2. SOLOMON’S PATRIMONIAL KINGDOM: A VIEW FROM THE LAND OF GILEAD

by Tristan J. Barako

FEW YEARS AGO, the dedicatee of this volume colorfully referred to the “pummeling” received

by kings David and Solomon at the hands of biblical “minimalists” and revisionist Israeli archaeologists (Stager 2003:63). Since then, the barrage has con-tinued (e.g., Finkelstein and Silberman 2006, esp. pp. 161–62), but few body blows have been landed (Coogan 2006). In defense of the “maximalist” para-digm, Stager combined evidence contained within the biblical text with archaeological data to demonstrate that the Solomonic kingdom should still be sought in such tenth-century B.C.E. strata as Megiddo VA–IVB, Taanach IIB, Hazor X, and Gezer VIII. This kingdom was patrimonial in origin and structure, as evidenced, for example, by the administrative districts created by Solomon (1 Kings 4:7–19). Contrary to numerous eminent biblical historians (but cf. Aharoni 1979: 280), Stager argued that these districts closely fol-lowed preexisting tribal boundaries and were not a bureaucratic imposition of the United Monarchy. The sixth district listed in 1 Kings 4 was located in the northern Transjordan and had as its center Ramoth-gilead (v. 13), a site sometimes identified with Tell er-Rumeith. Thanks to generous funding from the Shelby White–Leon Levy Program for Archaeological Publication, I will publish the excava-tions conducted at Rumeith.1 My preliminary analysis of these excavations and of the biblical texts relating to the northern Transjordan corroborates Stager’s reconstruction of the Solomonic kingdom. Biblical Texts Various texts in the Hebrew Bible report that the tri-bes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh settled in the Transjordan (Numbers 32, Deut. 3:12–17, Josh. 13:15–33, 1 Chron. 5:23–26). Within and among these texts there are numerous discrepancies in detail; moreover, these tribal territories are vaguely defined as compared to those in the Cisjordan (Boling 1988:347–48). Nevertheless, the half-tribe of Manasseh consistently receives the regions of north-ern Gilead and Bashan, the latter of which included

1 Larry Stager was instrumental in the establishment of the White-Levy Program and currently serves on its board. Dozens of archaeologists working in the Middle East and eastern Mediterranean regions have benefited from this program—few more so than I.

Argob. The boundaries of northern Gilead, which are never clearly delineated by the biblical writers, ap-pear to have been the Jabbok River on the south, the Yarmuk River on the north, the Jordan River on the west, and the desert to the east (see figure 1). Bashan was north of the Yarmuk, west of the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan, south of Mount Hermon, and east of Jebel Druze. The clans headed by Manasseh’s sons, Machir and Jair, are singled out for having led the conquest of these regions. More specifically, Jair is credited with taking villages and renaming them, appropriately, ḥawwōṯ yā»îr.2 They were located either in Bashan (Deut. 3:14, Josh. 13:30) or Gilead (Num. 32:41; see also Judg. 10:4 and 1 Chron. 2:22), in a region that most likely corresponds to the Plain of Irbid between the mountains of «Ajlun and the Yarmuk River (Weippert 1997:25; MacDonald 2000:123). The ḥawwōṯ yā»îr were assigned to the provincial official Ben-geber, who administered Solomon’s sixth (נצב)district and had his seat at Ramoth-gilead (1 Kings 4:13). Ben-geber’s portfolio included also the sixty well-fortified cities that had once belonged to Og, King of Bashan (Deut. 3:4–5). These cities were al-lotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh, either through Jair (Deut. 3:3–5, 13–14) or Machir (Josh. 13:29–31). There is, therefore, considerable territorial consis-tency between the tribal allotment of half-Manasseh and Solomon’s sixth administrative district (Kallai 1986:64; contra Wright 1967:67). As far as this dis-trict is concerned, it appears that the “premonarchic clan and tribal allocations remained intact” (Stager 2003:68). They were not replaced by a rational bu-reaucratic system that promoted loyalty to the royal household at the expense of kin-based sodalities. Some of the aforementioned consistency is to be ex-pected given that three of the five key texts (Deuter-onomy 3, Joshua 13, and 1 Kings 4) are commonly attributed to a single scribal circle, the “Deuterono-mistic School” (Dtr). The fourth and fifth texts (Numbers 32 and 1 Chronicles 5), however, were products of the Priestly Writer and the Chronicler,

