A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines 9780860543374, 9781407342665

Citation preview

A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines

John F. Brug

BAR International Series 265

1985

B.A.R.

5, Centremead, Osney Mead, Oxford OX2 0ES, England.

GENERAL EDITORG A.R Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D.R Walker, M.A.

BAR -S265, 1985:'A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines'

©

John Frederick Brug, 1985

The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860543374 paperback ISBN 9781407342665 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860543374 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

©

1 985 J ohn F rederick B rug

M any o f t he d rawings i n t his d issertation a re c overed b y o ther c opyrights w hich a re l isted i n t he t able o n p ages 2 51 t o 2 54.

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE

OF

CONTENTS AND LIST OF

F IGURES

i

ABSTRACT

i v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

V

INTRODUCTION

1

I .

L ITERARY SOURCES A . The O ld Testament B . Egyptian Sources C . Akkadian Sources D . Greek Sources E . Modern I nterpretations F . Summary and Evaluation

I I.

of

Literary

Sources

5 1 7 2 9 4 1 4 4 4 6

CONNECTING LITERARY AND ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE... 5 1

I II.

PHILISTINE

POTTERY

5 3

A . B .

The Definition of Philistine Ware 5 4 The Distribution of Philistine Ware 6 6 1 . S ites I n and Near Philistia 6 6 2 . Highland Sites 9 5 3 . S ites North of Philistia 9 6 4 . Summary of Philistine Ware Distribution.... 1 06 C . Distribution of Philistine Ware Within S ites..106 D . The Relationship of Philistine Ware to Other Pottery Types 1 07 E . The Significance of Philistine Ware 1 35 IV.

PHILISTINE BURIAL CUSTOMS A . Anthropoid Coffins B . Tomb Forms C . Gold Mouthpieces D . Cremation E . Philistine Ware Burials F . Pottery Types in Burials G . Change i n Burial Forms H . Skeletal Material

1 49 1 49 1 52 1 53 1 54 1 56 1 61 1 62 1 63

V .

V I.

PHILISTINE METALWORK A . The I ntroduction of B .

Specific

C .

Summary of

PHILISTINE

V II. PHILISTINE A . Seals B . Ivory VIII. A . B . C .

Metal

1 65 1 65

I ron

Forms

1 68

Metalwork

1 71

SHIPS

1 75

M INOR ARTS

1 77 1 77 1 77

PHILISTINE RELIGION Literary Evidence Cultic Apparatus Summary

1 82 1 82 1 84 1 88

I X.

PHILISTINE ARCHITECTURE

1 89

X .

THE

1 93

X I.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

TABLE OF

SEARCH

FOR PHILISTINE LANGUAGE

2 01

ABBREVIATIONS

2 06

B IBLIOGRAPHY CREDITS

FOR DRAWINGS

2 08 AND COPYRIGHT

INFORMATION

2 51

ENDNOTES

2 55

INDEX

3 07

i i

L ist

of

Figures

F igure F igure F igure F igure

1 : 2 : 3 : 4 :

Sea P eoples' Names Philistine Prisoners Other Sea People Prisoners A Philistine Chief

F igure F igure F igure

5 : The Land Battle 6 : The S ea Battle 7 a: P alestinian Prisoners

1 6 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6

F igure 7 b: F igure 7 c: F igure 8 : F igure 8b: F igure 9 : F igure 1 0: F igure 1 1: F igure 1 2: F igure 1 3: F ig.14-17: F igure 1 8: F igure 1 9: F igure 2 0: F igure 2 1: F igure 2 2: F igure 2 3: F igure 2 4: F igure 2 5: F igure 2 6: f igure 2 7: F igure 2 8: F igure

Attack on Ashkelon 2 6 An Amorite 2 6 Assyrian Feathered Headgear 3 8 A ssyrian Attack on Gezer 3 8 Assyrian Attack on Ekron 3 9 Aegean Regional Map 4 0 Philistine Ware Types 5 8 Philistine Ware Types 5 9 Philistine Ware Motifs 6 0 Phil. Ware Examples 6 1-64 Maps of Philistine Sites...65 Deir A lla Pottery 1 04 Anthropoid Coffins 1 45 Headdress Parallels 1 46 F eathered Headdresses 1 47 Fara Tomb P lans 1 48 " Aegean" Swords 1 73 S ea Peoples' Ships 1 74 Religious F igurines 1 78 Cypriote Figurines 1 79 Mycenaean and Mourning F igurines 1 80 2 9: Mourning F igurines 1 81

F igure 3 0: Tablets from Cyprus, A lla and I zbet Sartah G raphs Graphs Graphs Graphs F or

1 -7 8 -9 1 0-12 1 3-14

Tell Fara Tell Qasile Meggiddo/Beth I zbet Sartah

copyright i nformation s ee page 2 51

Shan

on

Deir 1 92 1 17-123 1 25-126 1 29-131 1 32-133

the drawings

i ii

ABSTRACT A L ITERARY AND ARCHEOLOGICAL OF THE PHILISTINES

STUDY

This study i s an analysis o f the population a nd culture of Philistia i n the Early I ron Age on t he basis o f the l iterary and archeological evidence. Both t he Egyptian r ecords and the O ld Testament t exts i mply t hat the arrival of t he Philistines a nd other Sea P eoples i n P alestine was not a s udden massive m igration, but a gradual amalgamation o f foreign and i ndigenous e lements. The archeological evidence i ndicates t hat t he Philistine culture was a hybrid culture in which t he " Canaanite" e lement remained predominant. An i mportant part of this study i s a determination of the percentage o f Philistine Ware at the s ites at which i t occurs. Philistine Ware rarely exceeds 2 5% of the total ceramic a ssemblage f rom a s ite. I t often i s i n the 5 %-15% range. There i s a strong continuity o f c eramic types from t he Late Bronze Age at s ites which have Philistine Ware. I n the overall ceramic assemblage o f s ites which h ave Philistine Ware the Canaanite i nfluence on the p ottery i s at l east as strong as the Mycenaean i nfluence. A study of P hilistine burial practices, m etal work, architecture, ships, m inor arts, religion, and l anguage reveals a very strong " Canaanite," " Semitic," or L evantine e lement i n a ll aspects of the Philistine culture. A ll o f the evidence suggests that there was a strong carry-over f rom the Late Bronze Age i n the population o f I ron Age Philistia, and that t he influx of S ea Peoples i nto P alestine at t he t ime of Ramses I II was p robably a s ettlement of small groups, s imilar to the movement of t he Northmen i nto various countries o f Europe, rather than a massive folk-migration.

i v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This book i s e ssentially t he Ph.D d issertation which I s ubmitted t o the Center f or Ancient S tudies o f t he University o f M innesota i n 1 984. A f ew corrections and s ome minor up-dating have been added. S ince no study i s ever the product of one person, I would l ike t o thank t he many people who have helped and supported me during t his project. A lthough they a re many more than can be named here, I will m ention s ome o f those whose role has been especially important. F irst of a ll, I would l ike to express my appreciation to those who h ave helped m e during my s tudies at t he Center for Ancient S tudies of the University o f M innesota, especially my d issertation committee, William Coulson, Ron Marchese, Jonathan Paradise, D aniel R eisman, and Guy Gibbon; a lso Thomas K raabel who was on my Ph.D . committee until he l eft the U niversity. I would l ike to extend special thanks t o E llen Herscher, my Masters advisor, who helped create t he i nterest i n the connection of ceramic types and ethnic groups which l ed t o this topic, t o Jonathan Paradise, my advisor during my Ph.D s tudies, and to P eter Patton, the f ormer director of the CAS who was very helpful at t he t ime o f my enrollment. I would a lso l ike t o thank the m any s cholars and institutions both i n the United States and I srael, who provided me with i nformation and suggestions during my research. They a lso are too numerous to mention here, s o I h ave t ried t o acknowledge my i ndebtedness i n the notes at appropriate points i n the d issertation. I would, however, l ike to e specially thank the f ollowing individuals f or a llowing me to examine unpublished pottery from their excavations, Moshe Dothan, Trude Dothan and Sy Gitin, Amnon Ben Tor, E liezer Oren, and Z eev H erzog, a s well as the f ollowing i ndividuals who provided me with unpublished manuscripts of their work, Amihai Mazar, I srael Finkelstein, Gershon Edelstein, Baruch Arensburg, Rivka Gonen, and Barbara K ling. I would l ike to thank the I srael Department of Antiquities and the Department o f Antiquities o f Cyprus for a llowing me to study materials stored in their collections and the A lbright I nstitute, Ecole Biblique, t he Rockefeller Museum, and the I nstitute of A rcheology o f Hebrew University for the u se o f their l ibraries. I would a lso l ike to thank A lfred K romholz, Jacqueline Balensi, and others who discussed matters o f interest with me. I would l ike to t hank the authors and publishers who gave me permission to use copyrighted drawings i n the p lates of this dissertation. Full a cknowledgement i s given in the l ist of credits which f ollows the bibliography on page 2 51. I

would

l ike

t o

thank V

t he

Aid

A ssociation

f or

Lutherans and the Francis Andrews Hunt Fund which p rovided me with f inancial s upport for my s tudies, as well as D r. Martin Luther College and Wisconsin Lutheran S eminary which provided s abbatical s alary during my research i n I srael. I would l ike to thank B .A. R. for undertaking t he publication of this edition and Dr. Anthony H ands i n particular for his help i n this project. F inally, I would l ike to thank my wife I rene and s on Paul for their patience and the s acrifices which t hey made during the times when I was busy with studies. John

v i

F .

Brug

I NTRODUCTION The origin of t he Philistines has been a s ource o f m uch debate a mong historians and archeologists o f t he a ncient Near E ast. A ll the l iterary sources agree that t he Philistines were not i ndigenous to P alestine, but that t hey migrated to Palestine f rom e lsewhere i n t he M editerranean world. However, there has been considerable d isagreement a bout the t ime and nature of this migration a nd the character of Philistine culture. There appears t o be a contradiction between the O ld Testament and the E gyptian sources concerning the ethnic background of the P hilistines and the t ime of their arrival in P alestine. T he O ld Testament c lassifies the Philistines with Hamitic p eoples and s eems t o p lace their appearance i n Palestine well before t he beginning of the I ron Age. The Egyptian t exts s eem t o c lassify the Philistines with I ndo-European p eoples f rom A natolia or the Aegean. The Philistines f irst appear i n Egyptian texts at about the beginning of t he I ron Age. The painted pottery called " Philistine W are" i s c learly derived from Late-Helladic proto - types, b ut the very heavy Canaanite i nfluence on the material culture and doubts about culture.

p ersonal names of the Philistines raises t he extent of Aegean i nfluence i n Philistine

The uncertainty which results f rom these apparent d iscrepancies a nd the ambiguity of the evidence concerning the Philistines has opened the door to a ll kinds of speculation and theories about the origins of the P hilistines and the other " Sea Peoples" associated with t hem. Suggested homelands of the Philistines have ranged f rom the Caucasus i n the east though Anatolia, Cyprus, Crete, and Greece to I llyria i n the west. Even North A frica, the western Mediterranean i slands, and Northern Europe have had their advocates. However, a basic weakness of a ll of these theories i s that their proponents h ave usually f ocused on a very narrow selection of the available evidence. Too often i nvestigators have begun with a preconception concerning Philistine origins and t hen l ooked f or evidence in the Philistine culture to support that preconception. Theories of Philistine origins h ave b een based on selected evidence, r ather than on a consideration of Philistine culture a s a whole. Evidence which contradicts the investigator's original hypothesis The

i s

t oo

theory

often

s imply

most

widely

i gnored. a ccepted

today

i s

that

the

P hilistines f irst arrived in Palestine from the Aegean i n a bout 1 190 B .C. This theory i s supported by two main p illars. The r ecords of Ramses I II report that Egypt was a ttacked by t he Peleset and other " invaders f rom t he i slands p ainted

of t he pottery

s ea" s tyle

early i n derived 1

the f rom

1 2th Century B .C. A Late Helladic h IC

prototypes appeared i n s outhwest P alestine at a bout t he t ime o f R amses I II. On the basis o f t hese two f acts i t i s s uggested t hat t he Philistines f irst a rrived f rom t he Aegean early i n t he 1 2th Century B .C. and s ettled i n P alestine shortly a fter their u nsuccessful a ttack o n Egypt. The main weakness of this t heory i s that i t rests on too l imited an analysis of Philistine material culture. The theory of the Aegean origin o f t he Philistines rests a lmost entirely on the appearance i n southwest P alestine of the derivative " Mycenaean" pottery s tyle now called Philistine Ware. No systematic attempt has been m ade t o analyze the quantitative role of this Mycenaean d erivative pottery i n the Philistine culture o r the degree o f Aegean i nfluence upon other a spects of P hilistine culture. A s econd major weakness of this theory i s that i t does n ot explain s tatements i n the l iterary records which i mply a n earlier presence of the Philistines in P alestine, i ncluding statements i n the Egyptian records. Such statements are s imply i gnored, so that the analysis of t he l iterary r ecords i s a lso based on only a s election of t he evidence. The goal of this d issertation i s to re-study t he question of Philistine origins on t he basis of a s broad a spectrum of evidence as possible. The f irst part of this study will re-examine the primary l iterary s ources concerning the Philistines. The most important sources are Egyptian records, especially the t 4edinet Habu inscriptions of Ramses I II, and the O ld Testament. Some supplementary i nformation i s found i n Akkadian t exts f rom Ugarit, the Amarna l etters, and annals of the A ssyrian kings. This study will show that the extant l iterary sources suggest an explanation of Philistine origins which i s more complex than the " Aegean theory" which i s generally held today. The s econd major part of this study will be an analysis of various aspects of the Philistine material culture. A key emphasis of this restudy will be a more quantitative approach than that which has characterized past studies. The so-called Philistine Ware, which i s considered to be the prime indicator of the Philistines' Aegean origin, has a lready been thoroughly cataloged and analyzed by Trude Dothan and o thers. However, t he quantitative role of Philistine Ware at the sites where i t occurs has never been adequately analyzed. How much o f the pottery at Philistine s ites i s Philistine Ware, and how much i s pottery o f traditional " Canaanite" s tyles? The ercenta e of Mycenaean derivative pottery at s ites i n Philistia i s more important f or analyzing the degree o f Aegean i nfluence on P hilistine culture than t he mere occurrence of such pottery at these s ites. A m ajor goal of this d issertation i s to determine the percentage o f Philistine Ware at t he s ites where i t has been found. This should make i t possible t o assess the d egree o f Aegean i nfluence i n southwest Palestine more accurately. 2

S uch quantitative i nformation s hould h elp d etermine whether t he A egean i nfluence i n s outhwest P alestine i s b est explained a s a result o f t rade, the a rrival o f small g roups, or l arge-scale m igration. The non-Aegean a spects o f Philistine pottery must a lso be given due emphasis i f w e are t o achieve a balanced a ssessment o f t he s ignificance o f t his pottery a s evidence f or the origin o f t he Philistines. For this r eason we will examine the r elationship o f Philistine pottery t o t he earlier pottery o f Palestine and to the contemporary pottery o f n on-Philistine a reas of Palestine. After we h ave analyzed the Philistine pottery, we w ill examine t he available evidence concerning Philistine burial customs, metal work, religion, architecture, and l anguage to s ee i f t hese aspects of the culture point to a s ingle cultural t radition a s t he p rime s ource o f P hilistine culture. I s there a particular combination o f f eatures which i dentifies a s ite a s Philistine i n contrast t o a site which i s I sraelite or Canaanite? Finally, on the basis o f a ll o f the l iterary and a rcheological evidence we will offer an explanation of the o rigins and culture o f the Philistines. I n s uch a theory due weight must be g iven to a ll of the available evidence, n ot just t o a l imited part of it. A s ingle a spect of the culture, such a s pottery, c annot be u sed a s the sole d eterminant o f origins s imply because i t i s the most a vailable evidence. When the evidence i s ambiguous or e ven contradictory ( as i t often i s), questions must be l eft open, r ather t han being p rematurely c losed by the a doption of t heories which account for only part of the evidence and s imply d ismiss the rest. Too often such t heories have been received a lmost a s f act, r ather t han a s hypotheses i n n eed o f f urther i nvestigation. We must be f rank i n acknowledging a reas i n which more than one e xplanation o f t he evidence i s possible, even when we have a d efinite p reference for one of the possibilities. A r esearcher's duty i s t o be an impartial i nvestigator who g athers and weighs a ll t he evidence, r ather than an a dvocate who s eeks evidence t o best prove h is case. For t his reason, i n this s tudy we will t ry t o p resent a ll t he evidence, even t hat which s eems s uspect or t rivial at f irst. I t i s only possible to determine what i s i mportant a fter a ll the evidence h as been gathered and compared o bjectively. T he conflicting opinions t hat have arisen c oncerning t he Philistines, even when s cholars have had t he same evidence available t o them, s erve a s a warning o f t he hazards and d ifficulties i nvolved i n t rying t o d etermine ethnic origins f rom l imited a rcheological evidence. I t i s hoped that this s tudy will be valuable not only f or t he i nformation which i t g athers a bout t he P hilistines a nd t heir culture, but a s a n example o f m ethodology which will be u seful i n o ther attempts t o connect e thnic groups m entioned i n l iterary records with t he remnants of m aterial culture r ecovered by 3

archeological now proceed to

excavations. the f irst step

4

With t hese goals of our study.

i n

mind

w e

THE

L ITERARY

SOURCES

This chapter will briefly summarize the various l iterary sources concerning the Philistines. No attempt w ill be made t o provide a detailed history o f the P hilistines, s ince this has been done e lsewhere. ( 1) This s tudy will concentrate on those t exts which have a bearing on Philistine origins and culture. F irst, this chapter w ill t he

s imply report a s l iterary s ources

objectively as possible what each o f s ays about the Philistines. Since

both the Egyptian and O ld Testament sources have often b een cited a s s aying things which they do not, i n fact, s ay, it i s important t hat we examine everything which the s ources actually say, before we begin t o form judgments and conclusions. Then after each s ource has been a llowed t o speak for i tself, the historical s ignificance of each s ource will be discussed and evaluated i n t he l iterary s ources which concludes this

the synthesis chapter.

of

THE OLD TESTAMENT The a ccounts,

Philistines are well known f rom the Biblical which depict them as I srael's most dangerous

enemy during However, the

t he twelfth through t enth centuries book of Genesis s ays that there

B .C. were

P hilistines ( Jr1t1' ) in the area around Gerar already in the time of t he patriarchs. These early " Philistines" have a king with the Semitic name or title Abimelech. Herding i s the only activity of theirs which i s mentioned. They are not d escribed as a strong or l arge group. A lthough they a re hostile to I saac, they are intimidated by the patriarchal group, which was not especially l arge or powerful. ( Genesis 2 1 & 2 6) I n these t exts there i s l ittle emphasis on their ethnic i dentity. I n the Abraham a ccount the only r eference i s to the l and of the Philistines. ( Genesis 2 1) I t i s only in the I saac account that the people are called Philistines. These Philistines are not associated with the well-known Philistine pentapolis, but only with the area around Gerar and Beersheva. The chronological data of the O ld Testament p lace the patriarchs early in the Second M illennium B .C. at the l atest, but t hose s cholars who believe that these stories have a genuine historical s etting have proposed a wide variety o f dates f or this period, r anging f rom MBI to the end of t he Late Bronze Age. ( 2) A resolution of this dispute i s not n ecessary here, s ince any of the suggested dates for the p atriarchs would p lace the presence of Philistines i n P alestine well before the earliest Egyptian reference to the Philistines which i s from about 1 190 B .C. Because o f the l ateness of the f irst Egyptian reference 5

recent historians have u sually regarded the statements i n Genesis a s s imple anachronisms, r egardless o f t he date which they themselves assigned to t he patriarchal p eriod. T he h istorical s ignificance of t hese Genesis r eferences will be evaluated i n the synthesis o f the l iterary s ources. By the t ime of the Exodus and Conquest the Philistines appear at f irst g lance t o be more formidable. Exodus 1 3:17 reports that I srael avoided t he road through the l and of the Philistines. However, this i s basically a geographic reference and could refer to a desire t o avoid Egyptian border garrisons a long t he coastal road, rather than to a great f ear o f the Philistines. The reference t o the inhabitants of Philistia ( f lt i 'E ) ) in Exodus 1 5:14 i s a lso geographical, rather than ethnic. The Philistines and their cities are not i ncluded i n the S outhern Coalition of Amorite kings which opposes Joshua. ( Joshua 1 0) , nor in the standard l ist of pre-Israelite i nhabitants of Palestine ( e.g. Joshua 3 :10) T he enemies of t he tribe of Dan, who are preventing them f rom possessing their assigned t erritory i n the northern Philistine P lain, are called Amorites, not Philistines. ( Judges 1 :34) The Philistines are not mentioned at a ll i n the warfare s ection of Joshua, but Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon, cities of their P entapolis, are mentioned as p laces where the pre-Israelite Anakim s urvived. ( Joshua 1 1:23) I n the geographic section of Joshua the Philistines are mentioned i n the description of " the l and that remains." ( Joshua 1 3:2,3) They are described a s having f ive l ords ( ) 1t who represent Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron, the f ive chief cities of Philistia. The Hebrew text o f Judges 1 :18 reports a t emporary conquest o f Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ekron by I srael, but the Septuagint s ays that Judah did not capture these cities. We see that the Philistines are not prominent i n the texts pertaining to I srael's entry i nto the l and. They are s imply l isted a long with the other pre-Israelite inhabitants o f Canaan who r emained unconquered. The references t o them are p rimarily geographic. They p lay no role i n any o f the battles. They are not regarded as any more o f a t hreat t o I srael than the other peoples of the p lains who are r esisting I srael's advance. The

chronological

data

of

I

K ings

6 :1

and Judges

1 1:26 s eem to p lace this f irst s tage o f the I sraelite conquest i nto the 1 5th Century B .C. ( 3) There i s a great deal of s cholarly debate about t he n ature and t ime of I srael's entry i nto Canaan. ( 4) There i s no consensus on the s ubject as a whole, but t he majority of s cholars p lace I srael's entry i nto the l and in the 1 3th C entury, about two centuries l ater than the date s uggested by the chronological data of the O ld Testament. ( 5) R esolution of

this

debate

i s

not

crucial

to our

problem

h ere

s ince

either date for I srael's entry i nto Canaan, 1 5th Century or 1 3th Century, would raise the charge of anachronism against the references to Philistines i n P alestine before the 1 2th Century, the a lleged date of their entry i nto 6

C anaaan according t o the Egyptian t exts. However, we c annot address this question of anachronism until a fter we h ave examined the Egyptian texts t o s ee i f they a ctually a ssert a 1 2th Century arrival of the Philistines a s has s o o ften been c laimed. I f the Egyptian texts a lso recognize a presence o f the S ea Peoples before the t ime of R amses I II, the entire question of anachronism will be put i n a n ew l ight. The conflict between the Philistines a nd I sraeliLes b ecomes more b itter a s the period o f the j udges comes t o a c lose. The book of Judges presents Shamgar ben Anat a s t he hero of a n i nitial c lash with the Philistines. The t ime and p lace of this c lash i s not specified, but i t s eems to take p lace early i n the period of the j udges. ( Judges 3 :31) ( 6) I t has been suggested that Shamgar d efeated the Philistines during their l and migration down t he coast of Palestine. Much has been written about S hamgar's non-Semitic name and about his t itle ben Anat, but both the i ncident i tself and Shamgar's origin remain obscure. ( 7) Late i n t he period of the j udges and during the reiyn o f Saul the Philistines are on the verge of dominating the whole l and of P alestine. This threat i s broken by David's v ictories over the Philistines. ( Judges 1 4-16, I & I I S amuel) The hostility between the Philistines and I sraelites continues on a l ess intense l evel throughout t he period of the 1 0th through 7 th Centuries B .C. with one s ide or the o ther gaining temporary advantage, until both f all prey t o Assyria and Babylon. I n general, I srael had t he upper h and throughout this period. Asa p lunders the v illages around Gerar. ( II Chr. 1 4:14) Jehoshaphat r eceives tribute f rom t he Philistines. ( II Chr. 1 7:11) U zziah destroys Gath, Yavneh, and A shdod and p laces garrisons i n Philistia. ( II Chr. 2 6:6) Hezekiah defeats t he Philistines, very l ikely as part of his anti-Assyrian policy, which i s a lso mentioned i n Assyrian records. ( II K g. 1 8:8) A " Hebrew" l etter found near Yavneh Yam may p rovide extra-Biblical evidence for I sraelite control o f t he Philistine p lain for at l east a short t ime during the r eign of Josiah. This l etter, which i s a complaint against t he unjust policies of a t axcollector, contains a Yahweh n ame, Hoshaiah s on of Shobai. ( 8) The only Philistine s uccesses which are reported during this whole t ime period a re raids at the t ime of Jehoram ( II Chr. 2 1:16-17) and e ncroachments on I sraelite territory at the t ime of Ahaz. ( II Chr. 2 8:18) The various accounts of this l ong struggle provide l ittle information concerning Philistine origins and culture. Throughout the years many s cholars have pointed out the resemblance of certain Philistine names and customs i n t hese accounts to p arallels f rom the Aegean world, but t hese s imilarities are not very decisive and can be explained by causes other than m igration f rom the Aegean. ( 9) These a lleged Aegean p arallels will be d iscussed and evaluated i n the chapters on Philistine 7

l anguage, We have a origins.

religion, will more

and

burial

practices.

now examine the O ld T estament t exts which m ay direct bearing on the question of P hilistine

The most s ignificant are the statements t hat t he Philistines came from or at l east t hrough Caphtor ) " The LORD i s about to d estroy the Philistines, the remnant of the coasts of Caphtor." ( Jer. 4 7:4) " Did I not bring I srael up f rom Egypt, the Philistines f rom Caphtor, and the Arameans from K ir." ( Amos 9 :7) No O ld Testament t exts provide i nformation about where Caphtor i s .

or when this movement occurred. I n the p ast Caphtor was sometimes i dentified with Coptos i n Egypt or with Cyprus. The identification with Cyprus has recently been revived by J . S trange. ( 10) The Septuagint, a Greek t ranslation of the O ld T estament made i n t he Hellenistic period, equates Caphtor with Cappadocia, a region in eastern Asia Minor. Wainwright i s a modern defender of t his view. ( 11) Crete i s the i dentification for Caphtor which i s commonly accepted today. This interpretation i s based on the assumption that the Biblical " Caphtor" i s i dehtical with the Egyptian " Keftiu" and t he Akkadian " Kaptara." ( 12) K eftiu, the apparent E gyptian equivalent o f Caphtor, occurs mainly i n texts f rom the 1 5th and 1 4th Centuries B .C. I t does not occur after the 1 1th Century, except as an archaic revival in Hellenistic times. ( 13) K eftiu seems to refer primarily, but not n ecessarily exclusively to Crete. The identification of K eftiu with Crete i s based on Egyptian t omb paintings which l abel Minoan-looking envoys as K eftians and on a t opographic l ist of Amenophis I II which appears to p lace s everal Cretan l ocations in Keftiu. ( 14) Those who challenge t he i dentification of Keftiu with Crete point out that t he K eftians i n Egyptian paintings i nclude individuals dressed in Syrian, rather than Minoan styles. ( 15) The question i s whether this mixed dress i s s imply an i naccuracy i n t he tomb paintings, or i f i t reflects a broad use o f the t erm K eftiu. Texts f rom t J garit and M ari are also quoted t o support the i dentification of Kaptar and Crete, but but these references are very general s o they are not decisive for identifying Caphtor. ( 16) The supported

i dentification by Biblical

of Caphtor with Crete s eems to be texts which l ink t he " Kerethites"

( kretim) with the Philistines. ( Ezk. 2 5:16, Zeph.2:5) The K erethites and Pelethites were foreign mercenaries i n the forces of David. I t i s assumed that " Pelethites" ( f l ' ?D ) is a variant form of "Philistines" and that " Kerethites" i ndicates the origin of these people in Crete or Caphtor. Several S emitic etymologies h ave been suggested for the terms " Kerethites" and " Pelethites", but none of them i s very p ersuasive, so i t s eems best to regard them as e thnic t erms. ( 17) I f David' s Pelethite and K erethite m ercenaries were in f act Philistines, this would harmonize well with Egyptian t exts which depict the Sea P eoples as mercenaries who s ometimes 8

f ought

on

both

s ides

of

a s ingle

battle.

The

S eptuagint regularly t ranslates " Philistines" ) a s " foreigners" ( A Xo uXo i ) The root t 1 ' ? E occurs i n non-Biblical Hebrew as a verb meaning " penetrate" and a s a noun meaning " invasion" ( p lural -n) ' ) I n the Amarna l etters " pala u" appears t o mean "break i n." ( EA 1 39:17, 1 40:19) Ethiopic a lso has a word for foreigner based on the root p lt. ( 18) E tymological speculation based on the s imilarity of s uch S emitic roots and the word 0I1 L 1 may be the main basis for the Septuagint translation, but there could be non-extant, h istorical or exegetical tradition behind this

r y ' rw '

.

.

translation. I t i s i nteresting that i n the Pentateuch and Joshua the S eptuagint does not translate " Philistine" a s " foreigner", but merely t ransliterates. The t ranslation " foreigners" begins with the book of Judges and i s followed consistently thereafter. I n f act, i n some i mportant manuscripts of the Septuagint the change takes p lace in the m iddle of Judges at chapter 1 0 or 1 4. ( 19) F rom this point on the S eptuagir i t ranslates ( Philistines) a s ( foreigners) even whe T t occurs i n a l ist of other non-Israelite peoples as i n Judges 1 0:6,11. Even the geographic t erm I 1 U ' ?E Philistia, i s t ranslated " foreigners" in P salm 6 0:8, 8 7:4, and 1 09:8. The only exception i s I saiah 9 :12 ( Heb. v 1 1) where for reasons unknown 1 U ' i s translated ‚ XXT 1VCS ( Greeks) Seeligmann suggests that this i s s imply an example of the historical updating of n ames which i s common to the Septuagint version of I saiah. ( 20) .

It i s striking that the attack of Sea P eoples against Ramses I II took p lace between the t ime when I srael entered Canaan and the t ime of the l ater j udges, the s ame point at which the Septuagint shifts from t ransliterating D 1U as " Philistines" to t ranslating i t as " foreigners." This may merely be a co-incidence due to different translators f or the f irst s ix books of the Old Testament and the l ater books, but the correspondence i s remarkable, especially i f the change occurs i n the m iddle of the book of Judges. ( 21) This shift i n t ranslation could represent a belief i n a change of the character of the Philistines between the t ime o f I srael' s entry i nto the l and and the l ast j udges. Much l ater Rabbinic writings a lso assert t hat the Philistines i n the patriarchal accounts were not the s ame as those o f the t ime of David. ( Midrash Psalm 6 0,1) S ince the r abbis' motive f or reporting this i nformation was to excuse David for attacking the Philistines i n spite of the patriarchs' covenant with them, this statement may merely be a r ationalization which i s not based on any historical tradition, but i t i s possible t hat i t reflects traditions about Philistine origins which h ad been preserved i n I srael. There may not be a genuine etymological connection between the word " Philistines" and any Semitic root, but 9

it s eems l ikely that there was exegetical or h istorical t radition concerning the foreign origin of t he P hilistines which l ed the Septuagint t ranslators t o notice t he s imilarity between the word " Philistine" and a H ebrew root then i n use which could mean " foreigner". This co-incidence was a f actor i n their decision to t ranslate " Philistine"

with a Greek word

for

" foreigner."

