Introduction

King Baasha was the third king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. According to 1 Kings 15:33, he reigned for 24 years from the Israelite capital of Tirzah, at the end of the 10th-beginning of the 9th centuries B.C.E.. Baasha was a usurper who had come to power through a coup d’etat, in which he killed his predecessor – King Nadab – and his entire royal family (the House of Jeroboam). 

Almost all of our information regarding this early Israelite king comes from biblical sources. However, archaeology can also help reconstruct Baasha’s reign. Though Baasha is not a very well-known biblical figure, the study of his reign (or more specifically, archaeological strata that date to his time) is highly important to reconstructing the emergence of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in the central Canaanite highlands.

Baasha’s Origins and Rise to Power

Our only real source for Baasha’s origins is the biblical accounts, who offer some information and insight regarding this early king’s life. Generally speaking, we can probably – with caution – trust the important information about Baasha provided in the biblical texts, such as his status as a usurper (contra Frevel 2019), given that much of the biblical data regarding the Northern Kingdom in the first half of the 9th century B.C. (Tirzah’s status in Israel, Israelite-Philistine military conflicts in Gibbethon) and regarding military coups/domestic political changes in general (the coups of Zimri and Omri, Jehu’s coup, Athaliah’s brief reign) is at least based on historical events.

According to the biblical data, Baasha was of the tribe of Issachar (1 Kings 15:27), and was the son of a certain Ahijah (1 Kings 15:33). The biblical account, at 1 Kings 15:27, says Baasha was of the “House of Issachar”.

There is some debate regarding where Baasha and his clan lived prior to Baasha’s usurpation of the Israelite throne. One may naturally place him in the Jezreel Valley – where the tribe of Issachar is usually placed in the biblical records. However, Nadav Na’aman (2016, p. 68-69) has argued that Baasha was actually from the central hill country, where an enclave of Issacharites settled. He defends this view via two arguments: firstly, he points out that four of the clans of Issachar are said to have settled alongside the clans of Manasseh in the hill country (Genesis 46:13; Numbers 26:23; 1 Chronicles 7:1). Secondly, in Na’aman’s view, the fact that Omri was a prominent military official in Israel under Baasha – and that he later acted against Zimri after Zimri usurped the throne from King Elah, Baasha’s son – proves that the former was a family member of the Baasha, and that, hence, Baasha originated from the central hill country.

Na’aman’s arguments have been criticized by Omer Sergi (2019, p. 223, ftn. 79). Sergi argues the following,

The problem is that the biblical traditions about the clans of Issachar and their settlement in the hill country are rather late (as also admitted by Na’aman 2016: footnote 39), while the tribal allotments in Joshua that delineate the territory of Issachar in the eastern Jezreel Valley probably reflect the political organization of the region during the monarchic period (Lissovsky and Na’aman 2003). Moreover, the link between Issachar and the Jezreel Valley is further stressed in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5:16), which is almost commonly dated no later than the monarchic period (e. g., Groβ 2009: 344– 349). It seems, therefore, that in the context of the early monarchic period and in light of the emphasized origin of Baasha in the “House of Issachar,” it would be better to relate him to the eastern Jezreel Valley (Sergi 2019, p. 223, ftn. 79).

It thus seems that the biblical traditions in Joshua would indicate that Baasha’s origins should be placed in the eastern Jezreel Valley. This has important ramifications for understanding Baasha’s political actions and the general course of events throughout the early history of the Northern Kingdom.

It is implied in the Bible that Baasha was a military official under King Nadab and almost certainly also under the earlier Jeroboam I, given his presence at the Israelite camp at Gibbethon (1 Kings 15:27). Baasha served in the late 10th century B.C.E. military conflicts between the Northern Kingdom and the Philistine kingdom of Gath at the site of Gibbethon – conflicts which we will discuss below.

At the time, Nadab, the then-king of Israel, was warring against the Philistines and attempting to besiege and capture the city of Gibbethon from them. While he was in the Israelite camp near the city, Baasha took the opportunity to assassinate him in order to usurp the throne (1 Kings 15:28). The Israelite military evidently supported Baasha’s coup, as it seems that Baasha was able to travel to Tirzah and kill the remaining members of the Jeroboam Dynasty in order to solidify his claims to the throne and eliminate any potential political opposition (1 Kings 15:29). 

