Israelite historiography saw the time of the Judges as the initial phase of the consolidation of a new ethnical and political entity (the tribal league). The latter developed in the highlands of the West Bank and partly in the Transjordan plateau. The conflicts of this new entity with the surviving Canaanite and other emerging city-states were re-interpreted as phases of ‘oppression’, meant to punish the sins of its people, or phases of ‘liberation’, which were the result of divine forgiveness. Similarly, this consolidation process saw the rise of temporary individual or group governments, the experimentation of non-bureaucratic decisional procedures (oracles and selections by lot), and finally the progressive formation of a new type of monarchic state. The latter was characterised by the earliest attempts (by Jephthah, Gideon and Abimelech) to adapt the tribal element of this new entity into a centralised type of government. Meanwhile, as a result of similar processes, the Transjordan plateau saw the rise of other ‘national’ entities: the Ammonites to the east of the Middle Jordan; the Moabites to the east of the Dead Sea; and the Edomites further south. Apart from these groups, there were the tribes dealing with camels (Midianites, Amalekites), which practised the new type of ‘full’ nomadism typical of the Iron Age, and were able to move deep into the West Bank through ruthless incursions.
The transition from the relatively flexible time of the Judges, characterised by its strong tribal legacy, to a unitary monarchy, in which some aspects of the previous palace systems reappeared, was embodied by the figures of Samuel and Saul (ca. 1000 bc). The coronation of Saul mirrors in its timing (i. e. war) and its forms (i. e. divine appointment by a ‘prophet’ and the subsequent acclamation of his people) the appointment of the Judges. However, his authority was far more influential and led to very different implications. The tribal league was held together by kinship and religious ties as well as its enmity for the surviving city-states. When it began to merge the institutions of the tribe with those of the city, it essentially lost its raison d’etre as an opponent of a sedentary type of order and became a representative of this same order. Consequently, authority had to become more consistent and complex. Post-exilic historiography would idealise this problem in the dialogue between the prophet/judge Samuel and the people on the advantages and disadvantages of the establishment of kingship. Samuel recalls the oppression and abuses of the Canaanite kings against whom the league rose. However, the people suggest a new type of kingship, which envisions the king as a judge of his people, leader in his people’s wars, and an expression of their political independence.
According to the Bible, Saul ruled over the small court of Gibeah (a mountain city). He was supported by a circle of military leaders (his son Jonathan, his cousin Abner and David, his armour-bearer). Saul managed to succeed against the Amalekites and Ammonites to the east and the Philistines to the west, and integrated the tribes into a unitary system. The Philistines, more worried by this unification than Saul’s military successes, organised a counter-attack that peaked with the battle of Gilboa. The defeated Saul killed himself, and the Philistines established their authority in his kingdom.
However, this conquest did not cause a reversal to the previous political organisation of the area. The northern tribes (Israel) recognised Saul’s son, Ish-Baal, as king, while the south (Judah) became the centre of David’s kingdom under concession of the Philistines, who found the division advantageous. However, when Ish-Baal died, the tribes’ elders encouraged David to become king over the whole of Israel and crowned him at Hebron. The response of the Philistines, however, arrived too late and was ineffective. David managed to relegate the Philistines to the coast, establishing his control over the mountains, where the majority of Israelites lived. This is the Biblical version of the facts. In reality, the kingdom of Saul, even if it actually existed, was limited to the small territories of the tribes of Ephraim and Benjamin.
The Bible also attests that, on an institutional level, Israel began its first definitive steps during the reign of David (1000—960 bc). The heart of the kingdom was not the tribal league alone anymore, and other elements became part of a system held together by proximity and obedience to a single ruler. Overall, this move indicates a return to a more territorial type of state, but with two main differences. First, in terms of dimension, the Davidic state included that part of Palestine previously broken down into city-states. Second, the survival of the tribes’ national identity allowed the prevailing element (Israel) to gather within its tribal structure other formerly extraneous elements, such as cities and minor tribal groups.