2 The word חוות, singular חווה, is otherwise unattested. It appears only in connection with Jair’s conquest and related texts, thus its precise meaning is unclear. Arabic ḥiwā», which means “circle of tents or houses,” is a probable cog-nate (Rainey 1975:109); thus חוות is usually rendered as “villages.”

A

Tristan J. Barako 6

respectively.3 Despite the obvious borrowings among four of the five texts,4 there are good reasons to be-lieve that much of the source material behind them was diverse and early. For instance, Num. 32:39–42, which describes the capture of Gilead by Manassite clans, is sometimes regarded as a Yahwistic, or even pre-Yahwistic, tradition (for references, see Budd 1984:338–42). Also, many biblical scholars believe that 1 Kings 4:7–19 is based on an archival list from the reign of Solomon (for references, see Stager 2003:67) or even from the reign of David (B. Mazar 1960:71; Ottosson 1969:219–20 [esp. v. 19]). There is, however, one significant difference be-tween the sixth district and the tribal allotment of half-Manasseh: Ramoth-gilead is the provincial seat of the former, but does not appear anywhere among the toponyms of the latter (Kallai 1986:273). In fact, Ramoth-gilead appears in the list of places of refuge (Deut. 4:43; Josh. 20:8) and the list of Levitical cities (Josh. 21: 38) within the territory of Gad (Deut. 4:43 and Josh. 20:8; see also Ottosson 1969:33). The loca-tion of Ramoth-gilead, therefore, is critically impor-tant in determining the degree of correlation between Solomon’s sixth district and the territory of half-Manasseh. Historical Geography Three sites are commonly associated with Ramoth-gilead: er-Ramtha, Tell er-Rumeith, and Tell el-Ḥuṣn (see figure 1). The apparent preservation of the word rāmōt (= “heights”) in the first two toponyms is the primary supporting evidence for these candidates. Chance excavations beneath the modern town of Ramtha produced Iron Age pottery, thus strengthen-ing its identification with Ramoth-gilead (Glueck 1951:97). The site appears to fit the bill in terms of geography as well: it is located on the modern-day border between Syria and Jordan—that is to say, in northern Gilead, one of the regions assigned to half-Manasseh. According to Glueck, however, Ramtha falls short in terms of topography: the site does not dominate the surrounding plain in a way that would

3 It is often noted that the verse containing the late appear-ance of the half-tribe of Manasseh in this chapter (v. 33) betrays a Deuteronomistic influence (see, e.g., Noth 1968: 235; Levine 2000:495). 4 There are major differences between the Chronicler’s version and earlier accounts of the Transjordanian settle-ment. Here it is worth noting only that, according to 1 Chron. 5:23, the half-tribe of East Manasseh resided in Bashan as far north as Mount Hermon.

