of Jaffa (Joppa) to the Egyptian desert south of Gaza (on the subsequent extension of the name in its Greek form Palaestina, see Palestine).
1. Egyptian Evidence.—The name is derived from the Purasati, one of a great confederation from north Syria, Asia Minor and the Levant, which threatened Egypt in the XXth Dynasty. They are not among the hordes enumerated by Rameses II. or Merneptah but in the eighth year of Rameses III. (c. 1200–1190) the Purasati hold a prominent place in a widespread movement on land and sea. The Syrian states were overwhelmed and the advance upon Egypt seemed irresistible. Rameses, however, collected a large fleet and an army of native troops and mercenaries and claimed decisive victories. The Egyptian monuments depict the flight of the enemy, the heavy ox-carts with their women and children, and the confusion of their ships. But the sequel of the events is not certain. Even if the increasing weakness of the Egyptian Empire did not invite a repetition of the incursion, it could have allowed the survivors to settle down, and about a century later one of the peoples formerly closely allied with the Purasati is found strongly entrenched at Dor, and together with the more northerly port of Byblos treats with scant respect the traditional suzerainty of Egypt.[1] That some definite political changes ensued in this age have been inferred on other grounds, and the identification of the Purasati with the Philistines may permit the assumption that the latter succeeded in occupying the district with which they have always been associated.
The Egyptian monuments represent the Purasati with a very distinctive feather head-dress resembling that of the Lycians and Mycenaeans. Their general physiognomy is hardly Cilician or Hittite, but European. Their arms comprise two short swords, a longer spear, a round shield, and they sometimes wear a coat of mail; a curious feature is their tactics of fighting in a circle of protecting shields. The chariots resemble the Hittite with two crossed receptacles for the weapons, but obviously these were not used by the Purasati alone. On archaeological grounds the Purasati have been connected with the people of Keftiu, i.e. Mycenaeans of Crete, although a wider application of this term is not to be excluded.
See further, G. Maspero, Struggle of the Nations, pp. 461 sqq.; W. M. Müller, Asien u. Europa, pp. 354 sqq.; Mitteil. d. vorderasiat. Gesell. pp. 1-42 (1900), pp. 113 sqq. (1904); H. R. Hall, British School of Athens, viii. 157 sqq., x. 154 sqq.; Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xxxi. (1909) passim; R. Weill, Rev. archéol., i. 52 sqq. (1904); R. Dussaud, Rev. de l’hist. des relig., ii. 52 sqq. (1905). More recently, A. Wiedemann, Orient. lit. Zeit. (1910), cols. 49 sqq. disputes the identification of Keft with Crete.
2. History.—Biblical tradition, too, has recognized the Philistines as immigrants from Caphtor (Amos ix. 7). They appear in the pre-Mosaic age (Gen. xxi. 32, 34, xxvi.), at the Exodus of the Israelites (Ex. xiii. 17, xv. 14), and the invasion of Palestine. They are represented as a confederation of five cities (Ashdod, Asealon [Ashkelon], Ekron, Gath and Gaza) which remained unconquered (Joshua xiii. 2 seq., Judges iii. 3; contrast Joshua xv. 45-47, xix. 43). The institution of the Hebrew monarchy (c. 1000 B.C.) follows upon periods of Philistine oppression (Judges iii. 31, x. 7, 11, xiii. 1-5; see Samson; Eli; Samuel; Saul; David). The subjugation of them is ascribed to Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 13), Saul (xiv. 47), and David (2 Sam. viii. 1; for Solomon see 1 Kings x. 20); but they evidently recovered their independence, and we find that twice within a short time the northern Israelites laid siege to the border fortress of Gibbethon (1 Kings xv. 27, xvi. 15). Although this place has not been identified, it is mentioned in a list of Danite cities with Aijalon, Ekron, Eltekeh and Timnah (Joshua xix. 44, xxi. 23), names of importance for the history. Somewhat later the evidence becomes fuller, and much valuable light is thrown upon the part which the Philistine coast played in the political history of Palestine. Gaza, the most southerly and famous of the Philistine towns, was the terminus of the great caravan-route from Edom and south Arabia, with whose Bedouin it was generally on good terms. It was “the outpost of Africa, the door of Asia” (G. A. Smith), the stepping-off point for the invasion of Egypt, and the fortress which, next in importance to Lachish, barred the maritime road to Phoenicia and Syria.