![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In a letter written to “the nation of the Jews” at the beginning of the Hasmonean period, King Demetrius II decreed the annexation of three Samarian toparchies—Ephraim, Ramathaim and Lod—to Judea. New archaeological evidence and a reexamination of results of earlier surveys enables us to confirm the assumption that Jews had populated most of the area of the three toparchies prior to the Hasmonean Revolt.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by the Rotenstreich Fund, Koschitzky Fund and Krauthammer Chair of the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology of Bar-Ilan University.
Notes
1 Ephraim is generally identified with the village of et-Taiyiba (Tsafrir, Di Segni and Green Citation1994: 64) and Lydda with Lod (ibid.: 171). Three identifications have been proposed for Ramathaim: the village of Rantis (ibid.: 67), Ramallah (Press Citation1955: 865–866) and the village of Beit Rima (Safrai Citation1980: 114–115); the identification with Rantis has been accepted almost universally (see, for example, Bar-Kochva 2003: 11; Rappaport Citation2004: 268; Rainey and Notley Citation2006: 319). However, all three sites are situated at the edges of the district. In view of this I recently suggested identifying Ramathaim with Kh. es-Shuna, a large ruin from the Iron Age and the Hellenistic−Early Roman periods located south of the village of Deir ʿAmmar (Raviv Citation2013: 168–169). The site is located at the centre of the estimated area of the district and at the same latitude as Lod and et-Taybeh, the capitals of the neighbouring districts.
2 See, for example, Kallai Citation1960: 99–105; Avi-Yonah Citation1977: 47–48, 55–57; Schwartz Citation1991: 49–60; Lipschits Citation1997: 10–11; Rappaport Citation2004: 254–258, 275.
3 Another document, sent by Antiochus VI to Jonathan in 145 BCE, refers to the transfer of four nomoi to Jonathan’s control (1 Macc 11:57; Josephus, Ant. 13.145). Scholars have proposed several identifications of the four nomoi. Assuming that the territorial term nomos is synonymous with toparchia and that three of the four nomoi are the toparchies mentioned above, Safrai’s proposal that the fourth nomoi was Aqraba is the most plausible (Safrai Citation1980: 71). The Aqraba district was adjacent to the other three; based on the textual sources, scholars have proposed that it had Jewish residents as early as the Early Hellenistic period (see, for example, ibid.: 52, 71, 180–181; Bar- Kochva 2002: 21–24). In any event, the omission of the Aqraba district from the list of those that Jonathan asked Demetrius to cede to Judea may indicate that in the middle of the 2nd century BCE it did not yet have a significant Jewish population (Alt Citation1953: 350–351; Bar-Kochva Citation2002: 23). We may assume that the Aqraba district was annexed to Judea only after Hyrcanus’s conquests in the late 2nd century BCE (Avi-Yonah Citation1951: 31). Either way, it is clear that the annexation of the Aqraba district took place during the Hasmonean period, and not later, as indicated by the remains of the Hasmonean fortress at Aruma (Kh. el-ʿUrmeh), 3 km northwest of the village of Aqraba (Raviv and Zissu Citation2017).
4 Jewish artefacts such as ritual baths, stone vessels and ossuaries found at dozens of sites in the area under discussion (Zissu Citation2001: 29–76; Zelinger Citation2009; Raviv Citation2013, Citation2018a), do not appear earlier than the Late Hasmonean/Herodian period (Berlin Citation2005: 417–470; Zissu Citation2001: 14–16; Adler Citation2011).
5 For bibliography on this phenomenon, see Adler Citation2011: 239–241, 265–276.
6 For a discussion of the history of the Jewish population in the Modiʿin area during the Persian and Hellenistic periods, see Lipschits Citation1997.
7 For the identification of the battle sites, see Bar-Kochva Citation1989, and the bibliography cited there.
8 Beth Zaith, near which Bacchides camped (1 Macc 7:19), is conventionally identified with Kh. Bir Zeit (Tsafrir, Di Segni and Green Citation1994: 76, 87); Zeredah with the village of Surda; and Sokho with Kh. Shweikeh, south of Ramallah (for a summary bibliography, see Raviv Citation2018a: 181–182).
9 Although 1 Maccabees describes these fortifications as having been erected in ‘Judea’, the term may reflect the period when the book was written, after territories to the north and west had been annexed to it. In any event, it is plausible that Bacchides’ fortifications were intended to control regions of Jewish settlement that were not necessarily within the administrative boundaries of Judea.