A variant on the t radition of Philistine origin f rom Caphtor i s Deuteronomy 2 :23. Here Caphtorites c ome a nd drive out the Avvites ( J ' W ) who l ive i n the v illages near Gaza. These Caphtorites are not called Philistines i n the t ext, but this territory was definitely P hilistine by the t ime of the j udges . The writer of D euteronomy seems to p lace this i nvasion well before the time o f Ramses I II. The t ext s eems to c lassify the d isplaced Avvites as a portion of the earliest known inhabitants o f Palestine, who are either i dentical to or c losely related to the peoples called Raphaites, Z amzum r nites, E mites, o r Anakites by the different peoples who d isplaced the m. Joshua 1 3:3 and Joshua 1 1:23 s eem to i ndicate that some o f the Avvites continued to l ive among the Philistines, a long with another people called the Geshurites. ( 22) I Samuel 2 7:8 inhabitants of

c lassifies southern

the Geshurites as l ong-time Philistia who continued to l ive

a long s ide the Philistines. I n the days of Hezekiah t he Simeonites attack Hamites remaining i n their t erritory. ( I Chronicles 4 :41) I t i s not c lear i f t his i s i ntended to be a reference to Philistines or to other p eoples i n the area such as the Geshurites. From a ll o f these references it i s c lear that the I sraelites perceived a certain amount of intermingling between earlier a nd l ater strata of the population of Philistia. Even Goliath and several other Philistine heroes are distinguished from ethnic " Philistines" i n the strict s ense and classified a s remnants of the previous Rephaite i nhabitants, who h ad become amalgamated to the Philistines o f Gath. ( I Chr. 2 0:4-8) An obscure passage which may a lso reflect this distinction between true Philistines and other i nhabitants of the Philistine p lain i s I Chronicles 7 :21 in which the men who kill two sons of Ephraim are referred to a s " native-born men of Gath" )‚ perhaps t o distinguish them f rom Philistines i n the strict s ense o f the word. I t has been suggested that this text r eflects the same struggle between I sraelites and inhabitants o f Philistia as that reflected in Genesis 2 6. ( 23) Genesis 1 0 adds important i nformation about I srael's understanding of the origin of the Philistines. V erses 1 3 and 1 4 state that the Philistines came out f rom t he Casluhites ( )‚ a people which the text a ssociates with the Caphtorites and Egyptian and L ibyan p eoples. These Casluhites are not known from any other s ources. Even the historian Josephus, who t ries to i dentify a ll o f the peoples l isted i n Genesis 1 0, o ffers no conjecture o n the Casluhites, other than to s ay that they n o l onger 1 0

exist i n h is day. ( 24) I n many commentaries t he C asluhites a re i dentified as inhabitants of the area east o f the Delta around Mt. Casios or with Colchis on t he B lack Sea. ( 25) Cyrenica in North Africa and S cylace on t he Propontis ( See f igure 1 0) are other suggestions f or t heir homeland. ( 26) S ince there i s no s olid evidence f or any of t hese proposed i dentifications, the p roblem o f i dentifying t he Casluhites remains unsolved. Most modern t ranslations a nd commentaries emend the word order of the t ext, s o that the Philistines are s aid to come out f rom t he Caphtorites. This i s done to harmonize Genesis 1 0 w ith t he t exts which say that the Philistines came f rom C aphtor. But there i s no manuscript evidence t o support t his emendation, and the parallel passage i n I Chronicles 1 :12 agrees w ith Genesis 1 0 i n deriving the Philistines f rom the Casluhites. Scholars should not be too quick t o r emove difficulties from the text by emendation. But i n t he final analysis it does not make much difference whether the text derives the Philistines f rom the Casluhites or Caphtorites. Regardless of which reading i s chosen Genesis 1 0 c lassifies the Philistines a s a Hamitic p eople, c losely related to the Canaanite peoples l isted i n verse 1 5, but distinct f rom them. This i s surprising s ince we would expect them t o be c lassified with I ndo-European peoples. To evaluate possible explanations f or this c lassification we must examine the rest of this t able of nations. Genesis t ranslated

1 0:4 " sea

contains people"

a term which could or " maritime

be l oosely peoples"

( tr f l ) . ( 27) This term i s applied to peoples whom modern scholars associate with the coasts and i slands of Anatolia and the Aegean, i ncluding Yavan ( Ionian Greece), E lishah ( associated with Alashiyah=Cyprus by modern s cholars, with the Aeolian Greeks by Josephus) ‚ K ittim ( Cyprus) , Tarshish ( associated with Cilicia by Josephus, with Sardinia by A lbright), and Rhodanim ( Rhodes). The T iras, another people l isted with Yavan, may be the s ame a s the Teresh, a Seapeople mentioned by Merneptah. These T eresh have s ometimes been i dentified with the Etruscans. ( 28) The t ext p lainly i ntends to differentiate these northern maritime peoples from the Philistines and Caphtorites. What i s the basis for this d ifferentiation? The text l ists four criteria of c lassification for each m ajor grouping i n the table. The groups are c lassified a ccording t o t heir l anguages ( r » )‚ according to their descent or f amilies ( - t ' ? ) ‚ i n their l ands ( -- j ) ‚ and by their nations ( ) . There i s not a lways a sharp differentiation o f these t erms, but here they are to be understood respectively a s l inguistic, r acial or ethnic, geographical, and political criteria f or c lassification. These criteria are not l isted i n the s ame order for e ach grouping of peoples. The northern Japheth group l ists " lands" f irst, suggesting that the emphasis in t his group m ay be geographical. On the other hand, the H amitic and Semitic groups begin with " families" s uggesting t hat t ribe or descent may be more important h ere. Each o f the three groups ends with " nations"

1 1

s uggesting that political a ffiliations a re i mportant i n a ll the groupings. Many commentators believe t hat t he P hilistines, Caphtorites, and Casluhites a re p laced i n t he H amitic group s imply because they l ived i n Palestine a nd had political t ies with Egypt. S ome have i nterpreted t his a s evidence that the material i n this table i s l ate, originating a fter the Philistines had been t horoughly a ssimilated. ( 29) A lthough this p olitical interpretation i s a reasonable conjecture, we s hould note t hat it i s based on assumption, not on a careful examination of t he evidence. For example, Speiser concludes, " The a uthor ( J) was surely aware that no ethnic or l inguistic bonds l inked the the Egyptians and Philistines; the main c onnection then had t o be geographic, with Crete drawn i n as t he Philistines' previous home." ( 31) Speiser i s h ere a ssuming what needs t o be p roven. What i s t he evidence that the Philistines had no l inguistic or ethnic t ies with the other peoples of this group? I f the Philistines u sed a " Canaanite" l anguage, and i f t he population i ncluded a s ubstantial " Canaanite" e lement a s l ater s ections of this dissertation will s uggest, l anguage or other factors . which are not now c lear to u s m c .y be i nvolved i n t he c lassification of the P hilistines w ith t he Egyptian/Canaanite group. ( 31) While t here i s undoubtedly an e lement o f t ruth i n the geopolitical i nterpretation of Genesis 1 0, i t i s an oversimplification this i s the whole explanation. T he to a ssume that well have been c lassified with t he Philistines may Egyptian/Canaanite group for reasons other than p olitical Some of the other factors which may b e affiliation only. i nvolved will be developed i n l ater s ections of t his s tudy. Because Genesis 1 0 i s a very controversial t ext, we will digress briefly to consider the history of t he i nterpretation of this text. The two main i ssues are t he date of the underlying material i n the t ext and whether the t ext s hould be dealt with a s a unit or analyzed into various sources. Suggested dates f or the setting of t he t ext r ange f rom 2 000 B .C. t o 5 00 B .C. ( 32) There i s a lso a sharp difference o f opinion a bout the feasibility and usefulness of analyzing the t ext i nto sources. ( 33) Here we will l imit ourselves t o a f ew observations on t he s etting and unity o f the t ext a nd confine the detailed documentation of this debate to t he notes. ( 34) Many commentators s tress the division o f the t able i nto sources on the basis of distinctions b etween the s imple l ists which begin with ( sons of) and the more e laborate s ections beginning with ( begot). The m ixture o f personal names, p lace names, p lural ethnic n ames, and n ames with t he gentilic ending i s another b asis f or d ivision. However, r egardless o f whatever s ources m ay have been u sed, the t able a s i t n ow exists i s a c arefully arranged l iterary unit. This i s m ost apparent i n the fact t hat t here are 7 0 " descendents" or " nations" l isted i n t he t able. This s ame arrangement of 7 0 s elected names appears in the divisions o f I srael i n Genesis 4 6. The n umber 7 0 i s not specifically c ited i n G enesis 1 0 a s it i s i n -

1 2

Genesis 4 6, but the parallel suggests that the 7 0 n ames i n Genesis 1 0 a re not s imply co-incidence, but a result o f careful l iterary a rrangement. The writer of this dissertation agrees with those s cholars who hold that the difficulties a re not removed by assigning various p arts o f the text to different sources and that the t ext should be analyzed a s a unit. ( 35) This study a lso shares the view that this t ext reflects the s ituation i n the s econd millennium at the t ime of the I sraelite s ettlement i n Canaan, and that it i s not s imply a l iterary creation f rom the end of t he I sraelite monarchy or l ater. ( 36) I f we accept a geopolitical i nterpretation of the table, t he connection between Canaan, the Caphtorim, the Casluhim and Egypt suggests a time when Canaan was or had recently been an Egyptian p rovince. The use of s econd m illennium terms l ike Caphtor, which occurs mainly i n 1 5th and 1 4th century Egyptian texts, and the absence of Tyre f rom the Phoenician c ities a re among other i ndications of a s econd millennium s etting. ( 37) Even the note a ssociating the Philistines with the Casluhites probably i ndicates that " Casluhim" was an archaic t erm whose meaning was a lready being l ost when the explanatory phrase was added. ( 38) The same archaism would be i nvolved even i f the emendation attaching the note to the Caphtorites i s accepted. I n short, the t able of nations, which r eflects a s econd millennium s etting, a ssociates the Philistine with i ts Hamitic group of peoples regardless of whether the Philistine note i s joined to the Casluhites or Caphtorites. The O ld T estament does not mention s eafaring and shipping as a conspicuous characteristic of the Philistines, even though this trait i s very conspicuous i n its descriptions of other maritime peoples such a s the Phoenicians. ( Ezk. 2 6,27) The Mediterranean i s once called " the S ea o f the Philistines" ( Ex. 2 3:31), and the Kerethites are described a s " those who dwell by the s ea" ( Zeph. 2 :5, E zk. 2 5:15-16), but there are no other associations o f the Philistines and the sea. This omission s eems strange i f s eafaring was one of the Philistines' The Philistines

main traits. B iblical s harply

writers do not distinguish the f rom other i nhabitants of Canaan on

the basis of m aterial culture, l anguage, or religion. Their territory i s c lassified as part o f the t erritory of the Canaanites, perhaps because i t was coastal. ( Joshua 1 3:3) Z ephaniah 2 :5 even calls Canaan " the l and of the Philistines." However, this may be a geographic reference, which anticipates the l ater u sage of t he term Palestine, The Philistines

rather

than

most i n

an

ethnic

conspicuous the

m inds

of

the

reference.

( 39)

characteristic I sraelites

was

o f their

the l ack

of c ircumcision. This i s emphasized r epeatedly i n the accounts concerning S amson, Saul, and D avid. The degree to which this difference s erved a s a symbol of t he antipathy between I sraelites and Philistines i s emphasized 1 3

by I Samuel 1 8 i n which S aul requires D avid to collect 1 00 foreskins of the Philistines a s the p rice for marrying h is daughter. ( 40) This l ack o f c ircumcision s et t he Philistines apart f rom other heathen n eighbors o f I srael s uch as the Egyptians, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites a nd some Arab tribes, who shared t he practice o f circumcision with I srael. ( Jer.9:25) The practices of the C anaanites are uncertain. Genesis 3 4:14 states that at l east some other e lements of the population o f Canaan besides t he Philistines were uncircumcized, but there i s n o other group which i s s o strongly s ingled out on this b asis a s the Philistines were. On the o ther hand, t here i s p ictorial and s tatuary evidence f or the practice o f circumcision among e lements of the p opulation of P alestine and Syria. ( 41) At any r ate i t i s c lear that l ack o f c ircumcision was t he most s triking characteristic o r behavior of the Philistines a s f ar a s the I sraelites were concerned.

Summary

of

O ld

Testament

Texts

The I sraelites c lassified the Philistine a s immigrants to Canaan, who were i n s ome way r elated t o other Canaanite peoples, yet distinct f rom them. T his may reflect their perception o f a partial cultural amalgamation. They believed that at l east a major e lement of the Philistine people came from Caphtor, a p lace not further i dentified i n the O ld Testament. The time o f this arrival f rom Caphtor i s not specified. They b elieved that at l east the earliest Philistines were more c losely related to the Egyptians and other L ibyan peoples than t o Indo-European peoples of Anatolia or the Aegean. ( 42) They believed that people whom they could call Philistines were in Canaan much earlier than the 1 2th century B .C. There are a lso numerous i ndications i n the texts t hat the I sraelites recognized the composite character of the people inhabiting the Philistine t erritory. The B iblical writers were aware of amalgamation o f peoples and adoption of a new l anguage as part of the process by which nations are created. The Arabian tribes of Sheba, Dedan, and Havilah were r ecognized as c omposed of both Hamitic and Semitic e lements ( I Chr. 1 :9,20,32). The amalgamation of different e lements into the Edomite nation was recognized as well. ( Gen. 3 6 compared w ith Dt. 2 :22). S imilar mingling o f d ifferent peoples was recognized in the groups whom t he I sraelites called Midianites and Amalekites. The most s ignificant example i s their recognition of such f actors i n their own h istory. The I sraelites recognized their l anguage as a C anaanite dialect and realized that different ethnic e lements had a role in t he development of their n ation. ( Is. 1 9:18, D t. 2 6:5, E zk. 1 6:3). The I sraelites' understanding of t he origin of the Philistines and other neighbors a ppears t o have been more s ophisticated than m any i nterpreters have recognized.

1 4

T he O ld Testament t exts which report an early p resence of " Philistines" i n Canaan and the texts which l ink t he Philistines with i ndigenous peoples o f P alestine a re u sually r egarded as historical errors or anachronisms due to t he l ateness of these t exts. However, there are two other reasonable explanations which would a ccount f or a ll the Biblical u sage of the t erm " Philistine." The name o f an early substratum o f the population o f s outhwestern Palestine may h ave been applied to the l ater amalgamation which was composed of i ndigenous i nhabitants and l ater a rrivals. This would be s imilar to our modern u se o f the t erm " British", which originated a s a n ame of the pre-Roman indigenous population o f the i sland, but now applies to a p eople augmented by Angles, S axons, Danes, Normans, and o thers. The s econd possibility i s that a name which originated l ater may be applied proleptically t o earlier inhabitants, as we do i n our application of t he t erm "American" t o the pre-Columbian i nhabitants o f America. Either explanation i s a reasonable possibility. We will discuss the s ignificance of the term " Philistine" further and t ry to decide between possible explanations of i ts origin a fter we have studied other t exts which p rovide additional i nformation for comparison with the O ld Testament texts.

1 5

F igure 1

P EOPLE

" SEA P EOPLES"

F ROM E GYPTIAN T EXTS

Q PPQSING R AMSES I I A T Q ADESH

R kw

L uka

D rdnw

D ardana

M 3sw M 3wmw o r i rwnw P dsw 4 1

K r l cs

A LLY O F R AMSES I I A T QADESH

S 3rd3n3

S hardana

O PPONENTS O F MERNEPT M I 3 kw3sw

I — I T -11 ,

A chwesh

T rsw

T eresh

R kw

L uka

S rdnw

S hardana

S krsw

S hekelesh

E NEMIES O F R AMSES I II

I

-

S rdn

S hardana

D nynw

D anuna

P rstw

P eleset

T 3krw

T jeker

-

W 3ssw o f t he S ea

1 6

EGYPTIAN

SOURCES

E gyptian r ecords are the s econd major s ource o f information about t he Philistines and the so-called S ea Peoples who have been associated with them. The most important t exts a re those which R amses I II recorded on the walls of the Temple at Medinet Habu and i n the Papyrus Harris early i n the 1 2th Century B .C. H owever s ome of the Sea Peoples or Northerners are already mentioned i n the Amarna l etters which date f rom the beginning of the 1 4th century B .C. and i n the records of R amses I I f rom about 1 280 B .C. These include the Luka, the S herden, and the Danuna. At the battle of Qadesh ( about 1 286 B .C.) the Sherden fought for Ramses I I, and the Luka were p art of the Hittite forces. ( 43) Some of the t roops who a ccompanied R amses I I t o Qadesh were pictured wearing the horned associated with S herden. ( 44)

helmets

which

s eem

t o

be

I n about 1 220 B .C. the Luka, Sherden, Ekwesh, Turesh, and Shekelesh appear i n the Karnak I nscription T and Athribis Stele of Merneptah as a llies of the Libyans who were attacking Egypt f rom the west. The names of these and other Sea P eoples are l isted i n F igure 1 . ( 45) Because of the s imilarity of the names these peoples are often l inked with Lycia, Sardina, Ahhiyawa, Etruria, and Sicily. Sicily, Sardinia, and Etruria have been suggested a s the f inal p lace of s ettlement of these peoples, rather than their p laces of origin. I t has generally been s uggested that these people were coming to Egypt from the Aegean or Western Anatolia at this time, and t hat they l ater moved on to the Western Mediterranean. There is l ittle in the t ext to i dentify any of these people further, except that the title of the i nscription calls them " Northerners ( mh-tjw ) coming f rom a ll l ands," and t he Ekwesh are s aid to come from " the countries of the sea". ( 46) A fter collecting

the battle phalluses f rom

the the

Egyptians are pictured uncircumcised Libyans for

the body count. S ince the Ekwesh and the other non-Libyans are circumcised, their hands are being collected. Merneptah's army returns " laden with the phalluses with t he foreskins of the country of Libya, together with the hands of every country that was with them." ( 47) This i ncident provides a parallel to I Samuel 1 8 where Saul requires David t o collect 1 00 foreskins of the Philistines as proof of the number whom he h as killed. I t i s i nteresting to recall that Genesis 1 0 a ssociates at l east some o f the L ibyans with the Philistines. P erhaps l ack of circumcision was one factor in t his classification. T he for o ur Palasti

i nscriptions of Ramses I II are the most i mportant s tudy. The f irst mention of the P eleset or ( pw-r s -ty )‚ who are i dentified with t he 1 7

Philistines, occurs i n these t exts. D ifferent chronologies date the f irst year of R amses' r eign f rom a high o f about 1 198 B .C. to a l ow of about 1 162 B .C. ( 48) I n

t he

5 th

year

of

h is

reign

( about

1 193

B .C.)

R amses

battles a coalition of L ibyans, attacking f rom t he west. Near the end of the account of this c ampaign he s ays, " The northern countries quivered i n their bodies, n amely t he P eleset, T jekker ( or Thekkel t -k-k g r ) . They were cut off f rom their l and." ( 49) Br stad understands t his a s a reference to Philistine and T jekker participation i n t he Western War of Ramses' 5th year, but this phrase appears to be anticipatory of events of the great Northern War o f year 8 of Ramses' reign. The i nscription describing year 5 was very l ikely completed a fter both wars were over, and its summarizing s tatements i nclude s ome events f rom t he l ater campaign as well. The reliefs of the Libyan War depict R amses' adversaries in this battle a s the Rebu-Temeh t ype o f Libyan with b lond hair and s ide l ocks, b lue eyes, a nd l ong open c loak and kilt, with perhaps a sprinkling of t he Meshwesh type of western Libyans, who participate more prominently i n Ramses' second Libyan War. ( 50) I n this section of the reliefs the soldiers wearing the f eathered or the horned helmets which are a ssociated with t he S ea Peoples a ll appear to be part o f the Egyptian f orces. ( Medinet Habu P lates 1 7, 1 9, 2 4) His phallus sheath i ndicates that the one Libyan who appears t o be w earing a feathered crown i s actually an upside down Meshwesh, and the apparent f eathered crown i s his hair. ( M.H. P l. 1 9) Both phalluses and hands are collected for the body counts during both Libyan wars of Ramses I II. ( M.H. P l. 2 2, 2 3, 7 5) The body count practices pictured on P lates 2 2 and 2 3 are very strange. P late 2 2 shows the collection o f uncircumcised phalluses with no s crotums, and P late 2 3 shows circumcised phalluses with s crotums. ( 51) Unless the artist i s j ust exercising his creativity, presence o r absence of circumcision appears to be a s ignificant factor in Egyptian war trophy and body count practices. The crucial campaign for our study i s t he campaign o f year 8 , which i s often called the Northern War. ( 52) Ramses i s confronted by a " confederation of P eleset, T jekker, Shekelesh, Danuna, and Weshwesh, l ands united. They l aid their hands on the l ands t o the very c ircuit o f the earth... They made a conspiracy in their i sles... No l and could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Yereth, and Yeres on. A camp was s et up one p lace in Amor." ( 53) Ramses marches to Z ahi ( Djahy) and defeats them i n a l and battle f or which we have practically no written description. Amor and Z ahl are both regions i n Syria-Palestine. Some Egyptian texts l ocate Amor and Z ahl i n northern P alestine and s outhern Lebanon, south of Qadesh. However, t hese are a lso general t erms which can i nclude southern regions of P alestine, especially i f Amor i s used i n a l ess political s ense than in some of the Amarna l etters. For example, the e nvoy o f A shkelon i s i ncluded i n a l ist of representatives o f Zahl. ( 54) 1 8

A fter the l and battle R amses defeats " the Northerners who were i n their i sles" i n a s ea battle which takes p lace " in t he channels of the Nile mouths." ( 55) The Egyptian term " re -h3 wt" ‚ here translated " Nile mouths" could refer to s ome r i ve r mouth or harbor outside of Egypt. ( 56) I n the description of Ramses' victory celebration those conquered i n the s ea battle are called " countries who came f rom their l and in the i sles in the midst o f the sea." ( 57) The Great P apyrus Harris describes the s laughter of " Danuna i n their i sles, T jekker and P eleset who were made a shes, and Sherden and Weshwesh of the Sea." ( 58) I n the 9 th or 8th century the Danuna were s ettled in Eastern C ilicia according to the Azitawadda Inscription. However, they have a lso been associated with Cyprus on the basis of the similarity of I adnana, a name of Cyprus, with the words " isles of the Danuna." ( 59) This etymology, however, s eems s trained. No homeland of the Shekelesh o r Weshwesh has been l ocated i n the Eastern Mediterranean, but a recently published l etter f rom Ugarit refers t Jgarit.

to a l and of ( 60)

the

Shekelesh which

appears

to be

near

I t i s important to note that the Peleset are not specifically a ssociated with the " isles" or " sea" as the Danuna, Shekelesh, Sherden, and Weshwesh are. A lthough terms l ike " Northerners" or " countries from the i sles of the midst of the s ea" are used a s general cover terms for the attackers, t hey are not specifically applied to the Peleset and T jekker. On the contrary, there are some hints which distinguish the Peleset and T jekker from the other attackers. "The Peleset are in suspense, hidden i n their towns." ( 61) Ramses c laims to have taken away their land and a dded it to his own frontiers. ( 62) I n the Great Papyrus Harris Ramses reports that the T jekker and Peleset were made ashes. ( 63) Breastad

t ranslated

a

key passage

f rom Year

5 ,

" The

northern countries quivered in their bodies, namely the Peleset, T jekker. They were cut off f rom their l and." ( 64) However, this could a lso be translated, " The northern countries quivered in their bodies. The Peleset and T jekker were cut off from their l and." f F iIs second translation would harmonize with the Great Papyrus Harris and the other p assages quoted above which describe the destruction and annexation of the l and of the Peleset and Tjekker. This interpretation i s further supported by a later passage o f the Medinet Habu i nscriptions in which Ramses claims t hat he " overthrew the T jekker, the l and ( tg) o f Peleset, the Denyen, the Weshwesh, and the Shekelesh." ( 65) I t i s striking that the term t g ( land or f latland) occurs only with Peleset in this l ist. The texts a lso i nclude several references to s ubduing Asiatics ( s e -ty & imw ) and to the plain and hills country, a general term which can apply to any of Egypt's neighbors such a s Nubia, Libya, and Palestine. ( 66) I t is p ossible that these are merely stereotyped phrases, but 1 9

we have j ust examined other phrases which i mply t hat not a ll of Ramses' adversaries i n this c ampaign were f rom far away. The t exts i nclude some t erms that can b est b e understood of enemies arriving f rom a distance and others which are more appropriate of near-by adversaries. Most of the phrases which imply a nearby homeland are a pplied to either the Philistines or T jekker, the two p eoples whose settlement i n Palestine i s confirmed by other l iterary evidence. An Egyptian term which can b e used for Greeks ( "Haunebut") occurs s everal times in Ramses I II's a ccount of the Northern War. This i s of i nterest s ince some writers have tried to connect the S ea Peoples w ith the Greeks. ( 67) " Haunebut" i s usually rendered " the Mediterranean i slanders", but i t i s t ranslated by the Greek word c EXA rwL d ' c ‚ "Greek," or with the Coptic word " lones" ( Ionians) i n Ptolemaic bilingual texts. T his term appears a lready in the texts of R amses I I. Muhley and Wainwright s eem to connect i t to t he Mycenaean Greeks even this early. ( 68) However, in early t exts t he term can refer to regions much c loser to F gypt, even the coasts of the Nile. ( 69) In the Medinet Habu t exts the Haunebut ( h w-nbwt ) are mentioned a long with the Peztishut i n a section of the inscription praising Ramses as the king of the whole world. ( 70) A ll references t o the Haunebut in the texts of Ramses I II are vague references to a f ar-off people at t he end of the world. The Haunebut do not p lay any specific role i n the M edinet Habu battles. S ince many opinions about the S ea Peoples h ave been based on the relief carvings which accompany the M edinet Habu i nscriptions, these reliefs deserve c areful consideration. After the battle Ramses i s presented with three rows of prisoners, i dentically dressed i n " feathered crown" headdresses and kilts. ( Fig. 2 ) The three rows are l abeled respectively a s l eaders of every country, Danuna, and Peleset. Their kilts are s imilar to k ilts worn by envoys from the Aegean, Crete, or Syria i n E gyptian reliefs, but this same style of kilt a lso appears on several t ypes o f Palestinians within these same reliefs. ( 71) The Sea Peoples are depicted with two t ypes o f headgear, the " Philistine feathered crown" and the horned helmet which appears on Sherden. ( Fig. 3 , 5 , 6 ) Both types of headgear appear on Egyptian a llies before the N orthern War. Medinet Habu P lates 9 , 1 7, 1 9, and 24 a ll show soldiers with the f eathered crown i n Ramses' army during his earlier campaigns against Nubians and Libyans. The horned helmet appears on some o f R amses I II' s s oldiers even when he i s on his way to battle t he Sea People. ( M.H. P l. 3 1) Soldiers with the helmet continue to appear in

feathered crown Ramses' a rmy i n

2 0

and the l ater

horned

battles. f eathered a fter we h eadgear.

We will d iscuss t he s ignificance headgear i n t he s ection on anthropoid have examined other representations

o f t his coffins, o f t his

I n the l and battle the enemies of Egypt are wearing f eathered crowns and k ilts and are armed with two spears or short swords. ( M.H. P l. 3 2-34 and f ig. 5 ) Some of them f ight from chariots. T hey a re accompanied by s everal ox-drawn carts carrying women and children, j ust as the L ibyans were a ccompanied by f amilies and l ivestock i n the Libyan War of Merneptah. ( 72) Their humped-back oxen have been cited as evidence of immigration f rom Anatolia, but this type i s pictured i n Egyptian reliefs f rom well before the t ime of Ramses I II. ( 73) The appearance o f the women and children i s i dentical t o that o f Syro-Palestinian women and children i n many Egyptian r eliefs. ( 74) .

I n the s ea battle both the feathered crown and the horned helmet appear on the enemies of Egypt. ( M.H. P l. 3 7-39, f ig. 6 ) T jekker, Peleset, Danuna, and Shekelesh prisoners are a ll p ictured with the feathered crown. ( M.H. P l. 4 3-44) The enemy ships have a bird f igure-head. The Egyptian archers s eem to be a s ignificant factor i n the Egyptian victory. I n the body counts of this campaign only h and collecting i s p ictured, but there i s no formal t ally of hands and phalluses i n this i nscription as there i s i n s ome of the other campaigns, s o i t i s unclear how s ignificant this i s. There i s a s cene of f eathered prisoners

being counted

and

branded.

( M.H.

P l.

4 2)

The P eleset chief pictured i n the s ummary of Ramses' reign i s especially interesting. ( M.H. P l. 1 180, f ig. 4 ) The name i dentifying the picture i s damaged, but Peleset s eems to be t he only possible reading. U nlike the Philistines i n the battle scenes, he i s bearded and wears a f lat hat, not the feathered crown. His face, beard, and headgear are very much l ike appear i n the earlier pictures I and Ramses I I. ( Fig. 7 ) ( 75)

the South Palestinians who of the campaigns of Sethos

One other Egyptian t ext which sheds s ome l ight on the Sea Peoples i n P alestine i s the story of Wen Amon. ( 76 This text i s generally dated to about 1 100 B .C. The story i s about the problems encountered by an Egyptian named Wen Amon on a trade mission to Byblos. I n the t ext the T jekker are controlling Dor under a ruler named Beder. Beder receives Wen Amon with some deference and hospitality as a representative of Egypt, but he refuses t o reimburse Wen Amon when a member of Wen Amon's own party steals some of h is money. Wen Amon apparently s eized some T jekker property i n retaliation. Later a f leet of e leven T jekker ships t ries to t ake Wen Amon i nto custody, apparently as a result of this offence. The main s ignificance of this text i s that i t g ives specific 2 1

i nformation s ettled i n i n m aritime do i n t he s pecify t he

about another S ea P eople besides P hilistines P alestine. I t a lso reports their participation activity, s omething which t he Bible d oes not case of the P hilistines. The text does not t ime o f T jekker s ettlement i n P alestine.

S ince the T jekker and Philistines a re the two p eoples who a re " made a shes" by Ramses I II, i s i t possible t hat t hey were a lready holding cities i n P alestine before Ramses I II's campaign? The t ext a lso speaks of commercial t ies between S idon and a person named Warkatara or Werket -el, whose n ame may be non-Semitic. I t has been suggested that this implies commercial t ies between one of the Philistine c ities and S idon, but this i s reading something into the t ext which i s not explicit there. ( 77) I t i s, in f act, unclear how the personal names of the three k ings mentioned in the t ext ( wrt/wlt, mkmr/mkml and wrktr/wrktl ) s hould be read and whether the names are S emitic or non-Semitic. ( 78) The n ames of these k ings are not specifically l inked with Philistine s ites by the t ext. Near the end o f the " Onomasticon of Amenope" the cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza are mentioned as a s eries followed shortly thereafter by the S herden, T jekker, and Philistines. ( 79) M . Dothan has s uggested that perhaps the Sherden should be a ssociated w ith Akko, s ince the Philistines are associated with the s outhern cities l ike Ashdod, the T jekker w ith Dor in the middle, and this l eaves Akko in the north t o the Sherden. ( 80) However, i t i s not c lear from the t ext t hat these three must be in a north to south progression.

2 2

F igures 2 -4

P h i l is t i ne s

F ig . 2P h ilist ine P r isoners a t M edinet F l abu

3 hardan3

T jekker

F ig.

S h(ekeleSh)

3 O ther p r isoners

C AP TI V ES P ICTURED A T M ED IN ET H ABU /

F ig .

Philistine Chief

2 3

T eresh

Fig.

5 Land Battle Between R amses I II a nd t he S ea People ( Medinet H abu, P l.

3 2)

2 4

2 5

Figure

7

4

I

7 a

'

W N !

WMMf IV'

S eti I I a nd F tlsoners f rom C anaan

F ig.

7 b

Ramses I I Attacking Ashkelon

F ig.

7 c

A i norite

2 6

S ummary

Of

Egyptian

Sources

We have examined t he most s ignificant evidence f rom E gypt. What are we to make of i t? F irst, the P eleset are n ot outstanding or i mportant a s a distinct ethnic group i n E gyptian sources. Besides the records of Ramses 1 11 and t he Onomasticon of Amenope the Philistines are mentioned o nly once i n Egyptian s ources, on a s tatue which probably d ates to the 2 2nd Dynasty. This reference i s more g eographic than ethnic. ( 81) The f act that the P hilistines are not mentioned i n Egyptian sources before t he time of R amses I II i s the chief reason f or the a ssertion that the O ld Testament references to earlier P hilistine presence must be anachronisms, but it i s d oubtful i f this omission i s very s ignificant s ince the P hilistines a re mentioned only once or twice a fter the t ime of Ramses I II, even though we know that t hey were w ell established i n P alestine then. The a lmost total a bsence of the Philistines f rom Egyptian records becomes l ess remarkable when we remember that I srael i s mentioned o nly once i n Egyptian records even though they were n ext-door neighbors for centuries. The Egyptians probably r eferred to the Philistines by one of the general names f or Asiatics which they used to refer to various i nhabitants of Canaan. Since the d escriptions of the opponents of Ramses I II r efer both to t he i slands of the enemy and to their towns i n Palestine, s cholars should be more cautious about the c laim that the so-called Sea Peoples are now arriving i n P alestine for t he f irst time. Furthermore, t here i s a c ertain amount of ambiguity i n the Egyptian t erms for i slands and s ignificance o f o ften assumed.

seacoasts, s o the these references i s

exact geographic l ess certain than i s

I f dress i s a reliable indication of ethnic i dentity i n Egyptian reliefs, s ome of the s ame horned-helmeted p eoples who were Ramses I II's enemies in the Northern War w ere serving i n the Egyptian army of Ramses I I over 1 00 y ears before this war. We have seen that there i s a lso w ritten evidence for the participation of the Sherden i n R amses I I's army. I n fact, the Sherden appear to have b een serving i n Egyptian forces as early a s the t ime of A menophis I II n ear the end of the 1 8th Dynasty. ( 82) The S herden who were l iving i n Egypt under Ramses V a ll had E gyptian n ames, a lthough the process of adopting such n ames admittedly could have occurred quite rapidly. ( 83) T he feathered "P hil is ti ne" headdress appeared u i Ramses I II's army both before and after the Northern War. A ll t old the Egyptian records p rovide considerable evidence f or early presence of the " Sea Peoples" i n Egypt and p erhaps P alestine. How l iterally are we to take Ramses I II's d istant enemies and great campaigns? How much t o subtract f or exaggeration and bombast? 2 7

c laims of do we h ave Were these

attackers really part of a major migration of peoples? I f s o, were they a ll f rom a great distance? Can we a ttribute the f all of the Hittite Empire and w idespread destruction i n Cyprus and Syria to t hem? O r are m any phrases i n R amses' account s imply s tereotyped formulas? ( 84) Akkadian t exts, especially those f rom t Jgarit, a lleged to shed some l ight on these questions, s o w e turn to them.

2 8

are now

AKKADIAN

SOURCES

From Ugarit I t i s generally believed that the Sea P eoples were responsible for the destruction o f the H ittite Empire and Ugarit. ( 85) This i dea i s based primarily on Ramses I II's statement that t he S ea Peoples had destroyed the H ittite kingdom and extensive areas in Syria before he defeated them. This belief i s bolstered by a number of Akkadian l etters f rom Ugarit which refer to the activities of the f leet and forces Ugarit. ( 86)

of

unnamed

enemies

i n

the

area

around

T he k ing o f Ugarit writes t o the k ing of A lasniya ( Cyprus) complaining about damage which his t erritory i s suffering from t he f leet of the enemy. He cannot defend his territory a lthough the attacking f leet consists o f only seven vessels, because his army i s i n the Hittite l and and h is f leet in Lukka territory. He asks the king of A lashiya to warn him i f more enemy ships are detected coming in his direction. ( 87) E shuwara, the m inister of A lashiya, warns of twenty enemy ships which had been i n the mountain regions. This may be a reference to the coasts of Asia Minor. He has now l ost t rack of the ships, so Ugarit should be on the a lert for attacks f rom them. I n the f irst part of the l etter there i s a vague s tatement which may refer to desertion to the enemy by some of the Ugaritic f orces. ( 88) Hammurapi o f Ugarit receives a l etter from either the Hittite king or more l ikely f rom A lashiya. More enemy ships have been spotted i n the middle of the s ea. The king of Ugarit i s advised to hold out i n his fortified positions s ince he does not have adequate forces at hand to c onfront

the

enemy

f leet

i n

open

battle.

( 89)

P ar u, an official of Amurru, s outh requests information about the enemy f rom Ugarit, s ince Amurru i s a llied with Ugarit common

foe.

The

of Ugarit, the k ing of against this

( 90)

so-called

" Letter

of

the General"

i s

especially

interesting and controversial. Shumiyannu, who i s apparently a f ield commander of Ugarit, writes to the king that he i s maintaining a b lockade between the s ea and the Lebanon r ange i n spite of difficult weather conditions and l ack of adequate s upplies and re-enforcements. On the basis of information obtained f rom a prisoner of war he expects the i mminent arrival o f the king of Egypt. He therefore needs immediate re-enforcements i f he i s to maintain his position. ( 91) This

t ext

h as

been

i nterpreted 2 9

as

a reference

to

the

a rrival o f R amses I II i n h is the Sea P eoples or perhaps t o i nto Syria after t he 2 nd i nterpretation i s correct, i t

campaign of Year 8 against a l ater follow-up c ampaign L ibyan War. I f this appears that Ugarit i s a t

l east t entatively a ligned with the S ea P eoples against t he p ro-Egyptian forces i n the area of T ripoli/Ardata a nd t hat U garitic forces a re prepared to j oin the Sea P eoples i n b locking the arrival o f the main Egyptian forces. T he delay of the king of U garit in s ending re-enforcements i s i nterpreted as reluctance to t ake a position O f a ll-out opposition to Egypt. This may b e due to disagreement within the government o f Ugarit on the best c ourse t o t ake. However, the l etter i s very vague. Unlike the l etters concerning t he movement o f ships i t i s not from t he kiln which apparently dates to U garit's destruction, so i ts date i s l ess certain. The l etter i tself does n ot give a date, the name of the Pharaoh, or describe t he exact c ircumstances of the b lockade. I t i s very possible that the t ext could be f rom the time o f Ramses I I's Qadesh campaign. ( 92) The i nterpretation l inking this l etter with the S ea Peoples i s based on the assumption that Ramses I II's records are reliable and that the m aterials f rom Ugarit can s imply be co-ordinated with the E gyptian material, even when there are no c lear cross references. The previously mentioned l etters about the movement of t he enemy f leet are equally vague. None of these l etters mentions the enemy by name, and none of the forces mentioned are l arge i n number. The order and relationship of the l etters i s unclear, so various reconstructions o f the events i n these l etters are possible. A recently published l etter from Ugarit which mentions the i kel by name i s an important n ew development. ( 93) The king of the Hittites s ends a sharply worded l etter to Ugarit demanding the return of a certain Lunadu u, who had been seized by " the i kels who l ive i n ships." After the king has i nvestigated t he case of the t erritory of i kila, Lunadu u will be returned t o Ugarit. Here we have the f irst mention of one o f the S eapeoples who attacked Ramses I II i n a text from Ugarit. The i kels who l ive i n shies ( LO. ME . K UR.URU i -ka-la-iu-u a i -na mu 1 il ii GI . e lepp ti(written M A ME ) correspond to the Shekelesh o f the Egyptian t exts. Their association with s eafaring i s s ignificant. H owever, hey are a lso connected with a territorial term, K UR.URU S i-ki-la. The combination KUR.URU i s t he same designation which occurs with the name of Ugarit a nd other city s tates mentioned i n the texts. Lehmann d ismisses K UR.URU as s imply a conventional t erm which refers to a people with some type o f organization or unity. ( 94) H e then s eizes upon this t ext as the earliest evidence f or t he arrival of the Seapeoples from t he Adriatic, b ut it i s difficult to f ind j ustification for s uch an i nterpretation i n the text. I t s eems more n atural to i nterpret K UR. URU 3 0

as

a n

indication

that

the

V

S ikels

had

a t erritory,

which

was p robably s omewhere i n the vicinity of U garit. S ince the k ing of t he H ittites s eems to hold Ugarit responsible for t he behavior of the ikel and the return of Lunadu u, it s eems most n atural t o s ee the 6 ikeis a s mercenaries i n the s ervice of U garit or i n some way under their control. Their behavior i s not unlike t he Lukki or Mishi i n the Amarna l etters. I t m ay be possible to dismiss KUR.URU as m erely a s tock expression without t erritorial significance, but it s eems most natural t o t ake i t as a territorial designation f or the l and of a c ity state. I t seems most l ikely that t his was near U garit, but a l ocation f arther ruled out.

west

i n Asia

Minor

or

e lsewhere

cannot

be

A shdod i s m entioned f requently i n t exts f rom Ugarit as a t rading partner of Ugarit. The l ist of A shdodites i s a m ixture of S emitic and non-Semitic n ames, with the Semitic predominant. U nfortunately, the t exts g ive l ittle specific i nformation about Ashdod. ( 95) T he p icture of a migrating swarm of Sea Peoples, sweeping through Anatolia and Syria as a conquering horde and l eaving a swath of destruction i n their wake, has been based on l inking these t exts with the f requent destructions a long the Syrian coast at the end of the Late Bronze Age. This view of a l arge movement of peoples from the Aegean or Anatolia has been i ncreasingly challenged in r ecent years. The Hittites may well have succumbed to n atural causes, i nternal unrest, and l ocal enemies rather than t o a m igrating horde. ( 96) Schaeffer, the excavator of Ugarit, adopted the view that Ugarit was probably destroyed by natural causes, rather than a n attacking enemy. ( 97) A lthough the records f rom Ugarit provide an important comparison with the Egyptian records, the i dentifications of the events described i n them are very t enuous and depend very heavily on circumstantial evidence. I t i s very doubtful whether the chronology of t he various LB destructions a long the coasts of S yria and Cyprus i s precise enough t o trace any kind of advance of invaders. The sites w ill be d iscussed i n

l imited cultural change at these l ater sections of the paper.

