Barako_SeaPeoples_2013

THE PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES IN

TEXT AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Archaeology and Biblical Studies

Tammi Schneider, Editor

Number 15

The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples in Text and Archaeology



edited byAnn E. Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann

Society of Biblical LiteratureAtlanta, Georgia



Copyright 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permit-ted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

The Philistines and other sea peoples in text and archaeology / edited by Ann E. Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann. p. cm. (Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and biblical studies ; v. 15) This volume developed out of a 2001 workshop devoted to the Philistines and other Sea Peoples, which was co-organized by Ann E. Killebrew, Gunnar Lehmann, Michal Artzy, and Rachel Hachlili, and co-sponsored by the University of Haifa and the Ben Gurion University of the NegevIntrod. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-58983-129-2 (paper binding : acid-free paper) 1. PhilistinesAntiquities. 2. Sea PeoplesMediterranean RegionHistory. 3. Iron ageMediterranean Region. 4. Social archaeologyMediterranean RegionHistory. 5. Bible. O.T.History of Biblical events. 6. Mediterranean RegionAntiquities. I. Killebrew, Ann E. II. Lehmann, Gunnar. III. Society of Bib-lical Literature.DS90.P55 2013938.01dc23 2012033937

Printed on acid-free, recycled paper conforming to ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997) and ISO 9706:1994 standards for paper permanence.

Contents

When the Past Was New: Moshe Dothan (19191999), an Appreciation Neil Asher Silberman ix

Acknowledgments xv

Abbreviations xvii

Introduction

1. The World of the Philistines and Other Sea Peoples 1 Ann E. Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann

The Philistines in Text and Archaeology

2. The Philistines in the Bible: A Short Rejoinder to a New Perspective 19 Itamar Singerlyyz3. Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery in Philistia: Four Decades of Research 29 Trude Dothan and David Ben-Shlomo4. Philistines and Egyptians in Southern Coastal Canaan during the Early Iron Age 37 Tristan J. Barako5. The Mycenaean IIIC Pottery at Tel Miqne-Ekron 53 Penelope A. Mountjoy6. Early Philistine Pottery Technology at Tel Miqne-Ekron: Implications for the Late BronzeEarly Iron Age Transition in the Eastern Mediterranean 77

Ann E. Killebrew 7. Philistine Lion-Headed Cups: Aegean or Anatolian? 131 Linda Meiberg8. A Few Tomb Groups from Tell el-Farah South 145

Sabine Laemmel

-v -

vi PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

9. Philistia Transforming: Fresh Evidence from Tell es-Sfi/Gath on the Transformational Trajectory of the Philistine Culture 191

Aren M. Maeir10. Neighbors and Foes, Rivals and Kin: Philistines, Shepheleans, Judeans

between Geography and Economy, History and Theology 243 Hermann Michael Niemann

The Other Sea Peoples in the Levant

11. Aegean-Style Pottery in Syria and Lebanon during Iron Age I 265 Gunnar Lehmann 12. On the Other Sea Peoples 329 Michal Artzy13. The Origin and Date of Aegean-Type Pottery in the Levant 345 Elizabeth French 14. Mycenaean IIIC and Related Pottery from Beth Shean 349 Susan Sherratt and Amihai Mazar, with an Appendix by

Anat Cohen-Weinberger15. The SKL Town: Dor in the Early Iron Age 393 Ilan Sharon and Ayelet Gilboa

Anatolia, the Aegean, and Cyprus

16. No Land Could Stand Before Their Arms, from Hatti on ? New Light on the End of the Hittite Empire and the Early Iron Age in Central Anatolia 469

Hermann Genz17. Cilicia 479 Elizabeth French 18. Early Iron Age Newcomers at Kinet Hyk, Eastern Cilicia 485 Marie-Henriette Gates19. The Southeast Aegean in the Age of the Sea Peoples 509

Mario Benzi20. Aegean Elements in the Earliest Philistine Ceramic Assemblage: A View from the West 543 Jeremy B. Rutter 21. The Late LH IIIB and LH IIIC Early Pottery of the East Aegean West Anatolian Interface 563 Penelope A. Mountjoy

CONTENTS vii

22. Aegean-Style Material Culture in Late Cypriot III: Minimal Evidence, Maximal Interpretation 585

Maria Iacovou 23. The Ceramic Phenomenon of the Sea Peoples: An Overview 619 Susan Sherratt

Appendix

24. The Sea Peoples in Primary Sources 645 Matthew J. Adams and Margaret E. Cohen

Bibliography 665

Subject Index 739

When the Past Was New: Moshe Dothan (19191999), an Appreciation

Neil Asher Silberman*

Moshe Dothan was my most important teacher, though he never gave me a writ-ten examination and I never attended any course he taught. From 1972 to 1976, I worked as his assistant at the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums in Jerusalems Rockefeller Museum, working on the publication of his Ashdod exca-vations and participating in the beginnings of his ambitious Tel Akko dig. It was a time that now seems so distant. Archaeology in Israel was still living in the warm afterglow of its Yadin-esque heyday; extensive excavations around the Temple Mount and the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem were still underway. Yet it was also a time of archaeological transition from an era of romantic national celebration to a more complex engagement with the material remains of the past. The study of the Sea Peoplesand of the Philistines in particularwas part of this dramatic transformation. Old-style antiquarianism and the quest for biblical illustration was giving way to a recognition that archaeology could also shed important new light on the nature of ancient ethnic dislocation, cultural interaction, and social change.

