In the 9th–7th centuries BCE, Assyria expanded into the Levant, yet left surprisingly few clear archaeological “Assyrian” markers in much of the region’s material culture. Instead, the most profound imperial impact was economic: incorporation into an Assyrian-wide koine that intensified tribute demands, long-distance trade, mobility, and local specialization (e.g., large-scale olive oil and textile production), reshaping daily life through markets more than monuments.
See also "The Walls that Nehemiah Built: The Town of Jerusalem in the Persian Period" and "Archaeology, Biblical Research and Ancient Israel."
By Margreet L. Steiner
Independent Archaeologist
February 2026
In the beginning of the 9th century BCE the giant of the East, Assyria, re-awoke, ruffled its feathers, looked around and decided it was time for some action. Assyria needed more land, more working hands, and more goods, and those were plentifully available in the countries around the Assyrian heartland. So Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE) started his campaigns to the north and the east of Assyria and consolidated control over new areas from the Zagros to the Euphrates and from the foothills of the Taurus mountains to the Babylonian border. His son Shalmaneser III (859–824 BCE) campaigned against northern Syria and southern Anatolia and went on to the coastal areas, where he received tribute from the Phoenician cities. The western nations under the command of Hadadezer the king of Damascus and including Israel and Ammon forged a coalition to try to stop him. In 853 BCE they succeeded in halting the Assyrian army at Qarqar in western Syria, although Shalmaneser did not admit his defeat. The coalition did not hold and Shalmaneser succeeded in subjugating most of his enemies after all, including King Jehu of Israel. After a quiet period Tiglath-Pileser III (774–727 BCE) started campaigning in the south again. He took Megiddo in 734 and Samaria in 722. The whole of the Levant including Cyprus surrendered; only the Phoenician and Philistine port cities remained nominally independent.
All in all, the Assyrians reigned in the Levant for almost three hundred years, which must have had a great impact on the daily life of the inhabitants of the region and on the material culture of the Levant. Yet, what surprises me greatly, is how difficult it is to assess that impact. Of course, the degree of Assyrianization of the subjugated states varied considerably. States on the east bank of the Euphrates were fully incorporated into the empire and “Assyrianized.” Former local capitals such as Dur Katlimmu and Carchemish were rebuilt as Assyrian governor seats, and their architecture and arts display typical Assyrian elements: Assyrian-style palaces, mural paintings, and sculpture. Imported Assyrian or locally made Assyrian-style pottery can be found in abundance. A nice example is Tell Barsip on the Euphrates (Tell Ahmar), capital of the neo-Hittite kingdom of the Bit-Adini. It was taken by Shalmaneser III and renamed Kar-Shalmaneser. A palace with 43 rooms, three courtyards and several corridors was excavated. The many wall paintings in Assyrian style are stunning.
It is clear that the Assyrians considered the Jazirah as part of the Assyrian core, while territories to the west and north were considered more peripheral. This is certainly in agreement with the archaeological record of the Orontes region and the areas further south in Syria as well as east and west of the river Jordan. Some kingdoms were eventually incorporated into the empire as provinces (Hamath, Israel, Damascus), others were reduced to vassal status (Judah, Moab), while the Phoenician and Philistine trading ports were allowed to continue as independent city states.
It is very difficult to trace the Assyrian impact on the material culture of these regions. Akkermans and Schwartz even say: “Archaeologically the recognition of the period of Neo-Assyrian domination can sometimes be difficult, given the lack of clear ceramic indicators distinguishing the pre-Assyrian from the Assyrian periods” (2004, 379). An interesting example in the Orontes region is Tell Afis, identified as ancient Hazrek, capital of the kingdom of Hamath and Lu’ash. The site was conquered by the Assyrians in 738 BCE and transformed into a provincial center. But the material culture remained staunchly local. Even Assyrian-style pottery (imported or copied) has hardly been detected there, according to the excavator Stefania Mazzoni (2014).