I t i s c lear that there was a great deal of unrest, destruction, and f amine in Anatolian and Syria i n this period. Further evidence i s provided by requests for food, received i n Ugarit in such l etters a s RS 2 0:212, RS 2 6:158, and RS 2 0:238. What i s l ess c lear i s how much of this c an be attributed , to the Sea Peoples, either directly or i ndirectly. T he S ikel l etter s eems to provide some l imited evidence t hat the presence of the S eapeoples was a gradual development, rather than a sudden invasion. The

Amarna

Letters

T he Amarna L etters are diplomatic correspondence between Egypt a nd various city states of Syria-Palestine from a pproximately 2 00 years before the t ime of Ramses 3 1

I II. Their p rincipal importance f or our i nvestigation i s the i nsight which they provide i nto political, e thnic, a nd military conditions i n the P hilistine p lain and regions f arther north before the a lleged migration of Sea P eoples. ( 98) The Sherden (i-ir-da-nu or se er-da -nu) appear to b e s erving a s mercenaries or royal body-guards in t he t erritory o f Byblos during the Amarna Period. ( EA 81:16, 1 22:35, 1 23:15) However, A lbright has challenged this reading of the t ext. ( 99) At this t ime the Lukka ( lu-uk-ki) were making p iratical raids against A lashiya and against E gyptian t erritory. ( EA 3 8:10) This probably does not r efer t o raids against Egypt proper, but t o activity a long t he coast of Syria-Palestine. I t i s c lear that at l east some e lements of the l ater "S e a P eoples" were operating in t he Levant 2 00 years before the t ime of R amses I II. A third group o f people called the Mishi o r. Milim ( mi- i/lim ) h as sometimes been c lassified as a similar type o f s ea-raider. They s eem t o be mercenaries who d o not have s trong t ies to any one side o f a conflict. They killed Byblos' o ld enemy, Abdi-Ashirta o f Amurru, apparently because he had not paid s ome obligation to them or t o the M itanni. ( EA 1 01:3) They s eem to be a llied with -

the forces of Arvad, S idon, and Tyre, but shortly after this the f leet of Arvad, which i s besieging Sumura with the sons of Abdi-Ashirta, s eizes t he ships of t he Mishi. ( EA 1 05:27) I n EA 1 08:38 R ib-Addi c laims that they a re a ligned with Pharaoh's enemies. I n EA 1 26:63 they appear to be t rying to gain the ear of Pharaoh, but R ib-Addi warns him not to l isten to them. Many

of

the

references

to

the Mishi

are

unclear,

s o

i t i s possible to interpret their r ole in these events i n a manner quite different f rom that which is o utlined above. ( 100) I n these l etters the M ishi behave m uch l ike the Sherden. However, the term " Mishi" i s probably not a n ethnic t erm, but an Egyptian m ilitary term which s hould b e t ranslated with a term l ike " marines." ( 101) Nevertheless, t he n i ishi i n these t exts appear to b e non-Egyptian mercenaries of questionable l oyalty, and the t exts give s ome i nsight i nto the activities of s uch forces i n the t ime before Ramses I II. The Amarna l etters a lso give some insight into conditions i n the Philistine p lain 2 00 years b efore the t ime of R amses I II. Ashkelon i s r uled by a ruler whose n ame has been variously transliterated as Widiya, P idiya, I diya or Y idya. This name i s g enerally held to b e I ndo-Aryan. ( 102) I n his l etters the use of t he plural f orm of " god" ( i lani, written D INGER -ME ) where t he context demands t he s ingular could b e an i ndication of t he West S emitic p lural form " elohim" underlying the A kkadian of the writer. Other than this, Y idiya' s l etters ( EA 3 20-326, 3 70) are not very useful, e xcept as a t extbook o n 3 2

how t o grovel. From EA Gezer, and Lachish are Abdu-Hepa of Jerusalem.

2 87:14 i t appears that Ashkelon, a ligned with t he enemies of

S huwardat a, t he s ender of l etters 2 78-284 and 3 66, may b e ruler of G ath. This i s deduced f rom EA 2 90:5-10 i n which Milkilu o f Gezer and Shuwardata a re l isted a s Abdu-Hepa's enemies. Gezer, Gath, and Keilah are l isted as t he s ources o f the troops f or their attack on R ubutu. Since Keilah i s contested between Shuwardata and Abdu-Hepa, it i s not l ikely that K eilah i s Shuwardata's base c ity, so Gath i s the most l ikely candidate. Later Shuwardata i s a ligned with Abdu-Hepa against the Apiru. ( EA 3 66) Shuwardata a lso appears to be an I ndo-Aryan name, l ike the names of many other rulers i n Palestine at this t ime. I t h as r ecently been suggested that Amarna l etters 6 3-65, and 3 35 are f rom Shuwardata's son. ( 103) N ames which A lbright analyzed a s I ndo-Aryan a re not confined t o the Philistine p lain, but make up about one third of the P alestinian rulers mentioned i n the Amarna l etters. ( 104) These names are probably not evidence of l arge Indo-Aryan presence i n P alestine, but represent individuals who were part o f the Hurrian movement i nto Palestine. G aza according

i s to

f irmly i n Egyptian EA 2 89. S ince there

control at are f requent

this t ime references

to A shdod in t he Ugaritic material, and Gaza, Ashkelon, and G ath are mentioned i n the Amarna l etters, we have some reference to a ll of the chief Philistine cities except Ekron from the p eriod immediately preceding the t ime of Ramses I II. SU mna r y The Amarna l etters i ndicate activity of some components of t he " Sea Peoples" a long the Syrian coast well before the t ime of R amses I II. Certain t ypes of I ndo-European names were a lso present in " Philistia" well before the t ime o f R amses I II. We will discuss the s ignificance of this f or the evaluat,on of Philistine names i n the s ect -on on l anguage.

Assyrian

Records

The Assyrian records pertaining to the Philistines come mainly from the 8 th and 7 th centuries B .C., about 5 00 years after the t ime of R amses I II. I t i s interesting to compare their u se of geographic and ethnic t erms with the Egyptian records. We must, of course, consider the effect that t ime had on the

and a d ifferent geographic u se of t hese t erms.

T he i nterpretation nations " in the m idst i nterpretation o f the

perspective

may

have

of t erms s uch a s " isles" and of the s ea" i s crucial t o the Egyptian t exts. I n the Egyptian 3 3

t exts t o the

t hese coasts

t erms are generally interpreted as r eferences and i slands of Anatolia o r the Aegean.

However, the Assyrian k ing Ashur-nasirpal s ays that he r eceived tribute f rom " the kings o f the s eacoast ( i di t amti(written A . AB.BA) ‚ f rom the p eople of Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Maisa, K aisa, and Arvad, which l ies in t he midst of the s ea" ( qabal t amti, written M URUB4 A . AB.BA ) ( 105) This Arvad, "which l ies i n the midst o f the sea", i s on a coastal i sland o f Syria. Tyre, which was on • a coastal i sland, and S idon, which was not, are other Syro-Palestinian cities described a s " in the midst of t he s ea." ( 106) Sargon I I c laims to have exacted t ribute f rom " the kings of Philistia, Judah, Edom, and M oab, who dwell by the sea." ( pi-lis-ti, i a-u-di, u-du-mu, m a -ab-i, a -si-bu-ut t am -tim ) . ( 107) I t appears that the Assyrian term qabal tamtim which has t raditionally been t ranslated " in the midst of the s ea" has a f airly broad u sage. I t should be t ranslated " on an i sland," " on the sea coast," or " at s ea" depending o n t he context. This usage may be p e rtly explained by the l ack of a distinct Assyrian t erm f or " island," b ut this does not account for its application to non-island cities l ike S idon. The usage s eems to be best explained as due t o t he vagueness of the t erm qabal t amtim. A lthough there i s a great deal of t ime and space s eparating the Assyrian texts from the Egyptian texts, the Assyrian usage should warn us of the danger of reading too much p recision i nto terms l ike " in the midst of the sea", or a ssuming that s uch t erms must refer t o far-off i slands. We have a lready s een that some Egyptian terms, such as H aunebut, may have some of the s ame ambiguity. I t appears that the Assyrian t erms for Philistia palastu, pilisti ) have primarily a geographic, rather than an ethnic connotation. On at l east one o ccasion " Philistia" i ncludes the coast a s far north a s Akko. ( 108) A lthough the t erm " Philistine" does not s eem t o have a distinct ethnic connotation i n the Assyrian records, there are other t erms for which such connotations h ave been c laimed. After Sargon I I h ad replaced A zuri, king of A shdod, with his full brother, Ahimtu, he reports that " the Hittites, p lotters of i niquity, detested Ahimtu's rule and e levated over them l adna, who had no claim to the throne." ( 109) Sargon here calls the inhabitants o f Philistia " Hittites" ( Oat-ti -i or pa-at-ti )‚ a general name which the A ssyrians used for the i nhabitants o f Palestine. The name of the u surper, which appears in the variant f orms l adna ( i a-ad-na ) or l amani ( ia-ma-ni ) in different accounts of this campaign, has often been t ranslated " the Cypriote," " the I onian," or "the Greek" because o f i ts s imilarity to the Akkadian t erms f or these peoples ( K UR i a-ad-na-na and KUR i a-am-na-a-a ) T admor

rejects

the

theory 3 4

that

t his

name

has

an

ethnic connotation, s tating that i f this i s i ntended a s a gentilic, i t s hould be preceded by the determinative K UR. The spelling discrepancies between the personal n a tne i a-ma-ni and the gentilic K UR i a-am-na-a-a and the n ame i a-ad-na and the gentilic K UR i a-ad-na-na a lso make i t unlikely that the personal names are derived directly f rom the ethnic t erms. Tadmor i nterprets l amani a s a Palestinian name, parallel to names such as I mna and l amm which occur i n Biblical Hebrew. He questions t he accuracy of the r eading which yields the a lternative name, l adna. ( 110) Several i nscriptions report that S argon " pulled the l amnean out of t he sea of the s etting sun l ike a f ish." I n some cases the t ranscribers and translators of these t exts disagree whether the term " lamnean" i s s ingular or p lural, a p ersonal name or a gentilic. For example, in l ine 1 5 o f Sargon' s Annals of Khorsabad, Room 1 4, this expression i s translated as a s ingular gentilic by Luckenbill, as a personal Winkler.

name ( 111)

by

Wiseman,

and

a s

a p lural

gentilic

by

In some t exts i t appears that these l amneans may be the inhabitants of Philistia. Wiseman translates a portion of the Khorsabad Pavement I nscription, " Sargon t he conqueror of Samaria and the whole l and of I srael, who d ispoiled the cities of Ashdod and Shinuhti, who caught the Greeks ( lamneans) who dwell i n the midst of the s ea l ike f ish, who uprooted K asku, the whole of Tabal and H ilakku, who pursued Mita king of Muski, who defeated Egypt at Raphihu and counted Hanunu, king of Gaza, a s a prisoner, who subdued seven rulers of I a', a district of l atnana ( Cyprus), whose dwelling i s s ituated i n the midst of the s ea, a j ourney of seven days." ( 112) Winckler transcribed the phrase which Wiseman translates as " Greeks who dwell in the midst of the s ea" as " KUR ia-am-na-ai sa qa-bal tam -tim" and translated "d i e Jamna." ( 113) S ince this reference i s c losely associated with A shdod, i t s eems possible that the term Greeks/lamneans i s here a reference to the inhabitants of Philistia who l ive a long the s eacoast. However,the t ext does jump around quite a bit in the order of the geographic t erms, so this j uxtaposition may not be significant. A text calling the Ashdodites " lamneans" would l ink up well with t he other statements of S argon calling their l eader " lamani." It i s difficult to f ind other candidates for who these " lamneans" m ight be. Cyprus i s a lready mentioned e lsewhere i n the t ext, so Greeks on Cyprus do not seem to be a l ikely explanation. We know of no campaign of Sargon against Greeks f urther west. Greek envoys undoubtedly must have brought tribute gifts t o 3 5

Sargon to keep their t rade with the L evant open at a time when S argon controlled the whole coast, but the phrase " caught the Greeks who dwelled in t he midst of t he sea" s eems too s trong t o describe such a visit unless it i s pure exaggeration. A l ater t ext of Esarhaddon appears to i dentify l adnana ( Cyprus) with l avan/laman. " The kings of the midst of the s ea, a ll of them f rom l adnana, l avan ( KUR i a-man ) ‚ a s far a s Nusisi ( Knossos?) s ubmitted at my f eet." ( 114) However, i t i s not certain whether the pair I adnana/Iavan are an apposition or two separate i tems. More recent t ranscribers of the text prefer the r eading tar-si-si ( Tarsus) to the reading nu-si-si. Where does this confusing s ituation l eave us? I f the i nterchange of the personal names l adna and l amani i s textually valid, i t appears that the Assyrian s cribes' connected the name of the usurper with their g entilic terms for Cypriote and I onian ( ia-ad-na-na and i a-am-na-a-a ) . I n spite of the spelling differences the correspondence s eems t oo strong to be mere co-incidence. The E sarhaddon t ext s upports the association of the roots l adnana and l aman. However, the Assyrian s cribes' association of these t erms may have been a c ase of mistaken etymology, r ather than a valid connection. Even i f l amani was of Cypriote or Greek origin, it i s very doubtful i f this would be s ignificant for Philistine origins because of the l ate date of the text and t he very l imited value of a s ingle name in i solation. However, the possibility that t he Khorsabad P avement I nscription applies the term l amneans to the inhabitants of Philistia i s more i ntriguing. However, the connection i s extremely speculative. The geographical order of the l ist i s unclear. The text may be an exaggerated report of t ribute which Sargon received from Greeks. Perhaps it i s s imply a derogatory term for the people foolish enough to follow the no-body, l amani, but the KUR determinative would seem to rule t his out. Perhaps it preserves an Assyrian understanding l inking the inhabitants of Philistia with Cyprus. This i s i nteresting in l ight of the archeological connections of the Philistines and Cyprus, but remains highly speculative. Unfortunately, the uncertainty of the matter i s i ncreased even m ore by doubts about the accuracy of s ome of the o riginal transcriptions of Sargon's records. Other Philistine names f rom the Assyrian sources will be analyzed i n the chapter on l anguage. Except f or the name of I kausu of Ekron, which seems to be the s ame name as the Biblical Achish of Gath, these n ames a re West Semitic, with a sprinkling of Assyrian names. There

are

a

f ew Assyrian

reliefs

of

the

conquest

of

Philistine cities. I n these reliefs the Philistines are i ndistinguishable f rom other inhabitants of Syria P alestine. ( Fig. 8 b, 9 a, 9b) O lmstead i dentified

3 6

F

e 8 a a s P hilistine captives, s till wearing t he L ered crown 5 00 years a fter Medir iet H abu, but the i re l acks c lear i dentification, and other reliefs m ake it l ikely that t hose p ictured a re E lamites, S outh Babylonians, or A ssyrians i n f estive costume. ( 115) Aramaic The Aramaic l etter f rom Adon, a k ing i n P alestine, to t he Pharaoh o f Egypt has been connected with the Philistines by Porten's t entative i dentification o f t he Demotic f iling t itle on the outside of the l etter a s t he Philistine city o f Ekron. ( 116) The l etter i s generally dated to the i nvasion of Nebuchadnezzar ( late 7 th century B .C.), but K rahmalkov connects i t with the campaign o f Sennacherib ( late 8 th century ) on the basis of a different reconstruction o f the gaps i n the l etter. ( 117) The k ing bears the S emitic n ame Adon and i nvokes the S emitic god Baal Shamayim. T he l etter i s evidence for the d iplomatic use o f Aramaic i n Philistia, but not necessarily for i ts use as t he general speech. However, there i s other evidence f or S emitic speech i n Philistia at this time, which we will examine i n the chapter on l anguage. Summary The Assyrian sources offer l ittle direct evidence f or solutions to t he problem of Philistine origins. But they do o ffer diachronic comparative evidence on the use o f terms similar t o " sea people" and " islands i n the m idst o f the s ea." They a lso offer an i ntriguing possibility f or connecting the P hilistine culture with Cyprus, but this i s highly speculative because of the l ateness and vagueness of t he t exts. P erhaps this i nformation will be u seful as part of a supplementary or supporting pattern of evidence after we have l ooked at the whole picture.

3 7

F igure

8 a

8

Alleged Philistine Prisoners o f

8 b

The

t he Assyri ans

Assyrian Attack on Gezer

3 8

F igure 9

9 a

The Assyrian Attack on Ekron

9 b

Prisoners

f rom

Ekron

3 9

Fi gu re

1 0

S AM

RA

4 0

LA

SA

1

Q< ( %

7 c 3

I

0

L P

- I -

4 ,

' L? •0•,

A EGEAN P LACES A SSOC IATED W ITH T YRSEN t ANS A ND P ELASG IANS CRETE

4 0

GREEK

SOURCES

Many s cholars have i dentified the Philistines and other Sea Peoples a s Mycenaean Greeks or other Aegean or European peoples. ( 118) The principle reason f or this i s the similarity between Philistine Ware and Mycenaean prototypes, which will be examined l ater. The Philistines sometimes have b een i dentified with the Pelasgoi, an Aegean people mentioned by s uch c lassical Greek writers a s Herodotus and Thucydides. Greek texts concerning the Tyrsenians or Tyrrhenians, the Greek t erms f or the Etruscans, a lso have some relevance to the discussion since one of t he S ea Peoples, the Teresh o f Mernepthah's texts, sometimes been i dentified with t he Etruscans. ( 119) The Greek s ources i dentify the P elasgians as forerunners of the Greeks in the Peloponnesus and Attica. The Pelasgians are a lso portrayed a s s ea-raiders connected with the northern Aegean. According t o Homer the Pelasgians were a llies of the Trojans f rom Larisa near Troy. ( Il. 2 .840) A fter the Trojan War they appear a long s ide Achaeans and Dorians i n Crete ( Od. 1 9.177) .

Herodotus s ays P elasgians came to Athens f rom P lacia and Scylace on the Propontis and the i sland of Samothrace in t he northern Aegean. ( See f ig. 1 0) He c laims there were still Pelasgian towns i n these areas early i n the fifth century B .C. and that the Pelasgians there spoke the same non-Greek l anguage as the Pelasgians of Creston i n Macedonia. ( Hdt. 1 .57, 2 .51, 7 .42) After being expelled by t he Athenians, the Pelasgians who had l ived i n Attica went to Lemnos in the northern Aegean, but they returned and raided Athenian t erritory to gain revenge. ( Hdt. 6 .137-138) According to Herodotus they remained on Lemnos until the i sland was captured by Darius i n 5 05 B .C. ( Hdt. 5 .26) Thucydides s ays the Tyrsenians, who Pelasgians l ived on time. ( Thuc. 4 .109)

that the Pelasgians were a branch o f l ived in Attica and Lemnos. Other the coasts of Macedonia during his

T hese Pelasgians are i dentified with the Philistines in the following manner. First, a Philistine-Aegean connection i s a ssumed on the basis of the s imilarity of Philistine pottery to Mycenaean styles. Then the case for identifying the Philistines with the P elasgians i s developed on the basis of word studies. The name Pelasgoi i s t raced to the Greek word for sea ( ‚ t A c' yo ) and the tribal ending -kos. The t erm " Pelasgoi" i s thus interpreted a s p arallel to the Egyptian " sea people." ( 120) Georgiev

o ffers

a

more 4 1

e laborate

version

of

this

theory, between original s cholia t o t he

i n which he attempts to explain the d ivergence the t erms P elasgian and P hilistine. ( 121) T he name of the people was Pelastoi, according to a of the I liad 1 6:233. This name l inks t he people northern Aegean s ince the l ate c lassical writer

P seudo-Plutarch says t hat P alaistinos i s the o lder name for the river Strymon in Macedonia. I n Greek " Pelastoi" was changed to " Pelasgoi" on the basis of folk e tymology f rom the word " pelagos", " sea." The original term " Pelastoi" i s still reflected i n the Egyptian term " Peleset" and the Hebrew " Plishtim". The Philistine-Pelasgian t ie i s a llegedly strengthened by the f act that the Pelasgians appear i n Greek t radition concerning the end of the Bronze Age, the s ame t ime that the P eleset appear i n Egyptian history. From this point the Philistine-Pelasgian t ie i s built up on the basis o f other a lleged archeological l inks o f the Philistines t o the Aegean, which will be considered i n later archeological chapters. The Pelasgians are a lso l inked to the Etruscans ( Tyrsenians) by two contradictory l iterary traditions. ( 122) Herodotus reports that the Tyrsenians ( Etruscans) migrated t o I taly from Lydia i n Asia Minor. ( Hdt. 1 .94) According t o Dionysius of Halicarnassus P elasgians who were driven out by the Greeks went to I taly where they adopted the name of the Tyrrhenians ( Etruscans) , who were a lready i n I taly. ( Antiquities 1 .17-30). H e quotes Hellenicus of Lesbos, a contemporary o f Herodotus, as his source. ( 123) Dionysius, therefore, states t hat the Tyrrhenians ( Etruscans) had not migrated to I taly from anywhere, because they had a lways been there. H erodotus and Dionysius agree that part of the population of Etruria came from the Aegean, but they disagree whether t he name " Tyrrhenian" or " Etruscan" properly belonged t o the indigenous i nhabitants of Etruria or to immigrants who j oined them l ater. Modern historians u sually advocate one o f three theories concerning Etruscan origins: the o riental theory supported by Herodotus, the autochthonous ( indigenous) theory of Dionysius, or a northern theory based on certain aspects of their material culture. ( 124) Historians a lso wrestle with a decision between a 12th century arrival of the Etruscans required by the l iterary tradition or an 8 th century beginning of Etruscan culture based on a sharp i ncrease in Eastern i nfluence upon the material culture at that t ime. ( 125) This i s parallel t o the problem of reconciling the l iterary sources which report the Philistines i n P alestine before t he 1 2th Century B .C. with the f irst appearance of a d istinct " Philistine" pottery in the 1 2th Century. The divergent l iterary sources concerning E truscan origins a lso form an i nteresting parallel to t he dual t radition of the O ld Testament concerning both an i ndigenous and a f oreign origin o f the Philistines. Genesis 1 0 relates the Philistines to i ndigenous Canaanite 4 2

peoples, but Amos 9 s tresses their foreign origin i n Caphtor. I n discussing the origin of the Etruscans Dionysius and Hellenicus emphasize the i ndigenous substratum of Etruria a s the real " Etruscans". Herodotus emphasizes t he l ater arrivals who made up part of t he amalgamation which i n his day was called the Etruscans ( Tyrrhenians) The apparent discrepancies i n the l iterary r ecords concerning the origins of the Philistines and the Etruscans can probably both be explained i n the s ame way. I n both cases different authors are s imply describing different phases of the gradual process by which the Philistine and Etruscan nations were formed. The O ld Testament and the c lassical Greek writings i mply that the ethnic groups which were called Philistines and Etruscans at the t ime when the respective l iterary sources were written were both .

amalgamations of indigenous peoples and l ater f oreign elements, which formed gradually over a period of time. F urther study of the problem of Etruscan origins may offer some additional analogies which would prove useful in wrestling with the question of Philistine origins.

4 3

MODERN

THEORIES

This s ection briefly l ists various modern t heories concerning the origin o f the Philistines. These various theories do not a ll merit equal consideration. T hey vary greatly i n p lausibility and the quality of the s upporting evidence. However, they are a ll l isted so that t hey can be evaluated i n the f ollowing summary o f the l iterary s ources and in the subsequent archeological discussion. The most commonly accepted idea at present is, o f course, the theory that the Philistines came with other S ea P eoples from the Aegean or Anatolia at the time o f Ramses I II and s ettled on the Palestinian coast shortly t hereafter. Trude Dothan s standard work on the Philistine material culture i s the most t horough p resentation of the evidence for this view. T his view often includes a l ong march through Anatolia a nd Syria, which doubt

l eft about

a path of destruction this aspect of the theory

behind it. i s growing.

However, ( 126)

The Philistine-Pelasgian connection has already been discussed above. C losely related t o it i s the t heory o f Wainwright and Bonafante who connect the Philistines with I llyrians, perhaps by way of Cappadocia. ( 127) S chachermeyr's f ive volume work on Aegean prehistory is a n extensive presentation of evidence for this view. ( 128). A llen Jones and others connect both the Philistines and the t ribe of Dan with the Greeks, but some of the methodology and evidence which he uses are very weak. ( 129) Spannuth traces the Philistines to northern Europe, but the evidence which he offers for his view i s f arfetched.

( 130)

Burton-Brown the

Caucasus,

Philistine

and

and

l argely

others on

the

Caucasian metal

connect basis

the o f

artifacts.

Philistines

with

s imilarity between ( 131)

There are a number o f theories which must be c lassified as radical departures f rom the commonly accepted theories. Nibbi a lmost totally rejects the idea of a Sea P eople migration and identifies Ramses' enemies as traditional enemies from near E gypt. ( 132) A lthough the views of I mmanuel Velikovsky a re regarded a s highly speculative and unsupported by most people in the academic community, they have received wide exposure. Velikovsky turns history upside down by i dentifying the Pereset and their a llies a s Persians and their Greek mercenaries and by radically redating Egyptian history. ( 133) Courville a lso drastically redates Egyptian history. He s ees the f irst Philistines a rriving s ometime before 1 000 B .C., but p laces the l ast Sea P eople arrivals a round 7 00 B .C., much l ater

than

the

accepted

date.

( 134)

Why do s o many d ivergent i deas f lourish? Some o f these theories are s incere s cholarly efforts t o solve a difficult historical p roblem. Others are undoubtedly due 4 4

to the desire t o present s omething novel or t o j ustify t he author's p reconceptions. But one r eason that s o many theories f lourish i s t hat there i s considerable ambiguity in t he available l iterary evidence, and s ome o f t he commonly h eld " respectable" i deas about Philistine origins are not a s c learly supported by t he l iterary and archeological evidence a s much o f t he modern l iterature would l ead u s t o believe. Though s ome o f t he interpretations l isted above are f ar-fetched, they do have some value i n f orcing people t o take a c loser l ook at what the primary s ources actually s ay, rather than at what s ome authority s ays t he s ources s ay. A lmost a ll o f these theorists quote extensively f rom the primary s ources, but they tend t o f ocus on a s mall s egment o f t he evidence which supports t heir i nitial a ssumption. Our a im has t o be t o avoid a very n arrow i nterpretation o f Philistine origins which o nly e ncompasses a small p art o f the evidence.

4 5

S UMMARY AND

EVALUATION OF

THE L ITERARY

EVIDENCE

The l iterary evidence suggests that the Philistines of the 1 2th through 1 0th centuries were a lready an ethnic amalgamation, which probably had developed over a period of time. The O ld s ince t hey

Testament c laim that

texts s uggest this most strongly people whom the I sraelites called

Philistines were a lready i n Canaan i n the time ot t he Patriarchs and Joshua. However, these early Philistines are described a s different from t he l ater Philistines o f the t ime of Samuel and David. G enesis 1 0 associates t he early Philistines with Canaanite and African peoples. O n t he other hand, there are many i ndications of t he Philistines' foreign origin i n I sraelite sources, i ncluding l ater sources s uch as the Septuagint. I n t he O ld Testament itself the most i mportant indications o f foreign origin are the references t o origin from Caphtor. The s trength of the tradition o f foreign origins i s i ndicated i n the S eptuagint's distinctive translation o f " Philistines" as " foreigners." The Old Testament recognizes a process of amalgamation between t he Philistines of David's time and the earlier population o f the area. The Old Testament does not specify the time o f arrival of any of the e lements of the u ltimate population of Philistia, but it implies that some of the " foreign" e lement was there before the t ime o f R amses I II. Egyptian records do not mention the Philistines before the t ime of Ramses I II, but this omission i s not very s ignificant s ince the term occurs only once or twice i n Egyptian records a fter the t ime o f Ramses I II ‚ and i n those cases the term i s primarily g eographic, rather t han ethnic. The Egyptian accounts are certainly n ot incompatible with the theory that Philistines were i n Palestine before the t ime of Ramses I II. The Philistines are not specifically s aid to be f rom far-away i slands o r called s ea people as some of the other attackers are. There are a number o f references in the accounts which imply that some of the attackers were a lready e stablished i n Palestine. The t exts a lso m ention a l and of t he Philistines. During the earlier Libyan wars the forces attacking Egypt were a combination of newcomers and people who had l ong been established i n Libya. There i s n o reason why the attacking co-alition in the Northern W ar could not be a s imilar combination of newcomers a nd peoples who had been in the area for a l ong t ime. Both Egyptian i nscriptions and the Amarna l etters make it c lear that at l east some e lements of the attacking forces i n these wars were present i n Egypt and Syria at l east t wo centuries before the t ime of Ramses I II. The texts from movement of peoples interpret them on the --Ramses' statement

U garit support the idea o f a l arge at the t ime of R amses I II, only i f w e basis of three a ssumptions: about the desolation of the 4 6

n orthern k ingdoms i s not exaggerated. -The unnamed enemies i n the U garitic t exts are s ame as the peoples named by Ramses. -These enemies were a l arge, migrating group o f people. A ll o f these The

assumptions

p resence of

are

open

the

to question.

" Philistines"

i n

Palestine

before

the

time of R amses I II i s d ismissed by many s cholars, because the Old Testament i s the only l iterary s ource which r eports an earlier presence. However, there i s no l iterary evidence for their presence in the Aegean at any t ime, unless we a ccept the i dentification with the P elasgians, who are first mentioned in comparatively l ate Greek texts. There i s at the p resent t ime no mention o f the Philistines i n any H ittite t ext or any other text p ertaining to Anatolia. I n other words, at the p resent t ime there i s no evidence that the name " Philistine" originated

outside of

Palestine.

On the basis of the evidence presently available i t does not appear t hat the term " Philistine" i s primarily an ethnic or l inguistic t erm. I t has geographie and political connotations connected with s outhwestern P alestine. The O ld Testament usage of the term " Philistine" may have the same breadth which has l ong been r ecognized i n t he u sage o f the term " Hatti"/"Hittite," which can refer to various s trata o f the population of C entral Anatolia, even though they had different ethnic or l inguistic origins. The l eading people of what we today c all the Hittite Empire were not originally called " Hittites," but were " Neshians." The original " Hatti" or " Hittites" were the people who preceded the Neshians in Central Anatolia. When the Neshians arrived i n Anatolia, t hey joined the " Hatti" who were a lready there, and the Neshians too became known as " Hatti" or " Hittites". ( 135) Today in English we call the i ndigenous people " Hatti" and t he later different a rtificial i ntroduces

arrivals " Hittites", but these are merely English translations for one word. This distinction avoids one kind of confusion, but another kind of confusion by obscuring the real

u sage of this word for English readers. Hatti/Hittite i s an example of one name being used f or two different strata o f the population of an area, even though they had d istinct origins. The O ld Testament usage of the term " Philistine"

may be

s imilar.

"Amorite" i s another example of a term which has a variety o f geographic, ethnic, l inguistic, and political connotations, with one or the other of these a spects being p redominant in t he usage of a given time and p lace. The u sage s ame

of

the

t erm

" Philistine"

may

i nvolve

s ome

of

the

complexities. On

the

basis

of

a ll

the

l iterary evidence

i t

s eems

m ost l ikely t hat the Philistines are an amalgamation of p eoples. The I sraelites appear t o have applied the name " Philistine" to various s trata of the population o f 4 7

southwestern Palestine, even though they recognized different ethnic e lements within t he population t here. The Egyptian usage may have b een more restrictive, but evidence of the Egyptian u sage i s more s canty. The O ld Testament Philistine population.

may refer According

t o three strata o f t o the reading o f

the the

t ext accepted in this study Genesis 1 0 connects an e lement of the population, which was recognized as b eing i n Palestine the l ongest, with the Casluhim and other p eoples whom the I sraelites a ssociated with the Egyptians and Libyans. Another e lement of the population, which m ay have arrived l ater, i s t raced t o Caphtor. A lthough C aphtor appears to be Crete in Egyptian a nd Akkadian usage, the term probably has a broader meaning i n the O ld Testament, referring to the Mediterranean i slands and coasts i n general, just as K ittim has a broader meaning than Cyprus in the Old Testament. This arrival from Caphtor.is not necessarily i dentical with the group whom the I sraelites connected with the Casluhim nor with the event o f R amses I ll's 8 th year. The O ld Testament may consider the arrival from Caphtor a s a second stage in the formation of the Philistine nation. This i s uncertain because o f the textual question and s cant i nformation about the connection with the Casluhim. Even i f the arrival from Caphtor was earlier t han the time of Ramses I II, and even i f Caphtor i s Crete a lso in the O ld Testament, i t i s still not l ikely that any major e lement of the Philistine population was M inoan C retans, unless they did not bring an intact material culture with them. The differences between Minoan and Southwestern Palestinian culture are much more apparent t han any s imilarities. I f Caphtor i s Crete, perhaps Crete w as just a stop on the journey. The arrival which occurred i n Ramses I ll' s 8 th year may be a third s tep i n the formation of the Philistine nation. I t appears to be reflected i n the i ncreased s trength of the Philistines at t he time of Samuel and Saul. I t i s unlikely that the p opulation of P hilistia was ever predominantly Mycenaean G reeks coming by way of Crete, s ince the Philistine culture i s not a s trongly Mycenaean culture, i n spite of s ome definite M ycenaean e lements. This a ssertion would be s trongly challenged by many s cholars, so it will be d iscussed at l ength i n the archeological section of this paper. I n addition to these three possible influxes foreign e lements the O ld Testament a lso refers t o continued presence of i ndigenous e lements o f population of Philistia, such a s the Avvites. The addition o f Aegean or Philistia was probably a gradual over s everal centuries, j ust a s 4 8

of the the

Anatolian peoples to process which o ccurred t heir arrival i n Egypt

was. I n this respect, i t would be p arallel t o t he infiltration o f Germans i nto the Roman Empire. They came first as mercenaries, then as migrants. I t i s certainly possible that t here was a s izable influx at the t ime o f Ramses I II, but i t i s doubtful that this was a massive l and migration f rom Western Anatolia or Europe s ufficient to d estroy the H ittite Empire and many cites of Syria. I f these peoples were l ooking for a new home, and they were able to completely overthrow the H ittites and devastate Syria, would they need to go on t o Egypt? I f Philistine pottery i s the s ign of their arrival i n Palestine, what i s the indication o f their arrival in H ittite t erritory? I f they were powerful enough to destroy the Hittites and menace Egypt, why d id they fail to dominate Palestine? The number o f n ewcomers appears to have been adequate to give enough s trength to the " Philistines" to make them a very serious menace to I srael, yet in the l ong run they were not able to dominate Palestine, either militarily or culturally. This i nterpretation appears to account most reasonably f or a ll of the l iterary evidence I t does not necessitate f ocusing on one narrow part of the evidence or arbitrarily r ejecting one part of i t. I t a lso agrees with the archeological evidence a s l ater s ections o f this dissertation will demonstrate. .