As a member of the pioneering generation of Israeli archaeologists, Moshe Dothan was born in Poland and immigrated to Palestine in the late 1930s, exchanging his former surname, Hammer, for a new identity and a new life in the soon-to-be-established Jewish state. After service in a Palestinian unit of the British army during World War II among the ruined modern cities and ancient monuments of Italy (whose impression on him would never be forgotten) and after further service in the 1948 Israel War of Independence, he began his studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the guidance of Israeli archaeologys founding fathers, E. L. Sukenik, Michael Avi-Yonah, and Benjamin Mazar. His

* Center for Heritage and Society, The University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

x PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

classical gymnasium education in Krakow served him well as he embarked on an archaeological career; it provided him with a solid background in Greek and Latin and a familiarity with a wide range of historical subjects and philosophies. In 1950, he joined the staff of the newly created Israel Department of Antiqui-ties and Museums, gaining valuable field experience and a deep appreciation for rigorous archaeological method during his work with the legendary Brit-ish archaeologist, P. L. O. Guy. His PhD dissertation on the ancient settlement patterns of the lower Rubin Valley was not only one of the first wide-ranging modern archaeological surveys undertaken in Israel; it also marked the begin-ning of his continuing interest in coastal archaeology.

In the annals of Sea Peoples scholarship, Moshe Dothan will of course be remembered first and foremost for his excavations at Ashdod. Following his ear-lier discoveries of Philistine remains at Azor (1958) and at Tel Mor (19591960), he embarked on nine seasons of digging at Tel Ashdod between 1962 and 1972,

Fig. 1: Moshe Dothan (left) discussing stratigraphy at Tel Akko with Yigael Yadin (center) and Steve Rosen (right; photographer: Michal Artzy).

MOSHE DOTHAN, AN APPRECIATION xi

uncovering unprecedented evidence for the character and evolution of Philis-tine settlement. It is not an exaggeration to say that with this project, the modern understanding of Philistine culture entered a new era, refining and expanding the archaeological framework established by his wife and colleague, Trude, in linking the origins and interactions of Philistine culture with the wider Mediterranean world.

In earlier eras of exploration, the Philistines had been seen as archetypal biblical villains, ethnically linked to the Aegean and historically implicated in a struggle for Lebensraum with the emerging Israelite nation. The Aegean-style dec-orative motifs on Philistine pottery had long been seen as static ethnic markers; the fearsome biblical image of the looming Philistine giant, Goliath, shaped popu-lar perceptions of Philistine culturefar more pervasively than the archaeological evidence. Yet, the Ashdod excavations played an important role in overturning that simplistic perception, shifting the archaeological focus from a stark vision of ethnic invasion to a recognition of the complex economic, cultural, and social changes experienced by the Philistines during their initial settlement and subse-quent development on the Canaanite coast.

Indeed, Ashdods most spectacular finds have become distinctive icons of the modern archaeological understanding of Philistine material culture. The aston-ishingly abstract cultic figurine nicknamed Ashdodahalf offering table, half Aegean-style goddessclearly showed the creatively composite character of Philistine culture, in its amalgamation of Mycenaean and Bronze Age Near Eastern styles. The inscribed seals from Iron I strata were the first evidence of Philistine literacy. Yet even though their characters resembled Cypro-Minoan script, they could not be pinned down to a particular place of origin, further suggesting the hybrid nature of Philistine society. In the higher levels, the famous Musicians Stand, the red-burnished Ashdod Ware, and the citys impressive six-chambered gate (so close in plan and dimensions to the supposed Solomonic monuments) demonstrated the gradually strengthening links of the city to the contemporary Levantine cultures of Iron Age II. The Ashdod excavations thus revealed the slow evolution of a complex society, tracing its beginnings as an urban coastal center in the Bronze Age, through its period of distinctive Philistine culture, to its eventual destruction as a petty vassal kingdom under the Assyrian Empire.

Particularly crucial for the modern understanding of the Sea Peoples ini-tial settlement throughout the entire eastern Mediterranean was the discovery at Ashdod of an initial post-Late Bronze Age stratum containing locally made monochrome Mycenaean IIIC-style pottery types. These distinctively decorated vessels were clearly not offloaded immigrant housewares, but the product of a creative transformation, in which a vague and generalized memory of Mycenaean styles was gradually articulated into distinctive regional variants. Ashdods Myce-

xii PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

naean IIIC proved to be just one of many versions that were produced in the widely dispersed archipelago of sites across Cyprus and along the coasts of Cili-cia and the Levant established by new settlers in the wake of the Late Bronze collapse. In the case of Ashdod, it is now clear that Philistine history and cul-tural evolution involved far more than just a sudden, violent displacement from a specific Aegean homeland; Dothans excavations showed it to be a process of complex social adaptation in the cultural cauldron of the Iron Age Levant.

Ashdod was also a new kind of excavation in a very practical sense. Con-ceived as a joint Israeli-American expedition, sponsored by the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and Pitts-burghs Carnegie Museum, it brought together archaeologists trained in separate national traditions and field methods to forge a common excavation style. It was also a site where nearly an entire generation of post-Hazor-era Israeli archaeolo-gists received their first extensive field experience. Anticipating the later appeals of Yigael Yadin for passionate amateurs to come join the excavations at Masada, the Ashdod expedition was the first of its kind in Israel to solicit and welcome the participation of enthusiastic volunteers from abroad. No less important were the multi-disciplinary and international scholarly connections; the excavations at Ashdod were the first in Israel to utilize extensive Neutron Activation Analysis for ceramic provenience (specifically of its Mycenaean IIIC wares), and the first to engage in continuous and close dialogue with scholars working on Cyprus on a similar Sea Peoples phenomenon.