If we go further south, to present-day Israel, Palestine and Jordan, the same situation can be noticed. Whatever the political status of the regions the Assyrians overwhelmed in the middle and southern Levant, they left amazingly few remains of their presence – at least as far as the archaeological record shows. Maybe it is not too much to state that without the Assyrian archives and the biblical texts we would not have been able to conclude how, why and by whom these regions were invaded and subjugated. The material culture shows gradual changes but no major breaks. Over the course of several centuries many cities were destroyed, but it is often hard to find evidence in the ruins to show who were the culprits. The Assyrians, and after them the Babylonians and Persians, did not leave impressive remains of their presence in the southern Levant in the form of luxurious palaces, governor residencies, cuneiform administrative and political inscriptions, majestic temples for the Mesopotamian gods, elite emulations of Assyrian fine wares, or a new kind of pottery.
Ephraim Stern (2001) has made an inventory of Assyrian finds in the material culture of ancient Palestine. But despite his conjunction that “…the [Assyrian] administrative system left rich and important traces in the archaeological record of the country,” in reality the spoils are far from rich. Only four monumental inscriptions in the whole of Palestine (east and west of the Jordan) have been found, as well as some clay cuneiform tablets and a number of Assyrian-style seals. Assyrian-style architecture, identified by walls of terre pisés, elevated podiums, the use of burnt bricks, horned-shaped stone thresholds, and vaulted openings and roofs, have been identified at Hazor in the north, at several sites (Tell Jemmeh, Sheikh Zuweid and Tell Sera) in Philistia, and in Buseirah in Edom. But most buildings only display some of these style elements. Of the palace in area C at Buseirah, for instance, Piotr Bienkowski says: “Thus there appear to be elements in the Buseirah building which are paralleled in Neo-Assyrian palaces and residences but the actual plan of the buildings is unique and not a copy” (2002, 199). This applies to most “Assyrian” buildings in Palestine.
After its destruction by the Assyrians in 734 BCE, Megiddo was rebuilt according to a pseudo-Hippodamian plan with streets running east-west and north-south. This type of plan is said to herald from Assyria, and several “open court” buildings of Mesopotamian descent were found near the gate. However, the material culture of the city is, again, firmly local. Temples built in Assyrian style are mentioned by Stern at Ekron, Sheik Zuweid and Buseirah. The most stunning example is temple 650 at Ekron. The plan is an Assyrian open court building but according to the inscription found in the destruction debris of the building, the temple was built by the local king Akish, son of Padi, and dedicated to the goddess (Ptgyh) who is otherwise unknown. Furthermore, the objects found in the temple are either local (a storage jar bore an inscription dedicating it to Asherah) or Egyptian, not Assyrian. Assyrian-style sculpture is completely absent in the southern Levant, while Assyrian-style pottery, mostly locally made, has been found in small quantities only, mainly in Philistia. Some Assyrian prototypes, however, did influence local pottery styles, especially in Transjordan, such as the handless bottles, but this concerns only a very small part of the pottery at all.
Thus some Assyrian influence on the local traditions, especially in the architecture and the pottery, can be detected. Were it not for the literary texts, however, these influences could also be explained by processes as gift exchange and emulation. This lack of persuasive influence on the material culture of the middle and southern Levant is the more intriguing when compared to the impact of that later empire that subjugated the region in a similar way as the Assyrians did – with much saber-rattling and cruelty: the Roman empire. The Romans left their lasting mark on almost every aspect of the local culture: from the layout of towns to the building styles of domestic units, from the introduction of new gods residing in Greek/Roman style temples to mosaics, from the introduction of new pottery styles to the transformation of the cuisine, from inscriptions in Latin and Greek to new economic and political institutions. Not only was the way of life of the local inhabitants thoroughly transformed but even their way of thinking. And in every excavation these Roman elements surface.
So, why did the Assyrians and after them the Babylonians and Persians not leave such impressive remains? It seems as if the Assyrians were not at all interested in spreading their “culture” to the regions they subjected. On the contrary, they imported many traits from abroad, from building styles to (eventually) the Aramaic language.
It’s the Economy, Stupid!
There is, however, one aspect of the culture of the local communities that was thoroughly transformed by their inclusion into the Assyrian empire: the economy. In the late 8th and 7th centuries BCE, after the campaigns of Tiglath Pileser III and Sargon II, the regions they had conquered became part of what Stefania Mazzoni (2014) calls “the Assyrian koine”: a koine not in the sense of peoples sharing the same culture or speaking the same language, but in the sense that their economies had been transformed, globalized and integrated. This transformation evolved around three key elements:
- The change of the economy from a closed, local system into a more open, global one. A large market emerged for specialized products such as bronze objects, worked shells and ivory, and textiles, and for grains, olive oil and wine. There was also more movement of people travelling throughout the empire: soldiers, traders, adventurers, craftsmen and refugees.
