During the Iron IIA, we witness a surprising settlement wave in the Negev Highlands after a millennium during which the area was devoid of occupation. This is accompanied by drastic settlement transformations in the Beersheba Valley and an unparalleled peak in Aravah copper production. The evidence suggests that these changes are connected and can be explained by the expansion of the highland polity into the south. Initially, the Beersheba–Arad valley was taken over, and the groups that were affiliated with Israel flourished, whereas settlements of groups considered hostile were destroyed and their population transferred to other areas. Subsequently, the Israelites took control – directly or indirectly – over the lucrative copper production of the Aravah (Edom), where fortifications were now built, and where many lines of evidence show that the region was now economically connected with the north. The highland polity also took control of the Negev Highlands, building dozens of fortified settlements to control the roads to the copper mines of the Aravah and to secure the taxes from caravans crossing the area with the Arabian trade. The entire system functioned together and was oriented to the north (and many LFS buildings were unearthed there, cf., Excursus 6.1).

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