. The physical activity, quasi-sport, is likened to taking deadly elements from the war of survival and at least to their refinement and refined foundation, considering a regulated competition, even if its results are deadly, it has passed an important step on the scale between the war of existence and sport
Dr. Yehiam Sorek
Direct link to this page: https://www.hayadan.org.il/soreq040705.html
The physical activity, quasi-sporting in the ancient era, drew its essence from the actual battlefield, from the hunting grounds and the survival struggles, and whose foundations are therefore connected by cables made for survival, to the war of existence. We mentioned in the previous article ("Going for blows with God") the connection between Jacob's encounter with the nightly, mythological figure, and the survival effect, and the same idea is sewn here as well in our current article. The physical activity, the quasi-sport, is likened to taking deadly elements from the war of survival and at least to their refinement and refined foundation, considering a regulated competition, even if its results are deadly, it has passed an important step on the scale between the war of existence and sport.
In this slot you can insert the "intermediate battle". That is, a regulated confrontation between two opponents, representatives of two camps, two armies, with the intention of stopping the unnecessary bloodshed, and entrusting the fate of the battle, the war, "in the hands of God" - in the hands of the representatives of the two hawkish sides, with each side wishing for the victory of its god over the god of the opposing bloc . In the "animal" context of the event, it is certainly possible to find an interesting historical-anthropological connection between the struggle of animals in the wild for the leadership of the herd, and especially for mating with the females, and the "intermediate people" - those chosen representatives. This phenomenon was very common in ancient Greece, and found its expression, for the sake of a parable, in the confrontation between Achilles and Hector, the son of Priam, king of Troy, and which is portrayed very graphically in Homer's "Iliad".
A confrontation of this kind appears in biblical literature for the first time in the episode of David and Goliath - in the long and bloody war between the camp of Israel and the Philistine army, and it will be known to those who are looking for the connection with the sipa of the previous passage, that the Philistines were Aegaeans, Greeks, who settled in the southern plain of the coastal strip and spread during This, the days of Saul and David, along the coastline and even deep into the lowlands to the foothills of the mountains of Judea and Samaria.
The two representatives, David from Mekhin and Goliath from Mekhin, faced each other, as told in the Bible (21 Samuel 54:XNUMX-XNUMX), and waged a life and death war between them to determine the fate of the entire campaign. And behold, when Goliath fell and his head was cut off, the Philistines fled and the Israelites chased after them as far as their fortified strongholds in Gath and Ekron.
It should be noted that sometimes the ancient sporting activity originates from very significant ritual foundations, and thus it is possible, to a certain extent, to confirm precisely the "intermediate battles" as some kind of sublimation of human sacrifices, by entrusting the fate of the condemned to death "in the hands of heaven". This was, by the way, the beginning of the gladiator-luder fight in ancient Rome.
From the event in question to the next case, several years passed, and in the year 1005 BC, a kind of intermediate war took place at the end of the plot of the war between the army of David and the army of Ish-Basheth (Ashbaal) son of Shaul.
The Bible recounts in four verses the main episode of the war, the Gibeon War, in this language: "And Yoab son of Zeruiah and Abdi David went out and met together at the pool of Gibeon. And they sat on the pool from one side and those on the pool from the other. And Abner said to Yoav: Let the boys get up and play before us. And Yoav said: They will rise. And they arose and passed by the number of twelve to Benjamin and the man of Bashet ben Shaul and twelve of David's servants. And they held each other's head and their swords on each other's side and they fell together. And he called that place the portion of the fences that are in Gibeon" (13 Samuel 16:XNUMX-XNUMX).
This affair raised a number of difficulties, which served as a bone of contention among several scholars. Some have speculated that Avner, the army minister of the house of Shaul, suggested to Yoav, the army commander of the house of David, that some of the soldiers should entertain the two armies in a game competition, when it was supposed to be held without weapons, a kind of innocent athletic struggle, and therefore - without danger to the competitors. But the sons of Benjamin, who were swift - skilled with the left hand as well as with the right - hid their swords on their right thighs, and at the beginning of the contest, when each of the contestants placed his right hand on the head of his opponent, the sons of Benjamin drew their swords with their left and stabbed their opponents from the side, and they all fell together. The name - "The plot of the fences" - comes to indicate treachery, in terms of "the field of the treacherous bad guys".
