Khirbet Summeily: Khirbet Summeily (arguably identified as Zenan) is a small village site located 4 km west of Tell el-Hesi in the border region between Judah and Philistia (Hardin, Rollston & Blakely 2012:29–30, 34). As Blakely and Hardin (2018:254–255) noted, approximately 1.5 km from north west of Hesis at Khirbet Summeily, despite 100% sifting of all soils and flotation samples of all loci, which may be dated to the early 8th century BCE, the absence of charred seeds is evident in the archaeological records (cf. Jeje 2024:57). The researchers also found that if Tell el-Hesi served as a chariot centre on the Gaza–Hebron road, it would have exercised control over a substantial area of Judah. While plenty of ash is found in one structure at Khirbet Summeily, replete with several tabuns or tannurs and a large fire pit, they are puzzled by the absence of seeds and are also unclear about what was burnt in the pit, ‘since one would expect some seeds to survive the threshing process along with the chaff and straw’ (Blakely & Hardin 2018:254). It is therefore hard to arrive at a conclusive argument on the processing of grain in the vicinity. However, based on their archaeological perspective, Blakely and Hardin (2018:255) carefully conclude that the mounded fortresses in the Hesi region (Tell el-Hesi, Tell Sheqef and Tell Kuneitirah) [and Tel Halif] were maintained by a regional polity (Judah) and served to control the border region between Judah and Philistia. Jeje (2024:57) supports the suggestion that:

In addition, ‘Over 20 000 acres of land providing feed on the stalk would have been a valuable commodity to control and it would have required protection’ (Blakely & Hardin 2018:255). Joshua 15:37–41 supports the latter point. It thus becomes clear that archaeological records in the vicinity of Khirbet Summeily point to livestock farming and economic activities associated with livestock. Collection methods employed in the excavations conducted in June–July 2011 at Khirbet Summeily, which included the use of a ¼ inch mesh screen on surfaces, debris and pits, ensured retrieval of the remains of small-bodied species (Hardin et al. 2012:33). These findings strongly indicate that livestock farming was a central economic activity near Khirbet Summeily. As Hardin et al. (2012) remarked:

Hardin et al. (2012:33) further observed that the occupation layers identified, spanning the 7–8th centuries BCE, consistently produced zooarchaeological remains, with the majority coming from the more accessible and stratigraphically higher 8th and 9th centuries BCE levels. In addition, not only were the archaeological finds of domestic species, namely, sheep, goats and cattle, but ‘their economic significance is emphasised by the fact that evidence for meal preparation is limited exclusively to these three species’ (Hardin et al. 2012:33).

Beth-Shemesh: Beth-Shemesh is located north of Lachish, southwest of Jerusalem and southeast of Ekron, within the Shephelah region. In Stratum III, dated to the early 8th century BCE, numerous storage vessels were uncovered, particularly in Area E. These included dozens of holemouth jars accompanied by many scoops, a few LMLK jars and some pithoi (Katz & Faust 2011:175–184). Although the architectural context remains unclear, it is likely that these vessels were part of a storage facility associated with a royal or state-administered storage system (Katz & Faust 2011:176). Katz and Faust suggest that these vessels were connected to the olive oil industry in Judah. Evidence has been discovered in the vicinity of Beth-Shemesh. Supporting this view, Momigliano (1996:139–170) notes that holemouth jars used in olive oil installations were unearthed in late 8th century BCE levels, both in earlier excavations and in more recent ones. This aligns with Katz and Faust’s interpretation. Additional support comes from Bunimovitz and Lederman (2000:255) and Greenhut (2006:160). Moreover, ‘the site of Beth Shemesh has produced a total of 18 olive oil installations in Level 2, which excavators date to the Iron IIB (8th century)’ (Bunimovitz & Lederman 2009:137). Interestingly, rather than being located in centralised industrial areas, the beam presses – weighted by perforated stones – were found within domestic settings (Welch 2015:37).