befit Ramoth-gilead’s pivotal role in the wars be-tween Israel and Aram-Damascus (see below).5 Several kilometers south of Ramtha is Tell er-Rumeith (map reference 247/212). Rumeith was stra-tegically situated at the junction of the King’s High-way and an east-west route linking Irbid to Mafraq (MacDonald 2000:201). The main mound is a rocky outcrop, about 50 m in diameter, that rises approxi-mately 10 m above the surrounding plain (see figures 2 and 3). From the summit there are commanding views of the region, including Ramtha to the north and Irbid some 18 km to the west (Glueck 1951:98). Under the joint sponsorship of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Paul W. Lapp directed two seasons of ex-cavation at the site in 1962 and 1967 (P. Lapp 1963; 1968; 1975; N. Lapp 1989; 1993). The 1962 sound-ing uncovered scant Iron Age, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic period remains east of the main mound. The absence of substantial architecture in this area indicated only transient occupation. In 1967, excavations were concentrated on the mound proper, where an Iron Age fort was found. A quarter or more of the fort was cleared, revealing coherent architecture and well-stratified ceramic assemblages dating to the late tenth, ninth, and eighth centuries B.C.E. (= Strata VIII–V; see below). Numerous historical geographers and archaeolo-gists, including Lapp, identified Ramoth-gilead with Tell er-Rumeith (for example, Glueck 1951:98–99; Noth 1959:50–51; Simons 1959:21, 207; Mittmann 1970:225; Aharoni 1979:441; for further references, see MacDonald 2000:202). The site meets the follow-ing criteria: (1) the modern name resembles the an-cient toponym; (2) it is located in northern Gilead, which was part of the sixth Solomonic district; (3) it occupies a prominent position in the plain; and (4) its occupational history (tenth through eighth centuries B.C.E.) correlates well with events in the region as known from biblical accounts (see P. Lapp 1975: 119). Regarding the last point, Tell er-Rumeith ap-pears to have been established in the tenth century B.C.E. (Stratum VIII), which is the approximate time when Ramoth-gilead became a provincial center (1 Kings 4:13).

5 The author visited Ramtha and found that there were ex-cellent views from the summit, particularly to the south and the east. Unfortunately, the modern town almost com-pletely covers the ancient site, making it difficult to deter-mine its size. Nonetheless, the topography suggests that the tell is large.

Solomon’s Patrimonial Kingdom: A View from the Land of Gilead 7

Figure 1. Excavated Iron Age sites in Gilead and Bashan

Tristan J. Barako 8

Figure 2. Tell er-Rumeith, Strata VIII and VII (adapted from P. Lapp 1975:pl. 29)

Figure 3. Tell er-Rumeith (view to south) Photograph by P. Lapp

Solomon’s Patrimonial Kingdom: A View from the Land of Gilead 9

The main problem has to do with size. The promi-nence of Ramoth-gilead in the struggle between the kingdoms of Israel and Aram-Damascus during the ninth century B.C.E. (1 Kings 22:1–40; 2 Kings 8:28–29, 9:1–13) indicates a site larger than Rumeith (N. Lapp 1989:497). The Stratum VIII fort covered little more than a tenth of a hectare (see figure 2). Even the expanded fort of Stratum VII (ninth century B.C.E.), including extramural buildings, was probably no more than 0.2 ha in area. For this reason, many scholars favor the more imposing Tell el-Ḥuṣn (e.g., Abel 1967:430–31; Lemaire 1981). Tell el-Ḥuṣn is a large tell site located approxi-mately 9 km southeast of Irbid (and ca. 12 km west of Tell er-Rumeith) in a fertile plain that connects northern Gilead with the Hauran. There has been no systematic excavation of the upper tell because of the modern cemetery that covers most of the summit; however, a surface survey (Glueck 1951:163) and a salvage excavation at the base of the mound (Leonard 1987:359, 388–89, fig. 16) have both produced Iron Age pottery. Tell el-Ḥuṣn, therefore, meets the crite-ria of geography and chronology. The most compel-ling evidence, as indicated above, is its size: at ap-proximately 5 ha, the upper tell alone is many times larger than Rumeith. No other sites have been plausibly identified with Ramoth-gilead. All three feasible candidates (that is, er-Ramtha, Tell er-Rumeith, and Tell el-Ḥuṣn) share the following features: (1) they are located in north-ern Gilead, more specifically, in the Plain of Irbid; (2) they have produced Iron Age pottery, either through excavation or survey; and (3) they occupy (to varying degrees) commanding positions above the surrounding plain.6 Tell er-Rumeith’s diminutive size, as noted above, precludes it from serious con-sideration. Perhaps it was instead one of the “sixty great cities with walls and bronze bars” administered by Ben-geber (1 Kings 4:13; see N. Lapp 1989:497). Tell el-Ḥuṣn is sufficiently large but lacks toponymic continuity. As for Ramtha, if the Iron Age settlement beneath the modern town is indeed extensive, then it may prove to be the strongest candidate. Although there is disagreement about the identifi-

