Ancient Samaria is one of the most well-known and notorious cities of the Bible. For hundreds of years, it served as the capital of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and a rival center to Jerusalem. Condemned by the Bible as a sinful and apostate city, the city housed several infamous Israelite kings over the years, including the hated Ahab, husband of Queen Jezebel. It was finally captured by the Assyrians in 722 B.C.E. in their military campaign that vanquished the Northern Kingdom.

Who built the city of Samaria, though? And why was it chosen as Israel’s capital? The Bible reports, in 1 Kings 16:24, that it was King Omri, the sixth king of Israel, who first constructed the city of Samaria,

He bought the hill of Samaria from Shemer for two talents of silver and built a city on the hill, calling it Samaria, after Shemer, the name of the former owner of the hill.

1 Kings 16:24

Archaeological excavations have been done at the site of ancient Samaria, and they can also help us illuminate and reconstruct the history of the site. Ancient Samaria has been identified with the village of Sebastia (it was renamed by Herod the Great in his time), which is located 10 km. northwest of Shechem, in a fertile, agricultural region, on a rocky hill at a crossroads near the main highway running north from Shechem.

Samaria was first excavated by an expedition from Harvard University in 1908-1910, under G. Schumacher, G. A. Reisner, and C. S. Fisher respectively, and then again in 1931-1935 by Harvard University, the British Palestine Exploration Fund, the British Academy, the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, this team being dubbed the “Joint Expedition”. Small-scale excavations were carried out under the sponsorship of the Jordan Department of Antiquities in 1965-1967, and briefly by J. B. Hennessy in 1968.

Remains from the Iron Age (circa. 1200-587 B.C.; the biblical period) were discovered at the site, and organized into several strata (layers), designated Building Periods I-VI. We’ll take a look, here, at the archaeology of Samaria’s beginnings and its construction by Omri, as well as its history before Omri purchased the site.

Shemer’s Estate – Samaria Before Omri

In order to understand Samaria’s history, we need to take a look at what Samaria was like before Omri made it his capital.

The biblical account reports that Omri purchased the site of Samaria from a certain “Shemer”, who was “the former owner of the hill” (1 Kings 16:24). Who was this “Shemer”?

Shemer was likely the name of either an individual person who owned Samaria, or a family that went by that name. He may have been a member of the tribe of Issachar who was dwelling with his property in the central hill country, as some scholars have argued. It is most likely that the Issacharites dwelled in the central hill country in the earliest parts of Israel’s history, since archaeological evidence shows that their allotted tribal territory was sparsely settled up until the 10th century B.C. (Gal 1982, p. 79-80). This is supported by the fact that the Israelite judge Tola is reported to have been buried at the site of Shamir (Judges 10:1-2), a site that some hold to have been at what would later be Samaria (Kotter 1992, p. 1157). Tola is – according to the genealogical records in Chronicles – said to have had a brother named Shimron (1 Chronicles 7:1). Based on this data, some scholars such as Lawrence Stager find it probable that “Shomron = Shemer = Shamir” – that is, that these names are referring to the same family who owned a holding at what was later the city of Samaria (Stager 1990, p. 103).

Can archaeological evidence help us reconstruct what Shemer’s Estate was like? It seems so! Shemer’s Estate seems to correspond with the remains dubbed Building Period 0 at Samaria. According to Stager, this settlement dates as far back as the 11th century B.C. (Stager 1990, Ibid).

Excavations unearthed dozens of bottle-shaped cisterns from Building Period 0 (36 on the summit, and 64 on the lower slopes). Norma Franklin comments that there are likely even more cisterns at the site which have yet to be excavated (Franklin 2004, p. 190, 192, 194). Various wine and oil installations were found; these installations functioned as rock-cut presses for producing either wine or oil. Originally, excavators dated these installations to the Early Bronze Age, but Stager, in a 1990 paper, Stager demonstrated that these installations actually belong to Shemer’s time (Stager 1990; see also Franklin 2004, p. 192-193).