Welch (2015:47) offers a compelling interpretation of the archaeological findings related to olive oil production at Beth-Shemesh. There is no doubt that olive oil production is attested in the site’s archaeological record during the 8th century BCE. Importantly, ‘Judah’s 8th century production of olive oil does not seem to have been centrally controlled. Beth-Shemesh appears to be a small cottage industry built in residential areas’ (Welch 2015:47). Furthermore, ‘the distribution of the presses in domestic contexts suggests that control of production rested more with the people owning the presses, rather than with any single institution’ (Welch 2015:47). This domestic model of olive oil production, as opposed to a centralised industrial system, aligns with the observation that ‘during the 8th century, the highest concentration of presses can be found in the hills of Samaria’ (Welch 2015:47). In addition, the idea that ‘the northern sites produced oil until Israel’s demise in 722 and their southern counterparts were in operation until 701’ (Welch 2015:47) is convincing. ‘At that time, a new centre of production emerged concentrated on the western end of the Sorek, at Batash and, most prominently, at Tel Miqne-Ekron’ (Welch 2015:47). Given Beth-Shemesh’s geographic location and its proximity to major cities like Jerusalem and Ekron (along with its satellite, Batash) and considering the time frame under review – the 8th century BCE – it is reasonable to view Beth-Shemesh as a site of non-industrial, localised olive oil production. However, it is essential to note that the means of production – such as arable land, presses and vats – as well as market access for trading the product, were likely owned or controlled by individuals residing in larger urban centres beyond Beth-Shemesh itself.

Tel Beit Mirsim: Before turning to Lachish, which lies south of Tel Beit Mirsim, it is necessary to consider the latter site because of its archaeological and economic parallels with Beth-Shemesh. Excavations at Tel Beit Mirsim yielded seven stone-carved installations identified as ‘dye vats’ by Albright (1943:56–57), which have subsequently been interpreted by Dalman (1964:77–78) and Eitam (1979:152) as olive oil production installations – namely, olive presses (see also Welch 2015:36). Albright (1943:46) describes the round vats discovered at the site as measuring between 0.7 m and 0.9 m in height and diameter. The internal basins were ‘roughly spherical’ and ranged from 0.30 m to 0.45 m in diameter, with mouths ‘one-half to two-thirds’ the width of the basin. In addition to these vats, Albright (1943:56) found the presence of stone and mortar basins situated in front of the vats in rooms SE 32A–2 and SE 32A–3. These features are significant when considered alongside the findings from Beth-Shemesh, where olive presses ‘were not concentrated in any meaningful way as to indicate centralised production; rather, their contexts were primarily domestic in nature’ (Welch 2015:47). This domestic context may similarly apply to Tel Beit Mirsim, where the presence of multiple installations within localised architectural spaces could suggest small scale, household-based olive oil production rather than large-scale industrial or state-controlled processing.

Tel Miqne-Ekron: As Finkelstein and Na’aman (2004:74) argue, the olive oil production in the vicinity of Tel Miqu-Ekron (Philistine region) was state-organised and integrated into the Assyrian regional economic system during the 8th century BCE (also see Jeje 2024:57). However, the argument does not preclude the fact that oil-related archaeological finds have also been retrieved near Beth-Shemesh and Tel Beit Mirsim, including significant discoveries at Ekron. In addition, archaeological discoveries point to the ‘olive oil production and trade at the administrative centre of Shechem and the major trade hub of Megiddo in Israel’ (Jeje 2024:57: also see ed. Gitin 1995:61–79, 1997:77–103; Wright 2018:3).