6 Eusebius’s location of Ramoth-gilead on the Jabbok River (146:4–5), which does not comport with the biblical evi-dence, is generally disregarded (Glueck 1951:96, n. 119; MacDonald 2000:201).

cation of Ramoth-gilead, there is consensus regarding its general location, namely, the Plain of Irbid. This observation brings us back to the problem mentioned above: Ramoth-gilead was a place of refuge and a Levitical city within the territory of Gad; however, it was also the center of Solomon’s sixth district, which is based on the tribal territory of half-Manasseh. Ac-cording to the oldest traditions, the initial tribal al-lotment of Gad was centered to the north of the Ar-non River (Num. 32:34–36). Later texts, however, situate Gad as far north as the Sea of Galilee (Josh. 13:24–28). It is likely that pressure from the king-doms of Moab and Ammon forced the Gadites to resettle to the north at the expense of Reuben and also, perhaps, of half-Manasseh (de Geus 1992). Whoever compiled the lists of places of refuge and Levitical cities must have had this northern location of Gad in mind. The historical geography of Gad vis-à-vis Ramoth-gilead strengthens the argument that these lists date to the eighth century B.C.E. or later (for references, see Spencer 1992a; 1992b). Based on the biblical evidence, then, the history of Ramoth-gilead may be summarized as follows. It was initially in the territory of half-Manasseh; it was the center of Solomon’s sixth district, which was based on this tribal territory; and it later became a part of the territory of Gad, at which time it served as a place of refuge and Levitical city. The archaeological data, broadly speaking, bear out these historical develop-ments.7

Archaeological Evidence

The archaeological investigation of Gilead and Ba-shan is meager in comparison with the other side of the Jordan. Still, there have been two major surveys of Gilead (Glueck 1951; Mittmann 1970) and sys-tematic excavations at a handful of Iron Age sites in both regions. Glueck’s extensive surveys of the Transjordan in the 1930s and 1940s included the re-gion of Gilead, wherein he located 65 Iron Age sites. He did not differentiate between Iron I and II pottery; thus his results are useful only for tracking very broad paleodemographic changes in the region.

7 Only the first two developments, which correspond to the Iron I–IIA periods, are considered here. The third, which concerns the late Iron Age and (possibly) the postexilic period, is beyond the scope of the present study.