Why did Baasha choose to kill the king? Most likely, the hard feelings Baasha had for the Jeroboam Dynasty were based on kinship relations. Jeroboam and his son Nadab – the first two kings of Israel – are reported to have come from Ephraim in the central hill country (1 Kings 11:26), whereas Baasha and his kin were from the lowlands (see above). Struggle for power between clans from the lowlands and the highlands for control over the Northern Kingdom were probably thus a primary cause of events of domestic unrest that occurred in the kingdom throughout the late 10th and primarily 9th centuries B.C.E. (Sergi 2019, p. 224).

Baasha’s Foreign Policy

There is not much information on the whole in the Bible concerning Baasha’s actual reign in Israel. The authors of the second book of Kings, writing hundreds of years later in around the late 7th-early 6th century B.C.E. in the Kingdom of Judah, negatively judged Baasha and his dynasty for their religious policies (1 Kings 15:34; 16:1-7), but add nothing new or unique about Baasha’s religious policies. The biblical writers negatively judged all kings of the Northern Kingdom, including Baasha.

However, biblical records can tell us about the foreign policy of this king, and archaeology can also help reconstruct this particular element of Baasha’s kingship.

Relations with Philistine Gath

From around the early second half of the 10th century B.C.E. up until the late 9th century B.C.E., the Kingdom of Gath was a powerful Philistine city-state that dominated the region of the Shephelah to the southwest of Israel, and that shared relations with the early kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

It seems logical to conclude that Baasha pursued a policy of expansion when it came to the Kingdom of Gath. Two biblical verses support this. The first concerns Baasha’s coup, the context of which was the siege of the Philistine site of Gibbethon by King Nadab, Baasha’s predecessor (1 Kings 15:27-28). The second concerns the death of Baasha’s son and successor, King Elah, who is said to have died during a drinking banquet in Tirzah at a time when the Israelite military was besieging Gibbethon – again, warring against the Philistines (1 Kings 16:9, 15-17). Since both Baasha’s predecessor and Baasha’s successor warred against the Philistines, it seems safe to conclude – via induction – that he pursued the same policy.

The site of Gibbethon must have been located in the northern Shephelah region, close to the better-known site of Gezer. It has been identified in the past with both Tel Hamid and Tel Malot. Limited excavations at these sites both showed evidence for habitation in the Iron Age I and Iron Age II (Sergi, Koch, and Lipschits 2019, p. 184). The biblical notes discussed above regarding the siege of Gibbethon in the early 9th century B.C.E. should probably regarded as preserving authentic historical memories of conflicts between Israel and Philistine Gath at this time, given that (1) they fit well with the geopolitical and geographic realities of the early 9th century B.C., a time when Philistine Gath was expanding its political hegemony throughout the southern Levant, and (2) Gibbethon was a small, historically insignificant rural site throughout its history, and so it is unlikely that the biblical writers would invent a narrative regarding this site (Sergi, Koch, and Lipschits 2019, p. 184). 

It seems that the siege of Gibbethon in the early 9th century B.C.E. represents attempts by the early kings of Israel – including Baasha – to expand their political hegemony into the northern Shephelah to the southwest. Thus, Baasha’s policy towards the king of Gath was hostile. 

Relations with Phoenicia

Israeli archaeologist Eran Arie has extensively studied the relations between the Phoenician city-states and the Northern Kingdom in the late 10th-8th centuries B.C.E., primarily utilizing archaeology. His 2020 study of the evidence shows that, in the first half of the 9th century B.C.E. (late Iron IIA), the area of the border between Israel and Phoenicia was filled with fortifications (such as Kabri, Rosh Zayit, es-Suwweida, Tel Harashim in the Upper Galilee, and Yoq’neam; Arie 2020, p. 7-8). 

The existence of fortified settlements on both the Israelite and Phoenician sides of the border seems to indicate that, in the late 10th-first half of the 9th century B.C.E., Israel held hostile relations with the Phoenician city-states (Arie 2020, p. 8). As Baasha ruled in the late 10th-early 9th centuries B.C.E., it is possible that these hard feelings date back to his reign, meaning that Baasha would have held a hostile foreign policy towards the Phoenician kings.