[2] It is necessary to realize Gaza’s position and its links with trading centres, since conditions in the comparatively small and half-desert land of Judah depended essentially upon its relations with the Edomites and Arabian tribes on the south-east and with the Philistines on the west.[3] Jehoshaphat’s supremacy over Philistines and Arabians (2 Chron. xvii. 11, partly implied in 1 Kings xxii. 47) is followed by the revolt of Libnah (near Lachish) and Edom against his son Jehoram (2 Kings viii. 20, 22). The book of Chronicles mentions Philistines and Arabians, and knows of a previous warning by a prophet of Mareshah (east of Lachish; 2 Chron. xx. 37, xxi. 16). In like manner, the conquests of Uzziah over Edom and allied tribes (2 Kings xiv. 22, see 2 Chron. xxvi. 7) and over Gath, Ashdod and Jabneh (ibid. v. 6) find their sequel in the alliance of Samaria and Damascus against Ahaz, when Edom recovered its independence (so read for “Syria” in 2 Kings xvi. 6), and the Philistines attacked Beth-shemesh, Aijalon, Timnath, &c. (2 Chron. xxviii. 17 seq.).[4] These notices at least represent natural conditions, and the Assyrian inscriptions now are our authority. Tiglath-pileser IV. (734 B.C.) marched down and seized Gaza, removing its gods and goods. Its king Hanun had fled to Muṣri, but was pursued and captured; Ascalon, Judah and Edom appear in a list of tributaries. Muṣri was entrusted to the care of the Arabian Idibi’il (of the desert district), but continued to support anti-Assyrian leagues (see Hoshea), and again in 720 (two years after the fall of Samaria) was in alliance with Gaza and north Palestine. Assyria under Sargon defeated the southern confederation at Rapiḥi (Raphia on the border of Egypt) and captured Hanun; the significance of the victory is evident from the submission of the queen of Aribi (Arabia), the Sabaean Itamara, and Muṣri. This Muṣri appears to have been a district outside the limits of Egypt proper, and although tribes of the Delta may well have been concerned, its relations to Philistia agree with the independent biblical account of the part played previously by Edom and Arabian tribes (see Mizraim). But the disturbances continued, and although desert tribes were removed and settled in Samaria in 715, Muṣri and Philistia were soon in arms again. Ashdod (see Isa. xx.) and Gath were taken and sacked, the people removed, and fresh colonies were introduced. Judah, Edom and Moab were also involved, but submitted (711 B.C.). Scarcely ten years passed and the whole of Palestine and Syria was again torn with intrigues. Sennacherib (Sargon’s successor in 705) marched to the land of the “Hittites,” traversed
- ↑ So the Papyrus first published by W. Golénischeff (Rec. de travaux, xxi. 74 sqq.), on which see A. Erman, Zeit. f. aegypt. Sprache, pp. 1–14 (1900); W. M. Müller, Mitteil. d. vorderasiat. Gesell. pp. 14 sqq. (1900); J. H. Breasted, Hist. of Eg. pp. 513 sqq.; Historical Records, iv. 274 sqq.; H. W. Hogg, in the Theolog. Series I. of the publications of university of Manchester, p. 90 seq.
- ↑ See G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land, chs. ix. seq.; and M. A. Meyer, History of the City of Gaza (New York, 1907). For the traditions associating Gaza with Crete, see the latter, Index, s.v. Minos; the resemblance between the Minaeans of South Arabia and Cretan Minos has afforded grounds for all kinds of speculations, ancient (Pliny vi. 157) and modern.
- ↑ Between the central Judaean plateau and the latter lay the “lowlands” (Shěphēlah), a district open equally to Judaeans and Philistines alike.
- ↑ Cf. Gaza and Edom against Judah in Amos i. 6, and, for the part played by Damascus, the later vicissitudes under the Nabataeans (Josephus, Ant. xiii. 13. 3). It is difficult to date the alliance of Syria and Philistia against Israel in Isa. ix. 11 seq. (on the text, see the commentaries).
were called by the students Philister; they were “outsiders,” the enemy of the chosen people. It is supposed that this use arose in 1693 in Jena after a “town and gown” row in which a student had been killed and a sermon preached on the text “the Philistines be upon you, Samson” (see Quarterly Review, April 1899, 438, note, quoted in the New English Dictionary). “Philistine” thus became the name of contempt applied by the cultured to those whom they considered beneath them in intellect and taste, and was first so used in English by Carlyle, and Matthew Arnold (Essays in Criticism, “Heinrich Heine,” 1865) gave the word its vogue and its final connotation, as signifying “inaccessible to and impatient of ideas.”—[Ed.]
