Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/194

 176 PALESTINE It lies beyond the purpose of the present article to enter into the details of the ancient tribal demarcation of Palestine, especially as the tradition, as has been explained, is relatively late and artificial. As an illustration of our view of the subject we may select the boundaries of Judah itself (Josh. xv. ). Here the first thing that strikes the reader is that the western frontier as there described for the earliest times is purely ideal, inasmuch as it includes the land of the Philistines. Inconsistencies of view are apparent in the ascription of certain places in Judali to Simeon and of others to Dan. A further difficulty arises from the discrepancies between the Masso- retic text and that of the Scptuagint in regard to the number of towns belonging to Judali. As regards the southern boundaries described in Josh. xv. 2 sq., the course of the line, in our opinion, cannot be determined with certainty even if it were generally admitted that Kadesh-Barnea is to be fixed at Ain Kadi s. The determination of the northern boundary is more explicit : it ran from the mouth of the Jordan to Beth-hogla (which is found in Ain el-Hajla). The position of Beth-arabah (Beth ha-Araba) is doubtful ; and at least it has not been absolutely settled whether Eben Bohan ben Reuben really corresponds to Hajar el-Asbah. The identification of Debir with Thughrat-ed-Debr may be correct. Gilgal, which follows, is unknown. The ascent from Adummim may correspond with Talat-ed-Dem, which preserves at least an echo of the older name. It is a mere conjecture which places the water of En (Ain) Shemesh in Ain Haudh. The Fuller s Spring, En Eogel, has in recent times been sought in St Mary s Well ; but, with others, we consider Bir Eiyiib a more probable identification. The position of the valley of Hinnom and the plain of Rephaim has been determined ; Nephtoah corresponds perhaps to the modern Lifta. The places situated on Mount Ephron Baalah aud Kirjath-Jearim cannot be made out any more than the mountains Seir and Jearim. It may be admitted that Chesalon is Kesla and Bethshemesh is Ain Shems, since the direction towards Timnah (Tibna) is imperative. The position of Ekron is ascer tained ; but it is hazardous to find Shicron in Khirbet Sukereir ; and where Mount Baalah was situated we do not know. Finally, Jabniel corresponds to Yebna. From this example it is clear how difficult it is with the existing material to determine the ancient tribal limits, anil how necessary it is in such an undertaking to distinguish provisional conjectures from well-established identifica tion. To carry out this task lies beyond the scope of this article ; to prove individual points whole treatises require to be written. Compare the articles on the several tribes and the maps. It has already been remarked that the extension given to the tribal territories in the book of Joshua is frequently the mere re flexion of pious wishes. This holds true in general of th.e territories of Zebulun, Naphtali, and especially Asher ; it is to be particularly remembered that down to a very late date (the time of the Maccabees) the Israelites were almost entirely shut out from the sea-coast. To the north of the land of the Philistines the maritime plain was in the hands of the Phoenicians ; the plain to the south of Dor (the modern Tantura) was called Naphoth Dor (hill range of Dor). Even in the New Testament mention is made of a district of Tyre and Sidon to which we must not assign too narrow an extension inland. How matters stood in the country east of Jordon it is hard to decide. The stretch from the north of the Dead Sea to the Yarmuk (practically to the south end of the Lake of Tiberias) was the only portion securely held by the tribes of Israel ; here, on the Jabbok, in the centre of the trans-Jordan region, the Gadites had settled ; here there was an ancient Israelitic district in the neigh bourhood of Mahanaim, Jabesh (on the present Wadi Yabis), Succoth, Penuel places whose position for the most part cannot be determined. From some passages it is evident that the warlike tribe of Gad found it difficult to protect itself against its enemies. Numbers xxxii., a chapter belonging to the older class of sources, throws much light on the conditions under which the country east of Jordan was occupied, and it represents Reuben and Gad as having seized the Moabite territory to the north of the Arnon. We have in this a picture of a temporary extension of the territory of Israel, probably from the time of Omri (compare MOAB). According to the inscription of King Mesha, the Gadites were still in Ataroth ; Dibon, on the contrary, was Moabitic ; other towns, such as Kirjathairn, Nebo, Jahaz, had been conquered by Mesha from the Israelites. It is remarkable that the Reubenites are not once mentioned in the inscription. At the date, too, w r hen Isaiah xv.-xvi. were written (before the time of Isaiah himself ?), the Moabite dominion was widely extended. From all this it may be concluded that the Reubenites had to carry on a protracted struggle with Moab for the possession of the country, the walled towns being now subject to the one belligerent and now to the other, and the Arnon consequently forming only an ideal boundary. No accurate knowledge of the condition of the settlements of Manasseh in the country east of Jordan has come down to us. The clan Machir had its seat in Gilead ; and there, too, were the tent- villages of Jair, a clan which also possessed the district of Argob in Bashan, situated somewhere to the east of the Lake of Tiberias. The Nobah clan was settled in Kenath (the modern Kanawat) on the western slope of the Haiiran Mountains. From these facts it is evident that in the trans-Jordan region north of the Yarmuk and east of the Lake of Tiberias, there were at least a few Israelite colonies ; but they occupied merely scattered points, and thus in this district also the allotment of the country in the book of Joshua must be regarded as a mere pious wish. Other peoples settled in the Hauran, and the ever-advancing Aramaeans soon diminished and absorbed these Israelitic possessions. The tribes of Israel made a great step in the conquest of the country when, under the early kings, they became subject to a single central government. They were now strong enough to seize many of the walled towns which the Canaanites had hitherto occupied ; and their dominion, indeed, extended far beyond the limits of Palestine. Our information in regard to the divisions of the country during the regal period is very defective. The list of Solomon s twelve officers&quot; (1 Kings iv.) at least is derived from ancient sources ; but it must be observed that, while the boundaries of some of the districts appear to coincide with the tribal boundaries, the political division was not based on the tribal. Nor at a later date was the line of separation between the kingdoms determined simply by the tribal division ; the most that is meant is that Judah and Benjamin stood on the one side ; of Simeon there is no longer any word. In the account given in 1 Kings x.i. mention is only made of one tribe that remained true to David, by which must naturally be understood that of Judah. The limits, in fact, so far as they related to the tribal territory of Benjamin, seem to have varied from time to time ; the northern portion as far as Ramah (1 Kings xv.), or as far as the ravine of Michmash (Mukhmas), usually belonged to the northern kingdom, and the same was the case with Jericho. It was to this kingdom of Israel, also, with its general superiority in strength and influence, that all the Israelitic districts beyond Jordan were attached. That it con sisted, however, of ten tribes (1 Kings xii.) is a highly artificial computation. The small extent of the southern kingdom is evident from a list (if indeed it be trustworthy) given in 2 Chron. xi. of the towns fortified by Rehoboam. As regards the capitals of the northern kingdom, the royal court was originally at Shechem (Nabulus), from the time of Jeroboam I. at Tirzah (not yet identified), and from the time of Omri at Samaria (Sebastiye) ; the house of Ahab had its seat for a season at Jezreel (Zer in) (see vol. xiii. p. 689). It is rather an historical than a geographical task to describe in detail the boundaries or divisions of Palestine in later times. From the lists for the post-exilic period, found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, and containing a series of new topographical names, it is evident that a considerable portion of the old tribal territory of Benjamin as well as of Judah was again peopled by Jews, on the one hand the places from Jericho to Lydda, on the other a strip to the north of Bethel down to Beersheba in the south. Gradually, however, Edomites (perhaps pressed upon by Nabateans) forced their way into the southern portion of the country, with the capital Hebron, so that it obtained the name of Idumea. Before proceeding to the Grajco-Roman period it will be well to consider the names by which the country in general was called at different times. Gilead was the centre of the power of the Israelites on the east side of Jordan, and the whole country which they pos sessed there bore this name. Gilead consequently is opposed to Canaan, the &quot; Promised Land. &quot; For the later Hebrews distinguished this western territory as more especially the country which had been promised them, and regarded it as the possession of their national God, and therefore as a holy land. After the separation the more important northern and eastern portion naturally became the land of Israel par excellence, while the southern portion ultimately received the name of the individual tribe of Judah (as indeed the northern kingdom was frequently called after the most powerful tribe of Ephraim). The name of the southern kingdom appears in Cuneiform inscriptions as mat (ir) Ya-u-du (di); and it is said that mat Sir lai occurs once for the land of Israel, though more frequently it is called mat Humri (Land of Omri). Though it has not been absolutely proved that even the Assyrians occasionally included Judah under the designation Palastav or Pilista (Philistia), still there is nothing improbable about the supposition. But it cannot be taken for granted that the cis-Jordan country bore the name of land of the Philistines at a time when it was the scene of a great development of the Philistian power ; the name was rather, as so often happens, extended by their neighbours from Philistia proper to the country beyond, and from the Egyptians it passed to the Greeks. In the Old Testament Pelcshet is still always restricted to the Philistine coast-plain ; the same is the case in Josephus ; and in Herodotus, though the usage is not very explicit, Pala stina appears usually to have no wider application. Gradually, how ever, the designation PaLestina Syria, or simply Pahcstina, got into vogue, and was made to include even the country east of Jordan, and consequently the whole territory between Lebanon and Sinai. We now return to the divisions of Palestine. Already in the book of Kings (that is, by the time of the exile) the name Shomeron (Samaria) is applied to the territory of the northern kingdom, for mention is made of the &quot; towns of Samaria.&quot; In the