Soon after the completion of the Ashdod excavations, Dothan began his ambitious excavations at Tel Akko (19731989), the last major archaeological undertaking of his life. These excavations provided intriguing new data on the nature of the Sea Peoples process of settlement farther up the coast. Amidst the extensive finds of Hellenistic houses and fortifications, Crusader ruins, Phoeni-cian public buildings, and an imposing Middle Bronze Age rampart, the Akko excavations revealed evidence of the Sea Peoples presencein this case, presum-ably the Shardana, localized in this area by the Onomasticon of Amenope. The discovery of an area of pottery and metal workshops, containing implements for copper smelting, metal working, unbaked vessels, and scattered fragments of yet another variant of Mycenaean IIIC pottery. These finds suggested that the short-lived settlement of Sea People at Akko functioned as a center for craft production at the end of the thirteenth and early-twelfth centuries b.c.e. In subsequent years, Dothan became fascinated by the possible connections of the Shardana with Sar-diniaand the hypothesis of post-Late Bronze cultural and possibly economic contact between the Levant and the western Mediterranean suggested by such a link. In 1992, he summed up his insights about the Sea Peoples in a popular book he coauthored with Trude: People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines,

MOSHE DOTHAN, AN APPRECIATION xiii

presenting the most important discoveries and the general conclusions they had both formulated about the archaeology and history of the Philistines and the other Sea Peoples they had investigated in the course of their careers.

For Moshe Dothan, the past was not a static reality but a dynamic and ever-changing field of research in which new ideas and new theories were not disturbing exceptions but important motivations for serious archaeological work. Over an active career of more than four decades, his contributions extended far beyond the geographical and chronological boundaries of Sea Peoples studies. In his years of surveys and excavations on behalf of the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, he had also uncovered the important Chalcolithic site of Horvat Batar, near Beersheva (19521954); the seaside Canaanite temple at Nahariya with its silver sea goddess and seven-spouted lamps (19541955); the Iron Age desert citadel at Tell el-Qudeirat, identified with Kadesh Barnea (1956); and the late Roman-to-Early Islamic era synagogue at Hammath Tiberias with its spectacular zodiac (19611963). The finds from each of these excavations have enriched many subfields of the discipline with rich material for continuing dis-cussion and questions for further research.

In 1972, Dothan was appointed professor of archaeology at the University of Haifa. He served as chairman of the Department of Maritime Studies from 1976 to 1979 and was instrumental in the establishment of the Department of Archaeology where he also served as its departmental head. Yet Moshe was never entirely comfortable in the classroom, presenting lessons from a well-polished syllabus. He was far more at home in the field and at his excavation sites, hud-dling with his surveyor over sections and top plans or studying assemblages of newly dug pottery. Whether it was the nature of Chalcolithic culture, of Canaan-ite religion, the expansion of the Iron Age Israelite kingdoms, or the use of pagan imagery by Jews in the Late Roman period, Moshe Dothan contributed abundant evidence for understanding the evolution of human culture in the Land of Israel over the millennia.

As an unforgettable personality and independent thinker, he rarely gained the main spotlight of archaeological celebrity. Yet Moshe Dothans contribution to the archaeology of Israel in general and of the Sea Peoples and the Philistines in particular was profound. He worked with energy and impatience, under condi-tions and with resources that few of todays archaeologists would ever attempt. He possessed more creativity, historical scope, and courage to challenge conventional wisdom and to break disciplinary boundaries than many other of his contem-poraries who fancied themselves more famous, more erudite, or more rigidly systematic than he. In his life and work, Moshe Dothan embodied the belief that the past is always new, forever awaiting the next discovery or insight that might

xiv PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

shatter our preconceptions and change our understanding of human history in surprising and unexpected ways.

That is what he taught me. That is the greatest lesson an archaeologist can ever teach. May this volume on the archaeological search for the Philistines and other Sea Peoples be a tribute to him.

Acknowledgments

The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples is the result of the contributions and editorial assistance of numerous individuals. First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude to all the authors of this mega-volume for their essays, which reflect their expertise and first-hand knowledge of the material culture and texts associated with the Philistines and other Sea Peoples. We thank them for their contributions, and especially for their patience throughout the process of preparing the manuscripts for publication. Special thanks are due to the volumes copy editors, Heather D. Heidrich and Dr. Gabriele Fabeck. Their meticulous and very professional work was invaluable! This tome is due in no small part to their assistance and input. We would also like to express our sincere appreciation to Dr. Billie Jean Collins, acquisitions editor at the Society of Biblical Literature, for her expert work on the final editing and layout of this especially complex and massive volume. We are also indebted to Professor Tammi J. Schneider, editor of the Archaeology and Biblical Studies series, for her enthusiastic encouragement during the preparation of this book. Lastly, many thanks are due to Dr. Bob Buller, editorial director at the Society of Biblical Literature, for his guidance and advice throughout the process of preparing the manuscripts for publication. This book would not have been possible without the participation, assistance, and contribu-tions of all of you. Thank you!

Ann E. Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann

Abbreviations

AA Archologischer AnzeigerAASOR Annual of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchABD Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols.

New York, 1992.ADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of JordanAEL Ancient Egyptian Literature. M. Lichtheim. 3 vols. Berkeley,

19731980.AEO Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. A. H. Gardiner. 3 vols.

London, 1947.AJA American Journal of ArchaeologyAJBA Australian Journal of Biblical ArchaeologyANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.

Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969.AnSt Anatolian StudiesAOAT Alter Orient und Altes TestamentAoF Altorientalische ForschungenARAB Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Daniel David

Luckenbill. 2 vols. Chicago, 19261927.ARE Ancient Records of Egypt. Edited by J. H. Breasted. 5 vols.

Chicago, 19051907. Reprint, New York, 1962.ASAE Annales du service des antiquits de lEgypteASOR American Schools of Oriental ResearchAtiqot AtiqotBA Biblical ArchaeologistBANEA British Association for Near Eastern ArchaeologyBAR Biblical Archaeology ReviewBAR British Archaeological ReportsBASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchBIES Bulletin of the Israel Exploration SocietyBK Bibel und KircheBKAT Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth

and H. W. Wolff.BN Biblische NotizenCANE Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M.