Relations with Judah

1 Kings 15:16-22 presents a narrative of a geopolitical conflict that involved Israel, Judah, and Aram-Damascus. 

According to the account, King Baasha “went up against Judah” and fortified the town of Ramah in Benjamin “to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah” (1 Kings 15:18). Asa then sent tribute to Ben-Hadad, son of Tabrimmon, the son of Hezion, the king of Aram-Damascus, and requested for Ben-Hadad to break his treaty with Baasha and help him out. Ben-Hadad agreed to this and launched a military campaign in Israel, capturing several sites in the Upper Galilee and the Sea of Galilee basin (Dan, Abel-beth-maacah, “all Kinnereth”, and Naphtali; cf. 1 Kings 15:20). This caused Baasha to stop his building activity at Ramah. Asa then had construction materials from Ramah taken away, and the Judahites used them to build up Geba and Mizpah in Benjamin (1 Kings 15:21-22).

This narrative is difficult to assess on the background of archaeological and historical evidence. The site of Tell en-Nasbeh – ancient Mizpah – was excavated in five seasons between 1926-1935 by William Frederic Badè of the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California. There, a solid 3.5-4 city-wall known as the Great Wall was excavated. The Great Wall had nine or ten rectangular towers and a northeastern gate, encircling an area of 3.2 hectares (Finkelstein 2012, p. 16). 

As explained in an earlier article, it is impossible to date the Iron Age remains at Tell en-Nasbeh according to pottery analysis, and this includes the Great Wall. Finkelstein argues, based on architectural evidence, that the Great Wall most likely dates to the late Iron Age IIA, in comparison to various Iron IIA/B sites from Israel and Judah. Based on this, he dates the wall to the second half of the 9th century B.C.E., attributing the Great Wall’s construction to King Jehoash of Judah and discrediting the biblical account in 1 Kings 15:16-22 as an etiological narrative. Omer Sergi, however, correctly points out that Finkelstein’s assumption that the late Iron IIA included only the mid-late 9th century B.C.E. is false (Sergi 2017, p. 10) ; radiocarbon data from Megiddo and Tel Rehov demonstrates that the late Iron IIA began as early as the very late 10th-early 9th century B.C.E. (Mazar and Streit 2020; Boaretto 2022; see Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019 for Finkelstein’s own work discussing this). Thus, the late Iron Age IIA actually covers most of the 9th century B.C.E., but beyond this, it is difficult to narrow down the date of the Great Wall and attribute it to any of the Judahite kings. 

The Archaeology of Baasha

Can archaeological evidence help illuminate the status of the Northern Kingdom during King Baasha’s reign, including his building activity? It seems that it can.

Baasha reigned for 24 years, with his reign roughly covering the last years of the 10th century B.C.E. and the early years of the 9th century B.C.E. Thus, in order to look for archaeological clues regarding Baasha, we must examine the chronology of this period.

Tirzah

During Baasha’s reign, according to the biblical account, the capital of the Northern Kingdom was located in the city of Tirzah (1 Kings 15:33; 16:6). There are, however, clues in the Bible that Tirzah had become Israel’s capital as early as the time of Jeroboam I (1 Kings 14:17). 

The ancient site of Tirzah has been identified with the site of Tell el-Far’ah (North) (Finkelstein 2012). The site is located in the Samarian hill country (the modern-day West Bank), northeast of Shechem, in a fertile valley near two rich springs. 

Tirzah was excavated by French archaeologist Roand de Vaux between 1946 and 1960. Four fields at the site were excavated by de Vaux, but much of the site has not been excavated (Finkelstein 2012, p. 333). However, the excavations give us enough information to successfully identify and date strata at the site and make historical conclusions on the basis of the data.

Of interest to our discussion is Stratum VIIb of Tirzah. There has been some controversy regarding the dating of this stratum, but a solution can be resolved.

Alain Chambon, in his 1984 publication of the finds at Tirzah, identified five Iron Age strata at the site of Tirzah; Strata VIIa through Stratum VIIe. He dated Stratum VIIb to the late 10th-early 9th centuries B.C.E. (Chambon 1993, p. 439). However, Ze’ev Herzog and Lily Singer-Avitz – in a 2006 paper – argued for the subdividing of the Iron Age IIA period in Northern Israel into two ceramic periods: the Early Iron IIA and the Late Iron IIA. They dated the early Iron IIA – represented by sites such as Megiddo VB, Yoqne’am XVI-XV, Ta’anach IIA, Rehov VI, etc. – to roughly 950-900 B.C.E.; the second half of the 10th century. As for the late Iron IIA – represented by sites such as Megiddo VA-IVB, Ta’anach IIB, Yoqne’am XIV, Jezreel, Hazor X-IX, etc -, they dated it to, roughly speaking, the beginning of the 9th century B.C. up until the end of this century (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006, p. 184-186). 