Of particular importance is the observation by Bunimovitz and Lederman (2011:47), who note: ‘The Judahite olive oil production could have never reached the scope of the highly specialised, tremendous Philistine oil industry that flourished at Ekron’, especially during the 7th century BCE (also see Gitin 1997:84). This contrast is notable because, in the 8th century BCE, the oil industry in Judah was still embedded within the social structure of its peasant communities in the Shephelah (Jeje 2024:57). Thus, ‘the Judahite rural settlements in this region were encouraged to join the organised olive oil production initiated by the state’ (Bunimovitz & Lederman 2011:47). Accordingly, as Jeje (2024:57) argues, it is reasonable to infer that the establishment of the centralised state system by transforming the clan-based economic model likely occurred in Judah during the 8th century BCE. That the Shephelah is hardly a naturally ideal region for olive orchards supports the notion that the expansion of the Judahite oil industry was a state-driven initiative, coordinated with Assyrian economic interests to enhance regional production. As reported by Finkelstein, Gadot and Langgut (2021:10), ‘an unprecedentedly large olive oil facility dated to the Late Iron Age was identified at Tel Miqne–Ekron, also in the western Shephelah’. They further assert that ‘the Judahite olive orchards of the time must have sent their yields to be pressed both locally and in the central facility at Tel Miqne-Ekron’ (Finkelstein et al. 2021:10).

Lehmann’s (2003:117–162, 2008:39–94) reconstruction of the economic activity in the Kingdom of Judah from the 10th to the 8th centuries BCE is noteworthy. The interactions between the Phoenicians, Philistines and Judah offer a valuable perspective on Judah’s evolving economy during this period. According to Lehmann (2003:157–158), while the Kingdom of Israel prospered economically – benefiting from robust trade with Phoenicia and the Philistine city-states – the Kingdom of Judah was, by contrast, in a comparatively weaker position. He observes that ‘there was nothing in Judah, with its limited soils for grain growing and lacking surplus, that matched the scale and expanse of the Philistine economy’. Lehmann therefore supports the idea of trade relations between Philistia and Judah, with Tel Miqne-Ekron central in the trade.

Hill Country of Ephraim: The vinedressers employed by the king (Uzziah and earlier, David and his descendants) point to the presence of viniculture in the southern portion of the Southern Levant, particularly in the hill country. As Rainey (1982) observes:

supports this association. In 2 Samuel 2:4, the Judean Hill Country and the Negeb hills south of Hebron came under David’s control by local invitation. It remains unclear, however, how the royal family acquired these vineyards. Yet, it is also plausible that ‘the royal family may have inherited vineyards through David’s wives, for example, Ahinoam the Jezreelite and Abigail, widow of Nabal from Carmel’ (2 Sm 3:2–5) (Rainey 1982:59). In addition, Rainey (1982:59) argues that ‘such acquisitions may have been made in Benjamin through Michal, daughter of Saul’ (1 Sm 18:20–25; 2 Sm 3:13–16). The idea of inheritance is particularly persuasive in the case of Bethlehem, David’s hometown. The continued tradition of viticulture in that vicinity is attested by the Deir Cremisan winery (166 X 126), located approximately 4 km northwest of Bethlehem (Rainey 1982:59; Vilnay 1977:3862).

Archaeological finds in the Hill Country of Ephraim therefore point to the ownership of vineyards by royal elites. Thus, it is reasonable to deduce that the winery market was largely controlled by political elites. Although the story of Naboth’s vineyard (1 Ki 21), which reflects the Omride period in the 9th century BCE, depicts elite encroachment on vineyard ownership, the possibility of ordinary Judeans owning vineyards in the 8th century BCE should not be dismissed. The administration and control of the winery economy rested with the upper classes, while the poor and middle classes likely functioned as labourers or slaves in these royal vineyards.

