In the late Iron I, the Galilee was dotted with small farming villages. In the early Iron II, these were all abandoned while at the same time, large, fortified towns such as Hazor were built in the adjacent regions. The two processes were connected, reflecting the Israelite takeover of the region. As the highland polity expanded into the hilly Galilee, the local groups, many of which had a similar background and lifestyle, had to choose whether to affiliate with it or fight against it. Many, especially in more mountainous regions, simply became Israelite “tribes,” whereas settlements that were regarded as non-Israelites (“Canaanites”) were mostly destroyed. Like in other regions, the result was a complete reshuffling in settlement patterns, and the new polity built new centers to control the area. Here, however, the new polity had to contend with another polity, Tyre, with which it wished to remain on friendly terms. Thus, the western part of the Galilee (along with the Galilee coast) was left in Phoenician hands.

The evidence from Transjordan reveals a pattern: Most areas in the Transjordan experienced a wave of abandonment at around the middle of the tenth century BCE, whereas some regions flourished. The common denominator of the former is that it includes territories associated with Ammon and Moab, whereas the latter pattern is typical of regions that the Bible describes as Israelite. It appears that as Israel expanded, some groups opposed it and were defeated, suffering the consequences. Other groups, perhaps of similar backgrounds, joined Israel and adopted its identity (e.g., in the Gilead); subsequently, they flourished. Israelite expansion can therefore explain the changing pattern in Transjordan, even if not all the areas that suffered abandonment were actually conquered by Israel. It is likely that Israelite aggression resulted in a wave of abandonment beyond the area of actual Israelite control.