David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible's Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (21 page)

Although the Assyrian chronicles from this period are fragmentary, the general picture is, nonetheless, unmistakable: after a century of unquestioned domination in the region, the power of Assyria became more distant as it withdrew to the east for its final—and ultimately unsuccessful—fight for survival. The once unchallenged and unchallengeable superpower that had dominated the economy and political life of the world gradually abandoned its claim to the provinces of the west.

The withdrawal of Assyrian garrisons and officials from the Philistine cities and the districts of the former kingdom of Israel created a power vacuum. A new, rising dynasty in Egypt emerged as Assyria’s successor, at least along the Mediterranean coast. During a reign of more than half a century, from 664 to 610
BCE
, Psammetichus I, of the Twenty-sixth Egyptian Dynasty, gradually expanded his power base in the western Nile Delta to unite Upper and Lower Egypt, then marched north and annexed the prosperous trading cities of the Philistine plain.

This takeover seems to have been accomplished with tacit Assyrian agreement. In return for its control of the former Assyrian possessions, Egypt became Assyria’s ally, agreeing to lend military support against anti-Assyrian uprisings and the growing influence of Babylonia in the north. However, though the Egyptians were now in control of the Philistine coast and the international highway that led inland past Megiddo to Syria and Mesopotamia, the peoples and cities of the highlands were of only marginal concern. As in the earlier era of Egyptian imperialism during the Late Bronze Age, over a half millennium earlier, the Egyptians seem to have left affairs in the highlands—in Judah and the former territory of Israel—to take their own course, as long as they did not threaten Egyptian control of the international highway along the coast and across the valleys of the north.

We know almost nothing of events in the territory of the former kingdom of Israel after the withdrawal of the Assyrians. The loosening of tight control over the region’s people and agricultural production could have aroused hopes for political revival, but we have no indication of any attempt by the northerners to establish an independent kingdom again. In the south, on the other hand, we have the biblical reports of Josiah’s zealous religious reform in the kingdom of Judah, culminating in his destruction of the northern cult place of Bethel.

These events are described in the Bible as purely religious actions, but in the changing political conditions of Assyrian withdrawal, they hint at something more than that. As long as Assyria remained dominant in the region, Judah’s political independence and freedom of action was severely limited. With the Assyrians firmly in control of the northern highlands, there was no possibility of claiming rule over the remaining Israelite population, whose traditions had been at least partially incorporated in the pan-Israelite ideology of the south. Yet as the Assyrians withdrew, new possibilities beckoned. Archaeological evidence suggests that the kingdom of Judah took advantage of the new conditions by expanding both north and west.

The territorial expansion was apparently modest. Characteristic seventh-century
BCE
Judahite artifacts such as inscribed weights, pillar-shaped figurines, and distinctive types of ceramic vessels have been found only as far north as the area of Bethel, about ten miles north of Judah’s traditional border. It is nonetheless noteworthy that evidence of Judahite presence extends to the site mentioned so prominently in the biblical story of Josiah’s religious reform.

Archaeological finds also point to an expansion of Judahite influence in the west, in the area of the Shephelah—a movement that might even have started in the days of Manasseh. The major regional center of Lachish, which had lain in ruins for a while after its devastation by the armies of Sennacherib, was rebuilt and refortified in the seventh century, indicating the possible reassertion there of direct Judahite political control. Seventh-century
BCE
Judahite weights have been found throughout the surrounding region, suggesting the incorporation of this area into Judah’s distinct system of trade. The rich farmlands of the Shephelah were not only economically and strategically vital; they were enshrined in Judahite tradition. It is highly significant that 2 Kings 22:1 reports that Josiah’s mother came from Bozkath, a town in the Shephelah.

Can we say more about the goals of King Josiah and the opposition his attempts at territorial expansion would have faced? In the west, any hope of reasserting Judahite control of the lower Shephelah risked military confrontation with the emerging power of Egypt and the Philistine cities. To the north, successful Judahite expansion into the territories of the former kingdom of Israel, whose ruling dynasty had been deposed and exiled, lay in overcoming regional loyalties and asserting the claims of the Davidic dynasty over all the land of Israel. Indeed, when we examine the characteristic seventh-century
BCE
details that run through in the biblical stories of David and Solomon, a surprisingly clear picture of Judahite perceptions and intentions—and a new interpretation of the story of David and Solomon—can be seen.

DAVID AND THE PHILISTINES

The biblical David won his fame as a great warrior, toppling the mighty Goliath (1 Samuel 17), killing Philistine troops by the “ten thousands” (1 Samuel 18:7), and outwitting the Philistine king, Achish of Gath (1 Samuel 27–29). As we have seen, some of these stories undoubtedly have their origin in a very early period, for the prominent mention of Gath—as the hometown of Goliath, the capital of Achish, and the leading force among the Philistine cities—reflects the perceptions of a period before Gath was conquered and lost its political importance, at the end of the ninth century
BCE
. But the general picture provided by the biblical stories of David includes a number of important elements that reveal how deeply their final form reflected Josiah’s time. Indeed, the Philistines whom David alternatively served under and fought against are described in terms dramatically different from what we know of the Philistines in the earlier phases of their history.