Hebron, Ziph and Socoh: Towns such as Hebron, Ziph and Socoh, featured on the lmlk (Lamelek) seal impressions, may indicate the existence of royal wineries in the Hill Country (Stern 1975:51). Hebron’s location in the Judean Hill Country is firmly established (Rainey 1982:59). Although some scholars question whether the Ziph mentioned in the lmlk seals refers to the Hill Country town (Jos 15:55; 2 Chr 11:8; Tell Zif, 162 X 098), others locate it in the Negeb based on Joshua 15:24, identifying it with Kh. ez-Zeifeh (148 X 047) (Abel 1938:490; Vilnay 1974:2060). Nevertheless, ‘the reference to Ziph as one of the four toponyms in the lmlk seal impressions hints at the possibility of a royal estate south of Hebron’ (Finkelstein et al. 2021:9). As Kochavi (ed. 1972:21, 77) and later Rainey (1982:59) suggested, Socoh – possibly located in the southern Hill Country – is identified with Kh. Shuweikeh (150 X 090), based on Joshua 15:48 and 1 Chronicles 4:18. Another site, mmft (mmit or mmAt), located in the Judean districts north of Hebron, seems to have functioned as a collection centre for royal vineyards potentially inherited from the house of Jesse (Cross 1969:21; Rainey 1982:59). While Aharoni (1980:398–399) proposed that the lmlk sites represent a reorganisation of Judah’s administrative districts under Hezekiah in preparation for Sennacherib’s campaign, Rainey (1982:59) contends that the seal impressions more plausibly reflect viniculture practices in the Hill Country specifically, rather than the entire kingdom.

Khirbet er-Ras: Vessels uncovered at Khirbet er-Ras point to olive oil production in Judah during the 8th century BCE. The site is situated on the southern slope of Manahat Hill, southwest of Jerusalem. Archaeological excavations in this area revealed agricultural installations adjacent to farmstead buildings, which were used to process grain and produce oil (Čapek & Lipschits 2019; Feig 2000:398–399; Gadot 2015:3–26; Gibson & Edelstein 1985:140; Katz & Faust 2011:181). Katz and Faust (2011:181) observe that ‘dozens of holemouth jars were uncovered in a private structure at Khirbet er-Ras, which was a farmstead in the agricultural periphery of Jerusalem’. A similar assemblage of storage vessels was found at Moza, a site believed to have functioned as a royal estate. While storage jars discovered at Lachish – interpreted as oil vessels – highlight state-regulated olive oil production under the centralised economy of Judah in the 8th century BCE, the situation at Khirbet er-Ras appears markedly different. The association of the storage vessels with a private structure suggests that olive oil production at Khirbet er-Ras was likely conducted within a non-centralised, domestic economic framework. Furthermore, in his analysis of 8th century BCE economic indicators, Hopkins (1983:177–202) includes oil presses in the Samaria hills, the lmlk storage jars, the industrial olive oil facilities at Ekron, viticulture at Gibeon and the well-preserved farm at Khirbet er-Ras as supporting evidence.

Ramat Raḥel: The Iron Age estate-farm system associated with Ramat Raḥel is characterised by ‘the systematic exploitation of geographically defined zones of cultivation’ (Welch 2015:47). This exploitation was carried out under the authority of a central administrative power based at Ramat Raḥel, which consolidated surrounding lands, provided protection and oversaw agricultural production and distribution. This authority was also responsible for collecting, certifying and distributing agricultural surplus. The massive palatial compound perched atop the hill overlooking the Sorek and Repha’im valleys visually embodied this authority. As Welch (2015:47) describes, ‘The ashlar masonry, carved balustrades and capitals and elaborate landscaping project a royal power’. This level of refinement, along with the ostentatious display of water resources, reflects conspicuous consumption – a visible signal of centralised power and wealth. In the valleys themselves, royal power was reinforced through a network of large tumuli situated on ridge tops, offering panoramic visibility and control throughout the region. Welch (2015:47) further notes that ‘in both valleys, the standardisation and technological uniformity of the agricultural installations – such as silos, presses and vats – speaks to the power of the central authority to organise production’. The presence of royal symbols and insignia, including those on storage jars and the recently discovered volute capital at the spring of Walejeh (‘Ain Joweizeh), served as visible reminders to labourers that their work was integrated into a broader royal enterprise (Welch 2015:47). At Ramat Raḥel itself, a palatial compound functioned as the primary seat of administrative power, while major agricultural activities such as collection and processing occurred at task-specific satellite sites, including Motza and Rogem Gannim, which were strategically located within their respective valleys (Welch 2015:47). An unprecedented number of stamped jar handles were recovered from Ramat Raḥel, while smaller quantities of stamped handles were found at satellite administrative centres. These stamped handles provide compelling evidence that Motza and Rogem Gannim played roles in the centralised collection and processing of agricultural goods, as well as their distribution. Ultimately, the central authority at Ramat Raḥel oversaw the generation, collection and redistribution of surplus within a tightly controlled and symbolically charged administrative system (Welch 2015:47). While some of this activity was already observable in the 8th century BCE, the system reached its peak in the valleys west of Jerusalem in the final third of the 7th century BCE (Welch 2015:47).