Perhaps t he term, " Philistine," originally referred to the i ndigenous sub-stratum of the population of southwestern P alestine, and i t was extended to the " Sea People," who arrived l ater, j ust a s the t erm Hatti was extended to l ater arrivals. Or perhaps the name "Philistine" was brought by the newcomers, and the accounts i n Genesis apply i t proleptically t o earlier inhabitants o f s outhwestern Palestine i n the s ame way that the name Dan i s used proleptically i n Genesis 1 4:14. This would be s imilar to our practice o f calling the inhabitants o f America " Indians" even before the arrival of t he first Europeans. Either of these explanations of the usage of t he name Philistine i s reasonable, but the available evidence i s i nadequate t o make a c lear-cut choice. The f irst explanation, that the t erm Philistine originated i n Canaan and was l ater applied to t he newcomers, s eems to be the most l ikely to this writer, but new evidence, s uch as occurrence of the name i n Anatolia, could prove otherwise. A third possibility i s that the t erm " Philistine" originated as t he name of " Sea People" immigrants to Palestine, but t hat they f irst received t his name i n Palestine, and t hey were known by a different name i n their previous home. The questions " Where did the Philistines come f rom?" and "Where did the n ame ' Philistine' come f rom?" are distinct questions which may have two different answers.

the

The main problem with the l iterary sources concerning Philistines i s not that there are serious 4 9

contradictions or discrepancies between the s ources, a lthough this c laim has sometimes been made. The problem i s that we do not, at present, h ave enough l iterary i nformation to determine their origins decisively. I t i s possible to construct s everal reasonable explanations o f the origin of the Philistines on the basis of the l iterary evidence a lone. However, i f we give balanced, o bjective, consideration to a ll of the available l iterary e vidence, an amalgamation theory offers the best explanation f or a ll o f the extant l iterary evidence

5 0

CONNECTING The key at t he time of culture before

THE LITERARY AND ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE i ssue i s the s ize and nature o f the arrival Ramses I II. An examination of the material and after this date should be helpful i n

testing the hypothesis that the Philistines were a gradual amalgamation and that the arrival at the t ime of Ramses I II was not necessarily very great. I f there was a great i nflux of people at this t ime, which consisted o f whole families migrating together, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be a l arge amount of cultural change. I tems from many different aspects of culture of come. I f trace the

the n ew culture should have parallels i n the the geographic area f rom which the migrants had the m igration was s low, we might be able to course of this movement i f we have a sharp

chronology l arge-scale

of the area. migration would

I n such a case be decisive.

the

evidence

for

However, i f there was an arrival of a fairly small group, perhaps an army or e lite ruling group, we would expect that cultural e lements with l ocal roots would remain much more prominent. However, the arrival of a l arge group with a culture very inferior to that of the previous

inhabitants

environment I f

we

or with a culture

might

present

were

dealing

a s imilar with

the

unsuited

archeological spread

of

to

the

new

picture. a specific

cultural feature, such a s a l uxury pottery style, by t rade or m igrating craftsmen, we would expect that the l uxury pottery would be f airly uniform wherever it occurred, but it would occur with different assemblages of l ocal utilitarian wares at different s ites. This study has a lready l isted s everal possible explanations of Philistine origins on the basis of the l iterary evidence and selected the hypothesis which seems most l ikely. Some criteria have been suggested for testing this amalgamation hypothesis. We must now gather and examine archeological data to test this hypothesis. We must consider a ll e lements of the culture of southwestern Palestine in the l ast quarter of the Second Millennium B .C. Many researchers have attempted to analyze Philistine origins l argely on the basis of just one portion of t he evidence such a s etymology, metal articles, or pottery. I f they approach the Philistine culture with some preconception of its origin, it i s usually possible t o f ind s ome apparent parallels to the culture of the " right" homeland, either by co-incidence or because of the widespread contacts and i nteraction of eastern Mediterranean cultures. B ut what amount o f cultural change i s necessary to demonstrate the i nflux of a l arge group of people? How much evidence i s needed to indicate their place of origin 5 1

with a high degree of probability? Are a few n ames o r l oan words adequate evidence for t he arrival o f a n ew l inguistic group? I s the appearance o f a new k ind o f l uxury pottery which makes up 1 0% o f the total ceramic repertoire adequate evidence for the arrival o f a new group of people, i f the other 9 0% of the pottery, i ncluding most of the daily ware, r emains unchanged? How does the social and cultural l evel o f the newcomers affect the kind of evidence we should expect? Because of the difficulty of these questions, w e cannot i solate the study of Philistine culture f rom the study of other ethnic groups and t heir migrations. The kind of archeological evidence produced by migrations which are more fully documented t han the origin of the Philistines should help us test our criteria for explaining movements of peoples and cultural change on t he basis of archeological evidence. A comparison with well documented cultural change which was not caused by movement of people would a lso be helpful. Such a n examination of other well documented ethnic changes emphasizes the difficulty o f e stablishing ethnic change f rom archeological evidence. Absence of material evidence i s not necessarily evidence of absence of a conquest. This i s especially true i f we are dealing with i solated adventurers. The movements of t he Normans into France and I taly l eft a lmost no archeological evidence. The movement of the Normans into England, which consisted of a few thousand people, produced no ceramic break, but shows mainly i n changes of personal names. Even mass movements l ike the migration of S lays into the Balkans or tribal movements l ike that of the Galatians i nto Asia Minor l eft very l ittle archeological evidence. The move o f the Anglo-Saxons into England, which was probably about a 1 0% population change, produced more s ignificant ceramic change and some change of p lace names. The Muslim conquest of Palestine originally consisted of the i ntroduction o f 2 7,000 soldiers into a population of 4 million and u ltimately amounted to about a 1 0% population change. I t did not produce a sharp ceramic break. ( 136) These comparisons indicate that the s tudy o f Philistine culture must be more broadly based than just l ooking at a pottery style a s the basis for assessing the t ime of arrival or the p lace of origin for a particular group. We should perhaps take special note o f " non-movable" i tems of culture, r ather than s omething easily shipped or t raded. We must try to assemble a n overall picture of the material culture of southwestern Palestine in the l ast centuries of the Second Millennium B .C. We must then attempt t o interpret the historical s ignificance of that material evidence on the basis o f principles derived f rom common sense and analogy drawn f rom other well documented ethnic migrations and amalgamations. We can then attempt to make a reasonable connection between the l iterary and a rcheological evidence for the Philistines.

5 2

PHILISTINE

POTTERY

W ithout a doubt the most discussed aspect of Philistine material culture i s the so-called Philistine Pottery. Early i n this century F .B. Welch, H . T iersch and others recognized t he s imilarity between a type of pottery found in southwestern Palestine and Late Mycenaean prototypes. ( 137) Because this pottery was found i n the territory which the Old T estament assigns to the Philistines, and b ecause the O ld Testament s ays that the Philistines came f rom Caphtor, which was believed to be Crete, this pottery was accepted a s evidence of the Philistines' arrival from the Aegean. This was believed to f it well with the Medinet Habu texts of Ramses I II which referred t o the Peleset and other peoples from the i slands of the s ea. By the t ime A lbright published his analysis of the p ottery of Tell Beit Mirsim in 1 932 this identification was firmly established as a basic premise of P alestinian a rcheology. ( 138) In fact,. when archeologists refer to the Philistine material culture, they are usually referring primarily to this type of pottery. Scholars have sometimes asserted the presence or absence of Philistines from a given s ite entirely on the basis of the presence or absence of this pottery. ( 139) Indeed, Aharoni categorically rejected the possibility that the Philistines could have been present i n Palestine before the appearance of this pottery. "The deriviation of Philistine pottery from a s ub-Mycenaean repertoire presents a profound c hronological implication, that the Philistine o ccupation

o f

Philistia

could

not

have

begun

in

t he reign of Ramses I II... . Philistine pottery d id not arrive in the country before the middle o f the 1 2th century . ... The Philistine assumption o f power must have occurred about 3 0 to 4 0 years a fter the Philistines were defeated by Ramses I II. . Some s cholars have preferred another .

.

e xplanation, but it does not hold water. I t i s t hat t he Philistines themselves came earlier but w ere followed only 3 0 or so years l ater by a f amily of potters who brought with them the ware w e know a ttractive

a s Philistine. This hypothesis." ( 140)

i s

hardly

an

A haroni presents us with the dilemma of choosing between a l ate s ettlement of the Philistines which preserves t he value of their characteristic pottery as evidence of their arrival from the Aegean, but breaks the tie b etween their arrival and the events reported by Ramses I II, or an earlier s ettlement of the Philistines which preserves t he connection with the events of Ramses I II's e ighth year, but undermines the value of the pottery as e vidence for the Philistine's arrival from the Aegean. But a re these really the only a lternatives? P erhaps the Philistine pottery begins earlier than Aharoni a llows, so t hat both the a rrival of the Philistines and the 5 3

appearance o f the pottery can be c losely connected with the eighth year of R amses I II. There may b e other explanations besides the three a lready mentioned. S ince s o much weight has been p ut on this p ottery a s evidence f or the Philistines' Aegean origin and f or the time of their arrival from the Aegean, we must e valuate it very carefully. ( 141) Exactly when does this pottery appear i n P alestine? What i s its value a s evidence for Philistine origins? Before we c an attempt t o answer these crucial questions, we must answer the f ollowing preliminary questions: 1 ) 2 )

What i s Philistine Ware? What i s its role at the various s ites at which it occurs? 3 ) What i s i ts pattern of distribution within s ites and throughout the l and of Palestine? 4 )

How i s it related to the earlier pottery Palestine? 5 ) What pottery regularly occurs with it? 6 ) What i s its significance? As we shall s ee, none of these questions i s answer.

of

very easy

t o

Philistine Ware Philistine pottery has been i llustrated and d iscussed thoroughly i n T rude Dothan's The Philistines a nd Their Material Culture. Dothan l ists 1 8 types of Philistine vessels ( Fig. 1 1-12) and c lassifies 8 of these s hapes a s having Mycenaean prototypes: 1 ) s mall " bell bowl" with horizontal l oop handles, 2 ) a krater with a very s imilar shape, 3 ) stirrup jar, 4 ) Pyxis and a related amphoriskos, 5 ) three-handled j ar, 6 ) strainer-spouted " beer j ug," 7 ) a spouted " feeding bottle" with basket handle, 8 ) pinch-waisted vessel. Her Types 9 and 1 0, t he gourd bottles, and Type 1 1, the narrow neck bottle, are related to Cypriote prototypes. The wide-neck j ar ( Type 1 2) i s derived f rom an Egyptian form. T he remaining t ypes are c lassified as Canaanite forms or l ate, degenerate f orms. Of course, variants of these basic vessels a ppear. " Philistine" painted decoration a lso appears on other vessel forms which are not specifically classified a s Philistine by Dothan, such as p ilgrim f lasks, small shallow bowls, goblets, unusual variants o f the strainer-spouted vessel, and a variety of cult v essels. ( 142) Dothan has a lso thoroughly discussed the relationship between Philistine decorative motifs and those a ppearing on Late Mycenaean pottery. A s ample o f these comparisons i s shown i n f igure 1 3. The s imilarity of the M ycenaean and Philistine designs i s quite a pparent. The p ainting t echnique, however, i s painting which occurs at Attica, ( 143)

i s Matt

quite different. Late Aegean s ites, such as

generally monochrome and u sually painting i s more common on l ocal 5 4

M ycenaean P erati i n

has a l ustre. imitations o f

Mycenaean ware i n Cyprus and Syria-Palestine. ( 144) According to the narrowest definition Philistine s tyle painting i s red a nd b lack bichrome decoration, which often appears on a white s lip or wash. I t has a dull, matt f inish. Thus the s tyle of painting on Philistine Ware i s i n some respects more s imilar to that of the Bichrome Ware which appears i n Cyprus and Palestine during LB I , over 2 00 years before the appearance of Philistine Ware, than to the Late Mycenaean I lIB and h IC painting techniques of Greece. Schachermeyr speculated that the LB I artistic traditions were preserved in the textile i ndustry during the gap between the LB Bichrome Ware and their reappearance on Philistine Ware. ( 145) The heavy Mycenaean h IC influence on the painted motifs of Philistine Ware i s obvious, but a number of Philistine Ware motifs, such as the Maltese cross, a lready appear on the earlier LB B ichrome Ware. A significant number of the painted motifs appear a lso on LB monochrome ware in . Syria and Palestine. I n general these are the s impler geometric motifs and dividers. ( 146) Occasionally Canaanite motifs s uch as the palm t ree occur on Philistine Ware. The LB Bichrome ware was formerly called Palestinian Bichrome Ware, but neutron activation analysis has i ndicated that most of the LB Bichrome Ware probably originated in Cyprus. ( 147) However, the most recent studies suggest that the Cypriote version of the Bichrome Ware and the Palestinian " Imitation" which occurs with it in Megiddo Strata I X and VIII are contemporary. ( 148) I t i s thus not certain whether the idea of the bichrome decoration originated in Cyprus and was imitated i n Palestine, or i f Cypriote manufacturers began producing a better version o f a product a lready at home in Palestine in order to appeal to the market there. ( 149) Tests of the c lay indicate that Philistine Ware and the derivative Mycenaean h IC ware which preceded it at Ashdod were both manufactured in Palestine. ( 150) At which

many s ites only a small percentage of the the excavators have c lassified a s Philistine

pottery Ware i s

decorated with t he c lassic " Philistine" pattern of red and b lack paint on white s lip. The color of the s lip varies, or s lip may be omitted entirely. Red s lip occurs on some l ate varieties. The paint i s often monochrome, usually red, but shades of purple, brown, or black a lso occur. Vessel forms which are classified a s Philistine, such as the bell bowl and strainer j ugs, a lso occur as undecorated

vessels.

These variations make it difficult to develop a precise, objective definition of Philistine Ware. Such a definition i s n ecessary as a basis for quantitative studies. reports criteria materials

I t and

i s apparent that the authors of various s ite periodical articles do not follow i dentical

for i dentifying which they are

the " Philistine Ware" i n cataloging and analyzing. 5 5

the For

example, i n his computer analysis o f t he pottery f rom t he t ombs at F ara South, McClellan u ses vessel f orm a s h is s ole criterion f or calculating the percentage o f Philistine Ware. ( 151) I s a " bell bowl" with horizontal l oop handles which i s undecorated or one which i s decorated with a s imple r ed band s till t o be c lassified a s Philistine Ware? I f i t i s, then what about a s imple round-sided bowl, which i s decorated with white s lip and a s imilar red b and? T he so-called cyma r im bowls are a special problem, s ince t hey s ometimes appear with white s lip and red bands. I f a p ilgrim f lask i s c lassified a s P hilistine Ware when i t i s decorated with a bichrome Maltese cross design, i s i t s till Philistine Ware i f i t i s decorated w ith r ed concentric c ircles? We cannot do quantitative s tudies which compare s ites unless we adopt a definition which answers these questions. Even i f s uch a definition may be arbitrary i n part, i t will at l east o ffer a uniform basis f or comparing s ites. F or Dothan's

purposes of 1 8 types of

this study a ny painted examples o f Philistine Ware or any other vessel

f orm which occurs with a d istinctive Philistine p ainted design will be c lassified as Philistine Ware. For example, i f a s imple handleless bowl were found that was d ecorated with a " Philistine bird," it would be c lassified a s Philistine Ware, even though this vessel form i s n ot distinctly Philistine. Examples of Dothan's vessel forms 1 -12 which are undecorated will generally not be counted t ogether with distinctive Philistine Ware i n the f ollowing quantitative studies, but will be noted as a s eparate percentage called probable Philistine Ware. The major exception i s that a ll bell bowls have been counted a s Philistine Ware, even when undecorated. ( 152) D othan's Types 1 3-18, the Canaanite types, w ill not be counted a s Philistine Ware, unless they are p ainted with Philistine motifs. Vessels with l ustrous " Mycenaean" paint a nd a ny other l ocal imitations o f Mycenaean ware will a lso b e s egregated f rom Philistine Ware whenever possible. There i s however s ome overlap between monochrome Mycenaean W are and monochrome Philistine Ware at A shdod. I n o ur quantitative studies o f Philistine Ware i t w ill usually b e n ecessary t o l ist two s eparate p ercentages f or the pottery of a given assemblage: the percentage o f distinctive Philistine Ware and t he percentage o f p robable Philistine Ware ( that i s, sherds which are undecorated o r t oo f ragmentary to be certain) These w ill u sually b e l isted t ogether a s giving a h igh-low r ange f or the percentage o f Philistine Ware at the s ite. Occasionally the percentage of contemporary " non-Philistine" painted wares i n t he a ssemblage will be l isted, i f i t s eems significant. P ercentages i n this t hesis which a re d erived from p ottery analyses done by other s cholars w ill be adjusted t o conform t o t his system whenever possible. .

S ince Philistine

Dothan has provided Ware, no attempt will 5 6

ample be m ade

i llustration o f t o duplicate h er

work here. F igures 1 4-17, which are a dapted f rom Dothan's s tudy provide a s ample of typical P hilistine ware a s a b ackground f or o ur f urther study. U nique f orms or f orms p ertinent to c larifying a p articular point o f the d iscussion o f

t he

will

f ollowing

be

i llustrated

a nalysis.

5 7

at

t he

appropriate

points

F igure 1 T RUDE D OTHAN 'S PRINCIPAL VESSEL FORMS FORMS

OF PHILISTINE POTTERY

WITH MYCENAEAN PROTOTYPES

1-8

4

3

2

B

6

EGYPTIAN PROTOTYPE

FORMS RELATED TO CYPRIOTE FORMS 9-11

9

‚ I

t o

1 2

5 8

1 2

F igure 1 2

1 5

1 4

1 6

1 8

1 7

1 3-16

PHILISTINE VESSEL FORMS FROM CANAANITE PROTOTYPES

1 7-18

LATE

' DEGENERATE"

FORMS

5 9

F igure 1 3

P A IN TED M O T IFS O F P H IL IST IN E P OT T ERY

N YCDALA a

? A MU .E I .S

9 i W

h k

I

6 Q

9

1

1 0

/

2

F igure 1 4 T ype O ne B ow ls T ype T wo K raters

6 1

F igure 1 5

2

T ype S ix S trainer J ars

i l

2

• •

6

T ype T hree S t irrup J ars 6 2

__ _

•

4 __•

•

F igure 1 6

T ype S even F eed ing B ott les

S

A mphor is koi

P yx id es

3

P inched w aist P yxi s

2

P inched w aist v esse ls

T ype S eventeen S tra iner J ars

6 3

F igure 1

2

3

T ype N ine . B ott les

' ! •

2 1

T ype E ighteen

6 4

K raters

F igure 1 8

o n

D an . H azor,

MA IN S ITES A bu H awam

W ITH PH IL IST INE J WARE

Sea s of Galilee

• Kef S an

H arb& J q asls o qneam

-

. 1 •R hi. •R e a la .

A fula

D or

M egiddo Z eror

Mediterranean

B eth S han

Sea

T u Iu l e d-Dahab I . . D eir A l a A phek

Q as f le

I zbet S artah

S

G er isa

J affa

' A ior B ethel .R a s A bu H am id

S h i laf M or •

Q atp M a t •G ez er M iqne.

A shke lon

G az

H es i

.Nef als l.

‚ ( te il e l-Fu1) S hemeSh

B eth • S af i •

E ier S ippOr •

S heik e l-Arelf l1 •

0

L achish S

0 .

•B eth Z ur A it un

Q u fe 1tra

A jju clr e i B alah

a ror. W a laid ue J ene h

m alarav S har ia .

•H alT el i f l B elt M irsim

S.

Q ubur

i

-.

F arah •i uweyid

S e e

'

I 4 asbeh

• B atashi

A shdod

/

I

__ -' ieersheba

;

K AI K aSOS

'

k i n

6 5

D istribution

o f

P hilistine

Ware

I n

P alestine

F igure 1 8 indicates a ll of t he s ites a t which P hilistine Ware has been f ound, a s completely a s can b e determined at present. I t may not i nclude a ll f inds o f t he most recent survey work. The percentage o f P hilistine Ware at each s ite, i ts r ole at each s ite, a nd an evaluation o f the quality o f t he data available f or e ach s ite will be provided i n t he following , s et o f i ndividual s ite s ummaries. P ercentage f igures for o lder excavations will g enerally be based on t he records o f whole a nd restorable v essels f rom the s ite, s ince i t i s l ikely t hat these will not b e distorted by s elective s ampling t o the degree t hat t he s herd collection may be. I n the analysis o f recent excavations for which a good s ample o f pottery was available for s tudy the percentages a re generally based on r ims only, s ince experience in working with t he saved materials f rom s everal excavations i ndicates that t his i s t he most reliable measure o f t he p roportion of P hilistine Ware in the a ssemblage. I n collections of material which have a lready been s orted by the a rcheologists it i s apparent that t he s election of body s herds which h as been s aved often s ignificantly exaggerates the percentage o f p ainted or burnished sherds i n t he o riginal assemblage. Even when the r im s ample s aved i s l ess than 1 00%, t he r im collections do not show the preponderance of painted and burnished sherds which o ften c haracterizes the c ollection of body s herds which h as been s aved. I f body sherds are i ncluded in the p ercentage analysis of " raw" unsorted s amples d irect f rom t he field, t he percentage of painted wares l ike P hilistine W are will be understated, s ince sherds of l arge undecorated s torage j ars often make up a great percentage o f s uch collections. When only the rims are used, one i s able to r ecognize j oins more a ccurately and get a more accurate a ssessment o f the number o f vessels of e ach type. Some examples which i llustrate these principles will be g iven in the f ollowing s tudies o f s pecific excavations. The stratigraphy o f each s ite will not be analyzed i n detail here, s ince Trude Dothan has a lready covered this t horoughly in the English edition o f her s tandard work. Necessary references t o h er work and other s tudies will b e s upplied i n the endnotes a s n eeded. The main concern o f t his chapter i s a quantitative a nalysis o f the r ole o f P hilistine Ware at each s ite. S ites

i n

and

n ear

Philistia

U nfortunately, except f or A shdod, i nformation on t he f ive main cities o f the Philistines i s very l imited. They will nevertheless be l isted f irst because o f their i mportance i n the l iterary records.

6 6

Ashdod Ashdod i s t he most important s ite f or our s tudy, s ince it i s t he only one of the f ive chief c ities o f t he Philistines for which a major, modern excavation h as reached the stage of f inal publication. ( 153) I mportant additional material f rom the period during which Philistine Ware f lourished i s still being prepared for publication.

Ware not

" Mycenaean" pottery and small amounts o f Philistine occur in Stratum X III at Ashdod, but this stratum was included i n this quantitative study, because it

precedes

the

period when

Philistine

Ware

f lourished.

T he data i n this study i s based on an analysis of 2 553 rims from Strata X II and X I, Areas G and H , of this excavation. ( 154) This sample consists of a ll o f the rims which were saved from 4 4 l oci of Strata X II and X I. These these

44 two

l oci were chosen strata. ( 155)

at

random

f rom among

the

l oci

of

From Stratum X II, Area G , 1 35 of the 5 35 rims analyzed were c lassified as Philistine Ware. ( 25.2%) I n loci which produced at l east 1 0 r ims the percentage of Philistine Ware ranged from 2 .5% to 4 7%. This great range in t he percentage of Philistine Ware in individual l oci of a s tratum indicates the importance of u sing a broad s ample for a wide area in assessing the role of Philistine Ware at any site. From Stratum X II, Area H , 1 95 of 7 99 rims were classified as Philistine Ware. ( 24.4%). An additional 3 1 rims were classified as "Mycenaean." ( 3.9%) The percentage of pottery from this stratum showing " Aegean" influence would, therefore, be about 2 8.3%. Within individual l oci the percentage of Philistine Ware r anged from 1 3% to 3 8.9%. The total f or Stratum X II i s 3 30 of 1 334 rims classified as Philistine Ware. ( 24.7%) The 3 1 additional rims classified as " Mycenaean" would bring the total to 27.1%. F rom Stratum X I, Area H , 2 00 of 5 98 classified as Philistine. ( 33.4%) I ndividual from 2 .4% to 6 6.7% Philistine Ware.

rims were l oci ranged

F rom Stratum X I, Area G , 9 5 of 4 63 r ims were classified as Philistine Ware. ( 20.5%). The percentage of P hilistine Ware in i ndividual l oci varied f rom 4 .8% to 50%. F or Stratum X I a s a whole 2 95 classified as Philistine Ware. ( 27.8%) F or Strata X II and X I which were typologically Philistine Ware. ( 27.4%)

of

1 061

r ims

were

together 6 56 of the 2 395 r ims c lear were c lassified as

6 7

I n strata,

this study Stratum X I, yielded a s lightly h igher

t he l ater o f the t wo percentage of P hilistine

Ware than Stratum X II, the earlier of the t wo. This appears to be due to the chances o f s ampling, n ot to a ny s ignificant difference between the two s trata. In t he s ample used for this s tudy the variation i n the p ercentage of Philistine Ware i s greater between Areas G a nd H ( 23% vs. 3 0.5%) than i t i s between Strata X II and X I ( 27.1% v s. 2 7.8%) A f igure of about 2 7%, p lus or minus a f ew points, s eems to be a fairly reliable statement of the role o f Philistine Ware in these two strata at Ashdod. The excavator attempted to s ave a proportionate sample of t he rims of these strata. The natural t endency to s ave more painted pieces to i llustrate the f ull variety o f painted patterns could have exaggerated the percentage o f Philistine Ware to a small degree, but this does not appear to be a s ignificant factor i n the r im s ample from Ashdod. A difference of opinion between two pottery ana -lysts as to which pottery should be c lassified as P hilistine would, of course, a lso affect t he percentages. For example, in Stratum X II the dividing l ine between monochrome

" Mycenaean"

pottery

and monochrome

P hilistine

Ware i s debatable. This factor was minimized in this study by adding both types together as two s tages o f derivation from the s ame Aegean influence. There were 1 58 r ims which were not i ncluded in the f igures above because extreme wear, smallness, or some other factor m ade their c lassification doubtful. Even i f a ll of these doubtful specimens were c lassified as Philistine Ware, the percentage of Philistine Ware would only be raised from 2 7.4% to 3 1.7%. Because the random, accidents but the size of this possibility.

l oci of the

for this s ample were chosen a t s ampling could distort the sample, s ample i s l arge enough to m inimize

As a double check on the r im s ample, 1 05 whole vessels which are i llustrated in the published material o r the excavator s cards for Strata X II and X I, Areas G and H , were a lso analyzed. Thirty-two of c lassified as Philistine Ware. ( 30.5%) corresponds quite c losely with the r esult of based on rims only.

these were This result the a nalysis

On the basis of a ll of these f actors i t appears that 2 7% i s a good approximation of the role of Philistine Ware i n Strata X II and X I at Ashdod. This percentage i s s ignificantly higher than any other s ite analyzed. Of t he s ites for which a adequate amount of material i s a vailable only the early stages of Tel Qasile and Sharia approach this

f igure.

( 156)

6 8

Tel

Miqne/Ekron

Tel Miqne, 1 8 km. east of Ashdod, i s i dentified a s t he Philistine c ity o f Ekron with a high degree o f probability. I t i s reported to be the l argest I ron Age t ell in I srael, covering 5 0 acres. Two s easons o f l imited t rial excavation and one major s eason have prepared the way for ten years of p lanned excavations. ( 157) In the l imited area excavated i n the t rial s easons Philistine Ware occurred i n Phases 9 , , 8 , 7 . Mycenaean I lICib a lso occurred i n some l oci of phases 9 and 8 . The mud bricks of P hase 9 produced a l arge number o f EB, MB, and LB sherds, i ncluding some f rom the very end of the LB. The sealed f ill o f the artificial s lope, which contained a s ignificant number of EB, MB, and LB sherds a lso contained s ome Myc. I IIC1b and Philistine forms. Phase 8 C produced a homogenous a ssemblage of I ron Age IA coarse wares. The f ills above 8 C a nd below 8B contained the s ame I ron Age I A coarse wares and some Myc. l ilCib s herds, but no definite Philistine bichrome material. The Phase 8 B architectural e lements contained an unusually l arge s ample of Myc. I lICib forms and a f ew Philistine sherds. Only i n Phase 8 A were a s ignificant number of Philistine Ware s herds found. The excavators concluded that Phase 8 can be a ssigned to the 1 2th-11th centuries and that Myc. l ilCib both preceded a nd co-existed with Philistine bichrome ware. This overlap repeats the pattern discovered a t Ashdod. The l atest pottery of phase 7 was I ron Age I , i ncluding both coarse wares and an unusually high concentration of Philistine ceramic forms. Ekron may make it possible t o development of material. ( 158)

outline Philistine

the full s equence of the Ware f rom well-stratified

It appears that the proportion of Philistine Ware at Miqne may be s imilar to that at Ashdod, but no f irm conclusions can b e drawn until full-scale excavations have been carried out and r eported. The p lanned excavations at Tel Miqne s hould provide a major i ncrease i n our knowledge of the development of the Philistine material culture. Ashkelon/Tell

e i

K hadra

It i s not possible to derive any quantitative i nformation from the published material f rom Ashkelon, except the presence o f Philistine Ware at t he s ite. ( 159) Stratum VI contains Philistine Ware, most o f which appears t o belong to Dothan's phase 1 . There i s not adequate i nformation to make any a ssessment of the role o f Philistine Ware at this s ite. I t i s not a lways c lear i f the whole vessels published are actually f rom A shkelon, or i f they merely i llustrate the types of material f ound there. The l ack of l ate Philistine Ware here may be s ignificant, but it may s imply be a reflection o f the very l imited area excavated. Renewed excavations at A shkelon 6 9

should s ite.

s oon

Gaza/Tell

remedy

the

l ack

o f

data

f rom

this

i mportant

Harube

The very l imited excavation and minimal publication of Pythian-Adams' work at Gaza make i t impossible t o base any f irm conclusions on these f inds. The l imited amount of Philistine Ware found here s eems t o be l ate material. ( 160) Gath/Tell

es-Safi?

The i dentification of Philistine Gath with Tell e s-Safi i s generally accepted today, but the i dentification has not been proven. This question w ill be discussed further in the s ection on Tell Sheik e l Areini. B liss and Macalister reported a s ubstantial amount of i nteresting Philistine material f rom es-Safi, but the materials are not published adequately enough t o be useful for quantitative study and evaluation. ( 161) We proper, Tell

will which

Fara

now examine other s ites i n and near Philistia had excavations of major s ignificance.

South/Sharuhen

Tell e l Fara S i s best known a s the s ite of t he five chamber tombs which Petrie called t he Tombs of the Lords of the Philistines. Four of these tombs contained Philistine Ware, and two of them contained anthropoid clay coffins which will be discussed i n a l ater chapter o f this thesis. These tombs were the subject of the most detailed computer analysis of an assemblage containing Philistine Ware which has been published to date. ( 162) I n this study Thomas McClellan analyzed 1 6 t omb assemblages from Fara. His goal was to determine the chronological relationship of these tombs. Of g reatest importance to our study are four of the " Tombs of the Lords o f the Philistines" ( Tombs 5 32, 5 42, 5 52, 5 62). According to McClellan the percentage of Philistine Ware in these four t ombs i s 4 %, 1 1.3%, 6 .3%, and 5 .7% respectively. McClellan's analysis was based on v essel shape only, not on decoration. Since " Philistine" v essel forms sometimes occur in undecorated examples, McClellan believed t hat the percentage of decorated Philistine Ware i n these tombs probably did not exceed a 5 % average. Tell Sharuhen,

e i i s

Fara, i n the

which i s usually i dentified with southern part o f Philistia proper, 2 4

kilometers south of Gaza, so the comparatively small percentage of Philistine Ware in these tombs in the midst of the Philistine period i s somewhat surprising. Even in the repertoire of painted pottery from these t ombs, vessels decorated with s imple bands were more common than distinctive Philistine patterns. ( 163) The size o f the s ample i s over 2 00 vessels, so t he results should be 7 0

significant. The greatest question marks about McClellan's results are the reliability o f P etrie's records of the excavation, which are s cattered among three different volumes, the effect of McClellan's decision t o use vessel form as his only criterion for defining Philistine Ware, and the amount of t ime spanned by the burials in s ome o f the t ombs, especially 5 42. I t should be noted that the Series 9 00 burials f rom Fara, which extend past the t ime of Ramses I II according to M cClellan's s eriation, and which contain s carabs of Ramses IV and VI, contain no Philistine Ware, but t hey do contain a f ew stirrup j ars and pyxides with non-Philistine decoration and part of one anthropoid coffin. ( 164) M cClellan's quantitative data f rom the stratified deposits of the t ell i s l ess s atisfactory. McClellan analyzed the whole vessels of s trata Z Z, Y , X , and V a s part of his quantitative s tudies of the I ron Age pottery of P alestine. ( 165) I t i s very striking that in h is quantitative study of about 1 43 whole vessels f rom t hese levels McClellan d id not report one bowl, jug, or j ar decorated i n distinctly Philistine style. ( 166) Most o f the p ainted ware in these assemblages, s uch a s pilgrim flasks, i s decorated i n the same s imple style as the decorated pottery of Beth Shan 6 and Megiddo 6 and 6A. McClellan acknowledged that there were decorated Philistine sherds at Fara, especially i n S tratum Y , but commented that a quantitative analysis o f these was not available. McClellan's computor seriation of these strata led him t o p lace s trata Y , X , and V j ust a fter tombs 552, 5 62, and 5 32, but before tomb 5 42. ( 167) I t is, t herefore, surprising to f ind so l ittle Philistine Ware i n these strata. Of the s tandard Philistine forms McClellan's s ample for Stratum Y does contain 4 .4% undecorated horizontal l oop-handled bowls and 4 .4% s tirrup jars. The data t ables indicate that 4 .4% represents 2 vessels out of an a ssemblage of 4 5 whole vessels. I n Stratum X , horizontal l oop-handled bowls account for 5 .2% of the whole vessels of the stratum, and pyxoid vessels of two types totaled 3 .4% of this s tratum. Each 1 . 7% represents one vessel in an assemblage of 5 9. Stratum V has 7 .9% of the " Philistine" horizontal handled bowls, and 2 .6% pyxides. Each 2 .6% represents one vessel out of an assemblage of 3 9. According t o McClellan' s study the Philistine vessel forms i n these three strata average l ess than 1 0%, a result consistent with t he tomb results. Questions have been raised about the validity of McClellan' s work because he apparently did not s ee the material, but was dependent on the quality of P etrie's records, and because his results and conclusions deny the importance of Philistine Ware at F ara. The material f rom Fara was restudied for this thesis on the basis o f Petrie's and Duncan's r ecords and the material and records 7 1

which remain i n the Rockefeller Museum i n Jerusalem. These results were cross-checked against T rude Dothan's l istings of Philistine Ware from Fara to s ee i f she reported any additional Philistine material f rom F ara on the b asis o f her s tudy o f the material now i n London. The results o f this restudy agree quite c losely with McClellan's percentages o f Philistine Ware for the Fara tombs. Tombs 5 52 and 5 62 are the two tombs which c ontained anthropoid coffins. McClellan's s tudy reported 6 .35% Philistine Ware i n Tomb 5 52. The study made f or this dissertation c lassified 6 .5-8.7% of the pottery a s Philistine Ware. ( 46 vessels, 3 Philistine, 1 questionable) McClellan reported 5 .7% Philistine W are i n Tomb 5 62. This present study c lassified 7 .3-9.8% a s Philistine Ware. ( 41-3-1) McClellan c lassified 4 % of the pottery of Tomb 5 32 Philistine Ware. This study found 4 .3% Philistine Ware.

a s

The most important tomb i s 5 42. Here M cClellan reported 1 1.3% Philistine Ware. Tnis study c lassified 9 .6-12.04% of the pottery of this tomb a s Philistine Ware. ( 83 vessels, 8 Philistine, 2 debatable) The eight v essels decorated i n Philistine s tyle included 6 bowls, 1 beer jug, and 1 Egyptian style j ar. I n addition there was 1 undecorated beer j ug and 1 undecorated Philistine style bowl. There were s ome unresolved discrepancies b etween McClellan's s tudy and this present study a s to the exact number of vessels from each tomb, but no evidence was found for s ignificant quantities of additional Philistine Ware from these tombs which had been missed by McClellan. His conclusion that a ll of the tombs except 542 c ontain l ess then 1 0% Philistine Ware seems j ustified on t he basis of the evidence presently available. On the basis o f this pottery evidence it i s possible to dispute whether these tombs are t rue Philistine burials or non-Philistine burials which incorporate a certain amount of Philistine pottery obtained through t rade or s ome other means. We will return to this question in the chapter on Philistine burials. On

the

other

hand,

this

present

study

raises doubts

about McClellan's conclusions concerning the stratified material at Fara. McClellan c lassified 8 .8% o f the vessels of Stratum Y as undecorated Philistine Ware. ( 168) In the restudy of Petrie's register, Duncan' s d rawings, and Beth P elet I I, which was made for this thesis, 6 6 whole vessels from Stratum Y were found. Nine o f these were c lassified a s Philistine Ware. Two more were questionable. ( 13.6%-16.7% Philistine Ware) ( 169) This figure i s higher than McClellan's a nd i ncludes decorated Philistine

of

Ware,

I t appears Philistine

mostly that Ware

bowls. McClellan understated t he importance i n Stratum Y . What caused this 7 2

discrepancy? McClellan may s imply have m issed s ome o f the Philistine Ware i n Petrie's records o f Stratum Y . Vessel YX365 on P late LXXVI of Beth P elet I I i s c learly Philistine Ware, but McClellan does not mention i t. Because McClellan's main i nterest was chronology, he chose not t o use material f rom p its s ince t his could confuse his results. By chance much of the decorated Philistine pottery from Fara Y comes from pits. Stratum D on the south part of the t ell, which corresponds to the Philistine s trata o n the north, a lso produced s ome painted Philistine vessels. McClellan did not use this material. At F ara McClellan's s ample of whole vessels appears t o have b een too small to be t ruly representative, with the result that an accident o f sampling distorted his results. ( 170) McClellan's typology for Philistine bowls and Egyptian style wide-neck j ars i s not sharp enough, and this a lso causes s ome problems i n his data. I n classifying Philistine bowls McClellan relied t oo heavily on t he criterion of horizontal handles. S ince these handles continue a s a r egular f eature on the " degenerate" bowls which follow the main period of decorated Philistine Ware a nd s ince M cClellan's typology does not a dequately or consistently distinguish the two types, his computer seriation may p lace Tombs l ike 5 42, which has a high percentage of horizontal-handled bowls, too l ate i n the seriation, because the high percentage of horizontal handles in Tomb 5 42 l inks i t with the f requency of horizontal handles on the l ate bowls of Stratum V 1 even though these bowls are not i dentical i n s tyle or time period. F or Stratum X McClellan reported a maximum o f 8 .6% Philistine vessel forms, 3 horizontal-handled bowls and 2 pyxides in an a ssemblage of 5 9 vessels. The present restudy concluded t hat a maximum of 6 .8% of the pottery of this s tratum could be c lassified as Philistine Ware i n the strict s ense of the t erm. I n summary, M cClellan's conclusion that Philistine Ware c omprises l ess than 1 0% of the pottery f rom the "Tombs of the Lords o f the Philistines" s eems j ustified. However, the Philistine Ware f rom Stratum Y may run c loser to 1 5% than t o the minimal presence s uggested by McClellan. I n S tratum X the amount of distinctly decorated Philistine pottery seems to drop o ff sharply, but t he "Philistine" i nfluence on vessel form continues. These results concerning the stratified pottery are more doubtful than the r esults concerning the tombs, because of the l ack of a r epresentative sherd collection to double-check the r esults based on the very l imited number of whole vessels f rom t he s trata. Tell

Q asile

T ell Qasile i s l ocated north of Tel Aviv on the north shore o f the Yarkon R iver. I t i s, therefore, on the northern fringes o f Philistia. I t i s best known f or the temples which were f ound i n the s ame strata a s the 7 3

Philistine

Ware.