This overcoming of the tribal state could only have taken place through a thorough process of consolidation and military expansion. Apart from Judah and Israel, then, David conquered the city-state of Jerusalem. The latter became his capital, since it was a city extraneous to the tribal system and thus ‘neutral’. David conquered even more territories, which were all tied in some way to the king: Edom was annexed, Ammon was subdued, and Moab became a vassal state. The Arameans in the north-east and the Philistines in the south-west were kept under control. The Biblical tradition, overestimating the size of the Davidic kingdom in order to make it the ultimate example of national pride, recounts a garrison in Damascus and a tribute sent by the king of Hama.
The military and political successes of David led to an idealisation of Israel as a land extending from the Egyptian border to the Euphrates, well beyond the border of the Promised Land and the actual location of the Israelite tribes. Internally, the kingdom would have experienced the establishment of a group of mercenaries independent from the tribes’ army, as well as of a class of administrators. Similarly, the palace and its functionaries would have regained their role at the heart of the state, leaving the rest of the population outside the political milieu and merely acting as a resource for taxation and labour. However, this scenario continues to remain utopic. The local archaeological data and the evidence from outside the Levant show that it is impossible that such a large kingdom with such a structure existed between the eleventh and tenth centuries bc. The only supporting evidence for this phase comes from a later Aramaic inscription found at Tel Dan. This inscription mentions a ‘House of David’ only to indicate the kingdom ofJudah alone.
The Bible provides an even more utopic and anachronistic portrayal of the reign of Solomon (ca. 960—920 bc), David’s son and successor. Once the war ended, political relations became more diplomatic. In this regard, the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of the king of Egypt was a particular mark of prestige. to the commercial ties with the Phoenicians of Tyre, trade was thriving and displayed a particular interest in southern Arabia, chief provider of gold and incense. Initially, merchants followed the old sea routes under Egyptian control. Expeditions departed from the seaport of Ezion-geber and descended the Red Sea to Ophir. From there, the expeditions would continue via land along routes linking Yemen to the Transjordan plateau, which had now become viable thanks to the domestication of the camel. Consequently, the biblical account of the visit of the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem, despite its fairy-tale connotations, has a plausible commercial background.
The public buildings begun by David were greatly improved by Solomon. This is one of the aspects in which the archaeological evidence could confirm the Bible’s account, but fails to do so. The description of ‘Solomon’s temple’ appears to have been, in actual fact, a plan for the construction of a ‘second’ temple in the Achaemenid period. This temple followed the model of the great Babylonian temple complexes with storehouses and workshops. Even the plan of the palace imitates a Persian apadana (a large hypostyle hall). Moreover, the dimensions of these complexes as a whole were out of proportion for Palestine in the tenth century bc. Actually, they would have taken up the entire area occupied by the city of Jerusalem at the time. It has to be borne in mind that the Levantine temple was relatively modest in size and linked to the royal palace. Therefore, it is clear that the idea of the absolute centrality of Solomon’s temple and its independence from the palace were inspired by later events, making this view largely anachronistic for this phase.
In order to face the new financial situation of the palace and the state, the entire kingdom was allegedly divided into twelve districts, which united cities and tribes, namely, Canaanites and Israelites. Both were equally obliged to contribute through payments and labour, practices already common for the farming and urban communities of the area, but difficult to accept for the tribal groups. The situation led to an overall dissatisfaction with the ‘House of David’, which was accused of having abandoned the ancestral traditions not only for economic purposes, but also in terms of religion, worshipping foreign deities alongside Yahweh. After the death of Solomon, then, this sense of unrest led to the breakdown of the kingdom. This fall is, however, simply a fictional construction meant to explain the end of a unitary state that had never existed, and the subsequent division between a kingdom in the north (Israel) and in the south (Judah). This political division is the only fact attested in the Bible that is confirmed by the evidence.
World History