10 For Hellenistic period finds discovered at the site, see Raviv et al. Citation2017. For possible identifications of Timnah, see Klein and Zissu Citation2015: 153−158.
11 Mor Citation2003: 67, n. 59. Bar-Kochva (Citation1996: 113–121), doubted the reliability of the text as a whole, given the many passages with anachronistic information.
12 Accepting Hecataeus’s statement requires a conclusion that the Jews lost possession of the Ephraim and Ramathaim toparchies after Alexander’s time; otherwise they could not have been granted them again by Demetrius II (for a discussion of this, see Eshel Citation2002: 107–108; Mor Citation2003: 101–102).
13 Although the excavators dated the founding of the settlement to the mid-2nd century BCE, the discovery of dozens of coins from the late 4th to mid-2nd century BCE (including yhd coins) requires an earlier date. Another site that can be added to this list is Kh. Abu ed-Danin (Aharonovich Citation2013). The excavator dated its founding to the 2nd century BCE. The discovery of coins and pottery from the 3rd and 2nd centuries BCE (ibid.: 124, Appendix 1:1) requires an earlier date, at the end of the 3rd century or the beginning of the 2nd century BCE.
14 Among the hundreds of coins discovered in the excavation, 32 are from the pre-Hasmonean period. Notable among these is a yhd coin from the Early Hellenistic period, dated to the first half of the 3rd century BCE (E. Aharonovich, personal communication). Another significant find is a large structure abandoned in the mid-2nd century BCE (a date based on the discovery of Antiochus IV and Demetrius I coins).
15 It is possible to add to the list of non-Jewish communities in the area some farmhouses that were documented in the Samaria foothills, between Nahal Natuf and Nahal Qana (Finkelstein Citation1981; Dar Citation1982; Haddad et al. Citation2015).
16 This survey was published under the name Southern Samaria Survey. In order to avoid confusion with the current survey (the New Southern Samaria Survey, below), I will use the name Ephraim Survey.
17 The New Southern Samaria Survey is performed under the auspices of the Institute of Archaeology and Land of Israel Studies Department of Bar-Ilan University in cooperation with the Institute of Archaeology of Ariel University and the Staff Officer for Archaeology in Judea and Samaria. The survey began in 2014. It covers selected sites in the area between Nablus and Jerusalem. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues, Aharon Tavger, Evgeny Aharonovich and Binyamin Har-Even.
18 I wish to thank Israel Finkelstein of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University for giving me the opportunity to review the material from the Ephraim Survey.
19 This list can be supplemented by 47 sites studied by the Ephraim Survey, where sherds of Type 14sj05 (unclassified Hellenistic jar) were found, but which we did not examine. Analysis of the material from the Ephraim Survey indicates that in most cases this type also represents the Early Hellenistic period.
20 Note that the Jerusalem Survey made a systematic distinction between the Early and Late Hellenistic periods. Its findings supplement those of the survey that Bagatti conducted in the northwestern Jerusalem hills (Bagatti Citation1993: 199–235). At several sites he found artefacts from the Early Hellenistic period (mainly Ptolemaic and Seleucid coins).
21 The term ‘Hellenistic shelf tombs’, which I use below, refers to a group of tombs that were hewn during the Hellenistic period and continued to be used into the Early Roman period. For this reason, I also use the term ‘Second Temple period tombs’.
22 See, for example, Loffreda Citation1968: 244–287; Barkay Citation1994.
23 For bibliography on the topic, see Kloner and Zelinger Citation2007: 209–220; Abadi Citation2016; idem. 2017.
24 Although there are differences between the two groups, there is a tendency to date the shelf tombs of the various types to the Iron Age (Yezerski Citation2004: 206–208). There are also cases in which tombs have been dated to the Hellenistic or Roman periods according to artefacts found in them, but due to the similarity to the Iron Age tombs their original hueing was placed in the Iron Age (see, for example, Kloner 1992: 241–246; Zelinger Citation2004: 59).
25 These are hewn pits in the centre of the burial chamber that are surrounded with burial shelves. For further explanation of the term, see Kloner and Zissu Citation2007: 89−91.
26 The only Hellenistic shelf tombs in the region are located at Shechem and Samaria; but their design differs from that of standard shelf tombs in the sense that they include arcosolia- like shelves.
