The consensus around the historicity of the United Monarchy is long gone, as already noted in the previous chapter’s conclusion. This chapter first expands on the old consensus, describing its decline and even “death” as it unfolded in the 1990s. It then describes the concomitant rise and development of the minimalist school, which, while failing to make many converts, had a major impact on scholarship. The chapter then looks at changes in the way the archaeology of the period is perceived by many biblical scholars, many of whom have become skeptical or even dismissive of the possibility of a large Israelite polity in the tenth century, and the word “empire” has all but disappeared from the discourse. The chapter pushes back against this excess of caution, examining how the supposed archaeological and historical reasons for it have not stood the test of time. Indeed, discoveries made over the past twenty years or so challenge this new skepticism and instead reinforce a more sophisticated version of the older views, which worked with the idea of a United Monarchy in this period.

This is by far the longest chapter in the book. It takes the archaeological picture and returns to the biblical material, as analyzed critically in Chapter 2. Putting names and details to the generalities, it shows how the move to centralized sites fits with the biblical picture of Saul, the expansion of the highland polity into the surrounding areas fits with the biblical picture of David, and the building program plus investment in copper mining fits with that of Solomon. The chapter delves into many specifics such as the evidence from Khirbet Qeiyafa, David’s competition with Ish-Boshet, and the list of Solomon’s officials. It uses both minute archaeological information and specific details from the biblical descriptions to present a thorough reconstruction of the sociopolitical developments of the tenth century, and of the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon.

Toward the end of the Iron I, the vast majority of the many rural villages excavated in the highlands were abandoned. At the same time, a handful of settlements began to grow into fortified towns. Why did these dramatic changes take place at this time, and what is the relationship between these two phenomena? The chapter reviews the evidence and evaluates the various possible explanations for such widespread abandonments, including climate change, nomadization, incentives to move to other regions, forced resettlement, death, and security (external threats), and concludes that the first phase of this abandonment could have only been a result of an external threat (the second phase of the abandonment will be discussed in subsequent chapters, and especially Excursus 12.1). The chapter then identifies the threat with the Philistines, analyzes the nature of Philistine–Israelite interaction, and assesses the impact of the Philistine pressure on social complexity in the highlands and the emergence of leaders there. This is also the phase in which the first Iron Age fortifications appear in the highlands. Taken together, these changes signify the emergence of the Israelite monarchy toward the end of the Iron Age I and the transition into the Iron II.

The Shephelah (Judean lowlands) was only sparsely inhabited in the Iron I, with just a string of small Canaanite villages surviving the upheavals of the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BCE, forming a tiny enclave between the Philistines in the coastal plain and the Israelites of the highlands. And yet, in the Iron IIA this same area became packed with towns. The chapter investigates this drastic change, taking place in the tenth century BCE, in tandem with many other changes addressed in other chapters. It shows that the resettlement of the Shephelah was a long process, and that about a generation after the failed attempt to settle Khirbet Qeiyafa, the settlers of Canaanite villages suddenly got off the fence and joined forces with the emerging Israelite polity. This phase is evident by the growth in size experienced by the small Canaanite villages in the first half of the tenth century, when some of them were even fortified, and the finds in them show clear connections with the nascent highland kingdom. Shortly afterward, as part of the colonization of the Shephelah by the United Monarchy, new sites were settled and fortified, exhibiting the growing power of the highland polity.

The Sharon Plain suffers from drainage problems and poor soil. For much of history, the region was only sparsely inhabited, suffering severe demographic fluctuations. The Iron Age IIA stands out as a period during which settlement in the Sharon, and especially in the Yarkon basin (the Sharon’s southernmost part), reached a peak before plummeting in the Iron Age IIB. What caused this unusual fluctuation? The only reason to build new settlements in the swampy Sharon was for serving as an inland polity’s outlet to the sea, so the key is to understand who could benefit from investing in this region, and especially in the Yarkon basin. A center in Samaria or the Hebron hill country would have had better port cities – Dor or Ashkelon, respectively. Only a polity with a center in the area around Jerusalem could benefit – and greatly so – from a port in the Yarkon basin. This, along with other lines of evidence (e.g., Excursus 8.1), suggests that the highland polity expanded to this area and controlled it for a few generations. Once the United Monarchy collapsed, there was no incentive to maintain the swampy region and the settlements were gradually abandoned.

Most of the cities in the fertile Jezreel, Beth-Shean, and the adjacent valleys, which flourished in the Iron I, were destroyed in the beginning of the Iron IIA. Some were then rebuilt along very different lines. At the same time, in contrast to the large-scale village abandonment occurring throughout the land, some farming villages continued and were even established. What happened to the cities and what connection might there be to the continued existence of the villages? It appears that the expanding highland polity conquered the region and destroyed most cities – the only exceptions being cities that collaborated with them – transferring some of the inhabitants of these destroyed cities, before rebuilding some of them, often along different lines. This newly conquered area was important economically not only because of the roads that crossed it, but also because of its agricultural potential. Thus the new polity maintained many villages there, even transferring population from the conquered cities to these villages.

The evidence from Transjordan reveals a pattern: Most areas in the Transjordan experienced a wave of abandonment at around the middle of the tenth century BCE, whereas some regions flourished. The common denominator of the former is that it includes territories associated with Ammon and Moab, whereas the latter pattern is typical of regions that the Bible describes as Israelite. It appears that as Israel expanded, some groups opposed it and were defeated, suffering the consequences. Other groups, perhaps of similar backgrounds, joined Israel and adopted its identity (e.g., in the Gilead); subsequently, they flourished. Israelite expansion can therefore explain the changing pattern in Transjordan, even if not all the areas that suffered abandonment were actually conquered by Israel. It is likely that Israelite aggression resulted in a wave of abandonment beyond the area of actual Israelite control.

This chapter collates the archaeological evidence presented in Part II. It begins with a reassessment of the evidence put forward to refute the historical plausibility of the United Monarchy, showing that it did not stand the test of time and that in the long run, the challenges raised failed to shake the kingdom’s foundations. The chapter then moves on to integrate the archaeological evidence into a coherent picture of the United Monarchy’s establishment, expansion, and solidification. Finally, it reviews the theoretical underpinning of the discussion, arguing that much of the debate was based on a red herring, leading to an evaluation of the United Monarchy in comparison to well-established empires such as Assyria and Rome, rather than short-lived empires, which is further developed in Chapter 14.