This s tudy i s based on the pottery published b y Amihai Mazar i n his Hebrew dissertation on the excavations at Tell Qasile. This material will be published i n English i n a forthcoming volume o f t he Qedem Series. ( 171) A ll of the whole vessels f rom the s ite were published, except for some s torage j ars which were near duplicates o f others which were published. A ll of t he r ims were s aved. Mazar had a lready made quantitative studies o f the Philistine Ware of Strata X II-X f or h is dissertation, but the f igures i n independent study, vessel types. The Mazar ' 5 . I n including

this dissertation are based on a n using different typology f or some results correspond very closely t o

Strata X II-X 5 9 which are

there were 4 39 whole v essels, distinct Philistine Ware and 1 7

which are probable Philistine Ware. ( 13.4%-17.3% Philistine Ware) When the analysis i s based on a ll . rims, including both whole vessels and s herds, there a re 8 52 pieces, 1 24 Philistine Ware, and 3 8 probable Philistine Ware. ( 14.6%-19% Philistine Ware) Analysis to

the

l atest

of

each

stratum

produces

the

individually

following

Stratum X II produced were Philistine. ( 13.3%) Philistine Ware, 1 1

f rom

the

e arliest

r esults.

3 0

whole vessels, 4 o f which There were 1 79 r ims, 4 0 probable Philistine Ware.

( 22.3%-28.5%) The percentage of 3 19 was somewhat l ower than courtyard and other l oci.

Philistine Ware i n Temple the percentage i n the

Stratum X I had 1 49 whole vessels, 2 0 Philistine Ware. ( 13.4%) There were 3 02 rims, 3 6 Philistine W are, 1 3 probable Philistine Ware. ( 11.9%-16.2%) I n this s tratum the percentage of Philistine Ware was highest in the courtyard. Temple 2 00 itself had the l owest percentage, l argely because of the l arge number of small votive bowls in this l ocus. Temple 3 00 which was Stratum X I-X had 1 3 whole Philistine Ware. ( 15.4%)

c lassified vessels,

as 2

transitional of which were

Stratum X had 2 47 whole vessels, 3 7 Philistine W are, 7 probable Philistine Ware. ( 14.97%-17.8%) There w ere 3 58 rims, 4 6 Philistine Ware, 1 4 probable Philistine Ware. ( 12.8%-16.8%) A notable f eature of t his stratum was Locus 1 88, a s ort of r epository i n Temple 1 31, which contained a l arge percentage o f the P hilistine Ware in the t emple and in the s tratum as a whole. The l arge number o f s torage jars f rom House 2 25 i s another f actor t o be considered when evaluating the s ignificance o f the percentages from this stratum. The statistics i n t his paragraph i nclude storage j ars l isted i n Mazar's records, but not drawn.

7 4

T here a s ignificant decline i n the percentage o f Philistine Ware f rom Stratum X II to the following two strata. However, t he small s ize o f the s ample for S tratum X II a nd the substantial p resence of small votive bowls and storage j ars in Strata X I and X may account for s ome o f the d ifference. The special provenance of the Qasile material, namely, s uccessive constructions o f a t emple and its e nvirons, i s a nother factor that must be considered i n weighing the s ignificance of the data f rom Qasile. The percentage of Philistine Ware i n Stratum X II ( approximately 2 4%) would p lace Qasile nearly i n the r ange of t he prime Philistine strata at Ashdod. The l ower percentages of Strata X I and X ( approximately 1 4%) f all closer to the range of the l ater material f rom Sharia.

test

T he the

material from Qasile offered an opportunity quantitative methodology used i n this s tudy

t o by

comparing analyses which were based only on whole vessels with analyses based on a ll of t he rims s aved. For whole strata and other l arge s ubdivisions of the collection from Qasile there was no s ignificant difference i n the percentage of Philistine Ware whether the analysis was based on whole vessels or r ims. The most notable exception was Stratum X II for which the percentage of Philistine Ware was s ignificantly higher when based on rim count. This i s probably due to the f act that the number o f whole vessels f rom Stratum X II was too small to f orm an adequate sample. For many individual l oci the number of whole vessels i s too small to be used as a means of comparing l oci with each other. The difference between analyses based on whole vessels and those based on r ims only i s more s ignificant if o ne i s trying to determine the number of vessels of various types i n a given a ssemblage. Kraters and cooking pots t end to be under-represented i n s tatistics based on whole vessels, rather than r ims. Surprisingly, l arge storage jars are often proportionately represented i n data based on "whole vessels", probably because they often receive special attention in restoration efforts. ( In this d issertation the t erm "whole vessels" a lways i ncludes restored vessels.) Juglets, f lasks, stirrup j ars, l amps, and b owls t end t o be over-represented i n s tatistics based on whole vessels only, compared to statistics based on rims only. These generalizations will not hold for every sample because of the peculiarities of individual s amples and different r estoration p ractices of different excavators, but they are useful to keep i n mind when comparing s tatistics based on whole vessels with statistics based on rim counts. Q asile has a wide variety of vessel forms of Philistine Ware, i ncluding s ome forms not f ound e lsewhere. As i n all Philistine Ware a ssemblages, bowls a re the most common type of Philistine Ware at Qasile. ( 47.4%) Bell kraters and s tirrup j ars are a lso relatively common. ( 15.3% and 1 0.2%) " Degenerate Style" vertical-handled kraters make-up another 4 .4%. Strainer-spouted j ugs occur 7 5

both i n the vertical handle and basket handle v arieties. ( 4.3% and 3 .6%) Some o f t hese s trainer j ars have u nusual stirrup-basket handles. Dothan's t ypes which occur as a s ingle vessel or i n small quantities i nclude the f eeding bottle, the Cypriote bottles, and an unusual s tyle o f pinched-waist vessel. Vessels which are not included i n Dothan's standard typology, but which occur at Qasile with Philistine s tyle decoration i nclude f lasks, g lobular goblets, an amphoriskos, a rhyton, a cult stand, and a hollow-rimmed cultic bowl. Of more than 4 0 only 3 have distinctive Philistine decoration.

cult v essels

As at most s ites, the white s lip which i s often cited as a main characteristic of Philistine Ware occurs frequently on " non-Philistine" vessel forms at Q asile, especially on the cyma r immed bowls. The Philistine Ware of Qasile quality decoration of the c lassical This style survived i nto Stratum

features m uch high Philistine s tyle. X in considerable

quantity. This r aises the question whether this s tyle was produced l onger at Qasile than at many other sites, or i f the s tyle survived due to special care in a temple setting. This writer favors the l atter a lternative, especially s ince the c lassical Philistine Ware i s absent or nearly absent from the residential areas w hich are contemporary with the t emple of Stratum X . These areas were excavated i n the earlier excavations of B . Mazar. An a lternate explanation i s that this d iscrepancy may be due to ethnic differences i n different quarters of t he town during Stratum X . ( 172) Perhaps the renewed excavations at Tell Qasile will c larify this question. Tell

on

Sharia Tell Sharia i s a small tell of about 4 acres, l ocated the Nahal Gerar, 2 7 km. east of Gaza. Z iklag i s its

suggested i dentification. The tell was occupied a lmost continuously from 1 600 B .C. to 6 00 A .D. Philistine Ware occurs in Stratum V III. There i s no Philistine Ware reported in l oci which are definitely from Stratum IX. Stratum I X Ramses I II.

may ( 173)

end

a s

l ate

as

the

twenty-second year

o f

The data in this study i s based on an examination o f 3 683 sherds from 5 2 l oci of Stratum V III.(174) O f these 3 683 sherds 2 24 were c learly Philistine Ware, and a nother 1 31 were c lassified a s probable Philistine Ware. This gives a f igure o f 6 .1% to 9 .6% Philistine Ware for S tratum VIII as a whole. I f the analysis i s based on rims only, the percentage i s somewhat higher. Out of 1 341 r ims, 1 50 were c lassified as Philistine Ware, 6 0 as p robable Philistine Ware. This gives a range of 1 1.2% t o 1 5.7% Philistine Ware. The analysis based on r ims o nly i s regarded

as

the

better

measure,

collection contains many storage for possible restoration. The disproportionate t o the assemblage and dilutes the

because

total

sherd

j ar body fragments saved number of s uch s herds i s

number of percentage 7 6

the

s uch vessels i n the o f Philistine W are.

data

Stratum V III may concerning t hese

be divided i nto four phases. The four phases must be r egarded a s

tentative, since the i ntensive study of Stratum V III i n preparation for publication was j ust beginning at the t ime of t his s tudy. I f the pottery o f Stratum V III i s analyzed phase by phase, from earliest to l atest, the results a re as f ollows: I n Phase Four 3 3 of 3 21 s herds were c lassified a s Philistine Ware, with 1 6 probable Philistine Ware. ( 10.3%-15.3%) Of 1 73 r ims 2 2 were Philistine Ware a nd 9 probable Philistine Ware. ( 11.7%-17.96%) I n Phase Three 8 4 of 6 30 s herds were Philistine Ware, 36 p robable Philistine Ware. ( 13.3%-19.0%) Of 2 52 r ims 5 8 were Philistine Ware, 5 probable. ( 23%-25%) I n Ware, rims, Ware.

Phase Two there were 1 024 sherds, 4 7 Philistine 26 probable Philistine Ware. ( 4.6%-7. 1%) Of 3 65 27 were Philistine Ware, 1 8 probable Philistine ( 7.4%-12.3%)

I n Phase One there were 5 78 sherds, 1 8 Philistine Ware, and 2 4 probable Philistine Ware. ( 3.1%-7.3%) There were 2 31 rims, 1 6 Philistine Ware, and 1 5 probable Philistine Ware. ( 6.9%-13.4%) The percentage of Philistine Ware increases from Phase Four to Phase Three, but decreases quite sharply in Phases Two and One. The s ame pattern occurs both in the loci of the " four-room house" of Stratum VIII and i n other loci o f the stratum. The Philistine Ware of Sharia differs s ignificantly from the Philistine Ware of Strata X II and X I at Ashdod. White s lip i s abundant in a ll four phases at Sharia, but painted motifs such as spirals are rare in a ll four phases. The 3 55 p ieces of Philistine Ware f rom our sample are c lassified a s follows: white s lip only--51.8%, white surface--1.1%, white s lip and painted l ines--25.6%, painted motifs, s uch as spirals--5.9%, red s lip--5.9%, undecorated--6.5%, other--2.8%. Most of the white s lip i s thin, of poor quality. This s lip occurs quite often on vessel f orms which are not traditional " Philistine" forms. For this reason body sherds which have white s lip without decoration cannot be classified as definite Philistine Ware. This i s the main reason for the high percentage of sherds l isted a s probably Philistine Ware i n this study. A ll white-slipped sherds in the s ample studied were c lassified a s Philistine Ware or probable Philistine Ware, unless it was certain that the vessel f orm in question was not one of the standard Philistine Ware vessel f orms. When this procedure was followed, there were s till 1 9 white s lip sherds and 1 8 white surface sherds among the 1 256 sherds of t he four room house which were c lassified as 7 7

non-Philistine. The possibility that t he many u npainted, white-slipped sherds j ust happen to come f rom areas of the vessel which were between the painted motifs d oes not offer an adequate explanation for the l ow percentage o f Philistine painted motifs at Sharia. Only 2 1 o f t he 3 55 Philistine Ware sherds in our s ample have distinctive Philistine painted motifs, such a s spirals. ( 5.9%) Even i f the 2 1 Philistine painted motifs are a llotted only t o the 2 10 Philistine Ware rims i n our sample, only 1 0% o f the Philistine Ware rims have painted motifs. ( 175) Since the painted motifs on Philistine Ware bowls generally come very c lose to the rim, the motifs should be v isible o n most bowl rim f ragments i f the vessels were painted with distinct motifs. The t endency toward u npainted white-slipped vessels at Sharia i s a lso supported by the only two whole vessels with white s lip in t he sample studied. Both of these were white-slipped bowls without any other decoration. ( 176) Twenty-one spirals or connected spirals were t he only painted Philistine motifs which occurred i n the s am 1e o f 3 683 sherds s tudied for this dissertation. The concentric semi-circle motif does occur on one or two sherds from Sharia which were not a part of our sample. ( 177) There was not a s ingle example of b lack and red paint o n white s lip in the 3 683 sherds studied. This style does o ccur a t Sharia outside of our sample, but it appears to b e extremely rare at Sharia. ( 178) As at other s ites, the great majority of P hilistine Ware sherds from Sharia belong to bowls. Thick kraters are surprisingly rare i n our sample compared to many other s ites. There i s one strainer spout, decorated with thick white s lip and red paint. Two nicely decorated r ims may come from s imilar vessels. Burnished strainer spouts also occur. ( 179) There i s one mouth of a horn-shaped bottle, decorated with thick white s lip and r ed paint. ( 180) There are two pieces of pinched-waist v essels. ( 181) One i s decorated with white s lip, but n o paint. The other has a double pinched-waist and i s decorated with reddish s lip. Neither has a Philistine style painted motif. There i s one spout of the " feeding bottle" type. ( 182) None of Dothan's other t ypes appeared in our sample. I f doubtful

the

Philistine

l oci

omitted)

,

Ware the

i s

analyzed by

results

a re

as

phases

( with

follows:

Phase 4 : 3 6 sherds, 6 3.9% white s lip only, 2 .8% white surface, 1 6.7% white s lip and painted bands, 5 .6% s pirals, 5 .6% red s lip, 2 .8% undecorated, 2 .8% other. Phase

3 :

1 45

sherds,

white surface, 3 3.8% spirals, 4 .1% red s lip,

only,

1 .4%

white s lip a nd painted bands, 2 .1% undecorated, 2 .1% other.

5 2.4%

4 .1%

7 8

white

s lip

Phase 2 : 7 3 sherds, 5 4.8% white s lip and painted bands, 2 .7% 6 .8% undecorated, 5 .5% other. Phase 1 : 4 2 surface, 1 4.3% spirals, 7 .1% red

white s lip only, spirals, 9 .6% red

2 0.5% s lip,

s herds, 4 7.6% white s lip only, 2 .4% white white s lip and painted bands, 1 1.9% s lip, 1 4.3% undecorated, 2 .4% other.

There i s s ome decline in the ratio of white s lip to decoration of other types on vessels of " Philistine" f orm toward the end of Stratum VIII, but the decline i s not drastic. The percentage of the Philistine Ware forms with painted decoration does not decline sharply. There i s, i n fact, a rise i n the percentage of spiral motifs in the last phase, but t his i s probably an accident of s ampling. The percentage o f red s lip on distinctly Philistine vessel forms does not i ncrease sharply in the l ater phases of Stratum VIII, but red s lip does i ncrease its share of the whole ceramic repertoire of Stratum VIII. This i s reflected in the following study of the percentage of red s lip and burnish on the bowls o f Stratum VIII. For this s tudy, only the bowl rims from the area of the four-room house were used. Body sherds were not used for this analysis, because decorated and burnished body sherds were s aved i n disproportionate amounts compared to plain body sherds. An analysis based on body sherds would yield a much higher percentage o f red-burnished ware than the f ollowing count based on rims only:

3 .2% red

Phase red s lip

4 : 3 1 bowl rims, 5 1.6% p lain, 3 2.2% Philistine, s lip i nterior, 9 .7% red s lip in and out, ( total 1 2.9%) 3 .2% brown s lip. 6 .5% of the r ims were

burnished. P hase 3 : 4 9 bowl rims, 4 4.9% p lain, 2 8.6% Philistine, 22.4% red s lip i n and out, 2 % brown s lip, 2 % other. 4 % of the r ims were burnished. P hase 2 : 1 45 bowl r ims, 3 3.1% p lain, 2 0% Philistine, 1 .4% red s lip i nterior, 4 .1% red s lip exterior, 2 4.1% red slip in and out, ( total r ed s lip 2 9.6%) 1 3.8% brown s lip, 3 .4%

other.

1 9.3%

of

the

rims

were burnished.

P hase 1 .7% red red s lip

1 : 1 18 bowl r ims, 5 0% p lain, 1 3.6% Philistine, s lip exterior, 2 2.7% red s lip in and out, ( total 2 3.7%) 7 .6% brown s lip, 4 .2% other. 3 2.2% of the

rims were

burnished.

In

this

s ample

there

i s

a decline

i n

the

percentage

of " Philistine" bowl rims in the l ater phases of the stratum. The p ercentage of red s lipped bowl r ims increases in the l ater phases of the stratum. However, the most notable change i s the i ncrease i n the percentage of

b urnishing

VIII

The as

i n

t he

l ater

phases

of

the

s tratum.

figure of about 1 5% Philistine Ware i n Stratum a whole would p lace Sharia in the upper r anks of 7 9

sites yielding Philistine Ware, but s ignificantly b ehind such key strata as Ashdod X II and X I and Qasile X II. However, the early phases o f Stratum V III at S haria surpass Strata X I and X at Qasile. The most significant difference between Sharia V III and t hese other s trata i s the relative s carcity of distinctive Philistine p ainted motifs at Sharia. This difference i s u sually explained by assigning Sharia V III to a l ater date than t he prime Philistine strata at Ashdod and Q asile. However, the question whether some of the difference may be due t o the l ocation and nature of the s ites, rather t han to chronological difference, needs f urther study. Even Stratum X at Qasile retains a s ignificant proportion of painted motifs i n comparison with Sharia. Tel

Haror

( Abu

Huera)

Tel Haror i s a new excavation of Ben Gurion University which follows up on their work at S haria. I t is l ocated in southern Philistia, west of Sharia. Gerar i s its suggested identification. I t i s too early to d raw any definite conclusions from the l imited excavation s o far. However, the role of Philistine Ware at Haror appears to be s imilar to that at Sharia. The percentage of Philistine Ware in the pottery of the f irst s eason a ppears to be comparatively l ow. Late, r ed-slipped Philistine Ware s eems to be the main type, but the bichrome o n white s lip style does occur. Further excavation and study will be necessary before the s ituation at Tel Haror c an be evaluated more accurately. ( 183) Tel

Ma' aravim

Tel Ma'aravim i s a small daughter s ite, 1 .5 km. from Tell Sharia. Only 1 0 days of excavation were conducted at the s ite. Phase 2 , which was badly damaged, produced l ate Philistine Ware and band-burnished pottery. No " early Philistine" pottery was reported. The role of Philistine Ware at Ma' aravim appears to be s imilar to that at S haria. ( 184) Tel

Gerisa Tel

Gerisa

i s

a 1 0

acre

t ell

on

t he

south bank o f

the

Yarkon, across from Tell Qasile. I t i s, therefore, a t the northern edge of Philistia proper. No i nformation has been made available from the excavations conducted by Sukenik between 1 927 and 1 951. The statistics i n this study are based on a study of material from the c urrent excavations by Tel Aviv University. ( 185) The "Philistine" inhabitations s eem to be small agricultural settlements on the northern and s outhern crests o f the tell. ( 186) The data in this study must be considered as offering only a preliminary i dea of t he role of Philistine Ware at Tel Gerisa, s ince analysis of the pottery and stratigraphy i s i n the very early stages. Pottery

f rom

1 6

of

the

main 8 0

Philistine Ware

l oci

was

analyzed for this s tudy. ( 187) Of 5 97 r ims 2 6 w ere c lassified a s distinctive Philistine Ware, 3 1 a s probable Philistine Ware. ( 4.4%-9.5%) I f a ll diagnostic s herds were i ncluded , the f igures were 1 038-45-42. ( 4.3%-8.4% Philistine Ware) S ince many of the l oci s tudied were still in the f ield bags and were unsorted l oci f or restoration, it was possible to compare three calculations of the percentage o f Philistine Ware for many of t he l oci: an analysis based on rims a lone, a second b sed on diagnostic sherds of the s ort that would probably be kept in a sorted assemblage, and a third analysis based on a count of a ll sherds excavated. This comparison reinforced the c onviction that an analysis based on r ims i s the most meaningful statistic for comparing s ites with each other. I f the study of these 1 6 b ci was based on a ll sherds excavated and s aved until the completion o f restoration, the g reat number of f ragments f rom l arge s torage j ars i n restoration l oci would reduce the percentage of Philistine Ware t o l ess than 1 %. The analysis based on r ims gives a more a ccurate picture of the number of vessels of each type and a more accurate comparis'n of restoration an non-restoration l oci. M uch of the Philistine Ware at Gerisa i s of t he red s lip or undecorated varieties which Dothan c lassifies a s l ate. The vertical-handled type 1 8 krater i s a typical form. However, white-slipped sherds, decorated with standard bichrome or monochrome Philistine motifs a lso occur. T he comparatively l ow percentage of Philistine Ware, even i n comparison to Stratum X at nearby Tell Qasile raises the question of whether Tel Gerisa i s t ruly a Philistine settlement or whether the Philistine Ware may be due mainly to trade and perhaps some l ocal imitation, especially in the case of the red s lipped ware. Further excavation and s tudy are necessary before any f irm conclusions are possible.

Beth

S he r nesh

T he first s tep of Ware f rom Beth Shemesh vessels from Stratum I II

this analysis of the Philistine was a study of a ll of the whole which are pictured and described

in Grant' s Ain Shems IV, p lates 3 6-40 and 5 9-62. This group of 7 1 vessels contains 7 Philistine Ware vessels. ( 9.9%) I f 4 very doubtful specimens were c lassified as Philistine Ware, the percentage would be raised to 1 5.5%. ( 188) However the classification of even these 7 vessels as Philistine Ware i s based on a broad definition of Philistine Ware. None of these 7 vessels has the c lassic Philistine pattern of bichrome paint on white s lip. Three are bichrome on p lain surface, one monochrome on white, and three monochrome on p lain. ( The total percentage of painted ware of a ll types in this s ample was 3 1%. T herefore t he " non-Philistine" painted ware i s nearly double the " Philistine Ware.") 8 1

The

percentage

o f

Philistine Ware was

r ecalculated

by

including not only the whole vessels, but a lso a ll o f t he sherds from Stratum I II which are d escribed in t he f inal report. This was done to evaluate t he difference b etween the whole vessel and sherd samples i n an o lder s ite report. One might expect that the sherd s ample would be more biased to painted wares than t he whole vessel l ist. In this particular s ample this was not the case. There were 2 99 sherds, of which 3 3 were c lassified as Philistine Ware and 1 2 as probable Philistine Ware. ( 11.0%-15.1%) For rims a lone the figures would be 2 29 r ims, 2 1 Philistine Ware, and 9 probable Philistine Ware. ( 9.2%-13.1%) The percentages f rom a ll three types o f analysis were thus quite c lose. The c lassification of 4 5 pieces as Philistine Ware was quite broad, s ince it included such items as f ragments bearing white s lip, which were too small to determine what the vessel form may have been. Of the 4 5 pieces . which were c lassified as Philistine Ware only two were b ichrome on white s lip. ( 4.4%) Five were monochrome on white. ( 11.1%) Ten were bichrome on p lain. ( 22.2%) N ineteen were monochrome on p lain. ( 42.2%) Nine were undecorated or unclear. ( 20%) The amount of white s lip ( 15.5%) i s rather small at Beth Shemesh, compared t o some other s ites. An attempt was a lso made to analyze a ll of t he whole vessels from Stratum I II which were included i n the preliminary report. The nature of Grant's records i n this part of the report makes it difficult to be s ure t hat one has a complete l ist of the vessels of Stratum I II from this phase of the excavation. There were 1 3 Philistine Ware vessels in this section of the report. The total number of vessels from Stratum I II recorded i n this section of the report exceeds 1 34. ( 189) S o the percentage i s again around 1 0%. A ll of the pottery found in Stratum I II during the 1 931 s eason and l isted in the register for that season was a lso analyzed. ( 190) Out o f 6 9 pieces a maximum o f 1 2 were Philistine ( 17.3%) Only 2 of these 1 2 were c learly distinctive Philistine Ware. The figures in this paragraph are not statistically sound data, but they are of some interest as an experiment i n what can be done i n assembling quantitative information from o lder s ite reports, which l ack direct statistical data, and an i llustration of some of the difficulties o f such a study. .

From the excavator's daily l og books, which a re at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, one can make a l ist of a ll of the Philistine Ware of Beth Shemesh, which can be checked against the published material. Unfortunately, the l ogs are not a rranged in such a way that o ne can determine the percentage of Philistine Ware in t he whole assemblage, but one can determine the types of Philistine Ware which occur at B eth Shemesh. There were a t otal o f 3 1 Philistine Ware vessels recorded f rom Beth S hemesh. 8 2

( This i s l ess t han the total of the Philistine Ware vessels mentioned in the various counts above, because some vessels appear more than one p lace i n Grant's various publications.) The Philistine Ware vessel types found at Beth Shemesh i ncluded 7 decorated bowls, 3 undecorated bowls, 3 kraters, 5 stirrup jars, 3 strainer j ars with Philistine motifs, 5 strainer j ars with s imple bands, 1 Egyptian style j ar, 2 jugs with Philistine style decoration, 1 curved Cypriote style bottle, and 1 straight-necked bottle. The decoration of these vessels breaks down as follows, 1 8 Philistine style motifs, 9 with painted bands, 3 undecorated, and one red s lip. I n this assemblage the proportion of bowls i s somewhat smaller than normal, and the proportion of stirrup and s trainer jars higher than normal. The percentage of distinctive Philistine motifs i s high. The

decoration

which remains basement o f interesting.

of

one

of

the

i ncomplete

stirrup

jars

i n the Beth Shemesh collection i n the the Rockefeller Museum i s especially I t i s not l isted i n Grant's publications,

but i s in the l og and i s c learly l abeled Beth Shemesh 1 11-1V, 2 95v. I ts decorative motif i s concentric semi-circles which are connected by chevrons. The unusual feature i s that the center of the s emi-circles i s f illed with dots. The paint i s b lack on a p lain surface. This pattern occurs on Mycenaean Ware at Enkomi in Cyprus and on s amples from A shdod. ( 191) Perhaps this piece can be classified as Mycenaean I IIC or to the earliest stages of Philistine Ware. I n addition t o the 3 1 Philistine Ware vessels there were at l east 8 other partial or complete strainer jars which were c lassified as non-Philistine, because they were undecorated and s ometimes different in ware from the Philistine vessels. There was one spouted j ar s imilar to the Type 7 feeding bottle, but different enough to be classified as non-Philistine. There i s greater uncertainty about quantitative data based on o lder s ite reports, but the f igure o f about 1 0%-12% Philistine Ware for Stratum I II at Beth Shemesh appears to be f airly reliable, unless Grant's record are grossly distorted. The whole vessels reported for this excavation seem t o be a reasonably accurate representation of the finds, e specially s ince they have been checked against the daily l ogs. I f there i s any distortion, it i s l ikely that our f igures for the percentage of Philistine Ware at Beth Shemesh exaggerate, rather than understate the percentage of Philistine Ware. However, s ince Stratum I II appears to be a comparatively l ong-lived stratum, i t i s possible that there was a higher concentration o f Philistine Ware i n one phase of its u se. I

Samuel 6 c lassifies Beth Shemesh as an I sraelite city on the border of Philistia, though i t i s possible that it changed hands during the period of Israelite-Philistine conflict. Grant did not believe that 8 3

a

l arge

neutron Shemesh

number

o f

Philistines

l ived

activation analysis has Philistine Ware was l ocally

there.

H owever,

s uggested that m ade. ( 192)

t he

Beth

At this point we will merely note that two hollow-rim cult vessels, a " squirting breast" f igurine, a nd a Mycenaean f igurine found at Beth S hemesh a re s imilar to religious objects found at s ites such a s Tell Q asile. ( 193) The cultural and ethnic s ignificance. o f such objects will be discussed i n the chapter on religion. Tell

Beit

Mirsim

Possibilities for meaningful quantitative studies of Stratum B2 at Tell Beit Mirsim are questionable because of scanty data. However, because of the historical importance of A lbright's analysis o f this pottery, the available data will be briefly presented. A lbright presents four silos, No. 4 3, 2 , 1 , and , 6 , as representative of Stratum B2. ( 194) Out of 1 03 published sherds from these s ilos only 8 are P hilistine Ware ( 7.8%) This percentage i s probably too high, because Albright did not publish a number of the undecorated sherds from s ilo 6 and perhaps s ilo 4 3. Silo 6 contained 2 6 painted s herds, none of them Philistine Ware. However, Silo 6 , which contained the most sherds, may extend past the f laun t of Philistine Ware and may thus be diluting the sample. Silo 6 does

contain

a number

of

undecorated

Philistine

shapes.

I f body sherds are excluded, the percentage of Philistine Ware i s only 4 .9%. The published sherds were checked against the material i n the study collection of the A lbright I nstitute. The published material f rom the silos i s l argely intact at the A lbright, but important elements are missing from the other material of B2, s o not much can be done with this part of the sherd collection. The number of whole vessels from Stratum B2 i s very small, raising doubts about the adequacy of this s ample also. However, s ince Albright was very short of m aterial from B2, the published material i s probably a c omplete presentation of the whole vessels o f B2. Three o f 3 2 whole vessels described in Tell Beit Mirsim I & I II are Philistine Ware ( 9.4%) . This percentage i s probably too high, because the Philistine "whole vessels" are n ot as complete as the undecorated whole vessels i n the publication. They appear to have been i ncluded, s o that the Philistine material would be represented i n the publication. I f undecorated vessels o f the s ame degree of completeness had been included in t he publication, the percentage of Philistine Ware would be l ower. The t hree Philistine Ware vessels were a krater, a beer jug, a nd an amphoriskos. Material from the East Cave was not i ncluded in this count. This will be considered i n the chapter on burials. The

data

from Tell

Beit 8 4

Mirsim

i s

very

shaky,

b ut

it

seems safe Beit M irsim

to conclude that i s under 1 0%.

the

Philistine

Ware

f rom

T ell

A lbright i dentified Tell Beit Mirsim, which i s i n the Shepelah 2 5 km. s outhwest of Hebron, with I sraelite Debir, but this i s generally not accepted today. The Levitical city of Ashan has been suggested as another possibility. ( 195) I n either case Tell Beit Mirsim would be an I sraelite city. Timna/Batash T el

Batash,

which

i s

identified

with

Timna,

i s

located on the Sorek between Beth Shemesh and Tel Miqne. The t ell covers about 1 0 acres at the base. Stratum V contains the Philistine remains. At f irst i t appeared that this stratum was an unfortified settlement, but more recent seasons have uncovered traces of fortifications. A earth

few floor

Philistine sherds were found on a poor beaten in area A . The poorly preserved remains of

the Philistine l evel in Area B a lso Philistine Ware sherds. Philistine Ware near t he foundations of the I ron I I gate.

produced was a lso

s ome f ound

The Philistine s tratum i s not well preserved and does not appear to be a rich source of Philistine Ware. Going into the 1 983 s eason Philistine Ware seems to have been limited to about 3 whole vessels and a number of sherds. Quantitative studies s imilar to those conducted at Tel Qasile are being carried out by the excavators, but the results are not yet available. I t appears that the percentage of Philistine Ware will be comparatively l ow. T he excavators have suggested that Timna was basically Canaanite city with a small number Philistines l iving among them. ( 196)

a of

Gezer T he Hebrew Union College excavation at Gezer was a major excavation which has had a great influence through the many archeologists who were trained i n its methodology. Unfortunately, the amount of material which has b een published so far i s too small to form a basis for a s ound analysis of the percentage of Philistine Ware. Although Gezer I reported an " abundance of Philistine Ware," Gezer I I reported that the Philistine Ware i s certainly l ess than 5 %. ( 197) This agrees quite c losely with the material f rom Field I I which was published in Gezer I I, but the sample i s quite small, so caution i s necessary about p lacing too much weight on the results. Of 9 5 rims published from the Philistine strata, S trata XIII-XI, 3 were P hilistine Ware and 2 were possible Philistine Ware. ( 3.2%-5.3%) The percentage was higher in t he material f rom Field I published in Gezer I , but this was a selective preliminary sample, too small for dependable results. Perhaps the forthcoming publication o f 8 5

the material from F ield V I s ignificant analysis. ( 198)

will

provide

a basis

f or a more

The material f rom Macalister's early excavation i s not useful for quantitative s tudy, but some of i t w ill be discussed i n the chapter on burials. There i s a very strong continuity o f LB C anaanite pottery styles into the " Philistine" strata of Gezer. The excavators suggest that there was a strong carry-over o f Canaanite population with perhaps a small number o f Philistines. ( 199) I K ings 9 :16 describes Gezer as a Canaanite city as l ate as the t ime of Solomon. Aphek Aphek i s l ocated at the sources of the Yarkon on the northern edge of Philistia. I t has produced m ajor LB finds, but unfortunately few well preserved remains of the Philistine period have yet been f ound. Stratum X 10 has produced some typical Philistine Ware, but most of the evidence for this l evel of occupation has been d estroyed by the Turkish fort. The Philistine pits l ie right a t the surface. Kochavi reports remains o f houses with wooden posts and round stone pillar bases. Some early style Philistine Ware i s reported i n the robber t renches of LB palace. So far, the Philistine Ware i s l imited to whole vessel and a small number of sherds. ( 200) The

transitional

stratum

between

the

LB

the one

and

Philistine l evels has some unusual architecture which some have associated with the arrival of the Sea P eoples. These 7x7 m . dwellings appear to have parallels a t Tell Abu Hawam and in Syria. Unfortunately, they h ave no pottery associated with them. There was a small tablet with marks somewhat resembling Cypriote or Cretan s cripts. ( 201) Lachish The ongoing excavations may c larify the t ransition from Bronze to I ron Age at this s ite. The p resent excavator currently supports Tufnell's i dea of a long abandonment between Strata V I and V against T . D othan's i dea of a more substantial i nhabitation during the period of Philistine Ware. ( 202) The few sherds of Philistine Ware from Cave 4 034, p it B , are inadequate for m eaningful analysis. They appear to be l ate additions to m aterial which i s mostly parallel to Tel Beit Mirsim C2 a nd 31. ( 203) Tel

Hesi/Eglon?