A rock-cut rectangular grape-treading pool was also discovered at the site; it can be seen at grid FG-5 on the above map. The pool was 5 m. wide, 10 m. long, and is sloped, being 60 m. deep at its western section and 1 m. deep in its eastern section. The grade-treading pool worked in operation along with nearby cisterns (Franklin 2004, p. 192).

It is thus obvious that wine and oil were being produced at Shemer’s Estate. But how much was being produced by the Shemer family? We can’t be certain, but Norma Franklin, based on some very technical data by Stager, estimates the following,

The full extent of this oil and wine production area is still not fully known… based on the figures used by Stager (1990, 97), the capacity of just the documented cisterns would total an amazing c. 350,000 liters.

Franklin 2004, p. 194.

Thus, Shemer’s Estate – the property that Omri purchased – was not some small family business in the hill country of Israel. It was a wealthy center of a major wine and oil production industry in the 11th-early 9th centuries B.C., and likely held major economic and financial status in the hill country around this time.

Omri’s Capital

Having taken a look at the archaeology of pre-Omride Samaria, we may now ask, why did Omri choose Shemer’s Estate as his new capital? There are a few reasons that may be cited.

First off, Omri may have been motivated by political reasons. He may have wanted to distance himself and his new dynasty from the earlier Israelite kings who reigned in the city of Tirzah (cf. 1 Kings 14:17; 15:33; etc.) In establishing a new city with monumental architecture to serve as his royal capital at Samaria, Omri could have solidified his control over the Israelite population in the hill country and demonstrated his political power. Secondly, Samaria was a safer and more easily defensible site than Tirzah. Samaria was located on a hilltop that would be difficult for foreign armies to reach (especially when fortified), while Tirzah was located on a highway. Thirdly, as we saw before, Samaria was a very wealthy site when it was controlled by the Shemer family, and its significant economic and financial potential may have attracted this Israelite monarch.

After Omri purchased Samaria, Omri embarked on some significant construction projects in the city, making it his royal center. We have archaeological remains of some of Omri’s construction projects in Samaria in Building Period I at the site. It is impossible to date Building Period I (or any of the other strata in Samaria) through pottery evidence; however, we are justified in attributing its construction to King Omri due to the biblical reference (1 Kings 16:24), and the general fact that Building Period I is the first stratum at Samaria to show evidence of monumental construction (see Ussishkin 2007a, p. 298; Finkelstein 2000, p. 114-115; Franklin 2004, p. 189; Ibid).

What have archaeologists found of Omri’s construction projects? The city of Samaria in Omri’s day (Building Period I) consisted of hill summit that the city was built on, and the slopes surrounding it. The Israelite acropolis – where the main structures we’ll be discussing were found – lied in the middle of the hill summit, and measured 220 m. in length and 120 m. in width, enclosing an area of six acres (Ussishkin 2007a, p. 295). The exact area and extent of Samaria in the 9th century B.C. is, however, a matter of some archaeological controversy (cf. Finkelstein 2011a; Niemann 2011).

During Omri’s reign, the summit of Samaria was refashioned with a 4 m. high rock-cut scarp, which had directions facing north, south, west, and possibly east (Franklin 2004, p. 194-195). It was on top of this scarp – on the south-west corner of the summit, at the edge of the scarp – that a palatial structure was found, dubbed the “Palace of Omri”. The northern and eastern limits of this palace are not known, but the west-facing end was 80 m. long and the south0facing end was 150 m. long (Franklin 2004, p. 201). The Palace of Omri was built of fine ashlar masonry, using “massive, roughly dressed stones” (Finkelstein 2000, p. 115).