Jerusalem: From an archaeological standpoint, Geva (2003:183–208) provides compelling evidence for urban growth in the Kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BCE. He notes that urban life became increasingly attractive, especially in the southern region and in Jerusalem. As Geva (2003:204) observed, ‘with the growth in area (Jerusalem), the agricultural hinterland of the city expanded as well’ with new plots of land made arable in terraces built on the hill slopes and scores of small farms established. Geva’s analysis demonstrates the dynamic interplay between urban expansion, agricultural development and political stability during the 8th century BCE. It suggests that Judah, although not economically dominant in earlier centuries, experienced substantial growth in both population and infrastructure – especially in and around Jerusalem. This period of transformation aligns with the archaeological record of large-scale construction, administrative centralisation and increased storage capacity – often interpreted as responses to internal reforms and external pressures, such as Assyrian expansion. As such, the 8th century BCE emerges as a pivotal phase in Judah’s economic history, warranting further exploration through both material and textual sources. The economic growth in Judah during the 8th century BCE was, in part, a result of increased population density in the Judean highlands. This demographic shift was significantly influenced by the arrival of refugees from the Kingdom of Israel and the Shephelah region of Judah during the Assyrian military campaigns (Geva 2003:204–205; cf. Broshi 1974:21–26; Finkelstein 2013:154). However, this proposed transformation of Judah’s economy remains a subject of scholarly debate – particularly concerning the scale and impact of refugee resettlement. The arrival and integration of displaced populations continue to divide archaeological and biblical scholars. Nonetheless, one cannot overlook the earlier impact of regional instability, especially the campaign of the Aramean king Hazael in the late 9th century BCE, which some scholars view as a precursor to Assyrian influence in the region (Chadwick & Maeir 2018:48–54; Kleiman 2017:354–371; Moyal & Faust 2015:283–293). This broader geopolitical context contributed to shifts in power, population and ultimately economic organisation in Judah. Regarding the economic growth remarks on the Jerusalem’s viniculture are thus in order.

Not only was Ramat Raḥel associated with the Repha’im Valley, but Jerusalem itself was closely linked to the valley, which, by the 8th century BCE – and especially by the 7th century BCE – had emerged as Jerusalem’s wine country (Greenberg & Cinamon 2011:79–106). As Welch (2015:57–61) explains, the Repha’im Valley begins west of Jerusalem’s Old City and runs approximately 10 km southwest, where its river merges with the Sorek River. This valley hosted not only the palatial compound of Ramat Raḥel but also its westernmost site, Rogem Gannim, a large tumulus that anchored much of the region’s agricultural activity during the 8th to 4th centuries BCE (Welch 2015:57–61). The south-facing slopes of the Repha’im Valley are covered in thin terra rossa soil, making them especially suitable for viticulture (Greenberg & Cinamon 2006:235). Welch (2015) reports that,

Additionally, the discoveries in the sites included rock-cut basins and cisterns related to wine production and storage.

These wine presses match the emerging typology for Late Iron Age installations, particularly those discovered at Beit Safafa, where four presses were dated through ceramic remains. In total, 35 wine presses in the Repha’im are confidently dated to Iron IIB. A unique feature of this wine operation is the construction of tumuli along the valley’s bordering hills, symbolising elite control and oversight. The fact that the Repha’im Valley functioned as Jerusalem’s wine-producing hinterland suggests that economic elites and oligarchs based in Jerusalem controlled both the productive vineyards and wine manufacturing. As a result, the labour force likely consisted of poor Judeans, middle-class workers and slaves, who worked under elite supervision.