-xvii -

xviii PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

Sasson. 4 vols. New York, 1995.CRAI Comptes rendus de lAcadmie des inscriptions et belles-

lettresCTH Catalogue des texts hittites. Edited by E. Laroche. Paris,

1971. EA El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of J. A.

Knudtzon. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig, 19081915. Reprint, Aalen, 1964. Continued in A. F. Rainey, El-Amarna Tablets, 359379. 2nd revised ed. Kevelaer, 1978.

ErIsr Eretz-IsraelFM Furumark MotifFS Furumark ShapeHO Handbuch der OrientalistikIEJ Israel Exploration JournalIstMitt Istanbuler MitteilungenJAOS Journal of the American Oriental SocietyJCS Journal of Cuneiform StudiesJEA Journal of Egyptian ArchaeologyJEOL Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap

(Genootschap) Ex oriente luxJNES Journal of Near Eastern StudiesJSOT Journal for the Study of the Old TestamentJSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement

SeriesKAI Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften. H. Donner and

W. Rllig. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 19661969.KBo Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazki. WVDOG 30, 36, 6870,

7273, 7780, 8286, 8990. Leipzig, 1916KTU Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by

M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartn. AOAT 24. Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2nd enlarged ed. of KTU: The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani, and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartn. Mnster, 1995 (= CTU).

KUB Keilschrifturkunden aus BoghazkiMDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,

Abteilung KairoMDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-GesellschaftMVAG Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-gyptischen Gesellschaft.

Vols. 144. 18961939.NABU Nouvelles assyriologiques brves et utilitairesNEA Near Eastern ArchaeologyNEAEHL The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the

Holy Land. Edited by E. Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1993.

ABBREVIATIONS xix

OBO Orbis biblicus et orientalisOIP Oriental Institute PublicationsOJA Oxford Journal of ArchaeologyOLA Orientalia lovaniensia analectaOLP Orientalia lovaniensia periodicaOr Orientalia (NS)PEFQS Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly StatementPEQ Palestine Exploration QuarterlyPRU Le palais royal dUgaritQad QadmoniotQDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in PalestineRAr Revue archologiqueRB Revue bibliqueRDAC Report of the Department of Antiquities of CyprusRGG Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by K. Galling.

7 vols. 3rd ed. Tbingen, 19571965.RS Ras ShamraSAOC Studies in Ancient Oriental CivilizationsSBL Society for Biblical LiteratureSCIEM The Synchronisation of Civilisations of the Eastern

Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.SHCANE Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near EastSIMA Studies in Mediterranean ArchaeologySMEA Studi Micenei ed Egeo-AnatoliciTA Tel AvivTGI Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels. Edited by K. Galling. 2nd

ed. Tbingen, 1968.TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des alten Testaments. Edited by O.

Kaiser. Gtersloh, 1984.TZ Theologische ZeitschriftUF Ugarit-ForschungenVAB Vorderasiatische BibliothekVT Vetus TestamentumVTSup Supplements to Vetus TestamentumWMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen

TestamentYCS Yale Classical StudiesZS Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und AltertumskundeZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palstina-Vereins

-37 -

Chapter FourPhilistines and Egyptians in Southern Coastal

Canaan during the Early Iron Age

Tristan J. Barako*

Essential to an understanding of the early history of the Philistines is their rela-tionship to Twentieth Dynasty Egypt. Egyptian texts, particularly Papyrus Harris I and the Great Inscription at Medinet Habu, have informed the debate over how and when the Philistines came to be settled in southern coastal Canaan. Accord-ing to the traditional paradigm, the Egyptians forcibly garrisoned the Philistines in southern Canaan after 1174 b.c.e., which corresponds to the eighth year of Ramesses IIIs reign.1 Increasingly over the past dozen years, however, both the circumstances and the date of the Philistines settlement have been called into question. An assessment of these revisionist theories, on the basis of an examina-tion of both textual and archaeological data, is the subject of this paper.

Egypts Role in the Philistine Settlement

Textual Evidence

William F. Albright (19301931, 58) and Albrecht Alt (1953) first formulated the traditional paradigm, whereby Egypt settled the Philistines in garrisons within Canaan, based primarily on a brief notice contained in Papyrus Harris I, 76.78:

* Office of the Vice President for Research, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912. I wish to thank Ann Killebrew for the invitation to contribute the following article to this volume. Ap-preciation is also due to Mario Martin and James Weinstein who made helpful suggestions in terms of bibliography.

1. The Low Chronology, which yields dates of 11821151 b.c.e. for the reign of Ramesses

38 PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

Fig. 1: Egyptianized and Philistine sites in the southern Levant during the twelfth century b.c.e. (drawing adapted from Bietak 1993, fig. 3 and Stager 1995, fig. 2).

BARAKO: PHILISTINES AND EGYPTIANS 39

I slew the Denyen in their islands, while the Tjeker and the Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Weshesh of the Sea were made nonexistent, captured all together and brought in captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore. I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. (John A. Wilson in ANET 262)

From this passage it was assumed that, following their unsuccessful attack on Egypt in the eighth year of Ramesses IIIs reign, the Philistines were garrisoned in southern Canaan. Once they had grown sufficiently strong and numerous, they then extricated themselves from Egyptian authority.