Omri’s Palace consisted of several courts, and around them were various rooms. This is very similar to the perhaps earlier “Palace 10,000” at the city of Gezer. Court no. 7 – the northernmost court – was the largest of the courts in the palace. South of this court were various rooms, centered around a smaller court, Court no. 6, which was connected to Court no. 7 by a passage (Room no. 1). Room no. 2 also served as a passage, to Room no. 3, east of Court no. 6, the former of which was connected to Rooms no. 9 and 2 in the north and south respectively. Rooms no. 15 and 16 lay west of Court no. 6, with a larger room, Room no. 10, laying northwest of Court no. 6. South and southwest of Court no. 6 was Rooms no. 17 and 18, and Room no. 9 south of Room no. 3; these rooms formed the western wing of the palace (Reisner et al. 1924, p. 94-96). There was also, at the north-facing scarp, an area – accessed by rock-cut steps in the palace – that may have served as a bedrock courtyard (Franklin 2004, p. 195).

This was the palace that Omri constructed for himself upon purchasing and building up the city of Samaria. Though, as stated before, the original extent of the palace is unknown, Israel Finkelstein states that, “there is no doubt it was one of the largest buildings in Iron Age Palestine” (Finkelstein 2000, p. 116).

It is additionally worth pointing out that Norma Franklin has proposed the existence of two tombs under the palace – which she labels “Tomb A”, and “Tomb B” – which, she argues, were royal tombs that most likely belonged to King Omri and his son and successor, Ahab (Franklin 2003). However, all of this has been challenged by David Ussishkin, who argues that there are no royal tombs below the palace of Omri (Ussishkin 2007b; see Franklin’s response in Franklin 2007). Given the controversy, it seems best to remain skeptical regarding the existence of Israelite tombs below the Palace of Omri.

Samaria also seems to have been fortified by Omri during his reign, though the nature of the fortifications at Samaria that can be attributed to this king are debatable. The “Inner Wall” – a 1.6 m. thick structure built of ashlar masonry which measures 178 m. from east to west and 89 m. from north to south – has been widely attributed to Building Period I at Samaria (Finkelstein 2000, Ibid; Ussishkin 2007a, p. 295; etc.) However, Norma Franklin points out that the Inner Wall actually consists of three separate walls; a southern wall, a western wall, and a northern wall dubbed “Wall 161”. The southern wall adjoins the southern perimeter, and so is to be dated to Omri’s time, while the western wall should be dated to the later Building Period II (Franklin 2004, p. 197; Reisner 1924, p. 61). Franklin then convincingly argues that the northern wall – Wall 161 – should be dated to later periods (Franklin 2004, p. 197-198). Thus, the only wall that can be attributed to Omri’s time is the southern wall, at the southern perimeter of Omri’s palace.

West of the palace stood a monumental structure made of 1.25 m. thick yellow limestone ashlars, which stands on top of the later “Ostraca House”. Associated with this structure is a rock-cut channel that runs 50 m. north, until it turns west, with a shorter parallel stretch of wall at the end of the channel. According to Franklin, this evidence shows that there were likely other monumental structures in this area during Building Period I (Franklin 2004, p. 196; Reisner 1924, p. 96).

What happened to the wine and oil installations and the wine and oil industry that the Shemer family owned before Omri’s purchase? Interestingly, the wine and oil business actually continued during Omri’s reign! Along with the old ones, new bottle-shaped cisterns were constructed across the site, with some being truncated, or cut short (Franklin 2004, Ibid). The grape-treading pool – mentioned earlier – also continued in use in this period, but was remodeled; a 0.90 m. scarp was created on the south side of the pool, and its size was reduced to being 4.6 m. wide and 6.3 m. long, with its depth also being reduced (Franklin 2004, p. 195-196).

Various caves and tunnels from Omri’s day have also been discovered at the site, which were filled with remains like scarabs and inscriptions. One of these was a tunnel-cistern complex – located at grid NO6-7 on the above map – with an elongated cistern, stepped tunnel, and cave complex; the stepped tunnel led down to a 15 m. long, 9 m. high, and 2.5 m. wide chamber, and another chamber branched off from the tunnel, being 20 m. long and 6 m. high (Franklin 2004, p. 196-197).

