Palestine

The Amarna Age.—The small cities of this cosmopolitan Palestine were ruled by kings, not necessarily of the native stock; and the slight extent of these city-states is obvious from the refer ences to the kings of such near-lying sites as Jerusalem, Gezer, Ashkelon and Lachish. Apart from Jerusalem and a few towns on the coast, the real weight lay to the north, and especially in Amor (see AMORITES). It is an age of internal disorganization and a heavy pressure by land and by sea from Northern Syria and Asia Minor. Palestine seethes with excitement, wavering between allegiance to Egypt and intrigues with the great move ments at its north. The letters vividly describe the approach of the enemy, and, in appealing to Egypt, abound in protestations of loyalty, complaints of the disloyalty of other kings and excuses for the writers' suspicious conduct. Of exceptional interest are the letters from Jerusalem describing the hostility of the mari time coast and the disturbances of the Habiru, a name which, though often equated with that of the Hebrews, may have no ethnological or historical significance. At all events, the hostility of the Habiru cannot be isolated from that in other letters (where the enemy are otherwise described), and their steps do not agree with those of the invading Israelites in the book of Joshua. The history of the age illustrated by the Amarna letters is supple mented by the tablets found at Boghaz-keui, the capital of the old Hittite Empire. Subsequent Egyptian evidence records that Seti I. (c. 1321 B.C.) of the XIXth Dynasty led an expedition into Palestine, but struggles with the Hittites continued until Rameses II. concluded with them an elaborate treaty which left him little more than Palestine (1272 B.c.). Even this province was with difficulty maintained : the disturbances in the Levant and in Asia Minor (which belong to Aegean and Hittite history) and the revival of Assyria were reshaping the political history of Western Asia.

Under Rameses III. (c. 1200-1169) we may recognize wide spread disorganization in the movements in which the Philistines (q.v.) participated. Nevertheless, Egypt seems to have enjoyed a fresh spell of extended supremacy, and Rameses apparently succeeded in recovering Palestine and some part of Syria. But it was the close of a lengthy period during which Egypt had en deavoured to keep Palestine detached from the rest of south-west Asia, and Palestine had hard experience of the powerful empire at its south-western border. Somewhat later Tiglath-Pileser (c.

15) pushed the limits of Assyrian suzerainty westwards over the lands formerly held by the great Hittite Empire. Palestine had hitherto been bound up with Egypt, the Hittites and Mitanni, with the Amorites north of Lebanon and with the Philistine in vaders. For centuries it had had a stirring history. We now reach the Israelite period.

The Hebrew Monarchy.

At an age when there were no great external empires to control Palestine Israel arose and claimed a premier place amid its neighbours (c. 000). How the small rival districts with their petty kings were united into a kingdom under a single head is a disputed question; the stages to the independent Hebrew state with its national god Yahweh are still an unsolved problem. Biblical tradition itself quite plausibly represents a mighty invasion of tribes who had come from Southern Palestine and Northern Arabia (Elath, Ezion geber)—but primarily from Egypt—and, after a series of na tional "judges," established the kingship. But no place can be found for this conquest, as it is described, either before the "Amarna" age (the date, following 1 Kings vi. i) or about the time of Rameses II. and Merneptah (see Exod. i. I I) ; and when the latter king (c. 1233) records the subjugation of the people (or tribe) "Israel," it does not follow that this "Israel" was identical either with the Israelite tribes which invaded the land or with the intermixed people after this event. Whatever may have been the extent of the Israelite invasion and the sequel, the rise and persistence of an independent Palestinian kingdom depended upon its relations with the maritime coast (Philistia and Phoenicia), Edom, Moab, Ammon, Gilead and the Syrian states; and the biblical and external records for the next four centuries (to 586) frequently illustrate situations growing out of this interrelation.

The evidence for these crucial years is unequal and often sadly fragmentary, and is more conveniently noticed in connection with the biblical history. A conspicuous feature is the difficulty of maintaining a single monarchy (see SAUL, DAVID, SOLOMON ), which, however it originated, speedily became two rival states (Judah and Israel). These are separated by a very ambiguous frontier, and have their geographical and political links to the south and north respectively. The balance of power moves now to Israel and now to Judah, and tendencies to internal disintegra tion are illustrated by the dynastic changes in Israel and by the revolts and intrigues in both states. As the power of the sur rounding empires revived, these entered again into Palestinian history. As regards Egypt, apart from a few references in biblical

history (e.g., to its interference in Philistia and friendliness to Solomon), the chief event was the invasion by Sheshonk (Shishak) c. 930 B.C. ; but although it appears to be an isolated campaign, contact with Egypt never ceased. The next definite stage is the dynasty of the Israelite Omri (q.v.), to whom is ascribed the founding of the city of Samaria. The dynasty lasted nearly half a century, and is contemporary with the expansion of Phoenicia, and presumably therefore with some prominence of the south mari time coast. The royal houses of Phoenicia, Israel and Judah were united by intermarriage, and the last two by joint undertakings in trade and war.