Another researcher, the famous Prof. Yigal Yedin, believes that it was not an athletic fight at all, but a life and death war, and in his opinion the "boys" are not purely young people, and the word "play" does not mean an innocent game. Yadin relies on bas-reliefs that were discovered in Gozen (Tel al-Khalaf), most of which deal with battle and war episodes. In one of the reliefs, two bearded warriors are seen, facing each other in the last stage of the battle. Each warrior holds his opponent's head in his hand, and at the same time thrusts his sword into his opponent's side. The fact that this relief is from the tenth or ninth century BC from Kena, Aliba Didin, is of particular importance for our purpose. That is, approximately in the period we are standing in - 1005 BC.
Yedin relies on the version of a well-known archaeologist named Albright, that "boys" who come in close proximity to war are chosen warriors. Hence, the fight in the pool in Gibeon was, according to Yedin, a battle between chosen warriors, who fought each other in a bloody battle.
This episode is typical, in his opinion, of a type of intermediate battles, such as the intermediate war between David and Goliath. Avner proposed the ways of the battle between them, and only after Yoav's consent was the battle conducted in this way.
The word "play" comes here, in his opinion, to describe the war that is apparently similar to entertainment or mishak, since only a few people take part in the battle, and the others serve as spectators.
The purpose of the battle is to determine the fate of the entire campaign, except for the casualties, and the fact that after this battle there was a heavy battle between the armies shows that a unique case occurred here, according to Yedin, when the battle ended without a decision, without a victory for one of the sides, since all the warriors all died.
In my humble opinion, the entire affair should be seen in a different light, as follows:
First of all - I do not see the meeting between "Nari" Ish and "Nari" David in the simple and simplistic meaning of a normal intermediate war. And this is for the following reasons: a. Unlike the David and Goliath war, there is a confrontation between two dozen warriors; B. The allusions to intermediate battles in the Bible concern only the army of Israel and the army of one of the other nations, such as Benyayo who beat the Egyptian and another hero beat the "two Ariels of Moab", and he is among the three heroes of David; third. The phrase "to play" does not appear in any other intermediate battle. On the contrary, in other examples the interpretation of "war" between the parties is mentioned.
Second - the water supply system was uncovered in the excavations in Givon. A cylindrical pool was found there, carved into the rock. It has a diameter of 11.8 m and a depth of 10.8 m and a spiral lamb was carved along the northern and eastern sides of the pool. Most likely this is the Gibeon pool, where the "game" between the "boys" was held. If this is indeed the pool, then it is clear how the two armies stood around, on the edge of the pool, and watched the arena of the "games". Also, the lower surface (the "arena") could not, under any circumstances, contain all 24 fighters at the same time. I believe that either the number of "games" was limited, or that only a pair of "boys" competed in each "round".
Thirdly - the combatants-competitors were carefully chosen: "And they will stand up and pass by in number, twelve...", and also the box "boys" and even "slaves" appears in the Bible, at certain times, to indicate elite warriors.
Fourthly - the root SHK with its various inflections in the Bible has several meanings: if in the meaning of dancing and dancing (when David brings up the ark of the Lord - "David and all Israel play before God with all might and songs and fiddles and harps and drums, with cymbals and trumpets" - Deva "8 7:5; the women who praise the bravery of Saul and David - "and the dancing women are pleased" - Shmova 27:1 and more); If in the meaning of pure amusement ("And the streets of the city will be filled with boys and girls playing in its streets" - Zechariah 22:4); If in the meaning of joy for Eid (when the thousands of Philistines saw "Samson's tears" - Judges XNUMX:XNUMX); if as an expression of mockery (Job XNUMX:XNUMX); as an expression of contempt and complacency (Job XNUMX:XNUMX); As an expression of joy and happiness (Kohelat XNUMX:XNUMX) and if as an expression of lies and deceit.
In some cases, we witness an interesting meaning for the expression "play", when it comes in close proximity to another word, and together comes to express courage and bravery. So, for example, the horse "will play for fear and will not bite and will not turn back from the sword" (Job Lat, 22); In the description of the mythological figure of the Leviathan-Hatmasach, it is said that "straw was considered a cannon and would be played with the sound of a javelin" (ibid., Ma, 21). Or in the description of the ostrich's pleased speed it is written "Now you will soar on high, you will play for the horse and its rider" (Job Lat, 18).