27 Such as ʿAbud, Kh. Ghuraba, Kh. Kurqush, Kh. el-Qutt, Kh. Samiye, Tel Shiloh and Kh. Tibnah.
28 The only example I found for a Hellenistic shelf tomb that contained artefacts from the Early Hellenistic period is Tomb 15 at Kh. Suwikeh (near Tell en-Nasbeh), in which a coin of Ptolemy II was discovered (McCown Citation1947: 110). Tombs 3 and 14 at this site are noteworthy, because artefacts found in them indicate use in the Iron Age and reuse in the Hellenistic period (ibid.: 102–106).
29 The only examples of such tombs found to date are at Ḥ. Titorah (Zissu Citation2001: 41) and on the hill south of it (Kogen-Zehavi 2012: 47).
30 The latest amphora handle found at the Elʿad (Mazor) farmstead, has been dated to 150–147 BCE (Y. Zelinger, personal communication). In Tirat Yehuda the latest finding is a coin of Demetrius II dated to 145–140 BCE (Yeivin and Edelstein Citation1970: 69). At Tel Shiloh the amphora handles were dated to 159–147 BCE (Livyatan-Ben Arieh and Hizmi Citation2017). The finds at Gezer are an exception. They included hundreds of imported vessels dated as late as 127 BCE (Finkielsztejn Citation1998: 45–46). But it is common to attribute these finds to the Seleucid garrison that held Gezer until it was reconquered by Hyrcanus after the death of Antiochus IX (ibid.: 2001: 166–170; Adler Citation2011: 240). Another example of the destruction of a settlement located within the three toparchies is Kh. Kefr Mur near the village of Beitin. Here a large structure was discovered that had been abandoned in the mid-2nd century BCE (E. Aharonovich, personal communication). The dating of this destruction is based on coins of Antiochus IV (175–164 BCE) and Demetrius I (162–150 BCE).
31 The classification of these sites as fortresses is based on their mention as such in the literary sources or on the following characteristics: location on a dominant hilltop, fortifications and a monumental water supply system. The three fortresses near Jericho are Dok-Dagon (Amit Citation2002), Nuseib Uweishîra (Netzer Citation1978: 58–59; Netzer and Birger Citation1990: 191–200), and Cypros (Netzer Citation1975: 54–61; Bar-Nathan and Gartner: 2013).
32 For a discussion of the fortified Hasmonean sites, see Tal Citation2006: 155–163; Hagbi Citation2017. Among the fortified settlements are Burj el-Isana (Zelinger Citation2004: 65–67), Kh. el-Qutt (Raviv et al. Citation2016), Kh. Firdusi, ‘Azun, Kh. et-Tell (Haris), Kefr Lakif and Kefr Zur (Dar Citation1986: 217–223). The list of the outposts includes a fortified Hasmonean structure at Tel Aphek-Antipatris (Beck and Kochavi Citation1993: 70) and on the slopes of Mt. Gerizim (Magen Citation2005: 241–242), the Hasmonean garrison at the top of Mount Gerizim (Magen Citation2000: 114–115), as well as a fort that controlled the Bezeq Valley and the Nablus–Beit Shean Road that passed through it (Zertal Citation1996: 185–186). For a list of fortified farmhouses, see Peleg Citation2013: 129–131.
33 There are 12 references in 1 Maccabees to forts and fortifications built in the days of Simon. Josephus provides additional descriptions of fortresses built by him (Ant. 13.180, 183).
34 Since the numismatic evidence in early Hasmonean contexts is meagre (the Hasmoneans began minting coins only under Hyrcanus), the dating to the mid-2nd century BCE is based primarily on pottery findings. Another find that may indicate Hasmonean administration in the northern Lod foothills in the mid-2nd century BCE is a yrslm seal impression that was discovered in Kh. Burnat (Turga and Gendelman Citation2008: 5, Fig. 15.5). According to Bocher and Lipschitz, such finds should be dated to the reign of Simon the Hasmonean (Bocher and Lipschits Citation2013: 106−113).
35 These finds include a monumental Hellenistic shelf tomb discovered at Kh. Tarfein (which may preserve the Hellenistic name ‘Tryphon’); Hellenistic shelf tombs with a different design from that of standard shelf tombs (those include ‘arcosolia-like shelves’ and were also found in Shechem and Samaria) which were discovered at a few Bethel Hills sites; Rhodian amphora handles dated to the first half of the 2nd century BCE, which were found in the village of Beitin (Albright and Kelso Citation1968: 77, n. 6); and the remains of a large Hellenistic building that was abandoned in the middle of the 2nd century BCE in Kh. Kefr Mur (E. Aharonovich, personal communication). The last two findings may reflect Bacchides’ activity in the area (1 Macc 9:50–51; Josephus, Ant. 13:15–16).