Tristan J. Barako 10

A more methodologically rigorous survey of Gilead was carried out by Mittmann in the 1960s. Using greater chronological precision, he produced data that have illuminated the Israelite settlement in the northern Transjordan (see table 1). Most con-spicuous is the nearly fivefold increase in the number of sites from the Late Bronze Age (n = 15) to the Iron Age I (n = 73; Mittmann 1970; see also Finkelstein 1988: 114–17). The increase is more prominent in the hilly «Ajlun region to the south, where the number of sites jumped from three (LB) to 42 (Iron I). To the north, in the flatter and more hospitable Plain of Ir-bid, the increase was more modest, from 12 to 31. This explosion of rural sites and thus of population in Gilead is almost certainly related to the settlement of Israelites, more specifically, the tribe of half-Manasseh. During the Iron II period, the number of sites decreased by roughly a third, to 49, but in-creased slightly in the Plain of Irbid from 31 (Iron I) to 34 (Iron II) (Mittmann 1970; see also Finkelstein 1988: 116–17). Since the time of Mittmann’s survey, there have been a number of smaller-scale surveys in Gilead (Banning et al. 1987; 1989; Bartl et al. 2001; Kamlah 2000; Lenzen and McQuitty 1988; Mabry and Pa-lumbo 1993; Yassine et al. 1988). Most of the new site identifications that resulted have been incorpo-rated into the Tübingen Atlas map series (TAVO) and the “Jordan Antiquities Database and Information System” (JADIS). In the TAVO map that corresponds roughly to the region of Gilead (Zwickel 1990:map 6), there are approximately 200 Iron Age sites.8 Of these sites, 151 had Iron I pottery and 136 had Iron II pottery. According to JADIS, there are 46 LB II sites in the three sectors (1–3) that approximate the area of Gilead and 188 Iron I sites. Again, the increase was more dramatic in the «Ajlun region (from 15 to 103 sites) than in the Plain of Irbid (24 to 75). The num-ber of sites decreased slightly to 178 in the Iron IIA/B and dropped further to 167 in the Iron IIC pe-riod. It seems that the wars between Israel and Aram-Damascus (1 Kings 22:1–40; 2 Kings 8:28–29, 9:1–13; Amos 1:3) and the Neo-Assyrian conquest (2 Kings 15:29; Nimrud K 2649/III R 10, 2, ND 400 and ND 4301 + ND 4305, translated in Tadmor 1994) did not significantly affect the settlement density of Gilead during the Iron II period.

8 The significantly larger number is attributable in part to the inclusion of additional regions covered by this map, namely, the northern Jordan Valley (Ibrahim, Sauer, and Yassine 1976), and Bashan (north of the Yarmuk River).

Table 1. Survey Results in the Region of Gilead

Source LB II Iron I Iron II IIA/B IIC

Mittmann 15 73 49 TAVO 151 136 JADIS 46 188 178 167

Few sites with Iron Age strata have been exca-vated in northern Transjordan.9 North of the Yarmuk, pottery and/or architecture from both Iron I and Iron II were found at Tel Soreg (Kochavi 1989:6–9) and at Tell «Ashtara (biblical Ashtaroth; Abou Assaf 1968; 1969). South of the Yarmuk, salvage excavations at Irbid (Dajani 1966; Lenzen, Gordon, and McQuitty 1985) and at Tell el-Ḥuṣn (Leonard 1987) yielded evidence for settlement during Iron I and II. Excava-tions at Tell el-Mughayyir (Ibrahim and Mittmann 1987), Johfiyeh (Lamprichs 2003), Tell Ya«amun (Rose et al. 2003), and Khirbet Um el-Hedamus (Mabry and Palumbo 1993) suggest that these sites were inhabited more intensively during the Iron II than the Iron I. At Tall al-Fukhār, there was an occu-pational gap between Iron IB and IIC (Strange 1997). The site with the best stratified sequence from a wide exposure of Iron Age settlement is Tell er-Rumeith. For this reason, Rumeith will become (once pub-lished) the type-site for Iron Age Gilead. What fol-lows is a preview of the publication, especially of Stratum VIII, which has been tentatively dated to the tenth century B.C.E. The defense wall of the earliest fort (Stratum VIII), which was excavated on the northern and east-ern sides of the mound, appears to have been con-structed in casemate fashion (figures 4 and 5). Both the inner and outer walls were thick (between 1.25 and 1.5 m), made of mudbrick, founded on bedrock, and preserved in places to a height of nearly 2 m (figure 4). The entrance on the northern side of the fort was formed by a narrow gap in a thin, recessed curtain wall (= NE 1-1-44). If the excavated sections of the defense wall are any indication, then the fort’s dimensions were approximately 37 × 32 m. The full extent of the eastern defense wall (ca. 32 m) was ex-posed after the southeastern corner was located by means of a probe in SE 4-4. The estimated length of the northern defense wall (ca. 37 m) is based on the assumption that the gate is at the midpoint.

