THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
dominant people, even though their descent was not forgotten. G. w. G.]
This is confirmed by the further fact that they did not practise circumcision (Judges xiv. 3, xv. 18; I Sam. xvii. 26, xviii. 25), with which should be put the fact that the " sea folk " of Merneptah were uncircumcised (W M. Muller, Asien und Europa, pp. 357-358, Leipsic, 1893), and with these the Purasati of Rameses were connected. For the time when they entered Palestine the Golenisheff papyrus (ut sup.) gives a suggestion, since the date of Herihor is about 1100. The Bidir of Dor had received an Egyptian embassy sixteen years earlier, and the Egyptians had bought timber of his father and grandfather. Hence the Zakkari had been settled in the region some fifty or sixty years before the time of the papyrus, and this goes back approximately to the time of Rameses III. (ut sup.). This comes into close connection with the unrest caused by the dissolution of the Hittite realm in northern Syria. By 1100 the Philistines had at least partly subjected the Hebrews, and it would appear that shortly after they had firmly seated themselves in the lowlands of Judea they attacked the mountain region. Their success was won probably not through greater numbers but by means of better weapons and cleverer tactics. The Egyptian monuments show that they were equipped with felt helmets, coats of mail, large round shields, short spears, large swords, and war chariots. If they came from Asia Minor, they must have possessed the Mycenean culture and were by no means " barbarians."
When the Philistines came into touch with Israel, their territory was divided into five districts, the chiefs of which were called seranim, " lords." The capitals of these districts, named from north to south, were Ekron, Ashdod, Gath, Ashkelon, and Gaza. This fivefold division may correspond to tribal divisions. The Old Testament
4. Early names the Cherethites as occupying
History, the northwestern part of the Negeb, and these with the Zakkari may make up two outside groups of the same stock. Since Achish is called " king " in I Sam. xxi. 10 and elsewhere, he may have been the head of the Philistine confederation; an alternative supposition is that the Hebrew writer used the ordinary terminology. Inasmuch as during the reign of Rameses III. the Egyptian boundaries reached to Lebanon, while Dor was apparently in the possession of the Zakkari, it seems probable that their advance along the great highway of commerce by way of Carmel took place after the Egyptian power suffered a decline. It appears strange that the region about Dor and the Plain of Sharon was not reckoned in with the five districts of the Philistines, for when the battle of Gilboa was fought, these regions must have been in their power. The southernmost limits of their territory had been attained when they reduced Israel. The mention of the Philistines which appears in such passages as Gen. xxvi., cf. xxi. 22-23, are anachronisms, since the Egyptian monuments do not indicate settlement in what became their territory before the twentieth dynasty. The migration of the Danites (Judges xviii.) may have been due to the Philistines. In the long contest between
the Philistines and Israel, the former appear as the aggressors, with the purpose of conquering the highland, the middle portion of which came into their power according to I Sam. v.-vi. The lower portion is shown by the story of Samson to have been already under their control (Judges xiii.-xvi., cf. iii. 31). The fear of this people was so great among the Hebrews that many of the latter entered their ranks against their own kin (I Sam. xiv. 21). While Saul began the period of successful resistance, his reign was rather one of little contests with them than a serious campaign for freedom. At this time David (q.v.) became a beloved leader of his people (I Sam. xviii. 7) against the common foe. When Saul turned against David, the latter took refuge with Achish of Gath, who gave him Ziklag as his residence. The last battle between Saul and the Philistines took place at the foot of Mount Gilboa, where Saul and his sons fell, and the earlier hegemony of the Philistines was reestablished. Ishbosheth established his capital at Mahanaim, and David became king over Judah in Hebron (II Sam. ii.-iv.). When the latter became king over all Israel, the Philistines regarded the act as one of revolt and sought to maintain their mastery. David knew, however, the advantage which was his in the possession of the highlands, and in numerous great and small conflicts (II Sam. v. 17-25, xxi. 15-22, xxiii. 9-17) not only secured the freedom of his people but reduced the Philistines to a position of subjection, at least in part, though their position on the highway enabled them still to profit by overland commerce. Gittites (from Gath) were in David's army (II Sam. xv. 18), as well as the Cherethites and Pelethites, who were probably of Philistine blood. The theory of W. M. Muller that the victory of David was due to the Philistines having at the same time to resist an attack by the Egyptians has little to sustain it; David's success was partly due to the advantage of position. In Solomon's time Egypt sought to reestablish her hegemony over the region (I Kings ix. 16), and to this may be due the fact that Dor was independent of Israel. But the result was such a weakening of the Philistines that the Plain of Jezreel and Carmel, the key to the trade route, fell into Solomon's hands and with it command of commerce. When Shishak made his raid, the Philistines seem to have given him no trouble, since no mention is made of capture of plunder with reference to them. The territory of the Philistines, as it is reflected in the Old Testament, seems to picture the situation as it was after Solomon's time.
From that time there appears little which indicates an independent development of the Philistines. The conflicts between them and Israel have little significance. Rehoboam fortified his dominion against them by a line of strongholds (II Chron. xi. 7-12). Nadab and Elah fought with 5. Later them at Gibbethon (I Kings xv. 27, History, xvi. 15 sqq.); Jehoshaphat received tribute from them (II Chron. xvii. 11), but the harem of Jehoram was carried off by them (II Chron. xxi. 16-17). Gath seems to have been taken from Judah by Hazael (II Kings xii. 17), while Uzziah carried on a victorious campaign