As a number of scholars have observed, however, there are two fundamental problems with this proposed scenario: 1) Papyrus Harris I does not specify where the Philistines were garrisoned (Singer 1985, 109; Higginbotham 2000, 56); and 2) there is little or no evidence for an Egyptian presence at sites within Philistia during the Twentieth Dynasty (Weinstein 1992, 145; Bietak 1993, 299300). The majority of texts that describe the disposition of prisoners of war, in fact, favor a location within Egypt (B. Wood 1991, 48; Cifola 1994, 6). For example, in the Rhetorical Stela from Deir el-Medineh, Ramesses III claims to have caused the defeated Libyans and Meshwesh to cross the Nile streams, (they being) brought to Egypt and being made (to settle) into strongholds by the victorious king (Peden 1994, 65).

Alternatively, war captives were settled in regions over which Egypt exer-cised hegemony, as did Ramesses II according to an inscription from the Great Temple at Abu Simbel: bringing the land of Nubia to the land of the north, the Asiatics (+mw) to the land of Nubia filling the strongholds, which he built, with the captivity of his mighty sword (ARE III 457). In either event, to settle ones enemies in the very region those enemies seek to conquer, as the traditional paradigm would have it, makes for poor military strategy (Bietak 1991, 37; Hig-ginbotham 2000, 56).

Archaeological Data

Nor does the archaeological data support the old paradigm (fig. 1). Twelfth-century b.c.e. strata at Canaanite sites, particularly in the northern Negev, inner Shephelah, and interior valleys, have produced an abundance of Egyptian and Egyptianized material culture (e.g., Weinstein 1981, 20; Bietak 1993, figs. 23). At Philistine Pentapolis sites, on the other hand, there is an almost complete absence

III, is followed here (Wente and van Siclen 1977). For a more recent assessment of the state of Egyptian absolute chronology, see Kitchen 2000.


of evidence for an Egyptian presence during the Twentieth Dynasty (Weinstein 1992, 145; Bietak 1993, 299300; Stager 1995, 344).

The Pentapolis site with the best exposure of twelfth-century b.c.e. strata, which correspond to the period of the initial Philistine settlement, is Tel Miqne-Ekron. In Stratum VIII (= thirteenth century b.c.e.), a limited assemblage of imported Aegyptiaca was found, mostly the type of small luxury items common at Canaanite sites during the Late Bronze Age (e.g., T. Dothan and Gitin 1993, 1052).2 This apparent lack of Egyptian interest in Tel Miqne is not surprising

2. In terms of Egyptianized pottery, only a couple beer jar fragments were excavated in the preceding Stratum IX (Killebrew 1999a, Ill. II:4:2122).

Fig. 2: Map of the southern Levantine coastal region (drawing adapted from T. Dothan 2000, fig. 7.1).


given the sites diminutive size: The Late Bronze Age settlement was confined to the 2.5-hectare acropolis in the northeastern corner of the tell. Built on top of a thick destruction level, the Stratum VII settlement, however, encompassed the entire tell, an area of ca. 20 hectares (T. Dothan 1998b, 15052; but see Killebrew 1996b, 2127; 1998a; this volume for an alternative interpretation). The sudden appearance of the Philistine material culture, especially considerable quantities of locally produced Mycenaean IIIC:1b (Myc IIIC:1b), characterizes Stratum VII. At the same time, the amount of Egyptian material culture at Tel Miqne decreased. It is surprising that a large site in southern Canaan should produce no evidence for Egyptian presence or interaction at a time when Egypt, reinvigorated by Ramesses IIIs reign, attempted to regain control of the region.

Ashdod is the only other Pentapolis site where a significant amount of the twelfth-century-b.c.e. settlement has been exposed. As a coastal site along the Via Maris, Ashdod was undoubtedly of interest to New Kingdom Egypt. A large fortified building in use throughout the Late Bronze Age (= Strata XVIXIV) was excavated in Area G and identified as a Governors Residence or palace (M. Dothan and Porath 1993, 10, 3949, Plan 7). With this Residence the excavators associated an inscribed stone fragment, possibly from a doorjamb, which was found in a later fill context (= Stratum XIIB) from the same area.3 The inscription reads Fanbearer on the Kings Right Hand (tAi hw [hr] wnmy n nsw), an honorific accorded only to high officials in the pharaonic court (Kitchen 1993). Egyptianized bowls (M. Dothan and Porath 1993, 45, figs. 10:1; 11:16; 812), a beer jar (fig. 11:24), and an alabaster vessel (fig. 12:15) were also found in Area G, Stratum XIV.4 In Stratum XIII, after a partial destruction of Area G, Myc IIIC:1b first appears at Ashdod and Egyptianized material culture virtually disappears.

The destruction levels at Tel Miqne and Ashdod briefly described above constitute further evidence against the traditional paradigm. At both sites, thick layers of ash and burnt mud brick separated the Canaanite (Miqne VIII, Ashdod XIV) from the initial Philistine settlements (Miqne VII, Ashdod XIII). At Tel Miqne the small Canaanite settlement ended in a great conflagration, over which the much larger Philistine city was built (T. Dothan 2000, 147). At Ashdod the clearest sequence comes from Area G, where the Canaanite city ended in an intense destruction followed by a settlement of a different character marked

3. Note also that a surface survey in the area between Ashdod and Tel Mor produced a frag-ment of a monumental statue of one of Ramesses IIs queens (Schulman 1993).

4. At Late Bronze Ashdod, Egyptianized bowls were found also in Areas A (M. Dothan 1971, fig. 1:1), B (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967, fig. 22:14), and H (M. Dothan 1971, fig. 81:3). Another beer jar was found in Area H (M. Dothan 1971, fig. 81:14).


by the appearance of significant amounts of Philistine pottery (M. Dothan and Porath 1993, 53, Plan 8). Elsewhere, in Areas A, B, and H, the excavators found ca. 80-centimeterthick ashy layers covering Stratum XIV (M. Dothan and Freed-man 1967, 81; M. Dothan 1971, 15859, Plan 20).

