-

193. - 1994 : Is it Still Possible to Write a History of Israel? SJOT 8: 183- 189. - 1997 : On doing Sociology with "Solomon." in : L. K. Handy (ed.): The Age

a,( Solomon. Scholarship at the Tum of the Millennium. Leiden : 3 12-335. Loewenstamm, S. E., 1950 : Mount Ephraim. Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. 1. Je­

rusalem : 513 (Hebrew). Mazar, A. , 1994 : The Northern Shephclah in the Iron Age: Some Issues in Bib­

lical History and Archaeology. in: M. D. Coogan I J. C. Exum I L. E. Stager

2001] Solomon's District List ( 1 Kings 4: 7-19) 435

(eds.): Scripture and Other Artifacts. Essays 011 the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Louisville: 257-266.

Mazar, B., 1960: The Cities of the Territ01y of Dan. IEJ I 0: 65-77. Mettinger, T. N. D., 1971 : Solomonic State Officials. A Study of the Civil Gol'­

emment Officials of the Israelite Monarchy. Coniectanea Biblica. Lund. Montgomery, J. A., 195 1 : A Critical and Exegetical Commenta1y on the Books

of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh. Mulder, M. J. , 1998: 1 Kings. Vol. I : 1 Kings 1- 11. Historical Commentaty on

the Old Testament. Leuven. Na'aman, N. , 1986: Borders and Districts in Biblical !-listoriogmphy. Seven

Studies in Biblical Geographical Lists. Jerusalem. - 1990: Literary and Topographical Notes on the Batt le of Kishon (Judges IV

V). VT 40 : 423-436. - 1991 : The Kingdom of Judah under Josiah. Tel Aviv 18: 3-7 1. - 1995a : Rezin of Aram and the Land of Gi lead. ZDP V I ll : I 05- 11 7. - 1995b : Province System and Settlement Pattern in Southern Syria and Pales-

tine in the Neo-Assyrian Period. in : M. Liverani (ed.): Neo Assyrian Geog­raphy. Quaderni di Geografici Storica 5. Rome: 103- 11 5.

- 1997: Sources and Composition in the Hist01y of Solomon. in: L. K. II andy (ed.): The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Tum of the Millennium. Lei­den: 57- 80.

- 1998: Two Notes on the I Iistory of Ashkelon and Ekron in the Late Eighth Seventh Centuries B. C. E. Tel Aviv 25: 2 19- 227.

- 2000: Rubutul Aruboth . UF 32 : 373- 383. - and Zadok, R. , 2000 : Assyrian Deportations to the Province of Samerina in

the Light of Two Cuneiform Tablets from Tel Hadid. Tel Aviv 27: 159- 188. Naveh, J., 1990 : Nameless People. IEJ 40 : I 08- 123. Neef, H.-D. , 1995 : Ephraim. Studien zur Geschichte des Stammes Ephraim von

der Landnahme bis zur f n'ihen Konigszeit. BZA W 238. Berlin I New York . Niemann, H. M. , 1993: 1/errscha.ft, Konigtum und Staat. Skizzen zur soziostruk­

turellen Entwicklung in monarchischen Israel. Forschungen zum Alten Tes­tament 6. Tubingen.

- 1997 : The Socio-Poli tical Shadow Cast by the Biblical Solomon. in : L. K. Handy (ed.) : The Age of Solomon. Scholarship at the Turn of the Millen­nium. Leiden: 252- 299.

- 2000 : Megiddo and Solomon : A Biblical Investigation in Relat ion to Ar-chaeology. Tel Aviv 27 : 6 1- 74.

Noth, M., 1953 : Das Buch Josua. HAT 1/7. Tubingen. - 1960 : The HistOIJ' o.f Israel. London. - 1967: Konige. I. Teilband. BKAT DC/ I. Neukirchen-Vluyn. Puzo, F., 1949 : La segunda prefectura Salom6nica (3 Rg 4, 9). Estudios Biblicos

8 : 47-73. Pintore, F. , 1970 : I dodici intendenti di Salomone. RSO 45 : 177- 207. Rainey, A. F., 1999 : Taanach Letters. Eretz !srael 26: 153*-162*.

436 N. Na'aman (UF 33

Reich, R. , and Brandl, B. , 1985: Gezer under Assyrian Rule. PEQ 11 7 : 4 1- 54. Reindl, J. , 1998: ::ll:l/::ll:'. In: G. J. Botterweck, H. Ringgren and H.-J. Fabry

(eds.), Theological Dictionmy of the Old Testament, val. IX, Grand Rapids and Cambridge: 5 19- 529.

Rosel, H. N., 1984: Zu den 'Gauen' Salomos. ZDPV 100 :84-90. Sanda, A., 1911 : Die Bucher der Konige iibersetzt und erkliirt. Das erste Buch

der Konige. EHA T 9/1. Munster. Schmitt, G., 1985 : Die Heimat Hiobs. ZDPV I 0 I: 56- 63. Tadmor, H. , 1994: The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pi!eser Ill King of Assyria. lent­

salem. Thenius, 0., 1873: Die Biicher der Konige. KEHAT 9. 2"d edition. Leipzig. Thompson , H. 0 ., 1992 : Argob. Anchor Bible Dictionmy, vol. I. New York:

376. Thompson, T. L. , 1992 : Early Histmy of the Israelite People: From the Written

and the Archaeological Sources. SHANE 4. Leiden. Veijola, T., 1977: Das Konigtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen

Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Helsinki. Weinfeld, M., 1983: The Extent of the Promised Land- The Status of Trans jor­

dan. in: G. Strecker (ed.): Das Land Israel in Biblicher Zeit. Gottingen : 59-75.

Weippert, M., 1997: Israelites, Arameens et Assyriens dans Ia Transjordanie septentrionale. ZDPV 11 3: 19- 38.

Wright, G. E., 1967: The Provinces of Solomon. Eretz !srae/8: 58*- 68*. Wuri hwein, E., 1977: Die Biicher der Konige. I . Konige 1- 16. ATD I I , I. Got­

tingen. Zadok, R. , 1978 : West Semitic Toponyms in Assyrian and Babylonian Sources.

in : Y. Avishur I J. Blau (eds.): Studies in Bible and the Ancient Near East Presented· to Samuel E. Loewenstamm on His Seventieth Birthday . Jerusa­lem : 163- 179.

- 1982: Remarks on the Inscription of Hdys'y from Tell Fakhriya. Tel Aviv 9: 11 7- 129.

- 1988: Notes on the Prosopography of the Old Testament. BN 42: 44-48. Zertal, A. , 1984: Arubboth, Hepher and the Third Solomonic District. Tel Aviv

(Hebrew). - 1992a: Arubboth. The Anchor Bible Dictioncuy, vol. I. New York : 465-467. - 1992b: Hepher. The Anchor Bible Dictionaty, vol. 3. New York: 138- 139. Zwickel, W., 1997: Der vermisste Stamm Sebulun in 1 Konige IV 7-19. VT 47 :

387- 389.

Sonderdruck aus:

UGARIT-FORSCHUNGEN

Internationales J ahrbuch fiir die

Altertumskunde Syrien-PaHistinas

Herausgeber

Manfried Dietrich · Oswald Loretz

Beratergremium

1. Bretschneider • I. Kottsieper • K.A. Metzler R. Schmitt • 1. Trapper • W.H. van Soldt • J. -P. Vita

Band 33 2001

Ugarit-Verlag MOnster 2002