100 SUNG JIN PARK missive cities with all possible brutality 10. If Samaria was besieged for three years by a massive attack of the Assyrians and eventually conquered by Shalmaneser V, one would hardly imagine that the greatly weakened survivors in Samaria could join an alliance to rebel against Assyria shortly after the conquest. Having considered that Sargon II was aware of a re- bellion of the allied group, while engaging the battle with the Elamites at Der in the South and attacking the alliance in the West in 720 BCE, the residents of Samaria would have at the most only one year and a half after the first conquest. It was too short a period of time for them to prepare an- other battle against Assyria. One could argue that the inhabitants of Samaria, who had suffered severely but were not yet deported, could in fact participate in the rebellion after the three year siege. However, this argument is by no means convincing. If the people of Samaria had maintained their military force, how could Sargon have captured the city within such a short time, where Shalmaneser V took three years over the conquest? It is recognized that the Assyrian army, at their fastest, could cover 18.75 miles per day and at their slowest 7.5 miles. Younger states, “Since Sargon had fought the battle of Der in Babylonia earlier in the same year (720 BCE), the campaign in the Levant must have been very swift indeed. Thus, from a purely logistical viewpoint Sargon’s siege of Samaria in the year 720 BCE had to be very short” 11. Furthermore, it is very doubtful that Sargon II could engage the battle with the Westland so quickly (within one year) after being defeated by the combined forces of the Elamites and the Babylonians. Second, according to the excavators of Samaria, relatively few signs of destruction were found, when compared with other cities, which nor- mally reveal utter destruction due to Assyrian conquest 12. Therefore, it is hardly conceivable that Samaria would be well preserved after two con- quests by the Assyrians. Third, although Tadmor admits that the descriptions of the Annals, the Nim- rud Prism, and the Great Display inscription are primarily geographical rather than chronological, the chronological order of “the two-conquest model” is not without problems. According to this model, its chronological order is as follows: 1) The first conquest of Samaria by Shalmaneser V (in the autumn of 722 BCE) 2) The withdrawal of the Assyrian army from Samaria to Assur 3) The domestic conflict described in the Assur Charter and the Borowski Stela 10 NA’AMAN, “Historical Background”, 208-209. 11 YOUNGER, “The Fall of Samaria”, 473. 12 N. AVIGAD, “Samaria”, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excava- tions in the Holy Land (New York 1993) IV, 1300-1310; J.W. CROWFOOT – K.M. KENYON – E.L. SUKENIK, The Objects from Samaria (London 1957) 97-98.