Assyria and Armenia.

Meanwhile Assyria was gradually establishing itself westwards, and a powerful confederation of the heirs of the old Hittite kingdom, "kings of the land of Haar (the Assyrian term for the Hittites), was formed to oppose it. Southern Asia Minor, Phoenicia, Ammon, the Syrian Desert and Israel (under Omri's son "Ahab the Israelite") sent their troops to support Hamath and Damascus which, in spite of the repeated efforts of Shalmaneser III. (859-824), was evidently able to hold its own so long as the alliance endured. But the anti-Assyrian league was, as often in west Asia, a temporary one, and the inveterate rivalries of the small states are illustrated in a striking manner in the downfall of Omri's dynasty and the rise of that of Jehu (841) ; the bitter onslaughts of Damascus upon Israel, leading nearly to its annihilation; an unsuccessful attack upon the king of Hamath by Damascus, Cilicia and small states in north Syria; an Israelite expedition against Judah and Jerusalem (2 Kings xiv. 13 seq.) ; and finally the recovery and extension of Israelite power—perhaps to Damascus—under Jeroboam II. In such vicissitudes as these Palestinian history proceeds upon a much larger scale than the national biblical records relate and the external evidence is of the greatest importance for the light it throws upon the varying situations. The heirs of the old Hittite and Mitannian states stood behind the rivalries of Syrian and Palestinian kings. Assyria and Van or Urartu (Ararat, the later Armenia) were the great protagonists; and it is in the light of far-reaching moves and countermoves that one must interpret the isolated or incomplete narratives of Hebrew history. Adad nirari III. (811-782) claims as tributary the land of the Hatti, Amor, Tyre, Sidon, "the land of Omri" (Israel), Edom and Philistia; but there followed a period of weakness for Assyria, when Urartu controlled the destinies of the petty states and Jeroboam restored the glories of Israel. But at his death Israel was rent by divided factions, whereas Judah (under Uzziah) had become a powerful kingdom, controlling both Philistia and the Edomite port of Elath on the gulf of `Akaba. The depend ence of Judah upon these districts was inevitable; the resources of Jerusalem obviously did not rely upon the small district of Judah alone. If Ammon also was tributary (2 Chron. xxvi. 8, xxvii.), political dealings with Israel and perhaps Damascus could probably be inferred. (See JEWS, § 9.) Predominance of Assyria.—A new period begins with Tiglath-Pileser III. (745-727). Pro- and anti-Assyrian parties make themselves strongly felt, and when north Syria was taken in 738, Tyre, Sidon, Damascus (under Rezin), "Samaria" (under Menahem), and a queen of Aribi were among the tributaries. It is possible that Judah (under Uzziah and Jotham) had come to an understanding with Assyria ; at all events Ahaz was at once encircled by fierce attacks, and was only saved by Tiglath Pileser's campaign against Philistia, north Israel and Damascus. With the siege and fall of Damascus (733-732) Assyria gained the north, and its supremacy was recognized by the tribes of the Syrian desert and Arabia (Aribi, Tema, Sheba). In 722 Samaria, though under an Assyrian vassal (Hoshea), joined with Philistia in revolt. In 72o it was allied with Gaza and Damascus; and the persistence of unrest is evident when Sargon in 715 found it necessary to transport into Samaria various peoples of the desert. Judah itself was next involved in an anti-Assyrian league (with Edom, Moab and Philistia), but apparently submitted in time. Nevertheless a decade later (70o), after the change of dynasty in Assyria, it participated in a great but unsuccessful effort from Phoenicia to Philistia to shake off the yoke, and suffered dis astrously (see HEZEKIAH). With the crushing blows upon Syria and Samaria the centre of interest moves southwards and the his tory is influenced by Assyria's rival Babylonia (under Marduk baladan and his successors), by north Arabia and by Egypt. Hence-' forth the history of Samaria is ignored by the biblical writers; and of Judah, for nearly a century, few political events are recorded. Judah was under Assyrian supremacy, and, although it was involved with people of the Arabian desert in the revolt planned by Babylonia (against Assurbanipal), it appears to have been generally quiescent.