During the past few years, key transitional strata at Ashkelon are beginning to be revealed. In Grid 38, evidence of Egyptian presence, the probable remains of a fortress similar to Tel Mor and Deir el-Balah, have been uncovered (Master 2005, 33940; Stager et al. 2008, 25657). The associated Egyptianized and imported Egyptian pottery suggest a date in the late Nineteenth or early Twenti-eth Dynasty (Martin 2009). Early Philistine remains rest on top of this structure (Stager 2008, 158081). It is worth noting that during the excavations of Garstang and Phythian-Adams at the site, a thick layer of black ash was found separating their Late Bronze (Stage V) from the Iron Age (Stage VI) strata (Phythian-Adams 1923, 6364, figs. 34). Mackenzie observed a similar sequence in the same part of the tell a decade earlier, and tentatively ascribed the destruction and subse-quent settlement to the Philistines arrival (1913, 21, pl. 2). However the current excavations at Ashkelon in Grid 38 have not uncovered signs of a destruction at the end of the Late Bronze Age (Stager 2008, 1580).

Such destruction levels are more the mark of hostile invaders than subdued prisoners of war. The complete absence of evidence for Egyptian involvement in the strata that follow (i.e., Tel Miqne VII, Ashdod XIII) is a further blow to the traditional paradigm. What is more, the majority of New Kingdom inscriptions report that defeated enemies were garrisoned in Egypt. The combined archae-ological and textual data, then, strongly suggests that the Philistines settled in southern Canaan by force, probably in opposition to Egypt.

Chronology of the Philistine Settlement

In recent years Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin have argued that the date of the Philistine settlement should be lowered by roughly fifty yearsthat is, to about 1130 b.c.e.5 Briefly described, their argument is as follows: Because certain sites located near the Philistine Pentapolis contain strata that are clearly datable to the reign of Ramesses III, but have not yielded Philistine pottery, this type of pottery elsewhere must have been produced for the first time after the destruc-tion of these strata. The two key sites mentioned in this regard are Lachish VI

5. See especially Finkelstein 1995 and 2000. Ussishkin was the first to propose the Low Chronology based on his excavations at Lachish (1985); however, Finkelstein has been, by far, the more vocal advocate for chronological revision.


and Tel Sera IX. In both these strata Egyptian inscriptions dating to Ramesses III were found (Gilula 1976; Goldwasser 1982, 1984), but no Philistine pottery. On the other hand, neighboring sites generally thought to be contemporaneous, par-ticularly Tel Haror B42, did produce both Philistine Monochrome and Bichrome pottery (Oren 1993, 58283).

The underlying assumption of this argument is that cultural boundaries must be permeable for all types of material culture. A corollary holds that two neigh-boring sites that do not possess the same full range of material culture cannot be contemporaneous. Amihai Mazar, however, has adduced examples from the archaeology of Syria-Palestine to demonstrate that distinct material cultures have coexisted side by side with little or no interaction (1997b, 158; see also Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998, 31). Furthermore, as pointed out by Shlomo Bunimovitz and Avraham Faust, even intensive interaction between cultures does not necessarily lead to material culture exchange (2001). Indeed, in order to maintain group iden-tity and strengthen solidarity during times of conflict with a neighboring group, people tend not to acquire items emblematic of their rivals.

Case Study: Philistine Ashdod and Egyptian Tel Mor

The excavations at Ashdod and Tel Mor provide a useful archaeological case study for this cultural phenomenon, especially as it pertains to the question of the rela-tionship between Philistines and Egyptians in southern Canaan.6 As noted above, Ashdod was one of the cities that constituted the Philistine Pentapolis established in the twelfth century b.c.e. on the ruins of a Canaanite settlement. Located six kilometers northwest of Ashdod on the northern bank of the Nahal Lachish (Wadi Sukreir) is the small site of Tel Mor (fig. 2). Throughout most of the Late Bronze Age and into the early Iron Age, Tel Mor functioned primarily as an Egyp-tian outpost. Indeed, it is likely that Tel Mor corresponds to Mxc/D/z mentioned in New Kingdom texts (M. Dothan 1981b, 151, n. 3; Barako 2007a, 45) the name appears as Mxc/ in a topographical list of Thutmosis III (Simons 1937, 117); as Muhhazu (= alMu-u[h]-ha-zi) in EA 298:25 (Moran 1992, 340); and as MwxA DA in another list dating to the reign of Ramesses II at Amara West (B. Mazar 1975).

Despite the proximity of Tel Mor and Ashdod, their material cultural assem-blages were markedly different, particularly during the twelfth century b.c.e. As

6. Moshe Dothan, in whose memory the 2001 international workshop The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples was held, excavated both these sites. Through generous funding from the Shelby WhiteLeon Levy Program for Archaeological Publications, I published Dothans exca-vations at Tel Mor (Barako 2007a). For a fuller refutation of the Low Chronology based on the excavations at Ashdod and Tel Mor, see Barako 2007b.


presently shown, these differences represent another blow to the proposed chron-ological revision of Finkelstein and Ussishkin.

AshdodEven though the sequence at Ashdod has already been outlined above, it

bears repeating here. Stratum XIV corresponds to the last Canaanite settlement at Ashdod. At this time Mycenaean and Cypriot pottery was still being imported (e.g., M. Dothan and Porath 1993, 4849, fig. 12:24), and a small amount of Egyptianized pottery was being made at or brought to the site. At the end of the thirteenth century b.c.e., Ashdod was largely destroyed. In Area G, where the best Late Bronze to early Iron Age sequence was preserved, a new settlement (Stra-tum XIII) was built atop the ruins. More than anything else, the initial appearance of Myc IIIC:1b characterizes Stratum XIII. Noteworthy also are the absences of Mycenaean and Cypriot imports as well as Egyptianized pottery in this stratum.