- The second element is the payment of tribute to the Assyrian kings. According to Assyrian inscriptions this tribute included precious metals, luxury items, wool, colored woven textiles, horses and possibly agricultural produce. This would necessitate an intensification of agriculture and husbandry, and an extension of farming into more marginal areas.
- The third element noticeable is the intensification of long-distance trade in luxury items and incense. Together, the opening-up of the local economy and the payment of tribute would result in an intensified use of the already established routes through the region, as well as the construction of roads, caravanserais and fortifications along these routes.
In the 9th and first half of the 8th centuries BCE, the kingdoms of the Levant were small, regional states. As I have argued before (Steiner 2002), in such a state there are usually two economic “zones of influence.” The first one consists of the royal circle. The king and the small elite live off the returns of their own lands, irregular taxation of the local communities, and taxation of interregional trade. The king lives mostly in his capital, a fortified town, where specialized crafts such as ivory and gold working and the production of luxury pottery are concentrated. Here one can expect to find small palaces and temples, but no large-scale storage facilities, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus creating a lot of economic texts, or an administration actively involved in industries and trade. The interest of the ruler in economic matters is small; the state concerns itself foremost with political and ideological matters. Redistribution is an important function of early states, but is ordinarily limited to the distribution of surplus to the (small) administration and the furnishing of sacrifices. The ruler receives food and labor, while his returns are in the ideological sphere: he “guarantees” fertility, peace, and prosperity. The amounts of goods distributed in these early states are limited. The local communities (the other zone) make a living by agriculture or husbandry combined with the part-time practicing of crafts and trade. They are more or less self-sufficient. Land ownership is communal; private land ownership is rare. The interaction between the two circuits will have been limited as taxes were levied on an irregular basis and the local communities had their own industries and markets.
In the late 8th and 7th centuries BCE, however, this economic structure began to change, and the economies transformed to a more open, trade-oriented mode. A very expressive example is Ekron, which was re-urbanized after the Assyrian siege in 712 BCE and developed into the largest olive oil production center of the ancient Near East, with over 100 oil press installations, producing more than 500 tons of olive oil a year (Faust 2011). Ekron produced all this oil, one may assume, nor for the local market but for a global one. Faust may be right when he dismisses the idea that the olive oil was transported to Assyria itself, but the opening up of markets and the relative peace enforced by the Assyrians facilitated this trade and thus the production.
Let me take you to Jerusalem and ancient Moab for different trajectories. Because of the widescale destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, we have a good impression of the lifestyle and economy in the 7th century BCE. The difference between the city in the 10th/9th centuries and the late 7th century is enormous (Steiner 2001, 2022). On top of a monumental stepped-stone structure of earlier periods was built a residential quarter, belonging to what may be called the elite of Jerusalem: artisans and traders, and wealthy ones at that. This signifies the growing importance of trade and the exchange of luxury goods in this period. The imported products, all luxury goods, include wooden furniture from North Syria, ivory from Syria or Mesopotamia, decorative shells from the Red Sea, wine jars from Greece or Cyprus, and scarabs from Egypt, while bronze must have come from either Cyprus or Transjordan. Arab inscriptions on pottery testify to trade with Arabia and/or the presence of Arabian traders in the city. Thus in the 7th century BCE, the small vassal state of Judah, insignificant as it may have been in the eyes of the Assyrians compared to other regions, was included in the trade networks of the Assyrian koine and its inhabitants took advantage of the open, “world-wide” economy they were now sharing. Recent research on the economy of Judah outside of Jerusalem shows specialization and intensification of the production of valuable consumables such as wine, olive oil, grain and other agricultural products. Finkelstein et al. (2021, 12, 14) conclude that “the economy of Judah was transformed under Assyria (and initiated by the empire) from traditional Mediterranean subsistence to a sophisticated, region-based, specialised economy…focusing on viticulture in the highlands, olive oil industry in the Shephelah, services to the Arabian trade route in the Beersheba Valley and a date and (possibly) exotic plants industry in the oases of Jericho and Ein Gedi.” Whether this development was indeed initiated by the Assyrian empire as Finkelstein et al. assume is a matter of discussion but the incorporation of the southern Levant into the Assyrian koine certainly attributed hugely to it.