9 Numerous sites with Iron Age strata have been excavated, however, in the northern Jordan Valley (for example, Pella, Tell Abu Haraz, Tell es-Sa«idiyeh, Tell Mazar, and Deir «Alla). But this region is geographically distinct from the highlands of Gilead and Bashan.

Solomon’s Patrimonial Kingdom: A View from the Land of Gilead 11

Figure 4. Stratum VIII defense wall in NE 3-1 (view to west)

Photograph by P. Lapp Inside the wall, the limited amount of architecture uncovered included thick mudbrick walls (e.g., NE 3-2-65), tabuns (NE 2-1-114 and 115), bins (NE 2-1-121 and 122), and superimposed floors (NE 1-1-62 and 63). No extramural buildings were found in Stra-tum VIII. The small assemblage of pottery found on and between the floors of Stratum VIII, particularly in Square NE 3-1, was tentatively dated by Lapp to the tenth century B.C.E. Apparently this date was the result of field reading and a preliminary analysis car-ried out by the late James Sauer. Final dating awaits further study of all the Iron Age pottery (Strata VIII–V) to be carried out by the author (Barako, in prep.). A destruction layer half a meter thick, comprised mostly of burnt mudbrick debris, covered Stratum VIII. The excavators dated this destruction to the

early ninth century B.C.E. and provisionally attributed it to Ben-Hadad I, king of Aram-Damascus (1 Kings 15:20 = 2 Chron. 16:4). The transfer of the site from Israelite to Aramean control was detected in the pot-tery of Stratum VII, said to be “distinctly in the Syr-ian tradition” (P. Lapp 1975:116). Stratum VII also was surrounded by a casemate wall (see figure 2). The external wall was newly built from stone and the internal wall was a reuse of the Stratum VIII mud-brick defense wall. The thick destruction layer found along the entire defense line may be the result of an Israelite incursion, either by Jehoshaphat and Ahab (1 Kings 22:1–40) or by Ahaziah and Jehoram (2 Kings 8:28–29, 9:1–13), during the mid-ninth century B.C.E. (N. Lapp 1993). Both Stratum VI (ca. 800 B.C.E.) and Stratum V (733 B.C.E.) also ended in destruction, the latter probably wrought by Tiglath-pileser III (2 Kings 15:29). Thereafter, Rumeith lay abandoned until the Hellenistic period. Conclusions As Stager has shown, the patrimonial model is an indispensable tool for understanding the structure of Israelite society (King and Stager 2001:4–5, 202). This model can also be applied to Iron Age Gilead, where there was considerable territorial continuity between the tribal allotment of half-Manasseh and the sixth Solomonic district. Tribal affiliations, founded on the bedrock of the patrimonial household, were thus incorporated into the administrative system of Solomon’s kingdom. Although the capital of this district was probably not Tell er-Rumeith, it is still possible to view this site against the backdrop of the United Monarchy. As mentioned above, it is likely that Rumeith was one of the sixty well-fortified cities allotted to Ben-geber, the royal official in charge of the sixth district. In a broader context, the establishment of a fort in the tenth century B.C.E. in northern Gilead is not surpris-ing when one considers the events that followed, for the kingdoms of Israel and Aram-Damascus spent the better part of the next hundred years vying for control of this region.

Tristan J. Barako 12

Figure 5. Stratum VIII of Tell er-Rumeith in the northeast quadrant

Solomon’s Patrimonial Kingdom: A View from the Land of Gilead 13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, F. M. 1967 Géographie de la Palestine. Paris: Gabalda.

Abou Assaf, A. 1968 Tell-«Aschtara in Südsyrien; Erste Kampagne

1966. AAAS 18:103–20. 1969 Tell-«Aschtara, 2. Kampagne 1967. AAAS 19:

101–8.

Aharoni, Y. 1979 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography.