Fig. 3: Tel Mor, Strata IVV (drawing by I. Dunayevsky).


Tel MorA large Egyptian-style building dominated the tiny summit (ca. one dunam)

of Tel Mor during the thirteenth century b.c.e. (= Strata VIIIVII; M. Dothan 1993b, 1073; Barako 2007a, 2026). Egyptianized pottery, mostly bowls and beer jars, comprised approximately 9 percent of the Stratum VII ceramic assemblage (Martin and Barako 2007, Table 4.12). Cypriot and, to a lesser extent, Mycenaean imports appear in small amounts. As with Ashdod, Tel Mor was destroyed at the end of the thirteenth century b.c.e. Above the thick destruction level that covered Stratum VII was a thin layer of wind-blown sand; thus indicating a brief period of abandonment. A smaller fort (Building F) was constructed in Stratum VI above and partially over the large fortress of Stratum VII (fig. 3).

In terms of pottery types, there are no major differences between the assem-blages of Strata VII and VI. The amount of Egyptianized pottery, however, nearly doubled from 9 to 15 percent of the total registered sherds in Stratum VI. A small amount of Cypriot pottery was also found in this stratum, such as an intact late White Slip II bowl (Barako 2007a, fig. 5.5:8) and a Base Ring II juglet (Barako 2007a, fig. 5.3:20), the latter is probably a local imitation.

Stratum VI ended in destruction. Numerous whole or almost whole vessels lay smashed on the floors of the fort, particularly in Room 71. On top of these ves-sels were fallen mud bricks and then more broken pots, which, taken altogether, indicates a second-story collapse. In the following Stratum V, the fort was rebuilt, and a smaller building (H) was constructed to the north of it (fig. 3). Egyptianized pottery still comprised about an eighth of the total assemblage in this stratum. In Room 34 of Building H, an intact Egyptian-style globular cooking jar was found (fig. 4). It is probably a Nile B Egyptian import that dates to the period of the Twentieth Dynasty (David Aston, personal communication). Mycenaean and Cypriot imports, on the other hand, were not found in Stratum V, nor, signifi-cantly, was Myc IIIC:1b pottery.

Because there is no mention in the field notes of Stratum V having ended in destruction, it is best to assume that its buildings, particularly the fort, simply fell out of use. In the succeeding strata, the character of the site changed considerably. A single massive building no longer dominated the tell. Instead, the settlement became more open with relatively little architecture. Stratum IV, for example, consists only of a poorly preserved building, the walls of which roughly follow the outline of Building H from the preceding stratum. Virtually no Egyptianized pottery was found in Stratum IV or in any subsequent strata. For the first time, however, small amounts of Philistine Bichrome pottery appeared in Stratum IV. The succeeding Stratum III, which is comprised mostly of pits, contained even more Bichrome.


Altogether about seventy sherds and whole vessels that may be described as Philistine were found at Tel Mor. This type of pottery comprises only 6 percent of the overall assemblage in Strata IVIII, which correspond to the Iron Age I period. The fact that the excavators appear to have collected all decorated body sherds, how-ever, inflates this percentage. Most of the Philistine pottery is the familiar Bichrome with smaller amounts of Aegean-style cooking jugs and Ashdod Ware 7 present.

7. For a comprehensive analysis of Ashdod Ware and a convincing proposal to rename it Late Philistine Decorated Ware, see Ben-Shlomo, Shai, and Maeir 2004.

Fig. 4: Egyptian globular cooking jar from Tel Mor, Stratum V (photograph courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).


Again, there is no locally made Myc IIIC:1b. Only the more notable Philistine sherds/vessels are described here.8

A decorated body sherd from a krater may be the earliest piece of Philistine Bichrome at Tel Mor (fig. 5.1). It preserves the tail of a water bird, the quintes-sential Philistine motif. To the right of the tail are four vertical lines belonging to the triglyph. The now-faded red and black paint was applied on a white slip. According to Trude Dothan, the bird motif is characteristic of the first two phases of Philistine pottery, which correspond to the twelfth and the first half of the elev-enth centuries b.c.e. (1982, 198; see, more recently, T. Dothan and Zukerman 2004, 3940). The water bird motif has been found, for example, on Bichrome kraters at Ashdod in Strata XIII (M. Dothan and Porath 1993, fig. 22) and XII (M. Dothan and Porath 1993, fig. 27:12).

The best-preserved example of Philistine Bichrome is from a krater that bears the typical spiral motif on a white wash (fig. 5.2; see also M. Dothan 1960b, pl. III:2). The following features characterize its form: A T-shaped rim that slopes inward; two horizontal loop handles attached to the upper body at an angle; a deep bell-shaped body; and a ring base (not preserved here). Its decoration con-sists of a red band on the rim and handles, and horizontal red bands that frame the main register located in the upper body. The metopes contain dark-painted spirals facing the same direction with red filling, and the triglyphs are comprised of alternating dark and red, wavy, vertical lines. The closest parallels, in terms of both the vessels shape and decoration, derive from mid- to late twelfth-century-b.c.e. strata such as Ashdod XI (M. Dothan 1971, figs. 2:6; 86:7), Tel Miqne-Ekron VI (Killebrew 1998a, fig. 12:9), and Tell Qasile XII (A. Mazar 1985b, fig. 13:23 [= Type KR 2b]).