In these three cases, some kind of conflict between rivals is implied: the horse against the enemies of its rider; The confrontation between the man and the crocodile and the competition between the ostrich and the horse. However, the word "play" is used in all three of these examples as an expression of condescension and perhaps even contempt due to the courage of the heart, but in the interpretation there is no evidence here, even if only by implication, that "play" is a battle. Not here and not in all the interpretations we have given above. The phrase "play" comes in the meaning of amusement and laughter.
Fifth - if the biblical event in question (the battle between the "boys") was likened to an innocent athletic struggle, without weapons, and the sons of Benjamin hid their swords on their right thighs, how were they themselves killed?
In my opinion, from all of the above, the battle in Gibeon was not a routine version of the Middle War, but a sports-military entertainment. During this period, the Israeli army was developed, and its soldiers went through a series of trainings, including training in the use of weapons, since the use of the sword required a rather high skill. These trainings were conducted, it seems, with wooden swords or dull swords, and it was in the form of sports-military entertainment, and one of the paintings of ancient Egypt, which was discovered in Bani-Hassan, is about this type of entertainment, and it shows two combatants-combatants in a face-to-face battle , when they are equipped with short wooden poles, the length of a sword, and protected by wooden shields in the area of the elbows and knees.
Avner suggests to Yoav: "Please let the boys get up and play in front of us." He does not say: "They will fight before us". This game was probably known to the soldiers of both armies, and this is also learned from Yoav's laconic answer: "Yikumo".
This was, in my humble opinion, the beginning of the duel as a military pastime. It all began with the actual war, refined in the development of a regulated, organized and agreed upon battle: the "Intermediate War", and it went through a stage of refinement, of sublimation, and became a more sporting contest between selected warriors.
This duel probably had rules: the opponent would hold his opponent's head - an action that reduced the possibility of maneuvering when the two were separated and required a lot of skill from the opposing sides (just as is customary in some of the traditional martial arts of the Far East: the standing position, the space of the "ma" and the separation) . This is probably what the biblical writer meant by indicating the beginning of the battle with a painting of "And they will hold each other's head", as, as mentioned, is confirmed by Assyrian reliefs from Tell al-Khalaf.
We can also make a hypothesis, and it even relies on traditional martial arts, ones that have been preserved for many hundreds of years, and maybe even thousands of years: as soon as each opponent holds the other's head, he exposes himself, his chest, hips and thighs, to the opponent, and vice versa, and as soon as they separate The battle (competition) begins. That is, there is a kind of tacit agreement not to harm the opponent during the initial connection - before disconnection. This situation is currently observed in boxing, wrestling and some fencing competitions.
And perhaps, precisely to avoid unnecessary injuries, the two opponents were required to be close to each other, and at the moment of disconnection, the real battle began.
I believe that after the soldiers acquired skill in using wooden swords and blunt swords, they moved on to practice with real swords, and sometimes even held military games - games - which were somewhat dangerous, but were not conducted as a real battle, a battle for life and death.
It seems that this dueling game can be explained in comparison to what is known outside of ancient Israel. This play was first mentioned in the Homeric period (about which Homer wrote and wrote a poem) and was expressed in his composition "Iliad". This describes the life of Greek society in the 12th-11th centuries BC (and it should be remembered that the "game" in the pool of Gibeon was held in approximately 1005 BC).
The Iliad tells of a duel between Diomedes and Aias led by Achilles. It is clear there, that it is not a real battle, because while Ias's life was in danger, the competition was stopped. The event is portrayed as entertainment for the viewers.
This duel was indeed foreign to the world of classical Greek competitions in the conventional sense, meaning that it was not taught in gymnasiums (the educational-sports institution in Greece). However, evidence of its existence as part of a competition was usually expressed in burial and funeral ceremonies. Such as this we find on a Greek urn from the eighth century BC and on a Greek sarcophagus (coffin) from the fifth century BC painted scenes of sporting competitions held in burial ceremonies. There you see pairs of competitors armed with shields and javelins, and among them is a flute player (playing had the connotation of conducting a competition and not a battle. The famous author Athenaeus also testifies to holding duels as part of the burial ceremony in the fourth century BC.