In Transjordan a different trajectory is visible. Much less imported material has been identified here, and a development to a “sophisticated, region-based, specialised economy” such as in Judah is not (yet?) visible in the archaeological record. But the economy was certainly transformed, as can most clearly be demonstrated at Mudayna Thamad in ancient Moab. This small site of no more than 1 hectare in size was built in the second half of the 8th century BCE as a heavily fortified small town with a casemate wall and a six-chambered gate. Located not along the route of the King’s Highway, but further east, its primary function may have been the protection of Moab’s eastern border against marauding tribes. However, the site soon developed into an important industrial site based on the production of refined textiles, both of wool and linen, and that on an unprecedented scale (Chadwick et al. 2024). These textiles may have been produced in the first place as tribute for the Assyrian kings, but subsequently became a highly sought-after commodity, finding their way to other parts of the southern Levant. This must have generated much wealth for the artisans and traders as reflected in a significant quantity of luxury objects and items associated with inter-regional trade, from limestone statutes, more than 250 figurines and several large stone incense altars to objects of steatite and faience, and from bullae, stamped seals and scale weights to imported Assyrian glazed and unglazed jars and juglets and more than forty small square stone altars (see also Steiner 2025). It appears that this enterprise was not subject to royal control. Rather, it was initiated and executed by the local elite residing in Mudayna Thamad, who supervised the production process and fully reaped its benefits. No royal inscriptions have been recovered from this site, no administrative texts, and no palaces. Other 7th century BCE sites in Moab seem not to have participated in this economic process as hardly any luxury or imported items have been excavated there so far.
It seems that the influence of the Assyrian empire on many of the regions it brought under its control did not lie so much in the dissemination of its material culture and its way of life or thinking, but rather in the opening up of the rather closed kingdoms it conquered. Becoming part of the Assyrian koine had a persuasive impact on the economies of these regions, bringing with it the extension and intensification of their agriculture, and the production of and trade in specialized goods, which was organized by the local elite who profited greatly from it.
Bibliography
Akkermans, P. and G. M. Schwartz. 2004. The Archaeology of Syria – From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca. 16,000–300 BC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bienkowski, P. 2002. Busayra Excavations by Crystal-M. Bennett, 1971–1980. Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant/Oxford University Press.
Chadwick, R., P. M. M. Daviau, M. L. Steiner and M. A. Judd. 2004. The Iron Age Town of Mudayna Thamad, Jordan; Excavations of the fortifications and northern sector (1995–2012). BAR International Series 3193. Oxford: BAR Publishing.
Faust. A. 2011. “The Interests of the Assyrian Empire in the West: Olive Oil Production as a Test Case.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 54, 62–86.
Finkelstein, I., Y. Gadot and D. Langgut. 2021. “The Unique Specialised Economy of Judah under Assyrian Rule and its Impact on the Material Culture of the Kingdom.” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, DOI: 10.1080/00310328.2021.1949531.
Mazzoni, S. 2014. “The Aramean States During the Iron Age II-III Periods.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of the Levant c. 8000–332 BCE. Edited by Margreet L. Steiner and Ann E. Killebrew. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 683–705.
Steiner, M. L. 2001. “Jerusalem in the 10th and 7th Centuries BCE: From Administrative Centre to Commercial City.” In Studies in the Archaeology of the Iron Age in Israel and Jordan. Edited by A. Mazar. JSOT Supplement Series 331. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,280–88.
Steiner, M. L. 2002. “Mesha versus Solomon. Two models of economic organization in Iron Age II.” Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok 67, 37–45.
Steiner, M. L. 2022. “A Closer Look: The Houses on the Southeastern Hill of Jerusalem in Economic Perspective” In No Place Like Home: Ancient Near Eastern Houses and Households. Edited by Laura Battini, Aaron Brody and Sharon R. Steadman. Bicester: Archaeopress, 181–194.
Steiner, M. L. 2025. “Moab at the End of the Iron Age: The Political and Economic Situation.” In A Prophet to the Nations: Archaeological and Historical Perspectives on Jeremiah 46–51. Edited by Jordan Davis and Benedikt Hensel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 130–142.
Stern, E. 2001. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume II: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732–332 B.C.E.). New York: Doubleday.