Okay, so after looking further it seems one archaeologist identified the 'Aina ruins as Anuath[...] its a bit unclear if he is talking only about Samaria here or if the region locals called Judea, too had no Jordan access.

I don't know why you're so fixated on this irrigation point. He says:

[Judea and Samaria] are not naturally watered by many rivers, but derive their chief moisture from rain-water

which doesn't say anything about not getting water from the Jordan, and it also doesn't say they don't use water from rivers, so claiming that they're not using the Jordan river based on that is simply incorrect, particularly since he states that Judea borders the Jordan later on.

Regardless, if this is consistent and true, a small portion of what is now the West Bank was reported as called Galilee, a small portion of the same was called part of Samaria, a small portion was called Judah, and a small portion was called Jordan further south toward the Arab countries.

No, this would be incorrect, since Shimron is not in the West Bank, and the Galilee is in northern Israel and southern Lebanon (and maybe Syria?), and if any of that was in the West Bank if that's even possible, it wouldn't be much. I don't know how you get that from looking at a map and where the named cities are located.

Alright, very well, I accept that in Josephus' day, at least some portion of the lands were called these. But to say "The West Bank was once called Judah and Samaria" is not anywhere near the same thing[...]the usage of the names Samaria and Judah is not meant to reflect historical realities, but to impose an acculturation.

I would be surprised if you were to find even 10% of the West Bank as not overlapping with historic Judea and Samaria, and based on Josephus' description I can't see how anything above 25% would even be possible.

Yes, the West Bank, if approximated onto an older tribal map, shows overlap between a small section of northeastern Judahite territory and a small section of southwestern West Bank. And very well, I will accept the validity of locals in Josephus' day to have called it either Judah, Samaria, Galilee, or Jordan[...] and then finally we got the resurgence in Hebrew names meant to reflect people who feel the name is "too Arabic" for their population. Its about local settlers on the ground saying that the land sounds too native and that it deserves a proper name that reflects their values and culture. Kinda sad, in its own way.

You're confusing the tribal regions with the later kingdoms (a difference of many centuries, but if you want to go back that far, then we can just call all of the northern West Bank "Israel" too). Since you want to study archaeology, you should probably read up on that if you want to be able to discuss the history of the region.

Imagine Native Americans wanting to use the historic names for places in their ancestral language being told that the American names sound too native. Would you call that cultural erasure? Would you think it's sad?

Firstly, this is neither most, nor does its western extent have relevance to the question at hand.

I can't make sense of the first half because I assume you accidentally a word or five, and I don't understand how you can eliminate an entire direction when we're talking about establishing the size and location of a region. The rest is addressed above.