Translated by A. F. Rainey. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Barako, T. J. in prep. Tell er-Rumeith: An Iron Age Border Town in the

Land of Gilead; The Excavations Directed by Paul W. Lapp, 1962, 1967. ASOR Archaeologi-cal Report Series. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Banning, E. B., R. Dods; J. McCorriston, S. Monckton, and P. Sheppard 1987 Report on the Wadi Ziqlab Project 1986 Season

of Excavations. ADAJ 31: 321–42.

Banning, E. B., R. Dods, J. J. Field, S. L. Maltby, J. McCorriston, S. Monckton, R. Rubenstein, and P. Sheppard 1989 Wadi Ziqlab Project 1987: A Preliminary Report.

ADAJ 33:43–58.

Bartl, K., F. al-Khraysheh, and R. Eichmann 2001 Palaeoenvironmental and Archaeological Studies

in the Khanāṣirī Region/Northern Jordan. Pre-liminary Results of the Archaeological Survey 1999. ADAJ 45:119–34.

Boling, R. G. 1988 The Early Biblical Community in Transjordan.

SWBA 6. Sheffield: Almond.

Budd, P. J. 1984 Numbers. WBC 5. Waco, Tex.: Word.

Coogan, M. D. 2006 Assessing David and Solomon: From the Hypo-

thetical to the Improbable to the Absurd. BAR 32/4:56–60.

Dajani, R. W. 1966 Four Iron Age Tombs from Irbed. ADAJ 11:88–

101.

Finkelstein, I. 1988 The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement. Jeru-

salem: Israel Exploration Society.

Finkelstein, I., and N. A. Silberman 2006 David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s

Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradi-tion. New York: Free Press.

Geus, C. H. J. de 1992 Gad (Person). In The Anchor Bible Dictionary,

ed. D. N. Freedman, 2:864–65. New York: Dou-bleday.

Glueck, N. 1951 Explorations in Eastern Palestine. Vol. 4, part 1.

AASOR 25–28. New Haven, Conn.: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Ibrahim, M., and S. Mittmann 1987 Tell el-Mughayyir and Khirbet Zeiraqoun. News-

letter of the Institute of Archaeology and Anthro-pology, Yarmouk University 4:3–6.

Ibrahim, M., J. A. Sauer, and K. Yassine 1976 The East Jordan Valley Survey, 1975. BASOR

222:41–66.

Kallai, Z. 1986 Historical Geography of the Bible: The Tribal

Territories of Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes.

Kamlah, J. 2000 Der Zeraqōn-Survey 1989–1994. Mit Beiträgen

zur Methodik und geschichtlichen Auswertung archäologischer Oberflächenuntersuchungen in Palästina. ADPV 27/1. Wiesbaden: Harras-sowitz.

King, P. J., and L. E. Stager 2001 Life in Biblical Israel. Louisville, Ky.: Westmin-

ster John Knox.

Kochavi, M. 1989 The Land of Geshur Project: Regional Archae-

ology of the Southern Golan (1987–1988 Sea-sons). IEJ 39:1–17.

Lapp, N. L. 1989 Rumeith (Tell el). In Archaeology of Jordan, vol.

2, part 2, Field Reports, Sites L–Z, ed. D. Homès-Fredericq and J. B. Hennessy, 494–97. Akkadica Supplementum 7. Leuven: Peeters.

Tristan J. Barako 14

1993 Rumeith, Tell er-. In The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stern, 4:1291–93. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Lapp, P. W. 1963 Tell er-Rumeith. RB 70:406–11. 1968 Tell er-Rumeith. RB 75:98–105. 1975 Excavations at Tell er-Rumeith. In The Tale of

the Tell, ed. N. Lapp, 111–19. Pittsburgh: Pickwick.

Lamprichs, R. 2003 Tell Johfiyeh: Ein eisenzeitlicher Fundplatz in

Nordjordanien und seine Umgebung; Erste Er-gebnisse der Ausgrabungskampagne 2002. UF 34:363–452.

Lemaire, A. 1981 Galaad et Makîr: Remarques sur la tribu de Ma-

nassé à l’est du Jourdain. VT 31:39–61.