A couple restorable Aegean-style cooking jugs were found in a Stratum III pit (fig. 5.34). They possess the following morphological attributes: An everted rim; one, or occasionally, two handles that extend from rim to shoulder; a globular-shaped body; and a flat or low ring base. The surface of both is black-ened, which is undoubtedly on account of their use as cooking vessels (fig. 6). In Canaan, these jugs frequently appear in strata containing Philistine pottery, both Myc IIIC:1b and Bichrome. They are found at sites on Cyprus during the Late Cypriot IIC and IIIA periods, and in the Aegean region primarily during the Late Helladic IIIC period (for references, see Killebrew 1998a, 397; 1999b). Cooking pots in the Late Bronze Age Canaanite traditionthat is, with everted, triangular-profiled rimscontinue to appear in Stratum III as well. Unfortunately, the small

8. For the complete publication of Philistine pottery from Tel Mor, see Barako 2007a, 6972, fig. 3:32.


sample size of cooking pots from this stratum precludes a meaningful statistical analysis of Canaanite versus Philistine types.

The presence at Tel Mor of cooking vessels from three different cultural backgrounds (i.e., Egyptian, Philistine, and Canaanite) merits further comment. Kitchenware is widely held to be an enduring ethnic marker on account of its resistance to change (as opposed to fine ware), and because it is often a part of a familys domestic traditions (e.g., Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996, 91). More-over, food preparation was primarily the domain of women in the ancient world (e.g., Watterson 1991, 12834; King and Stager 2001, 6465). Thus, the distribu-tion of cooking pots in southern Canaan during the twelfth century b.c.e. may

Fig. 5: Philistine pottery from Tel Mor, Strata IVIII.


reveal information about the composition, especially in regard to gender, of the various populations present.

During the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties, necked globular jars and large carinated bowls were used as cooking vessels in Egypt, both of which are extremely rare at Canaanite sites. In Canaan the former has been found at Tel Mor (fig. 4) and the latter at Beth Shean (Killebrew 1999a, 14850, Ill. II:70.3). A very different trend in regard to foreign cooking vessels has been observed at Pentapolis sites. In strata corresponding to the initial Philistine settlement (e.g., Tel Miqne VII), Aegean-style cooking jugs largely supplant Canaanite cooking pots (Killebrew 1999b). There is strong evidence, then, that women were part of the Philistine migration and settlement (Barako 2003); whereas, mostly male administrators and soldiers must have staffed Egyptian garrisons in Canaan. In this case, the imported Nile B cooking jar from Tel Mor is an anomaly.

At first glance the relatively small amount of Philistine pottery present at Tel Mor is surprising, especially given the proximity of Ashdod, which was

Table 1: Stratigraphy of Tel Mor and Ashdod compared.Tel Mor Ashdod

Philistine Stratum Egyptianized Philistine Stratum Egyptianized

absent VII present (9%) absent XIVpresent

(small amount)

absent VI present (15%) absent XIVpresent

(small amount)

absent V present (12%)present

(Myc IIIC:1b) XIII absent

present(Bichrome) IV absent

present (Bichrome) XII absent

present (Bichrome) III absent

present (Bichrome) XI absent


a major production center for Myc IIIC:1b, Philistine Bichrome, and Ashdod Ware. This dearth is understandable, however, when considered against the backdrop of Tel Mors settlement history during the Iron I period. In the first half of the twelfth century b.c.e. (= Strata VIV), which corresponds roughly to the reign of Ramesses III, the site continued to function as an Egyptian outpost. Thus, Egyptianized pottery is plentiful and Myc IIIC:1b altogether absent. After the abandonment of the Stratum V fort (= Building F) in the second half of the twelfth century b.c.e., there was very little architecture on the summit of Tel Mor. Utilitarian pottery, and not luxury wares like Philistine Bichrome and Ashdod Ware, is to be expected at such a poor, relatively minor site.

Synthesis

Based on the initial appearance of Philistine Bichrome, the stratigraphic sequences of Tel Mor and Ashdod match up as shown in table 1. The critical

Fig. 6: Aegean-style cooking jug from Tel Mor, Stratum III (photograph taken by D. D. Barako).


strata are Ashdod XIII and Tel Mor V, both dated by Moshe Dothan to the first half of the twelfth century b.c.e. Ashdod XIII produced significant amounts of Myc IIIC:1b but no Egyptianized pottery; whereas ca. 12 percent of the ceramic assemblage of Tel Mor V was Egyptianized pottery. Myc IIIC:1b does not appear in any stratum at Tel Mor, which appears to have been inhabited continuously throughout the twelfth century b.c.e.

Finkelstein and Ussishkin explain this marked patterning of Egyptianized and Philistine material culture by chronological revision. The evidence from Tel Mor and Ashdod suggests, however, that two nearby sites can be both contempo-raneous and possess different material culture assemblages. A more convincing explanation holds that Egypt adopted a policy of containment in response to the Philistines carving out their homeland from the southern coastal plain. Or, as Manfred Bietak (1993) and Lawrence Stager (1995, 34244) have argued, a cordon sanitaire was established, whereby Egypt maintained outposts (e.g., Tel Mor) at sites directly opposed to Philistine capital cities (e.g., Ashdod).

In support of this view is the dearth of Egyptian and Egyptianized material culture at Pentapolis sites during the time of the Philistine settlement. Under Ramesses III, Egypt attempted to regain control of southern Canaan, an effort reflected in the numerous Egyptian finds that date to the Twentieth Dynasty found at sites in Canaan, but largely outside of Philistia. This apparent lack of Egyptian activity during the Twentieth Dynasty in Philistia is no mere coin-cidence: The Egyptians were not in Philistia during this period because the Philistines were there instead; and not as garrisoned prisoners-of-war but, rather, as an intrusive population hostile to Egypt. The weight of the evidence from Phi-listine Pentapolis sites is considerable, and the pattern that emerges cannot be dismissed due to the vagaries of archaeological discovery. It reflects a historical development that offers a more reasonable explanation of the archaeological data than does chronological revision.

Date post:	15-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jordi-teixidor-abelenda
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Barako_SeaPeoples_2013

Documents