Khirbet er-Ras: While Khirbet er-Ras is often associated with olive oil production, archaeological evidence also attests to wine production on-site. Excavations by Yuval Gadot revealed two wine presses dated to the 8th century BCE, directly connected to Iron Age structures (Finkelstein et al. 2021:7). One notable example is Wine Press I, which features a curved niche in its back wall. It shares a wall with Building II, suggesting that they were constructed together as part of a coordinated facility (Finkelstein et al. 2021:6). These connections reinforce the view that both presses were integrated with Late Iron Age domestic or production buildings. In addition, an assemblage of at least 23 holemouth jars was found in a room just east of the wine presses, providing further evidence for wine production at the site (Freud 2018, Plate 79). As Finkelstein et al. (2021:7) note, the jars – conclusively dated to Iron IIC – ‘were probably used to store wine produced at the site’. Together, these findings confirm that Khirbet er-Ras was not only part of Judah’s agricultural periphery but also a site of significant wine production under local elite or administrative oversight in the 8th century BCE.

Tel Beer-sheba: Zoo-archaeological data provide significant insight into the 8th century BCE economy of the southern Levant, particularly with respect to livestock farming (Sasson 2008:113–134). According to Jeje (2024:55) ‘livestock during this period was exploited for a range of products’ – meat, milk and wool. The exploitation was hardly for the specialised production of a single commodity. As Sasson (2008:127) notes, ‘taphonomic analysis and body part representation of caprine and cattle at Tel Beer-sheba, Stratum II (8th century BCE), point to a food-maximising strategy’, aimed at securing dietary needs in Judah (cf. Sapir–Hen, Gadot & Finkelstein 2016:103–118). Despite the fact that Tel Beer-sheba was an urban site inhabited by elites, no evidence of selective exploitation (e.g. preference for meat-bearing body parts) was identified that would confirm on-site slaughtering of livestock (Sasson 2004:31–51, 2008:127). Additionally, ‘spatial distribution analysis of body parts in Stratum II at Tel Beer-sheba showed no indications of social stratification typically associated with a market economy’ (Sasson 2008:127). In the vicinity and surrounding areas of Tel Beer-sheba, sheep herding reflects a subsistence strategy aimed at balancing the demand for wool, a by-product of sheep herding, with herd security, largely provided by goats (Sasson 2008:127). Sasson (2008:127) concludes that livestock farming patterns across the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Southern Levant point to a self-sufficient economy and optimal exploitation of subsistence resources. One may thus infer that ‘the wool from sheep became a tradable commodity, likely generating income for elite urbanite Judeans, although zooarchaeological data do not indicate who actually owned the livestock’ (Jeje 2024:55).

Tell el-Hesi and Tel Halif: Meanwhile, other areas near Tel Beer-sheba, such as Tell el-Hesi and Tel Halif, traditionally viewed as agricultural settlements, have recently drawn renewed scholarly attention. Blakely and Hardin (2018:236), expecting to identify an agricultural community, instead found an administrative site from the 10th century BCE, which had been abandoned in the 9th century BCE and an agrarian countryside that appeared ‘almost devoid of farmsteads, hamlets and villages’ in the 8th century BCE. To resolve this apparent anomaly, they turned to paleoclimatological data. Interdisciplinary studies – incorporating geology, geography and climatology – suggest that Tell el-Hesi and Tel Halif were likely centres for shepherding and a pastoral lifestyle, supported by fortified structures built to defend Judah’s southwestern border against Philistia during the 9th and 8th centuries BCE (Wright 2018:6–7). Rejecting Finkelstein’s (1996:225–242) assessment that the southern coastal plain and Shephelah reflected a fully developed Philistine settlement system, Blakely and Hardin (2018:236) stress their finding that towns, villages and hamlets appear to be absent around Tell el-Hesi – a pattern that, in their view, remains largely unrecognised in current scholarship.