Lenzen, C. J., R. L. Gordon, and A. M. McQuitty 1985 Excavations at Tell Irbid and Beit Ras, 1985.

ADAJ 29:151–59.

Lenzen, C. J., and A. M. McQuitty 1988 The 1984 Survey of the Irbid/Beit Ras Region.

ADAJ 32:265–305.

Leonard, A. 1987 The Jarash–Tell el-Ḥuṣn Highway Survey. ADAJ

31:343–90.

Levine, B. A. 2000 Numbers 21–36: A New Translation with Intro-

duction and Commentary. AB 4a. New York: Doubleday.

Mabry, J., and G. Palumbo 1993 Wadi El-Yabis: The 1990 Excavations and Sur-

vey Season. Syria 70: 218–20.

MacDonald, B. 2000 “East of the Jordan”: Territories and Sites of the Hebrew Scriptures. American Schools of Oriental

Research Books 6. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Mazar, B. 1960 The Cities of the Territory of Dan. IEJ 10: 65–77.

Mittmann, S. 1970 Beiträge zur Siedlungs- und Territorialgeschichte

des nördlichen Ostjordanlandes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Noth, M. 1959 Gilead und Gad. ZDPV 75: 14–73. 1968 Numbers: A Commentary. Translated by J. D.

Martin. Philadelphia: Westminster. Ottosson, M. 1969 Gilead: Tradition and History. Coniectanea Bib-

lica, Old Testament Series 3. Lund: Gleerup. Palumbo, G., ed. 1994 The Jordan Antiquities Database and Informa-

tion System: A Summary of the Data. Amman: Department of Antiquities of Jordan and Ameri-can Center of Oriental Research. [JADIS was up-dated by S. Savage in 2003; see http://amon.nic. gov.jo/antiq/]

Rainey, A. 1975 Notes on Some Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions. IEJ

25:106–16. Rose, J. C., M. El-Najjar, N. Turshan, C. Hunton, and K. Rolf 2003 Tell Ya«amun. AJA 107:457–58. Simons, J. J. 1959 The Geographical and Topographical Texts of

the Old Testament: A Concise Commentary in XXXII Chapters. Studia Francisci Scholten Me-moriae Dicata 2. Leiden: Brill.

Spencer, J. R. 1992a Refuge, Cities of. In The Anchor Bible Diction-

ary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 5:657–58. New York: Doubleday.

1992b Levitical Cities. In The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, 4:310–11. New York: Dou-bleday.

Stager, L. E. 2003 The Patrimonial Kingdom of Solomon. In Sym-

biosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Pa-laestina, ed. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin, 63–74. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Strange, J. 1997 Tall al-Fukhār 1990–1991: A Preliminary Report.

In Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jor-dan, vol. 6, Landscape Resources and Human Occupation in Jordan through the Ages, ed. G. Bisheh, M. Zaghloul, and I. Kehrberg, 399–406. Amman: Department of Antiquities.

Tadmor, H. 1994 The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III, King of

Assyria: Critical Edition, with Introductions, Translations and Commentary. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Weippert, M. 1997 Israélites, Araméens et Assyriens dans la Trans-

jordanie septentrionale. ZDPV 113:19–38.

Solomon’s Patrimonial Kingdom: A View from the Land of Gilead 15

Wright, G. E. 1967 The Provinces of Solomon (1 Kings 4:7–19). EI

8:58–68.

Yassine, K., T. M. Kerestes, B. G. Wood, and J. M. Lundquist 1988 An Archaeological Survey of the Three Reservoir

Areas in Northern Jordan, 1978. In Archaeology

of Jordan: Essays and Reports, ed. K. Yassine, 209–55. Amman: Department of Archaeology, University of Jordan.

Zwickel, W. 1990 Eisenzeitliche Ortslagen im Ostjordanland.

BTAVO 81. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert