Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/193

PALESTINE 175 the south-west of the country; an Arabian population was settled in the south and south-west. Amalekites and Midianites, and the Kenites, a branch of the latter, early entered into close relationship with the Israelites, and along with them took possession of the extreme south, where, however, they remained nomadic. Of peoples closely akin to the Israelites may be mentioned the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Edomites. Before the arrival of the Israelites the Moabites had developed a certain degree of power. The district, bordering on Edom, which they occupied in the south of the country east of Jordan, was bounded on the south by Wadi el-Ahsa (called in Is. xv. 7 the brook of the willows), an affluent of the southern part of the Dead Sea, and on the north stretched far beyond the Arnon (originally, indeed, to the north end of the sea, as in later times the country near Jericho was known as the steppes of Moab). Its eastern frontier must always have been matter of dispute, the relations of the nomadic tribes of the Syrian desert being the same as they are now, and contests with the Ammonites taking place from time to time. The Ammonites, a closely related people, lay to the north-east of Moab, east of the later possessions of Israel; but, as they were in the main nomadic, their frontiers were of a shifting character (see vol. i. p. 742). TheEdomitfes (also nomadic) were situated in the south of the country east of Jordan ; how far, at an earlier period, they extended their encampments to the west of Jordan and into the Negeb district cannot be with certainty decided. It depends on the conception we form as io the general tribal relations of Israel how we represent to our selves the method in which the settlement of the country by the tribes was accomplished as they passed from the nomadic to the fixed mode of life (cf. ISRAEL, JOSEPH, JUDAH). To explain this tribal relationship is not the task of a geographical sketch ; it is enough for the present pur pose to call attention to the fact that the account of the rise of the Israelitic tribes as it has come down to us is in great measure mythical or the product of later reflexion ; even the number twelve is made out only with difficulty. Further, the settlements of the several tribes must be by no means conceived as administrative districts after the fashion of the modern canton ; and, thirdly, the view that the several tribes had, after a general invasion of the country, their tribal territories allotted by Joshua (as we now read in the book of Joshua) is taken from the most modern, post-exilic, source of the Hexateuch, and stands in glaring opposition to the accounts in other books, according to which the conquest was in the main a peaceful one, and the assimilation with the native Canaanites gradually effected. The tribes which settled to the north of the great plain, especially those on the sea-coast, appear to have been much less successful in keeping free from Canaanitish influence ; gradually, however, as the state and religion of Israel grew stronger, Israelitish influence made its way more and more even there. The heart of the country was the central portion later known as Samaria. The opposition between this district and the southern part of the country took shape at an early date. In the extreme south the Simeonites retained their nomadic way of life, and were by degrees mixed up with other wandering tribes. Down into the time of the early kings the dominion of the powerful Philistines stretched far into the centre of the country, and gave the first impulse to a firmer concentration of the energies of Israel. But the Israelites did not succeed in forcing their way in the southern regions down to the sea ; in culture and well- established political institutions they were far surpassed by the Philistines. As regards the geography of the Philistine territory, the position of four of their chief towns, Gaza, Askelon, Ashdod, and Ekron, is known ; but it has not been ascertained where the fifth, Gath, was situated, though it must have lain not far from the present B6t Jibrin. No definite boundaries can be assigned to the Israelitic country to north, south, or west. Up to the conquest of Jebus the most important city of the southern region was undoubtedly Hebron (see vol. xi. p. 608). Clans belonging to Judah had there combined with others of alien origin ; and the portions of this tribe which dwelt in the farthest south had become mingled with elements from the tribe of Simeon, while on the other hand the Simeonites acquired certain places in the territory of Judah. In regard to the south country in general, we obtain in the Old Testament the most detailed description of the frontiers, but the reason that we are able to follow it with so much accuracy is that the statements refer exclusively to post-exilic times, though it must be assumed that a certain recollection was still preserved of the original boundary between Judah and Benjamin. The line of the marches of the northern tribes, as indeed this whole system of demarcation, frequently follows the configuration of the ground, but occasionally becomes vague and doubtful. Especially striking is the omission of the districts of Samaria ; it seems that at the time of the codification of the system this district was little known to the Judasans. A great deal of trouble has been expended more especially since the rise of a more scientific exploration of the country in verifying the old place-names which are known from the Bible, the writings of Eusebius, and the Talmud. The task is rendered much easier by the fact that in Palestine, as in every country where the ethnographic conditions have not been too violently revolutionized, a large number of ancient names of places have been preserved in use for thousands of years, often with only insignificant changes of form a state of matters to which the continuous existence in the country of Semitic-speaking people has powerfully contributed. The identification of the ancient with the modern names demands none the less thorough historical and philological investigation. Through the labours of Robinson and Guerin we now possess a list of the names in use at least in the country west of Jordan. The list of six thousand names collected during the English survey by Lieuts. Conder and Kitchener is particularly rich, though it must be borne in mind that the orthography in many cases has not been determined with sufficient accuracy, and that a revision of the collection on the spot by a trained Arabic scholar would be desirable. By the help of this abundant material many of the ancient place-names can undoubtedly be assigned to their localities, and in part at least the direction of the tribal boundaries as they were conceived by the author of the lists preserved in the book of Joshua can be followed. In regard to a large number of places, Joshua leaves us to mere conjecture ; and the investiga tions and combinations hitherto effected are (in the opinion of the present writer) far from sufficient for the construc tion of such a map of ancient Palestine as the Palestine Exploration Fund has published. The difficulties of the case are further increased by the fact that the ancient localities were at an early date fixed by tradition. An undoubted example of this is furnished by the grave of Rachel between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the localizing of which goes back to an ancient gloss on Gen. xxxv. 19. Even in the case of apparently well-established identi fications such as Beitin = Bethel, the question may be raised whether in reality artificial tradition may not have been at work, and ancient Bethel have to be sought elsewhere. Too much care, therefore, cannot be brought to bear on the reconstruction of the ancient geography of Palestine.