Our knowledge of the early Philistines, of the twelfth to tenth centuries
BCE
, comes from several sources, both historical and archaeological. An inscription and reliefs from the days of Pharaoh Ramesses III (1182–1151
BCE
) commemorate his land and naval victories over a group named
Peleset
and other invading people, who “made a conspiracy in their islands” and simultaneously attacked Egypt by land and sea. A later Egyptian papyrus from the days of Ramesses IV (1151–1145
BCE
) reports that these defeated foes were settled in Egyptian strongholds. At that time Egypt still dominated the southern coastal plain of Canaan—exactly the place where the Bible locates the cities of the Philistines. Therefore, it has been widely accepted by scholars that the
Peleset
and Philistines were the same group of warlike migrants who were settled by the Egyptians in their garrison cities along the southern Canaanite coast. Indeed, archaeological excavations of levels from the era following Ramesses III have revealed the appearance of a new ceramic style, unmistakable for its elaborate painted decoration of geometrical shapes and stylized birds and fish, which is closely related to the pottery traditions of Cyprus and the Aegean—the area from which the
Peleset
-Philistines are believed to have come.

Yet despite the contention of many scholars that the Philistine stories in the Bible reflect a reliable memory from the days immediately after their invasion and settlement in Canaan, many important details about the early Philistines are inexplicably left out. There is no memory in the Bible of the upheaval that accompanied their arrival on the coast of Canaan; nor is their connection with the Late Bronze Egyptian administration in Canaan mentioned, except for a vague and contradictory assertion in the much later table of nations of the book of Genesis (10:13–14; also 1 Chronicles 1:11–12) connecting them genealogically with Egypt.
*
Nor is the Bible aware of other groups of Sea Peoples who arrived with the Philistines.
†
Special features in the material culture of the early Philistines—from pottery and cult to burial customs and culinary practices—also have no echo in the biblical text. The Bible could have been silent on many of these characteristics, but it is highly unlikely that it would have ignored
all
of them. While there is no question that the people of Judah were well acquainted with their Philistine neighbors, their
historical
knowledge about them seems to be based on oral traditions that were vague and imprecise.

Take the mention of King Achish, for example. Described as the ruler of the Philistine city of Gath, he plays a prominent role in the David stories, first barring the babbling David from admission to his city (1 Samuel 21:10–15) and then later welcoming him back as a trusted ally, even granting him his own territorial possession in the southern Shephelah at Ziklag (1 Samuel 27:2–6). And it was Achish who allowed David to depart in peace with his followers before the fateful battle between the Philistines and Saul (1 Samuel 29:6–11).

In the summer of 1996, a dramatic inscription was recovered by archaeologists Trude Dothan and Sy Gitin in their excavations at Tel Miqne in the western Shephelah, a site securely identified with the ancient Philistine city of Ekron. It was a late-seventh-century
BCE
dedication inscribed on a limestone block, bearing the name of Ikausu, ruler of the city at that time. This Ikausu is also mentioned in Assyrian records from the time of Kings Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal as one of Levantine rulers who paid tribute to Assyria. The name Ikausu is linguistically similar to the name of the Philistine king Achish; many scholars have suggested it was a traditional Philistine royal name that had been used since the tenth century
BCE
.

Yet there is an obvious problem in establishing a direct connection between the Philistine king Ikausu (who ruled close to the time of King Josiah) and David’s Philistine patron Achish. Ikausu was the king of Ekron, not Gath. Mighty Gath had been destroyed two centuries earlier; at the time of Ikausu, Gath was little more than a village; Ekron was by far the most powerful Philistine city-state. Perhaps the biblical authors simply used Achish as a convenient name for a powerful Philistine king. But in the seventh century
BCE
, the name Ikausu-Achish would have been too well known throughout Judah, with a clear contemporary significance. So the story of the alliance between David and an ancient Achish may have aimed at legitimizing the relationship between the “new David”—Josiah—and the city of the new Achish: Ekron.

There is clear archaeological evidence for this: the excavations at Tel Miqne have revealed an impressive period of urban development that transformed Ekron from a small town to one of the most important cities in the region by the time of Josiah. From the late eighth century
BCE
, and especially in the first half of the seventh century, under Assyrian domination, Ekron grew in size to become the most impressive olive oil processing facility known anywhere in the ancient Near East. Within its imposing city walls, over a hundred olive oil production units have been uncovered, including storerooms, presses, and vats. This ancient industrial zone stretched around the entire city, having an estimated production capacity of about a thousand tons a year. In the Assyrian economy, this was a significant asset.

Throughout the seventh century
BCE
Ekron experienced unprecedented prosperity as the center of oil production because of its convenient location on a main road network and its proximity to the olive groves in the Judahite hill country and the upper Shephelah. Indeed, the olive growers of Judah must have provided a significant part of Ekron’s supply, first as part of its tribute to Assyria after Sennacherib’s invasion and later, under Manasseh, as he sought to expand Judah’s participation into the Assyrian imperial economy.

The ancient Near East

Though there was a certain decline in the olive oil production at Ekron after the Assyrians withdrew from the region around 630
BCE
, the industry continued throughout the late seventh century
BCE
under the hegemony of the Egyptian Twenty-sixth Dynasty. For both economic and political reasons, Judah probably continued to send its harvested olives to Ekron in the time of Josiah. There was no better way to legitimate this continued economic connection with outsiders (clearly an abomination in the eyes of the puritan Deuteronomistic historians) than to “remind” the people of Judah of the friendship and cooperation between the founder of the Jerusalem dynasty—the pious David—with a Philistine king named Achish.