If there is indeed a certain connection between the manifestations of the duel as a pastime, as was customary in ancient Greece, and between the "play" of the "boys" in the pool in Gibeon, then it can be explained against the background of the fact that the Philistines served as a kind of connecting link, a kind of cultural messengers of the Greek-Agean world to the East the nearest And to prove the connection between and I will present as an example the distribution of Aegean-Philistine ceramics all over Israel, the connections forged between Israeli and Philistine elements and even the fact that the Philistine Goliath's spear was strikingly similar to the weapons of Homer's heroes.
The War of Stone (in 1050 BC approximately) served as an event that led to the Philistines (who originate from the Aegean world) taking over Israel. They penetrated deep into the land and under their rule Judah, the Land of Ephraim, the Land of Benjamin and the Land of the Valley were given and in the second half of the 11th century BC the Philistines took control of most of the western Land of Israel. It can be assumed that during this period of occupation there was a certain Philistine-Agean influence on Israeli society, and especially on the leadership elements, including the army commanders. This is because the Philistine rule was military-aristocratic in nature, and their rule over the conquered population came in the form of a thin layer of military aristocracy. Furthermore, it is known that Hebrew auxiliary battalions were also at the service of the Philistine captains (army commanders).
It is also known that David, fleeing from Saul, stayed for a certain period in the court of Achish, the king of Gath (he is the important Philistine center) in approximately 1008. And not only that, but his own regiment was in the service of the king of Gath, and when David moved to Tzkelg, a field city of Gath, the "heroes" joined him - in the sense of a military institution (a sort of "personnel security", or "military patrol" of old). It is possible that these facts may bring us closer to the hypothesis that David was influenced there by the nature of the Philistine court.
Furthermore, it is known that David's elite unit of mercenary soldiers - "Crete and Philistine" (Philistine), was of Cretan and Pletus descent - possibly a Philistine. It is possible that through them sports-military amusements, which were accepted by the Aegeans, were absorbed in David's court and among his army.
That is, there was a certain Aegean influence on certain strata in the Land of Israel, especially in the 11th century BC. And it is not impossible to say that the influence of court amusements and military training stood out to a certain extent, and it was probably absorbed mainly during the time of David. If we add to this what we know about David's great contribution to the design of the army and its organization, we can certainly assume that those "boys" who played in the pool in Gibeon (who were actually disciples of David's new military tradition) were indeed familiar with the duel competition (whether under the Aegian influence or as part of the training the militaries that developed in the Near East region).
Although this competition was not meant to end in carnage, in a final bloodshed, as the event ended - the death of the dozen competing couples, and from this the question arises - why? It is possible that in the heat of the circumstances - a lull in the battle and the frenzy of the young men - the sporting rules were forgotten, and the competition turned into a bloodbath; It is possible that the confrontation was conducted with real fighting swords, and the goal was to touch ("mark a hit"). But a touch that was too obvious scratched-wounded one of the opponents and the competition turned into a real fight. Something like this can be seen on the grass in football, or on the parquet floor in basketball, when the o-to-to conflict between two players almost slides into "catch-as-you-can"; It may be that the boys of David were not ready for the sword of the Benjaminites with their left hand. They felt cheated and reacted accordingly.
In any case, we can conclude and say that in the pool in Gibeon (a kind of arena) a match was held, in terms of sports-military entertainment, between the "boys", who are the chosen warriors. This game was known, so it seems, to the commanders of the two armies and the rest of the troops. Whether the influence of the Aegean world was at work here or not, it is interesting to note that the very beginning of the duel was revealed before us. It can perhaps be assumed that this confrontation was a kind of sublimation of the "intermediate battle", as a kind of development from a regulated battle to a regulated competition in the presence of an audience and according to known rules. It is not known whether the confrontation was intended to decide the fate of the military campaign, or simply to satisfy the conflicting desires of honor of Yoav ben Tzarua on one side and Avner ben Ner on the other. In any case, the event is interesting and stimulates the thought to raise research hypotheses accordingly.