Based on some of the data from the acropolis at Samaria, David Ussishkin suggests that Building Period I was contemporary and built according to the same plan as the later Building Period II. He points out that “all the structures combine into a harmonious plan of a rectangular compound surrounded by a casemate wall and containing several public buildings…” He also finds it odd as to why the palace would be constructed isolated on the acropolis initially, with surrounding fortifications being only added later, finding it more reasonable that they were built according to the same scheme (Ussishkin 2007a, p. 296; Ussishkin 2007b, p. 6-8). If Ussishkin is correct, this would not necessarily mean that Omri was the sole constructor of both Building Period I and II; it could be that the construction of the royal capital at Samaria was not finished by the time of Omri’s death, and so his son, Ahab, continued the construction work, finishing the casemate fortifications around the city. Ussishkin’s views have, also, been criticized by Omer Sergi and Yuval Gadot, who argue that similar orientation does not demand Building Period I and II to be contemporaneous, and point to other examples of isolated palaces with only later fortifications (Sergi and Gadot 2017, p. 106).

Conclusion

Omri purchased the site of a well-developed economic business in the early 9th century B.C. He demonstrated his political power and dominance in Israel – and more specifically, the hill country – through the fascinating palace and monumental buildings he constructed in Samaria, his capital.

The evidence clearly reveals that Samaria was a very important political and economic center in Israel in the 9th century B.C. Economically, it contained a lucrative wine and oil industry that already had high status in the highlands before Omri’s purchase. Politically, its monumental structures demonstrated the wealth and power of King Omri and his successors to the Israelites. The ambitious construction projects at the site – which was not even a city before Omri’s purchase – most have required many in the highlands and other regions of Israel to be conscripted for labor at the site. The Palace of Omri – which was clear for all to see due to the scarp – represented the wealth and power of this Israelite monarch. Regarding Samaria (and Jezreel) at the time of the Omride Dynasty, Omer Sergi and Yuval Gadot say the following,

Therefore, they reflect the power and wealth of a new, emerging elite in the Samarian highlands and Jezreel Valley that had chosen to leave the former traditional centers of power (e.g., Shechem and Megiddo/Taanach) and thus to express a new authority within a new political entity.

Sergi and Gadot 2017 (emphasis mine).

Bibliography

Finkelstein, Israel. “Omride architecture.” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins (1953-) H. 2 (2000): 114-138.

Finkelstein, Israel. “Observations on the Layout of Iron Age Samaria.” Tel Aviv 38.2 (2011): 194-207. (2011a)

Franklin, Norma. “Samaria: from the Bedrock to the Omride Palace.” Levant 36.1 (2004): 189-202.

Franklin, Norma. “Response to David Ussishkin.”, https://doi.org/10.1086/basor25067038. Accessed 22 June 2023. (2007)

Kotter, Wade, “Shamir”, in p. 1157 of The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5, ed. D.N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Gal, Zvi. “The Settlement of Issachar: Some New Observations.” Tel Aviv 9.1 (1982): 79-86.

Niemann, Hermann Michael. “Observations on the layout of Iron Age Samaria. A reply to Israel Finkelstein.” Ugarit-Forschungen 43 (2011): 325-334.

Reisner, G.A., Fisher, C.S. and Lyons, D.G. Harvard Excavations at Samaria 1908–1910. Volume I. Text. Harvard Semitic Series. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA., 1924.

Sergi, Omer, and Yuval Gadot. “Omride palatial architecture as symbol in action: Between state Formation, obliteration, and heritage.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 76.1 (2017): 103-111.

Stager, Lawrence E. “Shemer’s Estate.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277.1 (1990): 93-107.

Ussishḳin, Daṿid. “Samaria, Jezreel and Megiddo: Royal Centres of Omri and Ahab.” Ahab Agonistes (2007a): 293-309.

Ussishkin, David. “Megiddo and Samaria: a rejoinder to Norma Franklin.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 348.1 (2007b): 49-70.