Based on ceramic analysis, they argued that the pottery of Stratum VIIb of Tirzah represents the late Iron IIA, and thus dated it to the 9th century B.C.E. – too late to attribute to King Baasha. Israel Finkelstein accepted these claims, and attributed Stratum VIIa – the earlier stratum at Tirzah – to Baasha’s time. The excavations at Tirzah showed that Stratum VIIa was a poor, unfortified rural settlement, with no evidence of being the seat of a polity (like the Northern Kingdom), and so Finkelstein’s conclusion was that the early kings of Israel ruled over a small, unfortified rural settlement, similar to King Labayu of Shechem in the 14th century B.C.E. (Finkelstein 2012).

However, in 2018, Assaf Kleiman published a re-analysis of the finds at Tirzah. He undertook a detailed re-analysis of the pottery data from both Stratum VIIa and Stratum VIIb. 

Stratum VIIa’s ceramic assemblage only consists of 19 vessels, most of which are unhelpful when it comes to absolute chronology. However, some of the finds – the black juglet, amphoriskos, a storage jar with a sack-shaped body, and the lack of collared-rim jars – support Finkelstein, Herzog, and Singer-Avitz’s conclusion that Stratum VIIa belongs to the early Iron IIA. Kleiman thus accepted their dating of this layer of the site (Kleiman 2018, p. 90-93).

Stratum VIIb yielded a rich assemblage of more than 150 complete vessels; one of the largest Iron IIA pottery assemblages in northern Israel. What does the pottery data tell us about the date of this layer?

-Various late Iron IIA ceramic forms – two amphoriskoi, two cylindrical holemouth jars, and Black-on-Red Cypriote imports, were found (Kleiman 2019, p. 93). However, these items were also found in earlier Iron IIA contexts, at Levels Q-5 and Q-4 of Megiddo, and at Rehov V-IV (for Rehov, see Mazar et al. 2005, p. 229). 

-Some vessels resemble the Late Bronze II-Iron I period; this is obviously far too early for Stratum VIIb, and thus probably were wrongly attributed to Stratum VIIb (Kleiman 2018, p. 93-94).

-Numerous pyxides, a small flask, and a cup-and-saucer were found. These items are under-represented at Megiddo VA-IVB, and thus it seems that they represent an earlier phase of the Iron IIA and declined in popularity in the late Iron IIA (Kleiman 2018, p. 94).

-Hippo storage jars are completely absent from Stratum VIIb of Tirzah (Kleiman 2019, Ibid). Hippo jars are common in the archaeology of the Northern Kingdom in the Iron IIA and Iron IIB, at sites such as Horvat Tevet (Sergi et al. 2024, p. 102-104), Hazor X-IX (Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998, p. 23), Beth-Shean (Mazar 1989, p. 348), and Horvat Rosh Zayit (Alexandre 1995). They are even present in Stratum VIId of Tirzah, which dates to the 8th century B.C.E. (Kleiman 2018, p. 94). Their absence at Stratum VIIb of Tirzah represents an earlier phase than the late Iron IIA.

Summing up the data, Kleiman concludes that Stratum VIIb of Tirzah represents an earlier phase in the Iron Age IIA, and should be dated to approximately the late 10th-early 9th centuries B.C.E.; roughly the time of King Baasha (Kleiman 2018, p. 95). According to his reconstruction, Tirzah VIIb was destroyed in the first half of the 9th century B.C.E. – as a result of domestic unrest in the Northern Kingdom at the time (see 1 Kings 16:15-22) – and was unsettled throughout most of the 9th century (Kleiman 2018, p. 97). Israel Finkelstein now accepts Kleiman’s proposal (Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019, p. 288).

Stratum VIIb of Tirzah exhibits a variety of features relevant to the study of the early Northern Kingdom under Baasha. In Stratum VIIa, the site was a small village that extended over an area of about one hectare. However, in the period of Stratum VIIb, the settlement of the city expanded to cover the entire western sector of the mound, and Tirzah grew to a size of about four hectares (Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019, Ibid). The houses of this stratum of the site – many of the four-room type – are better built, being arranged in large blocks with a common orientation (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006, p. 174-175). A sanctuary seems to have been constructed at the site, in the old Middle Bronze Age gatehouse (Herzog and Singer-Avitz 2006, Ibid), and cultic activity at the site is evidenced by cult-related objects found (chalices, lamps, a cup-and-saucer, etc.; Kleiman 2019, p. 96). In addition, the inhabitants of Tirzah must have engaged in long-distance trade relations, as evidenced by the assemblage of imported Cypriote Black-On-Red vessels (Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019, Ibid), and five out of the nine glyptic items found in the Tirzah excavations were assigned to Stratum VIIb (Kleiman 2019, Ibid). 

The archaeological evidence from Tirzah thus shows that, in the late 10th-early 9th century B.C.E, Tirzah grew from being a small, one-hectare village to being a relatively significant urban and religious center, with evidence of public structures, long-distance trade, and prestigious items. The growth of Tirzah in this period should, of course, be attributed to the building activity of the early kings of the Northern Kingdom, and, in general, the city’s new role as the seat of these kings. Most of Tirzah’s time as capital of the Northern Kingdom spans the reign of Baasha in Israel, and so much of the building activity in Stratum VIIb of Tirzah should be attributed to him, though some work could have also been done by Jeroboam I after he transferred his capital to the site. 

Megiddo

The site of Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim) is located in the eastern half of the Northern Valleys and is one of the most prolific cities of ancient Israel and Canaan. It has been excavated several times throughout the twentieth century, but since 1994, it has been excavated by the Megiddo Expedition of Tel Aviv University, co-directed by Israel Finkelstein, David Ussishkin, and Baruch Halpern. It is the finds of these recent excavations at Megiddo that will be relevant to our study.

Area Q is located on the southeastern sector of the mound of Megiddo, and excavations there uncovered a sequence of strata dating to the Iron Age. After the destruction of the whole Iron Age I site of Megiddo in the early-mid 10th century B.C.E. (Kleiman et al. 2024), Area Q was re-settled in the second half of the 10th century B.C.E. in the form of Level Q-6b, whose remains consist of “a few built elements and earthen striations” (Homsher and Kleiman 2022, p. 122), and represent the activity of squatters who settled at the site after the destruction of Iron I Megiddo (Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019, p. 282). In Level Q-6a, full-scale settlement activity began, with fine earthen and ash streaks and other structures being constructed (Homsher and Kleiman 2022, p. 125-127).

Of interest to the study of Baasha’s kingdom is Level Q-5 of Area Q at Megiddo. In this layer, a large monumental building was uncovered, known as Pillared Building 12/Q/99. This structure measured about 10×12 m., and consists of two main spaces in its interior: Room 12/Q/99, the main hall of the building, and Room 12/Q/91, the backroom of the building. The main hall was sub-divided by two rows of six monolithic pillars, along with an additional row of what was probably wooden pillars in the center. Parts of the building’s floor consisted of coarse pebble pavement, while other floor segments consisted of layers of beaten earth. The inside of the building only yielded a few finds, including a 30x30x35 cm. cubic basalt stone in the center of the main hall (Homsher and Kleiman 2022, p. 127-128; Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019, p. 282-283).

Pillared Building 12/Q/99 clearly represents monumental architecture in Level Q-5 of Megiddo. There are several indications that the structure may have served a cultic function. Israel Finkelstein and Assaf Kleiman write the following,

“The size and quality of construction; the extraordinary layout; location at the highest point of the mound; cultic finds unearthed in association with the building; connection with metallurgical activity. Remains of several structures were exposed to the west of the building, and to the east of it evidence for metallurgical activity was detected” (Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019, p. 283).

As stated by Finkelstein and Kleiman, evidence for metallurgical activity was also found at Level Q-5 of Megiddo. Near Pillared Building 12/Q/99, a circular, pit-like installation was found, which yielded a significant amount of charcoal, ash, iron scales, iron slag, and other iron objects (Homsher and Kleiman 2022, p. 129; for further information see Yahalom-Mack et al. 2017, p. 57-61). To the south and west of Pillared Building 12/Q/99, several other architectural units were discovered, some related to the pillared building (Homsher and Kleiman 2022, Ibid).

The pottery of Level Q-5 of Megiddo is similar to the pottery of the overall late Iron Age IIA stratum at Megiddo: Stratum VA-IVB, with “only quantitative differences between the two assemblages” (Finkelstein and Kleiman 2019, Ibid). It can, thus, be seen as belonging to an earlier phase of the late Iron IIA. Radiocarbon evidence, utilizing Bayesian modeling, places Megiddo Q-5 in the late 10th-early 9th centuries B.C.E., roughly the time of Baasha (Boaretto 2022).

Conclusion 

During Baasha’s reign, the Northern Kingdom of Israel was still in its early, formative phases. However, in the time of Baasha, we begin to see archaeological evidence of increasing state formation in Megiddo (Level Q-5) and Israel’s capital of Tirzah (Stratum VIIb). In addition to this, Baasha seems to have engaged in an expansionist foreign policy in the south against Philistine Gath in the Shephelah, and possibly also against the Kingdom of Judah in the hill country of Benjamin. These developments would pave the way for Israel’s emergence as a strong regional power in the mid-9th century B.C.E. under the Omride Dynasty.

Bibliography

Arie, Eran. “Phoenicia and the Northern Kingdom of Israel: The Archaeological Evidence.” (2020).

Ben-Tor, Amnon, and Doron Ben-Ami. “Hazor and the Archaeology of the Tenth Century BCE.” Israel Exploration Journal (1998): 1-37.

Boaretto, Elisabetta, “Radiocarbon Dating”, in: I. FINKELSTEIN and M.A.S. MARTIN (eds.), Megiddo VI: The 2010–2014 Seasons, Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, in press (2022)

Chambon, Alain. ““Far’ah, Tell el- (North)”, in E. Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1993).

Finkelstein, Israel. “Tell el-Far’ah (Tirzah) and the Early Days of the Northern Kingdom.” Revue Biblique (1946-) (2012): 331-346.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Assaf Kleiman. “The archaeology of the days of Baasha.” Revue Biblique 126.2 (2019): 277-296.

Frevel, Christian. “Wicked usurpers and the doom of Samaria: further views on the angle of 2 Kings 15-17.” (2019).

Herzog, Ze’ev, and Lily Singer-Avitz. “Sub-dividing the Iron Age IIA in northern Israel: a suggested solution to the chronological debate.” Tel Aviv 33.2 (2006): 163-195.

Homsher, Robert, and Assaf Kleiman. “Area Q: Levels Q-6 to Q-1.” Megiddo VI: The 2010-2014 Seasons. Eisenbrauns, 2022. 119-150.

Kleiman, Assaf. “Comments on the Archaeology and History of Tell el-Far’ah North (Biblical Tirzah) in the Iron IIA.” Semitica 60 (2018): 85-104.

Kleiman, Assaf, et al. “Crisis in motion: the final days of Iron Age I Megiddo.” Levant 56.1 (2024): 66-93.

Mazar, Amihai. “The Iron Age II pottery from areas S and P.” Excavations at Tel Beth-Shean 1996 (1989): 313-384.

Mazar, Amihai, et al. “Ladder of time at Tel Rehov: stratigraphy, archaeological context, pottery and radiocarbon dates.” The Bible and radiocarbon dating: archaeology, text and science. Equinox Publishing Ltd, 2005. 193-255.

Mazar, Amihai, and Katharina Streit. “The radiometric dates from Tel Reḥov.” Tel Reḥov: A Bronze and Iron Age City in the Beth-Shean Valley 5 (2020): 455-94.

Naʾaman, Nadav. “The royal dynasties of Judah and Israel.” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtsgeschichte 22 (2016): 59-73.

Sergi, Omer. “Israelite identity and the formation of the Israelite polities in the Iron I–IIA central Canaanite Highlands.” Die Welt des Orients 49.2 (2019): 206-235.

Sergi, Omer, et al. “Ḥorvat Tevet, the Jezreel Valley: a village and an Israelite royal estate.” Levant (2024): 1-21.

Sergi, Omer, and Oded Lipschits. “Memories of the Early Israelite Monarchy in the Books of Samuel and Kings.” Writing, rewriting, and overwriting in the Books of Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets (2019): 173-194.

Yahalom-Mack, Naama, et al. “Metalworking at Megiddo during the Late Bronze and Iron Ages.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 76.1 (2017): 53-74.