Tel Hesi has a l eveling and f illing occupations there may Ware sherds have been the 1 983 s eason. ( 204)

substantial I ron I I occupation, but s everely damaged whatever I ron I have been. Only 1 or 2 P hilistine found

8 6

i n

the

new excavations

up

t o

Jaffa T he small amount of Philistine Ware from this l imited excavation i s 1 1th century material corresponding to Qasile X I ( 205) Tel

S ippor

T el S ippor i s a small s ite in the middle of the Philistine p lain, 1 5 km. east of Ashkelon. Biran and Negbi conducted a small excavation at the s ite, which uncovered two Early I ron strata, I and I I. The amount of pottery published from this excavation i s quite small, but the excavators' report painted sherds. ( 206)

includes

a percentage

count

o f

the

The report l ists ten vessels which are surface f inds. One of these i s a stirrup j ar with a distinctly Philistine bichrome bird pattern on white s lip. ( 207) Five , other vessels are decorated with s imple red bands ( two f lasks, one s tand, one " teapot," and one round based stirrup j ar). The s tand and one f lask have white s lip. Stratum I i s dated mainly t o the l ate 1 1th century. Of 1 1 vessels published from this stratum 2 ( a f lask and a part of a jug) are decorated with red bands. Six vessels are hand burnished. The excavators report that 1 8% of the sherds of Stratum I were hand burnished. ( 208) The excavators c lassify 1 0% of the sherds i n Stratum I a s having Philistine e lements. ( 209) The term " Philistine elements" s eems to refer primarily to the degenerate horizontal l oop handles of the bowls. No distinctly Philistine painting i s evident in the published material. The excavators report that 2 8% of the pottery from Stratum I I i s painted. The rest i s undecorated pottery which continues the Canaanite traditions of Stratum I II. It c an not be c learly determined from the published material how much of this 2 8% should be c lassified as Philistine. Of 1 1 painted vessels published from Stratum I I 5 are distinct Philistine Ware, 4 possible Philistine Ware, and 2 non-Philistine i n form. ( 210) However, 8 of the 1 1 vessels, including 2 f lasks which were c lassified as n on-Philistine, had white s lip. The percentage of white slip i s surprisingly l arge, even in comparison with the p ercentage o f distinct Philistine Ware which has white slip at some of the other s ites. The decoration breaks down as follows: monochrome on white-7, monochrome on plain i, bichrome on p lain-2, bichrome on white -i. Only 3 of t he i i painted vessels had distinctively Philistine motifs. The rest were s imple l ines or bands. This excavation further i llustrates some of the problems o f classifying Philistine painted decoration. I t appears that perhaps half of the 2 8% painted ware i n this s tratum should be c lassified as Philistine Ware i n the strict sense, but the problem remains difficult. 8 7

The material from S ippor i s i n the s torage f acility of the I srael Museum. I t i s difficult t o get p recise quantitative i nformation f rom this material because there was apparently a renumbering of the strata o f S ippor between the t ime when the registration numbers were written on the sherds and the t ime o f publication. Of 1 80 sherds from Strata I and I I 1 6 were Philistine Ware and 2 were probable Philistine Ware. ( 8.8%-10%) There were another 6 5 sherds of Philistine Ware i n a s eparate d rawer. These sherds were unmarked and appear t o come from s urface collection. A notable characteristic of this collection was a high proportion of krater rims. Of 2 4 whole v essels 5 were Philistine Ware. ( 20.8%) Because of the l imitations o f the evidence the percentage of Philistine Ware at Sippor must be considered only a rough estimate. I t appears that the Philistine Ware of Stratum I i s l imited mainly to red-slipped bowls with horizontal handles. Stratum I I appears t o have a substantial percentage of white s lipped Philistine . Ware, perhaps running as high as 2 0%. Notable i tems included in the material s aved from Sippor are a f lat f igurine head, s imilar t o the A shdoda type, two sherds which may be c lassified a s "Mycenaean," and a shallow bowl with double strand horizontal h andles which rise above the rim ( Negbi, Fig. 6 :4).

Tell

Zuweyid

Zuweyid, on the Sinai coast near Wadi el-Arish, i s noteworthy as the southernmost s ite containing Philistine Ware. The Philistine Ware here i s l imited t o a f ew sherds and does not show up at a ll in McClellan' s c omputor seriation of the whole vessels of this s ite. ( 211)

Tell

Jemmeh/lurzah

Jemmeh i s l ocated on the Wadi Gaza, 1 0 km. s outh o f Gaza. McClellan ran a computor seriation of some o f the Iron Age strata of Petrie's excavation, but the P hilistine Ware whole vessels were not s ignificant enough t o appear in his statistics. I . Eshel attempted a reconstruction o f Petrie's strata. ( 212) I n this reconstruction S trata I X and VIII are the strata containing Philistine W are. I n these strata 3 of 6 0 whole vessels were Philistine Ware ( 5%), and 4 5 of 1 75 sherds were Philistine Ware. ( 25.7%) The sherd collection appears to be heavily loaded with a disproportionate number of painted s herds. The percentage of Philistine Ware probably falls between the percentages indicated by the whole vessels and the sherds, most l ikely being c loser to the percentage i ndicated by t he whole vessels. However, this i s not much more than a guess. The data from Petrie's excavation i s s imply i nadequate f or dependable quantitative analysis. 8 8

V an Beek's renewed excavations have uncovered substantial " Philistine" occupation and evidence f or t he manufacture of Philistine Ware at Jemmeh. ( 213) Hopefully, a sound analysis of the role of Philistine Ware at Jemmeh will be possible on the basis o f this new evidence, but no d ata has yet been made available.

Sheik

Ahmed

e l-Areini

( Tel

Gat)

This site has been proposed as the s ite o f Philistine Gath, but the small amount of Philistine Ware brought this interpretation i nto disfavor. ( 214) Safi i s the s ite presently f avored a s Gath. However, t he reasons for rejecting Sheik Ahmed el-Areini as Gath should be re-examined. Yeivin reported "a l arge number of Philistine sherds" in his preliminary report. ( 215) He did not reject the i dentification of Areini as Gath because of an absence of Philistine . Ware, but because of the l arge number of Judean royal storage jar handles at the s ite. ( 216) However, this type of handle also occurs frequently at Safi, the other main candidate for Gath. ( 217) Gath i s not mentioned in the late prophetic denunciations of the Philistine cities. This suggests that it may have been so f irmly i n I sraelite hands during this period that it was not thought of a s a Philistine city. This would account for the substantial presence of Judean royal storage j ar handles. The presence of these handles need not disqualify a city as a candidate for Gath. These handles a lso occur in small quantities at non-Israelite cities. ( 218) Safi remains the most p lausible candidate for Gath. This identification i s supported by a substantial presence of Philistine Ware and a suitable l ocation. However, the limited ceramic evidence which has been published does not in i tself e liminate Tell Areini. Further work i s needed at both sites.

Tell

A jjul/Beth

Eglayim?

T el el-Ajjul, 6 km. southwest of Gaza, i s noted for its cemeteries. There i s no data available f rom 1 2th or 1 1th century strata. A few Philistine vessels come f rom tombs 1139 and 1 112. They constitute a very small percentage of the p ottery of t his assemblage. ( 219)

Tel

M or

T el Mor on the Nahal Lachish near Ashdod was the harbor of A shdod. The excavator believes that Canaanite LB pottery traditions continue two generations l onger at Tel Mor than at n earby Ashdod. ( 220) The appearance of Philistine Ware i n Ashdod X III and X II i s considered to be 8 9

contemporary with Mor 7 and 6 . At Mor Philistine Ware first appears in Strata 4 and 3 , which are a small agrarian s ettlement. ( 221) However, i f the P hilistines of Ashdod were i ndeed sea people, it i s difficult t o understand how their harbor could continue t o be a Canaanite town for two generations. Perhaps t he correlation of the strata at Ashdod and Mor s hould b e re-evaluated.

strata

Tel

Adequate data for i s not available.

a quantitative

analysis o f

these

Aitun/Eglon?

Tel Aitun i s 1 8 km. southwest of Hebron and 4 .5 k m. northeast of Tell Beit Mirsim. I t i s important for t he chamber tomb which i s discussed in t he chapter on burials. The excavator believes that the Philistine W are which occurs in the burials here was manufactured on the coast. NAA tests show a c lose correspondence with the P hilistine Ware of Ashdod. The so-called " local ware" has calcium carbonate t emper and i s fired at a l ow t emperature. T he " coastal ware" or " Philistine Ware" has quartz s and temper and i s fired at a high temperature. This "coastal ware" occurs both in decorated Philistine Ware and i n non-Philistine vessel forms. ( 222) The quantitative study for Aitun i s based o n Loculus Tomb Cl. Out of 1 50 vessels i n this tomb o nly 3 a re decorated Philistine Ware. ( 2%) These vessels are a krater, a beautifully decorated beer jug, and a b ell bowl. Four undecorated vessels of Philistine form would raise the total to 4 .7%. These vessels are an undecorated Egyptian style jar, two bell bowls, and a Cypriote style bottle. There are a lso a number o f sherds of P hilistine Ware.

( 223) The

proportion

of

Philistine Ware

in

this

t omb

is

n ot

l arge enough to indicate that A itun was a P hilistine settlement. I t could easily be explained as due t o trade. Most of the pottery of the tomb i s a continuation o f Canaanite LB tradition. There i s Aitun. This but

it

does

a Mycenaean h IC bowl bowl i s included in the

not

correspond

to

the ware

from another tomb a t Ashdod NAA a nalysis, from Ashdod.

( 224)

Azor At Azor, near Jaffa, excavation on the mound has been l imited to salvage and amateur d igging. M . D othan h as excavated i n the I ron Age cemetery near the mound. These important burials are discussed in the chapter on burials. It has been suggested on stylistic grounds t hat t he Philistine The

material

Ware i s

of not

Azor

i s

available

of for 9 0

l ocal

manufacture.

quantitative

( 225)

analysis.

Deir

e i

Balah

Deir e i B alah i s l ocated on the coast, 1 4 km. southwest of Gaza. This s ite i s best known f or t he anthropoid coffins discussed i n the chapter on burials. However, Trude Dothan's excavations at this s ite have a lso uncovered P hilistine remains. Several pits dug i nto the LB l evels contained Philistine Ware s herds. Additional Philistine Ware occurs in the surface f inds. This material i s presently being studied i n preparation for publication. Final conclusions will not be possible until further study has been completed. ( 226) The quantitative data in this study i s based on an analysis of a ll o f the rims s aved from the four p its which contained Philistine Ware. The pits themselves appear to be clean l oci, uncontaminated by material of other periods. The 4 21 and which 1 3 probable

pit which we call P it 4 21 i s composed of Locus s everal other l oci. I t contained 1 45 r ims o f were c lassified as Philistine Ware and 4 as Philistine Ware. ( 8.9%-11.7%) The Philistine

Ware consists mainly undecorated bell bowls pit a lso contained which do not appear

of bowl were the

r ims. Two most notable

two painted Philistine in the f igures above.

Ware

very items. body

small This sherds

Pit 1 326 yielded 1 12 rims of which 1 0 were Philistine Ware and 2 probable Philistine Ware. ( 8.9%-10.7%) Most of these sherds were thick bowl or krater rims. One or two decorated Philistine Ware body sherds a lso appeared i n this pit. P it 1 322 contained 5 6 rims of which 3 were Philistine Ware. ( 5.4%). Locus 1 318, which i s c losely a ssociated with this pit, contained 1 24 rims, including 2 Philistine Ware. ( 1.6%). This l ocus may not be a c lean l ocus from the period when Philistine Ware f lourished. A bichrome Philistine Ware body sherd and a bowl rim with a s trainer spout are the most s ignificant sherds from this group. P it 5 26 and a ssociated Locus 5 25 had 1 8 rims of which 3 were c lassified a s Philistine Ware. ( 16.7%) One of these is a bowl rim, decorated with a red spiral on tan-creme s lip. T he s econd i s a rim bit which i s probably from a Philistine Ware bowl. The third i s a vertical r im from a carinated bowl which has a different shape than the standard bell bowl. I f a ll of t hese l oci are combined, the total i s 4 55 rims, 31 Philistine Ware, and 6 possible Philistine Ware. ( 6.8%-8.1%) I f t he questionable Locus 1 318 i s excluded, the f igures are 3 31 rims, 2 9 Philistine Ware, and 6 possible Philistine Ware. ( 8.8%-10.6%) This i s considerably l ess than the percentage of Philistine Ware 9 1

at

such

s ites

a s

Ashdod

and

Tel

Q asile.

However,

great

caution must be used against drawing too s trong conclusions f rom this s ample. T his i s a small s ample which comes entirely f rom p its and associated l oci. I f there are Philistine i nhabitatior is which s till l ie concealed under the dunes which cover the s ite, t hey could present a different picture from that s uggested by the l imited evidence now available. T he study which i s part of the preparation for publication stratigraphic i nterpretation of some o f

may a lso modify these l oci.

the

The l arge majority of the Philistine Ware sherds are from various s ized bowls. More than half of these had no visible decoration. Horizontal bowl handles which were tight to the body outnumbered protruding, freestanding handles. Very small, vestigial h andles were very r are. Thicker l arger bowls accounted for a l arger percentage o f the bowls than i n many Philistine Ware assemblages.

I zbet

Sartah

I zbet of Aphek. percentage

Sartah i s a small site i n the hills j ust east Early reports that t here was a very high o f Philistine Ware in a stratum which a lso

produced an a lphabetic ostracon site could shed l ight on the among the Philistines. ( 227) high percentage of Philistine erroneous. agricultural

raised the hope t hat this early use of the a lphabet However, the report of a Ware at I zbet Sartah was

I t now appears that I zbet Sartah was settlement inhabited by I sraelites.

a small

There were three strata at I zbet Sartah. According to the excavator Stratum I II, which contains a very small amount of Mycenaean Ware, begins i n the 1 3th century and continues i nto the 1 2th. Stratum I I i s a short l ived stratum from the l ate 1 1th century. beginning of the 1 0th century.

Stratum

I is

f rom

the

The following quantitative a nalysis i s based on information from I srael Finkelstein's Hebrew dissertation on I zbet Sartah. ( 228) Finkelstein's study includes some quantitative analysis of the I zbet Sartah pottery. Finkelstein's statistics were expanded and re-worked t o conform to the typology and methodology used i n this dissertation, and an independent analysis was done on the basis of the rims published from I zbet Sartah. F rom Stratum I II F inkelstein reported 6 Philistine Ware sherds among 5 45 sherds. ( 1.1%) There was no Philistine Ware among 1 03 rims published from Stratum I II. F rom Stratum I I F inkelstein r eported 1 4 Philistine Ware sherds among 7 73 sherds. ( 1.8%) Among 1 21 r ims 4 were Philistine Ware and 6 probable Philistine Ware. ( 3.3%-8.3%) .

From

Stratum

I F inkelstein 9 2

reported

8 Philistine

Ware

sherds among 5 71 Philistine Ware ( 2.9%-4.9%) The

t otal

f or

sherds. and 2

the

( 1.4%) Among 1 03 r ims probable Philistine

three

strata was

2 8

o f

1 889

3 were Ware.

sherds

Philistine Ware. ( 1.5%) Of 3 27 published r ims 7 were Philistine Ware and 8 were probable Philistine Ware. ( 2.1%-4.6%) Finkelstein's data suggests a f airly uniform distribution of Philistine Ware in a ll three strata. We would not expect to find an equal distribution of Philistine Ware i n three strata with the dates suggested by F inkelstein for I zbet Sartah I ll-I. The analysis based on p ublished r ims i ndicates a greater concentration i n Strata I I and I . This i s more in l ine with what we would expect on the basis of the dates which F inkelstein suggests for the three strata. I f Stratum I II begins i n the 1 3th century, we would expect that any Philistine Ware in i t would come f rom the end of the stratum, well into the 1 2th century. Perhaps some of the Philistine Ware in Strata I II and I i s intrusive, or the dates should be adjusted s lightly from those suggested by Finkelstein. The analysis of published rims yields a higher percentage of P hilistine Ware than F inkelstein's analysis, which was based on a ll s herds. This i s not surprising, s ince the sample selected f or publication normally over-emphasizes the percentage o f Philistine Ware to s ome degree. I t seems safe to conclude that the percentage of Philistine Ware at I zbet Sartah i s well under 5 %. I t i s possible that all three strata m iss the main period when Philistine Ware flourished, the l ate 1 2th and early 1 1th centuries. The vessel f orm was c learly specified for only 1 8 of the 2 8 Philistine Ware sherds from I zbet Sartah. There were 8 bowls, 5 kraters, 3 l arge bowls, and 2 beer jugs. Most of the other sherds were probably a lso from bowls. I t was possible to identify painted decoration on 1 9 of t he 2 8 sherds. Ten had spirals, s ix had bands, one had a P hilistine metope pattern, and two were unclear. Eight of t hese painted sherds had white s lip. One had red s lip. There were a lso s ix sherds with white s lip but no visible decoration. The 2 .9% in Stratum

percentage of Stratum I II, I . For bowls

31%,

and

4 7.6%.

The Negev.

s ites

Tel

pottery which was burnished was 9 .1% in Stratum I I, and 1 6.6% in a lone the percentages were 6 .1%,

i mmediately

following

are

i n

the

Northern

M asos/Hormah?

Tel been an contains Ware also suggested

Masos, 1 2 km. east of Beersheva, appears to have unwalled s ettlement i n I ron I . Stratum l ilA-Il only a f ew sherds of Philistine Ware. Midianite occurs at that Masos

this l ilA

s ite. ( 229) Z eev Herzog has may have been an Amalekite 9 3

s ettlement.

( 230)

Beersheva Stratum I X i s Stratum V III

B .C.

a pit s ettlement dated f rom 1 150-1050 reuses the pits and contains r emains

which appear to be of the four-room house type. This stratum, which i s dated to the l ate 1 1th C entury, contains Philistine sherds, but no c lear p icture o f this stratum has yet been published. ( 231) Twelfth and e leventh century sherds are found mainly i n the f ill o f the t enth century rampart.

Tell

Halif/Ziklag?

The few sherds of Philistine Ware which o ccur here are mostly the so-called " degenerate" Philistine Ware o f the 1 1th century. At the beginning of the 1 983 season there were probably not more than s ix sherds o f p ainted Philistine Ware. I t appears that a poor, open s ettl ement occupied the s ite at this t ime, but only a small a rea h as been excavated f rom this period. ( 232)

Qubur

e l This

Walaida s ite

i s

1 0

km.

southeast of

Gaza

on

t he

Nahal

Besor, between Jemmeh and Fara. Rescue operations were conducted here i n 1 977. The sequence appears s imilar t o that at Deir e i Balah. The Philistine Ware is d escribed as " plentiful," but the material from the rescue excavation i s not available. There are p lans t o resume the excavations. ( 233) Hopefully, these excavations will c larify the role of Philistine Ware at this i mportant s ite.

Survey

at and

S ites

Survey work by a number o f s ites Quneitra. ( 234)

D . in

Alon has turned up Philistine Ware the northern Negev, such a s Maliha

Surveys conducted by R . Gophna have revealed l ate Philistine Ware at s everal 1 1th century hazerim i n south Philistia, i ncluding Seelir i, Mefaisim A & B , a nd Ezer. ( 235) Extensive surveys are currently being conducted the area, particularly a long the B esor. Publication these surveys should c larify t he distribution Philistine Ware i n this area.

i n o f o f

Surveys and small s oundings have also found Philistine Ware at s everal s ites i n northern Philistia. Tel Malat, west of Gezer, i s tentatively i dentified a s 9 4

Gibbethon. tentatively

( 236) i dentified

Qatra, southwest a s Baalah. ( 237)

o f

Malat,

i s

Tel Shalaf, northwest of Malat, i s sometimes i dentified with Eltekah. I ron I evidence i s skimpy. ( 238) Ras Abu Hamid, north o f Gezer, i s tentatively i dentified a s Gath-Gittaim. ( 239)

Yehudiyah This site i s l isted in o lder l iterature a s the only s ite in Egypt a t which Philistine Ware has been f ound. However, A lbright's analysis has been rejected by more recent writers, and the painted ware i n P etrie's publication has been c lassified as Midianite Ware This buff burnished ware, decorated with bichrome geometric designs and birds, originated i n northwest Arabia. Such Midianite Ware a lso occurs with Philistine Ware at Fara. However, one of the pieces from Yehudiyah i llustrated by Petrie i s a l arge horizontal l oop handle f rom a bowl decorated with painted bands. This appears t o be Mycenaean or Philistine Ware, rather than Midianite. ( 240) .

Sites Tell

in en

the

Central

Mountains

Nasbeh

This s ite 1 1 km. north of Jerusalem i s generally identified with Mizpeh. The Nasbeh publications include some quantitative s tudies and raw data which could be used for further quantitative studies, but the s ite has only a trace of Philistine Ware, a lthough it has s ignificant Early Iron remains. Only 4 7 sherds of Philistine Ware and 1 2 sherds of possible Philistine Ware were recovered. Twenty four o f the 3 2 sherds pictured in the p lates are bichrome. Most o f these appear to be bowl sherds. Only about 7 of the 3 2 sherds pictured are rims. A number of forms which s ometimes appear with Philistine decoration elsewhere, such a s strainer spouted jugs, pyxoid shapes, cup f lasks, and a kernos, occur as undecorated vessels at Nasbeh. The " feeding bottle," which Dothan pictures with a basket handle, o ccurs with a vertical strap handle on the side at

Nasbeh.

( 241)

Tombs 5 4 and 3 2, which were in use from LB t o M I with the peak at about 1 100 B .C., contain no Philistine Ware among 454 vessels. The predominate forms i n these tombs and two neighboring tombs of s lightly l ater date a re juglets ( 31.5%), bowls ( 19%), and l amps ( 18%). The predominance o f juglets and the near absence o f f lasks, kraters, and s torage j ars should be compared with t he common vessel forms of Philistine Ware burials recorded i n the chapter

on burials.

9 5

Bethel Bethel, 1 5 km north of Jerusalem, has yielded f ew sherds of Philistine Ware. T he report l ists f ew bowl sherds and part of a beer j ug. ( 242)

Beth

Zur Beth

t race which Tell

only a only a

of s eem e i

Z ur,

5

km.

Philistine to parallel

north Ware Tell

of

H ebron,

produced

among i ts abundant E I Belt Mirsim B2. ( 243)

only a sherds,

Ful/Gibeah

No Philistine pottery has been r eported at Tell e i F ul, but i ron implements and casemate construction have sometimes been cited as evidence of the P hilistine occupation mentioned i n I Samuel. ( 244) However, these phenomena are not valid evidence for P hilistine occupation. There i s at present no archeological evidence of a Philistine garrison at Gibeah ( I Samuel 1 0:5, 13:3). ( 245) Ephraim

Survey

I n this survey of 4 08 s ites i n the hill c ountry o f Ephraim there was not a s ingle sherd of Philistine Ware a t any of the 7 8 s ites which yielded I ron I sherds. ( 246) Sites

North The

Tel

of

Philistia

following

s ites

are

i n

the

coastal

p lain.

Z eror

Tel Z eror i s a small inland s ite, southwest o f Caesarea. Excavation and publication of the S ite were l imited. Some Philistine Ware was r eported in t he l imited area of the I ron Age settlement which was excavated. T en c ist tombs, which contained l ate Early I ron pottery, contained no decorated Philistine W are among 1 09 vessels. A f ew vessel forms which are s ometimes decorated with Philistine designs e lsewhere occur at Z eror as undecorated vessels. These include a strainer-spouted j ar, a Cypriote style bottle and a l ion-head rhyton. ( 247) I n the l arge collection of I ron I sherds from Z eror a t the Department of Antiquities i n J erusalem, 1 k rater r im, 1 bowl rim and 7 body sherds were the only P hilistine Ware. One of the excavators of T el Zeror reported that Philistine Ware was " practically non-existent there." ( 248)

Dor

and

Mevorakh

Three

sherds

of

Phase

2 Philistine 9 6

Ware

are a ll

that

have been published from Dor. ( 249) The current excavations have not yet reached the l evels o f t he Philistine period. Dor i s mentioned i n the Wen Amon t ext as a center of the T jekker, s o i t i s t o be hoped that future seasons will shed some l ight on this period. The daughter s ite o f Mevorakh was excavated a s a preliminary phase of the Dor project. This s ite appears to have been unoccupied during t he period of Philistine Ware. ( 250)

T he

following

s ites

are

i n

the

Jezreel

Valley.

Megiddo M egiddo was a l arge and l avishly published excavation. Cataloging a completed assemblage f or each stratum was one of i ts publication goals. Strata V IIA and VI y ielded Philistine Ware, i ncluding a number o f s herds which were omitted f rom the Megiddo publication. ( 251) Among 118 vessels f rom Stratum V IIA l isted i n P lates 68-70, & 7 2 of Megiddo I I there was only one definite Philistine Ware vessel, a bowl decorated with a spiral. ( Pl. 6 9:7) Two or three other vessels, including a composite pyxis ( Pl. 6 8:8) could be c lassified a s possible Philistine Ware, but none of them are distinct Philistine Ware. Plates 6 7b and 7 1 l ist 3 8 vessels o f more doubtful provenance which may belong to VIIA. Two Cypriote style bottles are the only possible Philistine Ware. ( 252) As published, this assemblage appears to be a confused mixture. I t i ncludes LB Cypriote and Mycenaean f orms. Little faith can be p laced i n percentages based on this assemblage. However, the occurrence of only one definite Philistine Ware vessel in an assemblage of 1 56 whole vessels suggests that the role of Philistine Ware i s certainly not l arge. Only 6 o f 3 85 whole vessels f rom the combined sub-divisions of Stratum VI, which are l isted i n p lates 73-87 of Megiddo I I, were distinct Philistine Ware.(1.6%). Only three of these had distinct Philistine patterns, a bowl with spiral decoration ( Pl. 7 4:9) and two " late style" kraters. ( Pl. 7 8:19, 8 5:5). The other Philistine s tyle vessels were a red-slipped Cypriote bottle ( Pl. 7 3:9), the unusual Orpheus beer j ug ( Pl. 76:1), and a stirrup j ar with z ig-zag decoration. ( Pl. 86:12) About 2 5 more vessels ( 6.5%) could be called Philistine Ware by using a very l oose definition of the term. Most of these are painted pyxides or strainer-spouted j ars, which l ack distinct Philistine motifs. ( 253) A ltogether about 3 3% o f the published vessels from this s tratum were painted. T he abundance of painted ware at Megiddo makes this a good a ssemblage f or examining our criteria for c lassifying painted ware as Philistine Ware or non-Philistine. The authors of Megiddo I I apparently c lassified a vessel a s Philistine Ware only i f it had white s lip. I n this dissertation a l arge number of p ainted vessels f rom 9 7

Stratum v i were c lassified a s doubtful Philistine Ware, because they were s imilar i n form t o vessels w hich occur w ith Philistine decoration e lsewhere, but t hey l acked d istinctive Philistine decorative motifs. T his h igh-lights a problem o f c lassification. The n umber o f vessels at Megiddo with distinct P hilistine decoration i s very small, Only 4 out of 5 48 vessels. But i f all t he painted strainer-spouted j ars, and many of t he pyxoid vessels and painted f lasks were counted as P hilistine Ware, the percentage of Philistine Ware at Megiddo would be i n the s ame range as many s ites much nearer Philistia. Some

of

the

vessel

forms

at

Megiddo,

s uch

as

l oop-based bowls ( P1. 7 4:10), are i nteresting comparison with the unusual " Philistine Ware" of D eir i n the Jordan Valley. The Megiddo

critical and doubts

discussions of the s tratigraphy whether the published material

t he f or A lla

o f i s

really representative of f inds will not be reviewed here, other than to acknowledge that these factors could affect the validity of the f igures publ . . shed here. ( 254) However, these f igures appear to give a approximation of t he role of Philistine Ware

fairly good at M egiddo. .

The occurrence of l ess than 1 0 distinct Philistine Ware vessels in an excavation the s ize of Megiddo s eems t o j ustify the conclusion that the role of Philistine Ware here was not great. The 3 0 or s o unpublished s herds o f Philistine Ware f rom Megiddo do not s ignificantly alter the picture, s ince 3 0 sherds are a drop in t he bucket among the vast number of sherds that would be turned up i n an excavation on the s cale of Megiddo. The role of true Philistine Ware at Megiddo does not seem l arge enough t o require a substantial presence of Philistines at M egiddo.

Afula Afula i s i n the Jezreel Valley, 1 0 km. north-east o f Megiddo. The excavation was l imited in area and h ampered by modern habitation. Stratum I IiA y ielded a s urprising amount of Philistine Ware, but t he small amount o f published material makes percentage calculation h azardous. There was a lso a h igh percentage of storage jar s herds i n this stratum, and i t i s uncertain how proportionately they were published. This i s another s ite where t he border-line between Philistine Ware and contemporary non-Philistine painted ware may be debatable. There are 1 39 sherds published E leven of t hese are Philistine Ware, possible Philistine Ware. ( 7.9%-12.9%)

from Afula l ilA. and s even m ore are I f the analysis i s

based on r ims only, as our standard procedure h as been, the percentage of Philistine Ware i s only 5 .4%-6.5%. ( 255) However, the sample consists o f only 9 3 r ims, a dangerously small number for drawing f irm conclusions. I n a different analysis c ited by J . Graham 1 8 of 1 42 pieces from Afula were c lassified a s Philistine Ware 9 8

( 12.7%) ( 256) S ince the body sherd collection appears t o be b iased toward p ainted wares, i t s eems very l ikely t hat the a nalysis based on r ims only i s the most accurate, and that the percentage o f Philistine Ware at A fula i s 5 % o r less. Noteworthy f inds i nclude a f igurine with p ainted decoration ( P1.15:19), which may be s imilar to some found at M ycenae, and a Philistine j ar with a braided handle found i n the East Cave. ( Pl. 2 0:2) ( 257)

Beth S han B eth Shan, at the eastern outlet of the Jezreel Valley to the Jordan, has yielded only t races of Philistine Ware, but i t has f igured prominently i n the discussion of Philistines and other Sea Peoples, because of t he tombs which contained anthropoid coffins and painted stirrup j ars, pyxides, and f lasks. According t o I S amuel 3 1 the Philistines displayed the body o f Saul here after the battle of Gilboa. These two factors, p lus the h eavy Egyptian i nfluence, have l ed to speculation of a Philistine or Sea P eoples garrison at Beth Shan.

was

J ames f ound

s ays i n

that only one sherd of true Philistine Ware t en seasons of excavation, but she defines

Philistine Ware quite narrowly. Only f ine ware, decorated with white s lip and with distinctive designs, such a s spirals, birds, and checkerboards i s c lassified as Philistine Ware. The sherd defined a s true Philistine Ware has a zig-zag pattern reminiscent of the patterns which occur at Deir A lla. Looking through the p lates and catalog of Stratum VI one f inds s everal other vessel forms or d ecorative motifs s imilar to those of Philistine Ware. Bichrome and monochrome decoration on creme s lip occur on a number of vessels. James c lassifies a number o f these vessels as Mycenaean Ware, but it i s sometimes difficult to draw the l ine between Philistine Ware and other l ocally made " Mycenaean Ware." A stirrup j ar which Hankey classifies as Myc. h IC i s i mportant, because of the role of M ycenaean h IC as a predecessor of Philistine Ware at such s ites a s Ashdod and Miqne. ( 258) Recent small s cale excavations designed to c larify the s tratigraphy of Stratum VI found no Philistine Ware, and thus s upport James' conclusions concerning the rarity of Philistine Ware a t Beth Shan. ( 259) T he anthropoid compared

pottery i n four of the t ombs containing coffins ( Tombs 9 0, 2 19AB, 2 21AC, 6 6) should be with t he pottery of " Philistine" tomb

assemblages. Most of the pottery forms are quite s imilar to t hose of the F ara 9 00 and 5 00 tombs. S tirrup j ars constitute 1 6.9% o f the pottery i n these Beth Shan t ombs, and p ilgrim f lasks a nother 2 3.9%. A s ignificant number of these are painted with bands on creme s lip. Pyxides, bell bowls, and strainer j ugs are quite rare, but one of the strainer jugs ( Pl. 4 7:24) has a braided handle s imilar to 9 9

t he

P hilistine

Tel

K eisan

j ug

at

Afula.

( 260)

T el K eisan i s at the western end Valley, north of Haifa. The statistics a re based on the pottery published i n the t he f irst s easons. ( 261) F rom

Stratum

9 ab

there

were

5 9

of the J ezreel i n this s ection f inal r eport o f

whole

v essels,

i ncluding 2 Philistine Ware. ( 3.4%) These were a p inched waist vessel decorated with a concentric semi-circle design ( Pl. 6 1:3) and an undecorated bell bowl. ( Pl. 6 6:2) There

were

1 51

r ims,

including

3 Philistine

Ware

and

5

possible P hilistine Ware. ( 2%-5.3%) There were 1 91 sherds i ncluding 3 Philistine Ware and 8 possible Philistine Ware. ( 1.6%-5.8%) As usual, we regard the percentage based on r im analysis as the best f igure, but i n this c ase a ll three methods produce a f igure of about 3 .5%. The reason for the relatively l arge percentage of " possible P hilistine Ware" i s the number of undecorated bowl rims which are s imilar to Philistine bowl r ims i n shape. ( 162) I n Stratum 9 c there were 8 1 whole vessels including 1 Philistine Ware and 1 possible Philistine Ware. ( 1.2%-2.4%) There were 2 16 r ims i ncluding 3 Philistine Ware. ( 1.4%). There were 3 08 sherds Ware and 4 possible Philistine Ware.

i ncluding 7 Philistine ( 2.3%-3.6%) ( 263)

The small s ample from Stratum 1 0-11 contained 3 7 sherds i ncluding 1 Philistine Ware and 2 p ossible Philistine Ware. ( 2.7%-8.1%) ( 264) The vessels,

combined totals i ncluding 3

Philistine Philistine ( 1.8%-3.3%) 1 4

possible

,

Ware Ware 5 36

for a ll these s trata are 1 40 whole Philistine Ware and 1 p ossible

( 2.1%-2.9%), 3 98 r ims, including 7 and 6 possible Philistine Ware sherds i ncluding 1 1 Philistine Ware and

Philistine

Ware

( 2.1%-4.7%).

I t i s debatable whether the painted pottery at K eisan should be called Philistine Ware or whether it s hould be g iven a more general name l ike Sea P eople Pottery. There are some forms which are d ifferent from the common forms of the south. Most noteworthy i s a " coal bucket" s trainer spouted j ar with distinct Philistine decoration. ( Pl. 7 1:8) Other notable forms are an unusual pinched waist vessel ( Pl. 6 1:3) and a cyma rimmed bowl with b ichrome decoration. ( Pl. 8 0:11) A f actor which must be considered i n evaluating the painted pottery of Tel K eisan i s the occurrence o f other types of p ainted pottery such as the painted pyxides and l ong-necked j uglets on P late 7 0 and such non-Philistine bichrome vessels a s j ars 7 2:1 and 7 2:5. I f these were c lassified a s part of the " Philistine Ware" of Tel K eisan, the percentage would be increased considerably. 1 00

There are p lans t o resume excavation at K eisan. Perhaps these r enewed excavations will c larify the s ituation at K eisan, particularly for Strata 1 0 through 1 3, i n which excavation h as so f ar been very l imited.

Tel

Yoqneam

This s ite i s l ocated i n the Jezreel valley near Megiddo. Only about 5 sherds of Philistine Ware were found among the hundreds of sherds excavated i n the s easons between 1 979 and 1 982. The excavations are continuing. ( 265)

Tel

Qiri

This small daughter s ite was excavated a s a preliminary to the excavation of Yoqneam. There are about 50 s herds of Philistine Ware among the thousands excavated at Q iri. Only 6 or 7 of these are r ims. Most o f the sherds appear to be bowl f ragments. A n icely decQrated beer jug with Philistine decoration was the most noteworthy f ind. ( 266)

Tel

Q ashish

this

Two or three sherds of small s ite n ear Yoqneam.

Other

Small

Sites

Near

Philistine ( 267)

found

at

Yoqneam.

A few sherds of Philistine Ware pit at Tiv' on. Surveys discovered nearby sites of R isim and Re'ala. ( 268)

Tell

Ware were

are reported a few sherds

f rom a at the

Harbaj

S mall s cale excavations i n the 1 920's produced a few sherds of Philistine Ware at Harbaj, which i s further west than Yoqneam. A few of these sherds remain i n the Rockefeller Museum i n Jerusalem. ( 269)

Tell

Abu

Hawam

The l ack o f Philistine Ware at Abu Hawam has l ong been cited as evidence for the abandonment of Abu Hawam during this period. However, Balensi's recent study o f the material from Abu Hawam concludes that the s ite was reoccupied during the Philistine 2 period and that this occupation overlaps Qasile X I. ( 270) Most of the p ieces classified a s Philistine Ware i n her study should be called possible P hilistine Ware. They i nclude forms such 1 01

a s the S trainer-spouted j ug and Cypriote style bottle, but they l ack distinctive Philistine painted motifs. T here i s one unpublished p iece which i s distinct Philistine Ware. ( 271)

Jordan

Valley

S ites

Dan Dan i s noteworthy as the northernmost occurrence of Philistine Ware. Stratum VI, the earliest I ron Age stratum, appears to be a s emi-nomadic camp l ike Hazor X II. The b lack and red bands which appear on some o f the pottery of this l evel should be compared with the s imilar banded ware from Deir A lla. The pottery of Stratum V , which was destroyed i n the mid-eleventh century, i s quite s imilar to that of Stratum VI. Remains of t hree Philistine vessels were found i n a p it cut into t he MB rampart appear

i n Area Y . to be standard

vertical decorated geometric

handles with design,

Fragments of a jug Philistine Ware, but

and the

stirrup jar krater with

has a Canaanite f orm. A lthough it is a Philistine bird and a monochrome the appearance of the surface treatment

of this vessel i s different from that of s tandard Philistine Ware. A f eeding bottle and other v essels decorated with bichrome bands a lso occur at Dan. ( 272) The question whether this northernmost extension of Philistine Ware i s related to the Danite m igration or to normal t rade patterns can not be answered on the basis of the s lim evidence available. ( 273)

Hazor

come

Deir

The few Philistine sherds f rom Strata X II or X I. ( 274)

found

at

Hazor

appear

to

A lla

The material f rom Deir A lla i s e specially interesting because of i ts l ocation and because s ome have associated undeciphered tablets found in the l evel below the Philistine Ware with Philistines or other Sea Peoples. ( 275) The Deir A lla " Philistine" ware published by Francken i s cruder than the coastal ware. Because o f its distinctness i t i s i llustrated i n Figure 1 9. Examples 1 , 6 , and 9 are generally c lassified a s Philistine W are. Because of Francken's methodology t he pottery published from I ron Age l evels A and B should be very representative of the l imited area excavated. F orty s ix of t he 454 pieces are painted ( 10.1%), but only 3 of 4 54 pieces have decorative designs s imilar to distinct Philistine motifs. One of these i s a s trainer-spouted j ar with crude b irds and bichrome triangles on white s lip. ( Fig. 1 9:1) The painting on this spouted j ar should be compared not only with

Philistine

Ware,

but

a lso with 1 02

B ird

and

Gazelle Ware

and Hama Ware. ( 276) A lthough the wings are formed i n a similar way to t hose on Philistine Ware birds, t hese b irds are definitely a s tep down f rom the f inely drawn b irds o f much coastal Philistine Ware. The s econd Philistine s herd is d ecorated with concentric s emi-circles. ( Fig. 1 9:6) Although t his i s a standard Philistine motif, i t does occur on other A egean i nfluenced pottery a s well. ( 277) The third piece o f Philistine Ware i s a l oop-based krater with similar concentric s emi-circles. ( Fig. 1 9:9) ( 278) The l ooped-based krater has parallels at Megiddo V I and Abu Hawam I II, but this vessel form i s not considered t o be a normal Philistine type. ( 279) The wavy l ine and net patterns which occur at Deir Alla sometimes occur on Philistine Ware, but they o ccur on non-Philistine LB and Early I ron pottery a s well. Bichrome bands o n j ar necks are another common type of painted decoration at Deir A lla. Parallels occur at Hazor and o ther s ites. ( 280)

1 03

Figure

1 9

THE

" PHILISTINE

POTTERY FROM DEIR ALLA

1

1 04

Other

Sites

Near

D eir

A lla

A . R.L. Gordon r eported " Philistine Ware" at Tulul ed Dahab, east of D eir A lla, but I have been unable t o obtain any information about i t other than a p ersonal communication f rom J ames S auer, who believes i t may b e s imilar to the Philistine Ware of Deir A lla. ( 281) Sauer' s 1 975 s urvey a lso reported s imilar ware at other s ites i n the Jordan Valley. ( 282) Caution s hould be used about " Philistine" derived f rom

S ites

calling any of t his Jordan Valley ware s ince i t may be a l ocal variety not d irectly coastal Philistine Ware. ( 283)

North of

I srael

Pottery at H ama has some decorative motifs s imilar t o Philistine motifs, but the vessel forms are d ifferent. ( 284) One piece o f Philistine Ware i s reported at Tyre, but this c lassification i s debatable. ( 285) Myc. h IC does appear at Pyre, Sarepta, Sukas, and other s ites a long the coast. ( 286) The bichrome pottery which occurs at Ugarit and I bn H ani discussing the roots specific i nformation i s

i n of yet

northern Syria i s important for Philistine Ware, but l ittle available. ( 287)

The Mycenaean h IC which occurs at s everal s ites i n Cyprus i s important for i ts relationship to the Mycenaean h IC which precedes Philistine Ware at A shdod and other s ites. The relationship of this pottery to Philistine Ware will be discussed i n the s ection on the s ignificance of Philistine Ware. Here we will merely note that the percentage of s uch ware at s ites such a s Enkomi i s exaggerated i n many publications because i t was reported as a percentage o f the decorated ware found at the s ite, rather than as a percentage of a ll pottery found at the s ite. For example, D ikaios reports that 6 0% o f the pottery i n Stratum I lib at Enkomi i s Mycenaean h IC. However, i n a f ootnote he states that he i s referring t o 6 0% of the decorated pottery, and that 6 0% to 8 0% of the pottery i n the s tratum i s p lain. ( 288) I f the f igure o f 6 0% Mycenaean h IC i n Stratum h u B i s corrected s o that i t gives the percentage of Mycenaean I hIC i n t he total pottery a ssemblage of Stratum h uB, only 1 2% to 2 4% of the pottery i s Mycenaean I lIC.. We should a ssume that a s imilar adjustment must be made f or Stratum l IlA. The percentage of Mycenaean pottery i n Stratum l ilA would a lso fall into the 1 2% to 2 4% range. From this i t appears that the percentage o f Mycenaean i nfluence i n Cyprus may be similar to that at Ashdod and other s ites i n P alestine. The data from o ther s ites i n Cyprus f alls i nto a s imilar range, but i t i s very difficult to compare s ites because different authors u se different definitions of Mycenaean Ware. ( 289) One often f inds references t o l arge proportions of Mycenaean Ware at Cypriote s ites, but these are not yet s upported by published quantitative a nalyses based on a ll of the pottery of the s ite, including the plain wares. 1 05

and

The i ts

role of p lain ware r elationship to the

i n Cyprus p lain w are

during this period of e arlier p eriods

has been n eglected. A preliminary examination s uggests that t he role of Mycenaean s tyle p ottery i n these s trata has often been overstated, but f urther s ystematic work i s n eeded t o c larify this s ituation. Such w ork i s possible s ince l arge amounts of p lain ware were s aved from Enkomi, but i t has not been a dequately studied and published. However, at many s ites, s uch a s Tarsus on the mainland, l ittle or no p lain ware was s aved, s o n o such i nformation can be s alvaged f rom these s ites. ( 290)

Geographical

D istribution

Our distribution studies confirm that the heartland o f the so-called Philistine Ware i s i ndeed the coastal plain which the l iterary t exts a ssociate with the Philistines. Philistine Ware does occur at s ites which a re not Philistine, but the consistency a nd percentage of its occurrence diminishes sharply a s one gets further away from the Philistine heartland. Even i n the Shephelah the percentage drops off r apidly. I n the hill country it i s minimal. I n the Jezreel Valley and other northern sites the percentage i s a lso very l ow. I t i s, t herefore, virtually certain that this pottery was manufactured by i nhabitants of Philistia and used by Philistines. This does not mean that Philistine Ware must be a n indicator of the t ime of arrival o f the Philistines, nor that i t i s a sure indicator of their ethnic background. We must consider the possibility that this pottery style developed i n the area i nhabited by the Philistines for reasons which have nothing to do with the arrival or ethnic background of the Philistines. One m eans o f determining whether the impetus f or Philistine W are was due to i nfluences brought by a massive i nflux o f immigrants or to the normal development of artistic and economic t rends which were a lready operating in t he area i s to study the relationship of Philistine Ware to the l ocal and i mported wares previously present in the area. S ince more than 8 0% of the pottery i n most "Philistine" pottery assemblages i s not Philistine Ware, we m ust also consider the degree o f continuity between this pottery and the will

p lain pottery of be confronted

the preceding p eriod. These p roblems after we have briefly considered the

pattern of distribution individual s ites. Distribution

Within

This section distribution for it i s found. l imited. general,

of

Philistine

Ware

within

S ites

will briefly summarize the pattern o f Philistine Ware within the s ites i n which I nformation concerning t his p oint i s

Philistine 1 06

Ware

appears

to

b e widely

scattere 'd t hroughout t he s trata i n which i t o ccurs, r ather t han c lustered i n a c ertain quarter of t he s ettlement. The d istribution map o f a l arge area o f S tratum I II o f Beth Shemesh i ndicates a general d istribution o f the P hilistine Ware t hroughout the a rea excavated. ( 291) P lotting t he d istribution of the Philistine Ware on the p lans of Jemmeh r eveals a s imilar s cattering. ( 292) I n Tell Qasile X , t he l atest " Philistine" phase at the s ite, the Philistine Ware i s concentrated i n the area of t he Temple ( Area C ) I t does not appear i n Area A which i s more residential. ( 293) A . Mazar s uggests t hat this may reflect e thnic d ifferences i n different quarters o f t he settlement, but i t s eems l ikely t hat the u se o f distinctive P hilistine Ware was p reserved l onger i n the cultic area and that the different ratio of P hilistine Ware i s due t o d ifferences i n the f unction o f the area, rather than t o e thnic differences. There may be some discernable d ifferences i n the distribution of Philistine Ware in t he d ifferent f ields at Gezer, but not enough information has yet been published t o evaluate this f actor. ( 294) Philistine Ware occurs i n a ll types o f l oci, house f loors, courtyards, pits, cultic areas and s o on. I t does not seem possible to characterize the t ype of l ocus i n which one expects to f ind Philistine Ware. P erhaps a more systematic i nvestigation of the problem could c larify this matter. Within s trata i n which Philistine Ware i s well represented there i s a great variation o f the percentage of P hilistine Ware i n i ndividual l oci. I n Ashdod X II and XI, in which the percentage of Philistine Ware averages about 2 7%, the p ercentage in i ndividual l oci ranges f rom l ess than 5 % t o more than 6 0%. A s imilar pattern occurs at Sharia and other s ites. Caches o r dumps which concentrate Philistine Ware occur i n the Qasile temples and Locus 6 067 a t Tell K eisan. These variations emphasize the importance o f having a l arge representative s ample when given

calculating stratum.

the

percentage

o f

Philistine

Ware

in

a

On the basis of the evidence presently available i t does not s eem possible t o draw useful i nterpretive conclusions f rom the distribution of P hilistine Ware within s ites or to predict the t ypes o f l oci i n which Philistine Ware will occur.

The

R elationship I n

her

o f

Philistine

s tandard

catalog

Ware o f

To the

Earlier pottery

Pottery of

the

Holy

Land Amiran h as a sserted that a ll Philistine vessel forms can be t raced t o forms previously present i n P alestine. ( 295) S he t races the beer j ug and waisted vessel to Canaanite f orms. She l ists only the horizontal-handled bell bowls, the stirrup j ar, and the pyxis a s due t o Mycenaean prototypes. She c ites Late occurrences of Mycenaean bowls, pyxides, a nd i n P alestine and the LB l ocal i mitations 1 07

Bronze Age stirrup j ars of t hem a s

evidence

t hat

even

this

part

o f

t he

Philistine

pottery

r epertoire could be a n atural d evelopment f rom the L B pottery repertoire of s outhwest P alestine, w hich w as i tself a lready a n amalgamation o f native and foreign i nfluences. She, however, s tops s hort of b reaking the t ie between t he a rrival of n ew immigrants f rom the A egean a nd the appearance of Philistine Ware. S he maintains that t he n ewcomer Philistines started to d ecorate vessels such a s the s tirrup j ar, which were a lready naturalized n atives o f P alestine, i n t he style which was customary i n their former Aegean homeland. However, i f Amiran i s correct i n s aying t hat t hE prototypes of a ll the Philistine v essel f orms were a lready established i n P alestine before the production o f Philistine Ware began, i t i s d ifficult to s ee how a ny solid evidence r emains for a ssociating the beginning o f this pottery s tyle with the arrival of the P hilistines from the Aegean. This i s especially t rue, s ince t he bichrome and white s lip painting t echnique of t he Philistine Ware than Greece.

i s

derived

f rom Cyprus

or

P alestine

rather

We must therefore i nvestigate whether each o f Dothan's e ight Mycenaean vessel types occurs in P alestine before the appearance of Philistine Ware. We m ust a lso evaluate the degree to which Philistine painting uses motifs which were previously unknown i n Palestine. T he evidence f rom Ashdod, one of t he major manufacturing centers of Philistine Ware, i s e specially i mport. We must try to determine i f Philistine Ware and t he l ocal Mycenaean Ware which preceded i t are m anufactured a nd decorated with the s ame techniques a s true Mycenaean Wares i n Greece, or i f these wares are only attempts t o imitate the appearance of Mycenaean vessels by potters u sing other techniques. Transmission of detailed techniques o f manufacture normally requires movement o f potters, but imitation of the s tyle does not. ( 296) Manufacture of Philistine Ware does not seem to have been confined t o one s ite or t o a f ew potters as some s cholars h ave proposed. There i s direct evidence f or manufacture at Ashdod and Jemmeh. At Jemmeh t he finds i nclude the actual kilns. ( 297) Local manufacture i s proposed f or Azor and Gezer on the basis o f unique decorative motifs. ( 298) The P hilistine Ware o f almost every s ite s eems t o have some l ocal p eculiarities a nd preferences. For example, Sharia has relatively f ew painted motifs, but Beth Shemesh h as a high percentage o f painted motifs. I t has been s uggested t hat t he Philistine Ware and s ome of the other f ine vessels f rom Aitun come from Ashdod or the coast because of t he use o f sand temper. Neutron activation analysis a lso l inks some of the A itun pottery with Ashdod. ( 299) S ome of t he Philistine Ware of Beth Shemesh has characteristics s imilar t o that of the A itun ware, but n eutron a ctivation analysis s uggests l ocal manufacture. ( 300)

1 08

I n her study of the Philistine material culture Trude L JJL L an demonstrates that Philistine Ware was derived f rom Late Helladic prototypes. ( 301) More specifically s he classifies the a ntecedents of Philistine Ware a s Mycenaean 1 11d b. " Late H elladic h IC" i s the preferred n ame for the pottery o f t his period f rom the Greek mainland, s ince the t erm " Helladic" permits continuity of t erminology f rom the p re-Mycenaean periods of Greece. Strictly speaking "Mycenaean 1 11d b" refers only to the derivative Mycenaean pottery f ound i n the reconstruction l evels i n Cyprus f rom the beginning o f LCIIIA. S ince this t erminology has become standard i n the discussion of Philistine Ware, we will use i t even though there are questions about i ts appropriateness a nd c larity. The most s erious problem with the term " Mycenaean 1 11d b" i s caused by the strong regionalism of " Mycenaean" pottery and i ts derivatives during Late Helladic h IC. I t i s difficult to correlate the Mycenaean I liCib of Cyprus with the Mycenaean h IC of other areas. Furumark's division of the Mycenaean h IC from the Greek Mainland i nto phases a , b , and . c has recently been r eplaced with the terms Early, Middle and Helladic h Id on the mainland i s the pottery Late. Early which appears i mmediately a fter the destruction of the centers. Schachermeyr co-ordinates the major palace Cypriote Mycenaean l ilCib with Mainland Late beginning of and Astrom suggest that Cypriote Mycenaean I lIB. French I lICib corresponds with a middle phase of M ainland h Id. K ling suggests t hat the beginning of Mycenaean 1 11d b in Cyprus falls i nto Early h IC. ( 302) I n the following discussion we must remember that the u se of t he term Mycenaean h lhClb in discussing the prototypes of Philistine Ware may give the impression of greater c larity and precision concerning the chronological correlation of Mycenaean I hIC pottery from Greece, the Aegean, Cyprus, and P alestine than i s j ustified by the present s tate of knowledge. Dothan makes her case by examining the antecedents of each of her 8 types of Philistine Ware which are a lleged to descend f rom Mycenaean prototypes. She c laims that the makers of the Mycenaean h lidi pottery which precedes and overlaps the Philistine Ware at Ashdod demonstrate a direct knowledge of Mycenaean shapes, decorations, and methods of manufacture. ( 303) A cache o f bell-shaped bowls f rom Stratum X III, Area G , at Ashdod i s especially important to the argument. According to Dothan these bowls c losely resemble Myc. III C1 bowls f rom the Greek mainland, but she acknowledges that the c losest parallels are found i n Cyprus. She maintains that no bowls of this type occur i n c lear LB contexts i n P alestine. Therefore these Type 1 bell bowls must be a n ew ceramic type introduced i nto Palestine by Philistine potters. ( 304) A few bowls of this type may the end of the Late Bronze Age, occurrence of this form i n Palestine 1 09

occur i n Palestine in but t he f irst major i s the Mycenaean Ware

which precedes Philistine Ware at A shdod and Miqne. ( 305) Some of t he earliest P hilistine Ware bowls f rom other s ites show affinities t o the bowls made i n Cyprus with their protruding horizontal l oop h andles, the painted bands on the i nterior, and the knife-shaved r ing bases. ( 306) I t i s not s urprising that this bowl type i s extremely r are i n Palestine i n t he Late Bronze Age, because i t f irst became popular i n Greece a nd Cyprus during the Myc. h IC period, when i t a ssumed more a nd more of the role of the kylix. ( 307) The bell bowl s eems t o be a clear example of a new ceramic f orm which a ppears i n Palestine a lmost co-incidently with the appearance o f Philistine Ware. However, the question still remains whether this form was brought by a wave of i mmigrants f rom the Aegean, or i f i t reached P alestine by t he s ame mechanisms of trade which brought earlier Mycenaean styles to Palestine. Must the i nfluence be t raced d irectly t o the

Aegean

or

i s

i t

mediated

through Cyprus?

According to Dothan the earliest Type 2 bell.shaped kraters at Ashdod are very c lose to Mycenaean I iICi prototypes i n method of throwing, f iring, and p ainting. ( 308) Unfortunately, she cites no specific parallels t o demonstrate that the s ame methods o f manufacture a re used in Greece and Ashdod. The case f or direct derivation from the Aegean would be more convincing i f i t were backed by specific evidence concerning the method of preparing t he c lay and paint and by analysis of detailed points o f manufacture and surface treatment. What i s still n eeded i s detailed s tudy o f manufacture i n t he style of F rancken's publications and specific evidence that demonstrates that the influence must be traced back to Greece, not m erely t o Cyprus. A lthough Dothan acknowledges that l ocal imitations o f kraters of this general form occur i n Palestine a lready i n LB I I, she maintains that the Philistine forms do not derive from these imitations, but d irectly from Mycenaean h IC prototypes of Furumark's Type 2 82. ( 309) H owever, the c losest parallels to the Philistine kraters are Cypriote. Furthermore, the Philistine kraters are not mere copies of prototypes found e lsewhere, but a d istinct s tyle i n their own r ight. ( 310) The Philistine stirrup j ar, Dothan's Type 3 , differs i n s ize and method of manufacture from the Mycenaean prototypes. ( 311) The l arge s tirrup j ars which sometimes appear i n Mycenaean Ware, i ncluding the earlier Mycenaean Ware of Palestine, are a lmost totally absent f rom the Philistine repertoire. P hilistine stirrup j ars generally have a s tring-cut disc at the i nterior of the f alse neck, i n contrast to the hollow neck or p rotruding p lug that characterizes most earlier Mycenaean stirrup j ars i n Palestine. ( 312) This d ifference may be p artly a function o f s ize s ince i t would be very difficult to form a hollow f alse neck on a small j ar. The s tring-cut neck may occur i n Cyprus, but small Cypriote-made stirrup j ars usually h ave a spiral and dimple on the inside of the 1 10

f alse neck, r ather t han a s tring cut. ( 313) T hese observations a re based on l imited data. I t i s very difficult to i nvestigate t his phenomemon because s tirrup j ars are comparatively rare and they are o ften restored, so i t i s usually i mpossible to check the i nside of t he neck. Further s ystematic i nvestigation of the method of f orming t he f alse neck in Greece, Cyprus, and I srael would be a useful s tep i n comparing Greek, Cypriote, and Philistine methods of manufacture. Stirrup j ars occurred i n the Levant a lready i n Myc. l ilA and e specially I lIB. Canaanite imitations occur f rom the 1 3th through 1 1th centuries. However, Dothan again maintains that t he Philistine examples derive not from these antecedents, but directly f rom Myc. h IC prototypes of F urumark's t ypes 1 75 and 1 76, e specially i n their decorative motifs. ( 314) Dothan maintains that the Philistine amphoriskos derives f rom Mycenaean h IC prototypes, but acknowledges that the basic Philistine pyxis may well derive f rom shapes a lready i mitated i n Palestine i n the Late Bronze Age. She c lassifies the p inched waist and composite varieties of pyxis a s Philistine i nnovations. ( 315) These varieties together f orm Dothan's Type 4 . Dothan's assertion that t he amphoriskos does not appear i n LB Palestine s hould be evaluated i n l ight of the Beth Shan tomb material which has vessels of amphoriskos form. ( 316) Type 5 , the three handled j ar, i s very r are i n Palestine. Dothan l ists only one example with Philistine style decoration and two other three-handled j ars which occur in Philistine contexts, but l ack Philistine decoration. These two appear to be l ocal imitations of Myc. I hIB Type 3 8 j ars. ( 317) The s trainer-spouted " beer j ug," Dothan's Type 6 , i s one of the most s ignificant Philistine pottery types. ( Our discussion of this type i ncludes the related forms which Dothan p laces i n her Type 1 7.) Strainer-spouted j ugs, similar to the Philistine form, occur in Cyprus. On the basis of these vessels, as well as s cattered examples f rom the Aegean, e specially Rhodes, and a f ragment of a Mycenaean h IC s trainer-spouted vessel from Ashdod Dothan derives the Philistine strainer jug f rom Mycenaean I liCib strainer j ugs. ( 318) However, Furumark, the creator of the s tandard c lassification system of Mycenaean pottery, believed that t he " beer j ug" was derived from Canaanite prototypes. ( 319) Undecorated strainer-spouted vessels similar to the Philistine form are common throughout Palestine, but most o f them s eem be l ater than the earliest Philistine Ware. ( 320) The s trainer-spout itself precedes the Philistine pottery period. The earliest examples often appear on the " coal bucket" form, which appears with Philistine decoration on rare occasions. ( 321) The basket handle, which Dothan regards as a l ate f eature on Philistine j ars, appears to have been well established i n P alestine before the appearance of 1 11

Philistine Ware. ( 322) the s trainer spouted j ar to be Cyprus,

i s

The ancestry and i s not yet c lear,

reciprocal i nfluences and the Aegean.

Dothan's rare i n

between

development o f but t here s eem

Syria-Palestine,

Type 7 , the basket-handled " feeding bottle" Philistine Ware. Only one published example

has distinctly Philistine decoration. The f orm d oes occur i n Greece, but the occurrence o f a vessel f orm i n Mycenaean Ware i s not proof that the vessel form i tself i s of Mycenaean origin. ( 323) Spouted vessels s imilar i n concept have a l ong h istory in the Near East. Similar vessels which u sually have a strap handle either on t he back or on the s ide occur both i n Cyprus and P alestine before the occurrence of Philistine Ware. ( 324) Authorities on Mycenaean pottery disagree a bout t he Mycenaean or Eastern derivation of this vessel f orm. ( 325) Dothan accepts the derivation f rom Mycenaean prototypes. ( 326) The direction of the basket h andle on these vessels may be s ome i ndication of the area f rom which t he i nfluence came. I n Greece the handle tends to b e p arallel to the spout, but exceptions do occur. F urumark's s tatement that the perpendicular handle never o ccurs i n Greece i s no l onger t enable. Both types occur i n Cyprus. The Philistine examples often have a handle perpendicular to the spout, but parallel handles a lso occur. ( 327) Further research i s needed to determine what s ignificance the handle direction may have. Dothan acknowledges that her Type 8 , t he pinched waist juglet, has only partial and indirect Mycenaean parallels. ( 328) The pinched-waist vessel is n ot really a distinct vessel form. I t i s simply an attribute which occurs on j ars of several different basic shapes. Almost every example i s a unique form without exact parallels. Dothan a lso analyzes the painted motifs of P hilistine Ware as directly dependent on the C lose Style of Mycenaean I liCib. ( 329) Some of the Philistine motifs a re certainly a lmost exact copies of motifs which o ccur on Mycenaean h IC i n Cyprus, but t he range of Mycenaean motifs i s much broader i n Cyprus than i n Philistia. Again the role o f Cyprus as an intermediary raises the question whether direct contact with Greece was necessary. Aegean motifs occur i n Philistine Ware o n a scale unprecedented i n earlier pottery o f the Levant, but this i s not an entirely n ew phenomenon. " Aegean" m otifs were being amalgamated i nto eastern pottery a lready in t he Bichrome and Nuzi styles of the Late B ronze Age. Spirals, birds, and other Aegean and Minoan motifs appear east of the T igris i n t he Late B ronze Age. ( 330) Dornemann's study of the archeology of the T ransjordan provides a very useful comparison o f the painted m otifs o f Philistine pottery and other pottery types of S yria and P alestine. ( 331) 1 12

D othan has carefully a ssembled the evidence f or direct derivation of Philistine Ware f rom Aegean Mycenaean h IC prototypes a nd argues that this provides evidence o f the P hilistines' m igration f rom the Aegean. The p resent evidence, however, i s i nadequate to prove either of these premises. The Aegean derivation o f four of Dothan's eight Mycenaean types, Types 5 -8, i s uncertain. The Mycenaean character of Type 5 consists mainly of the fact that i t has three-handles. I t occurs only once i n Philistine Ware. Three handles a lso occur on non-Philistine vessels. ( 332) This vessel f orm i s not a distinct type and i s too rare to carry much weight as evidence f or the Aegean origin of the Philistines. The l ack o f c lear Mycenaean origin f or Types 7 and 8 , t he f eeding bottle and the pinched-waist vessel, has a lready been c ited above. The pinched waist vessel i s not really a d istinct f orm, but a group of j ugs or j ars of different basic s hapes which are c lassified together on the basis of a s ingle trait. I n any case, both of these types are very r are i n Philistine Ware. Type 6 , the " beer jug," i s more crucial to Dothan's argument s ince i t has an important role in Philistine Ware. A lthough this vessel occurs i n Cyprus, Rhodes, and Greece, i t i s not common on the Greek mainland. We have seen that Furumark traced this form to Syro-Palestinian prototypes. ( 333) Some Philistine examples o f this vessel are s imilar i n shape to Dothan's Types 1 4 and 1 5, which she acknowledges to be Canaanite forms, except for the addition of t he s trainer spout. ( 334) Other examples with a narrow n eck, l ong s trap handle from r im to shoulder, and short spout, are much c loser to Cypriote and Aegean examples. ( 335) Dothan points to a f ragment of a Mycenaean h ilCib strainer-spouted j ar f rom Ashdod as the best evidence f or the Mycenaean derivation of this form. ( 336) However, the basic form of this vessel may have spread i n two directions from Cyprus, to the Aegean and to Palestine, rather than passing f rom the Aegean through Cyprus to Palestine. The i ndividual e lements which are combined i n s ome examples of this j ar, s uch a s the strainer spout and the basket handle, did occur in Palestine before they were combined i n the Philistine strainer j ar. This vessel form could be the result of l ong time reciprocal ceramic influences between Cyprus and the Aegean and Cyprus and Palestine. The Aegean origin of this very i mportant form i s thus uncertain. Systematic study of spout l ength, handle p lacement, and body shape may b e helpful i n c larifying " families" within this t ype. D othan's Types 2 -4 a ll occur i n Palestine before the appearance of P hilistine Ware. The i ssue i s whether the Philistine f orm o f these kraters, stirrup j ars and pyxides can be explained as a derivation of these earlier forms, or i f they r equire new i nfluences directly f rom t he Aegean. There do s eem to be some n ew i nfluences, 1 13

e specially c lear t hat

i n t he kraters and t hese must be directly

s tirrups, but i t f rom t he Aegean.

i s

n ot

Dothan s ays t hat Type 1 , t he small bowl, does n ot appear i n P alestine before Philistine Ware a nd i ts i mmediate antecedents, but Leonard's s tudy shows b oth t he bowl and t he krater occurring i n t he Levant i n M yc. l IlA and I lIB. ( 337) However, this t ype o f bowl i s rare e nough before the appearance of Philistine Ware t hat w e a re j ustified i n c lassifying i t a s a n ew f orm whose appearance Ware. The

co-incides with the appearance of question s till remains whether t his

r equires the i nfluence may i ntermediary.

arrival of h ave been

P hilistine p henomenon

immigrants f rom t he Aegean. passed t hrough Cyprus as

T he a n

The Myc. h IC of Ashdod which Dothan C ites a s evidence for the Aegean origin of both Philistine W are and the Philistines i s a lready a derivative l ocal i mitation ware, not a t rue Aegean Mycenaean Ware. I n d iscussing this topic i t would be beneficial t o reserve t he unmodified t erm " Mycenaean" for pottery made in G reece and perhaps the Aegean i slands. I t i s certainly s ignificant that authorities on Mycenaean pottery are v irtually unanimous i n t he verdict that Philistine Ware i s not a d irect derivation from t rue Aegean Mycenaean p ottery. ( 338) Even Dothan acknowledges that Philistine Ware cannot be t he product of a people coming d irectly f rom a n Aegean homeland, but i t i s a s tyle which r eflects a variety of cultural i nfluences which were acquired on a s low j ourney f rom the Aegean. ( 339) I f i t is t rue that Philistine Ware i s an amalgamation of many i nfluences, i t i s doubtful i f i t can serve as decisive evidence of the p lace

of

origin

of

its

manufacturers.

Even

if

t he makers

of Philistine Ware were immigrants to P alestine, they could have come to Cyprus f rom nearly anywhere, p icked up the Mycenaean i nfluences i n Cyprus and then modified these Mycenaean forms and motifs further i n Palestine. Schachermeyr's theory of the I llyrian origin o f the Philistines i s a variant of this Possibility. ( 340) He believes that Philistine Ware was not the pottery of the Philistines' original homeland, but an i nfluence which t hey picked up Balkans through

i n the course of their t he Aegean and Cyprus.

migration f rom the I f S chachermeyr's

theory i s viable, the Philistines need not have come from the Aegean at a ll, but could have come to Cyprus from nearly anywhere and picked up the Aegean i nfluence t here. I f we are here dealing with a l arge group o f A egean immigrants, i t i s s trange that the Aegean i nfluence i s not a lso reflected more s trongly i n t he p lain ware which occurs with Philistine Ware. This will be investigated more thoroughly i n the next s ection of t his paper. Mycenaean

pottery

i nfluences

were

a lready

being

adapted i nto t he Canaanite pottery r epertoire i n the quasi - Mycenaean S imple Style, which i s an imitation of Myc. I lIB. ( 341) I s the quantity and quality of 1 14

P hilistine Ware great enough p roof of m igration f rom the Mycenaean i nfluences are not so

that i t must be Aegean i f these interpreted?

t aken a s p revious

A ll o f t hese f actors make i t difficult to a ccept P hilistine Ware a s p roof of a l arge s cale m igration f rom t he Aegean without more s upporting evidence f rom other a spects o f the culture. This point will be discussed f urther i n the chapter on the s ignificance of Philistine W are.

T he Pottery Associated With P hilistine Ware This s ection has two primary goals. The f irst i s to demonstrate the continuity of the main pottery forms which o ccur a long with Philistine Ware f rom the pottery f orms of Late Bronze Age P alestine. The utilitarian ware which o ccurs with Philistine Ware has its roots i n the forms of L ate Bronze Age Palestine, rather than i n the forms which s erve the s ame f unction in Greece. The s econd goal i s to demonstrate that the utilitarian pottery which occurs with P hilistine Ware i s very s imilar to that which occurs at non-Philistine s ites i n Palestine. We will begin by comparing the pottery of the P hilistine Ware Burials of the 5 00 Cemetery at Fara South with that of t he 9 00 Cemetery which preceded i t. The r elationship o f these cemeteries i s discussed at l ength in the chapter on burials. F ifty-four of the most prevalent pottery types i n these burials are i llustrated i n the bar graphs which f ollow t his section. ( 342) A lthough the drawings do not s how a ll the details of the pottery types, t hey adequately i llustrate the basic types being discussed. ( 343) The numbers of the major types of P hilistine Ware are underlined. The number of columns of dots on either s ide of the center l ine represents the percentage of each type in a given a ssemblage. For example, f orm 1 , the s hallow bowl, makes up 5 % of the 9 00U Cemetery. The numbers on the r ight a re P etrie's designations f or the various burial groups. The groups l abeled 9 00 are v arious types of burials which precede the appearance of P hilistine Ware. The l atest of these burials overlap t he earliest burials with Philistine Ware, but none of these burials contains any Philistine Ware. Chamber Tombs 5 52, 5 62, 5 32, and 5 42 are the tombs which P etrie called " the tombs of the Lords of the Philistines." These tombs contain l ess than 1 0% Philistine Ware. The 8 00, 1 00, 5 00, and 6 00 Cemeteries a lso contain some Philistine Ware. The series 2 00 Cemeteries contain l ate or degenerate P hilistine Ware, but these cemeteries are l ater than the t ime o f t rue Philistine Ware. I n the graphs the burial groups are l isted i n the order e stablished by M cClellan's computer s eriation. However h is order for t he t ombs of the Philistines i s not universally accepted. This and other disputes raised by M cClellan's study are discussed i n more detail i n t he 1 15

S ections Ware.

on

Tell

F ara

and

on

t he

dating

o f

Philistine

The graphs i ndicate the very s trong continuity o f a lmost a ll of the major ceramic f orms f rom the p re-Philistine 9 00 Cemetery t hrough the " Philistine" 5 00 Cemetery. Especially notice the continuity of such major forms as the s imple rounded bowl ( 2) , the carinated r im bowl ( 4) , s torage j ar 8 , the round based l amp ( 17) , the pilgrim f lask ( 32) , and dipper j uglets 5 0 and 5 1. A lmost a ll o f the most common utilitarian f orms continue f rom the preceding period and reflect the i ndigenous t raditions of Palestine. The most s ignificant new f orms a re t he underlined Philistine types and n ew variants of earlier forms such a s the more robust storage j ar ( 16) , the cup f lask ( 26) , and the f lat based l amp ( 34) . These f orms do not make up a major portion of the repertoire. The evidence s eems to justify McClellan's conclusion that the continuity and overall s imilarity o f the pre-Philistine and Philistine assemblages at Fara i s greater than the dissimilarity. ( 344) Unfortunately the evidence f rom the strata at F ra i s l ess u seful because of the small number of whole vessels. ( Graphs 6 & 7 ) Nevertheless the graphs do s how a continuity of t he most common bowl types ( 7 & 8 ) , l amps ( 1) , and f lasks ( 17) . The major new form i s the Philistine horizontal handled bowl ( 20) . Thus the l imited evidence from the Philistine strata at Fara shows the s ame continuity of Canaanite ceramic tradition a s the m aterial f rom the tombs.

1 16

G raph 1 M AIN P OTTERY F ORMS O F T HE F ARA B URIALS

„ ‚H ‚ I i 1 11 f i l l ' I

U

l i t1 1 1 1 1i iiI ff 1 1 1 I UH I I I iH l u f f1 1 1 1I ' l li l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1W t Im l i l l t iU i i i i l il ! 1 1 !

i l

I U I I I I J I I I I I I I I LUU 1 1 1 1 11 111 1 11 11 111 1 11

9 00U 9 00S 9 00B 9 00L

I U i f 1U IU l I I 1 1 1 1 1U I T t t IUU I l LU I u' s.

5 52* 5 62* 5 32* 8 00

-

1 1 11 1 11 l u u l i l l

1 00 5 00N 6 00 5 42* 2 00B 2 29 2 01 2 00C

..

HW I i l l L I ' j :u s i s

iU 2

L) I t L I

I t 5 *

I i

I i

S i U

s

HI i 1I

I L

U i

S I

8 00 1 00 S OON 6 00 5 42*

5 5

3 *

=

5

4 .

6

P hilistine W are L evels o r t ypes

1 17

9 00U 9 00S 9 00B 9 00L 5 52* 5 62* 5 32*

7

2 00B 2 29 2 01 2 00C

G raph 2

F ARA B URIALS

l i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i u u u i : i I HU I ..

9 00U 9 00S 9 00B 9 00L 5 52*

u u i u u u u I I 1 1 1

5 62* 5 32* 8 00 1 00 5 0O N 6 00 5 42*

UI

1 2

T

C

i l l ! l i i ' ' H t tssis p:

J

: s

i st

ii 2 .

: :t

2 . f l3

: :::::cs: j 2 . 2 .1

s. ....

i ::is:

1

1 18

" 2

3 : :

l i l I

r I 2 .2 . 3

1 3

2 0DB 2 29 2 01

12 .• 5 2 . 3

9 00U 9 00S 9 00B 9 00L 5 52* 5 62* 5 32* 8 00 1 00 S OON 6 00 5 42* 2 00B 2 29 2 01

G raph 3

F ARA

B URIALS

L I1

9 00U 9 00S 9 00B 9 00L

• 1

5 52* 5 62*

5 32*

i I

8 00

1 00

5 00N 6 00

U I 542* 2 00B 229 2 01 2 00C

2 2 I s

1 8

19 *

2 0*21*

II

2 2

2 3* 2 4*25

2 6

2 7 .

2 8

9 00u

i : i i : :

•

9 00S 9 00B 9 00L

U

.

5 52* 5 62*

. ...8.

S t

L I • _ _ _ _

‚

5 32*

:

2

8

-

8 00

1 00

S OON 6 00

I I . .. ........

8 :: z ::: • •

5 42* I S

-

2 00B

2 29 2 01

i 2 9

3 0

2 00C

3 2

3 1

1 19

G raph 4

F A M B URIALS

8

9 00B 9 00L 5 52* 5 62*

I iI ) iI

5 32* 8 00 i 1 00 5 00N

: :i

i

6 00

5 42* I ::::

3 3

3 4

3 6

3 5*

3 7*

. ....

3 8*

3 9

i I

1 : 15; -

f i l l

4 0

l l i I I U

4 1

I : iU

U U I 1

4 2

us : . ' :

::z::g

4 3*

1 20

j

2 00B 2 29

G raph 5

F ARA B URIALS

L i0

0

* I UUU I IU I I !I I U UI! : 1:115.88

i ' .

U 1E U l

I :

I L

1 1111::

I

: 18

UU L

5 62* 5 32*

8 00 1 00 5 00 N 6 00 5 42*

: t

2 00B ‚

4 6

4 7

4 8

f l U I II : 1

-

CD

9 • s iIiii

'

5 0

4 9

L i I 1 1:11 1 5 3 5 I iU L i f if i l i t

900B

j900L 5 52*

I f

5 62* 5 32* 8 00

I II IL i

00 U U 1

5 00 N 6 00

5 42*

I.2 I

_I

5 1

5 2

1 21

5 3

5 4

G raph 6 MAIN

POTTERY FORMS OF THE PHILISTINE STRATA AT TEL FARA SOUTH

i t i i t i l i I L I II 1 t l

F

_

i l l . l tI 1 1 1 t i l l t .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

11 l i i i

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i l I l i l l I l l i l i l 1 J l I l l I l lU1 i . . . I i I J t l l 1 ! I I J J J 1

i

V T

ii t I II

u ; 4

F .

I 1UU 1 i l l I l l J i t I l l l i iU ii l i I 1 !tl i i i i l l t l l i l l l l l l t l l l l l l t l l i J I J tU I IU L I I & sU t l •U i !U

U • i 1 • i l

j I :i i iU i I 1 i l i i i i I e h I l l u i t

*Y V T U _

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

I 1 L U L i I 1 1 1 1 1 I i I! I . J . , l l l l l l t l i l l i l l l l l l i t l l 1 i l I t l I t I i I I i I i I i I 1 I h t i t i t l l l l l l t h l l I 1 l I f 0 1 1 11 i . ih tt i i l . L_ 9

8

7

C Y I 1 I I II 1 0

1 1

1 2

i 1 l i iu i i

t i hi i i Tl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i

l i i 1 1 1

1 4

1 22

i I Ii 1 5

G raph 7 F ABA S OUTH S TRATA Tel Fara South

I L B

1i j

UU I lU

H i l l

V T U

i i

z V T U

i l

_ 1 _ _ __ _ _ _8388*sllthll uhlsthl*

1 7

1 6

* .

. { •i ' h .

i

2 ] .

7-

u

( JJ

2 2*

8 I s I II UI

1 8

l i f l iU iU

2 3

1 23

I l U H . I S U IU H

8 8 I

UI UI

� --

tU18$ * 558*8.

1 1 1 1 1

1*31111.8

1 9

i f Mi l

-

t 8'

iU i 8 * i f l $ 1 * 5 3 4 1

T el Qasile i s at present the most i mportant s ite f or s tudying t he pottery a ssociated with Philistine W are because Amihai Mazar's S tudy provides the f ullest publication and the most adequate quantitative i nformation of any s ite with a h igh percentage of Philistine Ware. ( 345) There are no pre-Philistine strata at Q asile t o directly demonstrate the continuity o f LB C anaanite pottery t radition at Qasile, but the relationship o f major pottery types at Qasile to earlier Canaanite pottery tradition can be demonstrated by comparison with m aterial f rom other s ites. ( 346) I f Qasile was a P hilistine foundation, the predominance of Canaanite forms h ere would be e specially s ignificant, s ince t here was no established pre-Philistine Canaanite population t o provide a n automatic carry-over of forms.

which

Graphs 8 and 9 i llustrate contribute more than 1 % to

most of the the pottery

pottery types assemblage o f

the three Philistine s trata at Qasile. With a bout 2 4% Philistine Ware S tratum X II at Tel Qasile has the h ighest percentage of Philistine Ware of any s tratum s tudied except t he key Philistine strata at Ashdod. Nevertheless even at Qasile t he most common f orms o f utilitarian vessels continue the traditions of LB P alestine. T he common storage j ars ( 2) , cooking and dippers ( 16, 1 7) a ll reflect

pots ( 3, 6 ) , a continuing

l amps ( 12), development

of the t raditions of LB Palestine. The Aegean i nfluence i s greatest i n bowls and kraters ( Forms 1 and 1 0) , but even here forms from the traditions of Canaan continue t o p lay a very prominent role ( Forms 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 ) F orms 7 and 8 are handled varieties of f orms 5 and 4 . S ome o f these which have horizontal l oop handles may be c lassified as a combination of Canaanite and Aegean i nfluences. ( 347) .

1 24

G raph 8 MAIN P OTTERY F ORHS O F T EL Q ASILE

x tt

4

X I -.

I

1*

f r

t i * a-

5

G raph 9

T EL Q ASILE

XTT

1 2 b

10 .'

9

•

x i

: :: i

as -.

x r t

-

-

X I•

1 3

1 4

1 5 c

1 6

1 7

a

A n umber o f " Canaanite" k raters, h aving d ifferent t ypes o f h andles a nd h andle p lacement a re g rouped t ogether.

b

S ome o f t he l amps h aving a m ore f langed r im a re g rouped w ith t he t ype p ictured h ere.

c

S ome o f t he s trainer j ugs f rom Q asile h ave u nusual f orms a nd h andle t ypes, b ut t hey a re g rouped i n t his g raph.

1 26

T he s trong r ole o f C anaanite pottery t radition a t Qasile can a lso be i llustrated by comparing t he pottery f orms of Qasile with s ites i n other parts o f P alestine. F or this comparison the pottery o f Qasile was c lassified i nto 4 8 basic t ypes. ( 348) Over 7 0% of t hese f orms a lso o ccur i n Galilee or t he Northern l owlands. 6 5% o ccur a t other s ites i n P hilistia. 6 5% occur i n the S hephelah. 2 7% o ccur i n the Northern Negev. 2 1% occur i n t he Jordan Valley. 1 9% occur i n the central highlands. 1 6% o ccur i n Syria and Lebanon. ( 349) This suggests a very s trong correlation o f t he ceramics of Tel Qasile with a ll o f t he coastal and l owland r egions o f P alestine and a much l esser correlation with the central mountains. This would not b e p articularly s urprising, but the degree o f d ifference between h ighland and l owland a ssemblages i s much l ess d ramatic than t hese p ercentages s uggest. Many o f the 4 8 f orms are m inor o r decorative variants which occur i n very s mall percentages at Q asile. S ince a lmost a ll major excavations which have published a l arge number o f ceramic f orms are f rom l owland s ites, not central highland s ites, t he chances f or f inding p arallels f or the Q asile m aterial f rom the i nterior are much l ess t han for t he p lains. The evidence i ndicates that a r icher variety of f orms o ccurred i n t he l owland c ities, but the major utilitarian pottery o f the coast a nd h ighlands i s really quite s imilar. L amps, s torage vessels, dippers, cooking pots, and many bowl forms are very s imilar between t he coast and h ighlands. Of t he 1 7 high percentage forms on our Qasile graphs at l east s even occur regularly i n the highlands. ( Forms 3 ,4,6,8,9,12,17). ( 350) Undecorated variants o f f orm 1 5, the s trainer j ar, are common i n the mountains a lso. F orm 1 3 f lasks and cup mouthed f lasks a lso occur i n the h ighlands though not as commonly as in the p lains. ( 351) I n t he mountains t he collar r im j ar i s a s tandard f orm, rather t han t he common storage j ar f orm at Qasile ( 2), but t he b asic f orm of these two types i s not d rastically d ifferent. ( 352) Philistine bowls 1 and 1 0 o ccur i n s mall quantities at s ome highland s ites as we h ave noted i n our previous quantitative s tudies. A lthough t here a re r egional variations between the coast and h ighlands even i n domestic wares, the difference between t he common domestic wares at major Philistine Ware s ites a nd small agricultural s ites i n the central mountains of P alestine i s s mall compared t o the great difference between the common domestic wares of Mycenaean s ites i n Greece and the Philistine Ware s ites o f P alestine. Two a dditional s ets o f graphs i llustrate the s ame c ontinuity o f Canaanite LB utilitarian pottery f orms which i s apparent a t Fara i n s outhern Philistia and Qasile i n n orthern Philistia. Graphs 1 0, 1 1, and 1 2 show t he main p ottery f orms o f M egiddo and Beth Shan i n t he Northern V alley. ( 353) Megiddo h as a l ow percentage of Philistine W are i n S trata 7 a and 6 , but a f airly h igh percentage o f p ottery s imilar i n f orm t o P hilistine s trainers and p yxides, o ccurs i n s eems

but d ecorated extremely s mall

roughly

d ifferently. quantities i n

c ontemporary with 1 27

the

P hilistine B eth Shan 6 ,

burials

which

Ware which

i nclude

t he f amous f eathered headdress coffin which i s d iscussed i n the chapter on burials. These graphs demonstrate t he s trong continuity f rom pre-Philistine s trata 8 a nd 7 b a t Megiddo i nto Philistine Ware l evels 6 a and 6 . N ote s uch m ajor forms a s bowl 1 , dipper 4 , l amp 5 , storage jar 1 2, and f lask 3 1, and bowl 3 2. The p attern of continuity i s s imilar to that at Fara. Graphs 1 3 and 1 4 i llustrate the m ajor t ypes f rom I zbet Sartah. ( 354) This s ite, which i s east o f Qasile and Aphek at the very edge of the mountains, has t he characteristics of a small I sraelite agricultural s ettlement. The percentage o f P hilistine Ware i s l ess than 2 %. Type 5 on the graph represents a combination o f a ll types of Philistine Ware at t he s ite. It i s made u p mainly of fragments of Philistine bowls and kraters l ike those which are common at Qasile. Notice the v ery strong correspondence o f the major forms at Qasile a nd I zbet Sartah. Compare Qasile bowl 5 and I zbet Sartah bowl 1 , Qasile bowl 4 and I zbet Sartah bowl 3 , Qasile krater 9 and I zbet Sartah krater 4 , Qasile f lask 1 3 and I zbet Sartah f lask 8 , Qasile cooking pots 3 and 6 and I zbet S artah pots 1 0, 1 1, & 1 4, Qasile j ar 2 and I zbet S artah 1 8 & 1 2. T he chalices and l amps are a lso s imilar at both sites. A f ew examples of the collar rim which i s more common a t I zbet Sartah ( Form 1 6) a lso occur at Qasile. The correspondence of forms between these two s ites i s even more s triking when it i s remembered that the types on the graphs were not chosen because of their s imilarity, but because they were

the

highest percentage

types

1 28

at each

s ite.

G raph

1 0

MAIN POTTERY FORMS OF THE PHILISTINE AT MEGGIDO AND BETH SHAN

I I1 1 1I I1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 !i i l i iH I I E LI JÜ } J TI T I I11 I J J J Ul i

i l

J JLW I U U I IU 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

STRATA

IW

l t

M8 M7 B BS6 M6A M6 M5B .M4B/5A

1

4 ) I t I 1 tUI I t i l i l lU i

l i jU i l I I IU ! I J OI t i l l 1 0 1 ' I '* *

I I II

1 1 l i i ! 1 1 1 10 W OO I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' i • I u I *

i

M8 M7B BS6 M6A M6 M5B M4B/5A

3

i t

I 41 I II I II Ii ( i :I j I I 9

1 0

1 1

1 29

M7B

I

1 I i U 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 I i i *I I1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t I l l

1 z

1 3

BS6 M6A M6 M5B M4B

5A

G raph 1

M EGIDDO A ND B ETH S HAH

-

I 1 I iu 1

II ! 1

1 5

I i IU i ! i I1 1 i i f

1 8

-

1 9

I [ fJ J f f 1 i

1 6

1 7

I I I L h i t l i I i 11I 2 i*

2 0

1 30

11 2* 2 3

M 8 M7B BS6 M 6A M 6 M5B

M8 1 M7B BS6 I I f f l rM6A

l t ii i i lM6 2 4

' M5 B

G r aph 1 2

M EG IDDO A ND B ETH S HA N

l i

1 1 1 1 _ _i i i

fI I i

2 5

cL)

• 2 6

2 7

2 8

2 9

3 0

3 1

I U

M8 M T h M6A. M6 M5B

0

M8 M7B BS6 M6A

$

3 2

El i

3 3

L t

M6 M5B

1 1f il l

11 1

3 4

3 5•

1 3 1

t

3 6 3 7

M 4B/ M 5A

G raph 1 3

M AIN P OTTERY F ORMS O F I ZBET S ARTAB

II I I la

2a

3a

4a

a T hese c lasses g roup t ogether v arious t ypes o f d ecoration . B urnishing i s i ncreasing f rom I II t o I .

II I I 5

6

1 32

G raph 1 4 I ZBET S ARTAH

• • : :. f

. . . .-

[ 2

I

1 3

t

. ...4 ...

.. . .

1 1

1 0

9

I I

.

a

1 4

1 5

tu U

_ ._ _t _1

I•

-

1 6 1 33

The s ites i llustrated i n t he graphs were chosen because of the availability of better quantitative data o r l arger quantities o f pottery. 3 55 The s ame c ontinuity a lso occurs at otner s ites which are not yet a s fully published or which have l ess quantitative i nformation available. For example the l evels wnich contain Philistine Ware at Gezer show t he s ame very strong continuity of LB Canaanite pottery t raditions. 3 56 T he t ransitions from I lIB to Philistine Ware l evel l ILA a t Afula and from Strata IV to I II at Beth Shemesh s how t he same t endency. ( 357) The Philistine Ware s ites which we have examined s how the same strong continuity of the Late Bronze utilitarian ware traditions o f Palestine whether the percentage o f Philistine Ware i s high or l ow, whether the s ite i s i n Philistia or quite distant. Does t he s ame pattern hold a t the chief cities of the Philistine pentapolis? T he l imited amount o f information available from Ashdod suggests that the answer i s yes, but a definitive answer i s not possible until more i nformation becomes available. Strata X II and X I at Ashdod yielded about 3 0% P hilistine Ware, so the proportion of p lain ware at Ashdod i s not much l ower than that at Qasile X II. However, not much o f this p lain ware appears in the Ashdod volumes which have been published so far. The l imited number o f s amples published so far i ndicate that l amps, f lasks, j uglets, storage j ars, cooking pots, and s ome bowls which continue the LB traditions of Palestine o ccur in the Philistine Ware l evels of Ashdod. ( 358) The exact proportion o f these various types of vessels cannot yet be determined. It is possible that there i s l ess continuity from t he Late Bronze Age in the p lain ware o f Ashdod than a t other Philistine Ware s ites, but no evidence has yet been presented i ndicating that any of the p lain utilitarian pottery of Ashdod or any other Philistine Ware s ite i s derived from the utilitarian pottery of LB Greece or t he Aegean, rather than publication of the excavation at Miqne pentapolis will make more definitively.

LB

Palestine. Perhaps the further Ashdod material and continued or other s ites of the Philistine it possible t o answer this q uestion

I n the meantime, it i s c lear that there i s very strong continuity of LB pottery t raditions at all o f the Philistine Ware s ites. This does not imply that the forms are indistinguishable from the LB f orms, but that t hey are natural and gradual developments f rom the LB forms, rather than a drastic break with the past or an i ntroduction o f forms derived f rom LB utilitarian pottery i n Greece. ( 359) Any explanation of the Philistines and their culture must explain not only the introduction of new forms and decoration of Mycenaean derivation i n the decorated ware, but a lso the continued dominance o f LB Canaanite f orms i n the p lain daily-use wares. Such a s trong continuity o f ceramic traditions at the Philistine Ware s ites suggests a great deal of continuity of population f rom t he Late Bronze Age at these s ites. Perhaps new i nformation will 1 34

show

l ess

continuity

at

A shdod

or

other

s ites

of

the

Pentapolis. I f s o, this would s uggest that the s trongest Aegean influence or population change was confined to t he f ive cities designated as the Philistine pentapolis i n the O ld Testament. But the presently available evidence i ndicates both s triking new forms and strong continuity o f o ld f orms at a ll P hilistine Ware s ites.

The

S ignificance

o f

Philistine

Ware

The evidence l inking the appearance of P hilistine Ware with the arrival o f the Philistines f rom the Aegean i s not a s conclusive a s i s often assumed. I t i s not necessary to attribute the Mycenaean characteristics of the Philistine Ware to a Philistine arrival f rom the Aegean, s ince Mycenaean characteristics were being amalgamated i nto the pottery t raditions of Cyprus and s outhwestern Palestine before the appearance of Philistine Ware. Philistine Ware could be explained as the result o f the creative r ecombination o f various ceramic i deas available to them by a potter or group of potters i n s outhwestern Palestine, r ather than the result of the arrival of a new group o f people f rom the Aegean. I s the beginning o f Philistine Ware due to t he arrival of a new group of people i n s outhwestern Palestine, or could this sudden increase i n p roduction of a l ocally made " Mycenaean" ware be an a ttempt by l ocal potters to replace the popular Mycenaean s tyle l uxury pottery which was no l onger arriving f rom the Aegean or Cyprus due to disruption of trade? The concentration o f Philistine Ware in southwestern Palestine could be due p rimarily to l ocal trade patterns, rather t han to ethnic preference for a certain pottery style. T he distribution of Philistine Ware could be an i ndication of m arketing patterns, rather than of ethnic, p olitical, or l inguistic boundaries. The explanation l inking t he appearance of Philistine Ware with the arrival o f the Philistines f rom the Aegean i s not i mpossible or even improbable. However, it cannot be a ssumed that this i s the only p ossible explanation as many have done. We m ust consider other explanations. Even those who attribute the popularity of Philistine W are in southwestern Palestine to the common Aegean roots o f the people a nd the pottery recognize that it i s i mpossible to c laim that this pottery i s a direct t ransfer f rom the Aegean. ( 360) But i f this pottery i s a hybrid which cannot b e t raced directly to a specific home i n the A egean, i t i s a v ery weak i ndicator of the p lace of origin o f the Philistines. Mycenaean pottery i nfluences could h ave traveled f rom the Aegean t o Cyprus either by m igration or t rade. From Cyprus they could have been p assed on to P alestine by commerce or by a different group t han that which brought them to Cyprus. ( 361) The M ycenaean i nfluence which underlies Philistine Ware does n ot have to b e t raced back any further t han Cyprus. The t ransfer could have been completed w ithout people m igrating from the Aegean to Palestine. 1 35

Even i f we could establish t hat the P hilistines a nd Philistine pottery appeared i n Palestine at about t he s ame t ime, t his would not prove a common origin. The p ainted Pottery which f lourished among t he Nabateans w hen they rose to prominence i s a type of painted Hellenistic ware, u ltimately derived f rom Greek prototypes, yet n o one believes that t he Arab Nabateans m igrated from G reece. The people and the pottery had different origins, b ut the complex political, economic, and t rade currents of the t ime brought t hem together, so that they both f lourished at the s ame t ime. As a result t he pottery i s called Nabatean Ware even though it shows us nothing a bout the ethnic derivation o f t he Nabateans, but only i llustrates the diverse i nfluences which combined t o form their material culture. ( 362) I t i s not s afe to base conclusions about the o rigins of a people on one i solated aspect o f their culture. We must examine other e lements of t he Philistine m aterial culture for a common Aegean background before w e can safely l ink the Philistines to the A egean on the b asis of archeological evidence. Even preferred

i f we a ssume that the i nhabitants of P hilistja Philistine Ware because i t preserved the p ottery

traditions of their Aegean homeland, i t would nevertheless be i nvalid to deduce the presence or absence of Philistines f rom a specific s ite merely from the p resence or absence of Philistine Ware at that s ite. For e xample, the substantial presence of Philistine Ware a t Beth Shemesh does not prove that the Philistines ever o ccupied Beth Shemesh. I t may merely indicate that c ities s uch as Beth Shemesh and A shdod were i n t he same t rade s phere, even i f they were i n different political j urisdictions. On the other hand, the Philistines could have introduced garrisons i nto cities where there i s no evidence of Philistine Ware. There are many well documented i nstances of this phenomenon f rom a ll periods o f history. ( 363)

i f

The basic we recall

dilemma concerning Philistine t he quotation from Aharoni at

Ware i s c lear t he beginning

of this discussion. I f we follow Aharoni and maintain the Connection between the arrival of the Philistines a nd the appearance of Philistine Ware in about 1 150 B . C, w e are forced to break t he t ie between t he arrival o f the Philistines i n P alestine and the e vents d escribed by Ramses forced

I II to

Ramses I II p lace for This hardly

i n t ake

about 1 190 t he great

B .C. I f migrating

we do this, w e are f orce described by

and put t hem i n storage i n Cyprus or some o ther f orty years before they r eturn t o Palestine. s eems reasonable.

I f we maintain the connection between t ue Philistines' arrival i n P alestine and the eighth y ear of R amses I II i n about 1 190 B .C., we must s urrender the connection between t he arrival of the Philistines and the appearance o f Philistine Ware forty years l ater. I f w e do 1 36

this, we destroy t he value of Philistine Ware a s evidence of t he Philistines' p lace o f origin. Unless we can demonstrate that P hilistine Ware appeared very s oon a fter the e ighth year o f R amses I II, we have a s evere problem with maintaining t he main pillar of the theory connecting the P hilistines d irectly with the Aegean. ( 364) The Philistine Ware can only be used as strong evidence of the Philistines' a rrival f rom the Aegean i f both c an be closely connected with the eighth year of Ramses I II. ( 365) P etrie, F ' urumark and other s cholars believed that Philistine Ware appeared around 1 200 B .C. or earlier. ( 366) More r ecent s tudies have s upported a l ater date around 1 150 B .C., creating the dilemma discussed i n the preceding paragraph. Dothan tries to resolve t his d ilemma and preserve the t ie between the arrival of the Philistines f rom the Aegean and the appearance of Philistine Ware by returning to an early date f or the appearance of P hilistine Ware. ( 367) Dothan p laces the end o f Myc. I lIB very near the end of the 1 3th Century because i t occurs with a sword bearing the cartouche of Merneptah ( 1236-1223 B .C.) at Ugarit and with a vase of Queen Tewosret ( 1209-1200 B .C.) at Deir A lla. ( 368) However, these two i tems do not provide a f ixed date for the end of Myc. I lIB and the beginning of Myc. h IC. They merely i ndicate t hat the l evels containing Myc. I lIB at Ugarit and Deir A lla very l ikely end sometime after 1 236 and 1 209 B .C. F or example, the Myc. I lIB at Deir A lla could have been manufactured l ong before 1 209 B .C. and preserved for many years until it was deposited with the Tewosret vase. On the other hand, the Tewosret vase could have been o ld when it was deposited with the pottery. The evidence i s s imply not precise enough to s et a definitive date for the end o f the manufacture or use o f Myc. I lIB. Dothan c ites the s carabs of Ramses I II which occur with Philistine Ware at Gezer, Beth Shemesh, Lachish, and Megiddo a s additional evidence for the early appearance of Philistine Ware. ( 369) However, the s carabs of R amses I II which occur with early Philistine Ware do not prove that Philistine Ware began shortly a fter the events of Ramses' e ighth year, s ince he ruled for 2 4 years after the Sea Peoples' attack of 1 190 B .C., and the s carabs could have been deposited at any t ime after his death. Dothan dates the beginning of Megiddo VIIA, which contains early Philistine Ware, by a s carab and cartouche of Ramses I II and the end of this stratum by the l ast datable object, a pedestal i ncised with the name o f Ramses V I ( 1156-1148) ( 370) However, these objects m erely i ndicate that t he s tratum probably ends s ometime a fter 1 156 B .C. ( 371) By themselves they do not enable u s to f ix a precise date for the beginning and end o f the s tratum nor t o f ix a beginning date for Philistine Ware with any degree of certainty. There i s at present no published evidence which c learly p roves that Philistine Ware began s hortly a fter the eighth year o f R amses I II's reign. .

1 37

One of t he main defenders o f a l ate d ate for t he beginning o f Philistine Ware i s T . M cClellan. ( 372) H e believes that t he earliest Series 5 00 tombs at F ara which contain Philistine Ware must be dated l ater t han 1 140 B .C. His conclusions are based on a computer s eriation o f a number of tombs in the Series 9 00 and S eries 5 00 Cemeteries at Fara. This s eriation l ed him to r eject t he order Dothan

of as

the Series 5 00 t ombs a ccepted by P etrie a nd well a s the four phases of Philistine W are

proposed by Furumark. A major f actor i n his a rgument i s the occurrence of s carabs of R amses I II, Ramses IV a nd R amses V III ( 1147-1140) in some of t he Series 9 00 t ombs a t Fara. ( 373) None of these Series 9 00 tombs c ontain a ny Philistine Ware, but they do contain Myc. I lIB p ottery a nd a small amount of Bird and Gazelle Ware. ( 374) McClellan believes that chamber tombs 5 52, 5 62, 5 32, which contain Philistine Ware, overlap or follow i mmediately after the l atest Series 9 00 t ombs. He b ases , t his conclusion on the general s imilarity of the ceramic a ssemblages o f these two groups. ( 375) The b ell-bowls are one of the main forms which d istinguish t he Series 5 00 t ombs f rom the Series 9 00 tombs. The bell-bowls a nd other forms of Philistine Ware are most prevalent in Tomb 5 42. Tomb 5 42 was analyzed a s the earliest of t he Philistine tombs by Petrie and Dothan, but M cClellan p laces it l ast because his seriation c lassifies i ts total ceramic assemblage as more distant from the S eries 9 00 tombs and c loser to the l ater Series 2 00 tombs than t he assemblages of the other three " Philistine" tombs. ( 376) I f McClellan's analysis i s correct, it would raise doubts about Dothan's three phases of Philistine Ware, but h er division i s a lso Ashdod, Qasile, and

supported by other sites.

s tratified ( 377)

pottery

from

Do we have adequate evidence to choose between the dating of Dothan and McClellan? Dothan's early d ate for the appearance of Philistine Ware does not yet s eem to b e proven by adequate evidence s ince the objects u sed f or dating only s et dates after which the strata i n q uestion were occupied. They do not l imit a ny of the strata to t he early years of Ramses I II's reign. There are s everal f actors which a lso raise doubt about the validity o f some o f McClellan's conclusions. I n s ome cases his t ypology appears to be too s imple t o adequately discriminate between the various tomb groups. For example, h is c lassification of horizontal-handled bowls i s t oo vague. One of the main reasons that he p laces Tomb 5 42 c loser t o t he Series 2 00 Tombs than to the earlier Series 9 00 Tombs i s the occurrence of horizontal l oop handles in b oth Tomb 5 42 and the 2 00 t ombs, but he does not adequately and consistently distinguish between horizontal handled bowls decorated i n P hilistine style and l ater p lain bowls with vestigial handles. ( 378) A s econd reason f or questioning McClellan's l ate date for Philistine Ware i s that i t rests on the a ssumption that the differences between the p ottery a ssemblages f rom the tombs at F ara are b ased on chronological differences between t he tombs. There could .

1 38

be o ther causes of the differences between t he assemblages, s uch as d ifferences o f social s tatus or ethnic background of t hose buried in the tombs. The l ong period of usage o f s ome o f t he t ombs could a lso be distorting McClellan's s eriation. The l atest i tems i n specific t ombs could come f rom considerably l ater than t he bulk of t he pottery i n the tomb. The s carabs of R amses IV a nd V III i n the S eries 9 00 Tombs could be l ate additions to the contents of the tombs, which were added to t hese tombs a fter the Series 5 00 tombs which contain Philistine Ware h ad a lready been i n use for a considerable time. This possibility of l ate i nclusions i s demonstrated by t he tombs which a re a lmost entirely LB i n character which have a f ew p ieces of Philistine Ware added i n the l ast phase of u sage. ( 379) I t i s conceivable that t he Philistine Ware i n Tombs 5 32, 5 52, and 5 62 could be contemporary with that o f 5 42 or even more recent, even i f the contents o f these tombs as a whole were o lder than those of Tomb 5 42 a s a whole. The Philistine Ware may represent a s ingle phase o f the u sage of t hese t ombs. Since Dothan dates more on the basis of i ndividual i tems and McClellan d ates more on the basis o f total assemblages, t here may be an e lement of t ruth i n the dating of both. Another complicating f actor i s that there could have been a considerable delay between the f irst appearance of P hilistine Ware at Ashdod and its introduction at F ara. I t appears that neither the early nor t he l ate date for the appearance of Philistine Ware has y et been demonstrated conclusively. This writer l eans toward the l ate date, but the question i s still open. Some s cholars have a lso argued in favor of the third option, namely, that there i s a l apse of t ime between the arrival of the S ea Peoples and the appearance of Philistine Ware. A number o f f acts are cited i n s upport of this theory. Stratum I X at Sharia contains no Philistine Ware even though this stratum may end l ater than the twenty-second year of Ramses I II. ( 380) However, this dating i s uncertain, and Philistine Ware may have been established on t he coast for a considerable t ime before i t reached Sharia. Architectural changes at Abu Huwam and Aphek, which antedate the appearance of Philistine Ware, have been attributed to Sea Peoples, but there i s l ittle evidence to support t his connection, other than a t ablet s imilar to Cypro-Minoan. ( 381) The form of s ome of the Series 9 00 tombs at Fara has l ed some scholars to l ink them with an earlier wave of immigrants from the Aegean, who arrived before the production of Philistine Ware. ( 382) The Myc. h IC which precedes the Philistine Ware at Ashdod would i ndicate a gap between the arrival o f the Aegean immigrants and the appearance o f Philistine Ware, but the i nterval i s s hort, and this pottery i s the d irect ancestor of Philistine Ware, s o this pottery could a lso be cited a s the best evidence for l inking t he appearance of Philistine Ware c losely t o the arrival of t he immigrants f rom the Aegean. ( 383) Transitional s trata occur at a number of other s ites, but they are diverse in nature, s o they are not very h elpful 1 39

f or

c larifying

the

s ituation.

( 384)

Evidence of cultural change i n North S yria i s t oo unclear to solve t he problem. U garit s eems t o have b een destroyed while Mycenaean I IIB was s till i n use, but t here may be small amounts of Mycenaean h IC there. ( 385) I f we accept the attribution of this destruction t o the S ea P eople, there appears t o be a considerable interval between the arrival o f the Sea P eople i n North Syria a nd the appearance o f P hilistine Ware, which i s d erived f rom Mycenaean 1 11d b, in P alestine. ( 386) L agarce h as s uggested that t he Mycenaean I lIC Ware at I bn Hani, a small neighboring s ite of U garit, i s so authentic that i t must have been made by immigrants f rom the Aegean, but n ot enough evidence has been published t o evaluate t his c laim. ( 387) Bichrome painting had a ppeared on p ottery a t U garit i n the preceding p eriods, and it a ppears o n Mycenaean vessel f orms at I bn H ani, j ust as i t does on Philistine Ware. ( 388) Mycenaean h IC occurs at a f ew other s ites a long the Syrian coast . ( 389) The Mycenaean Ware o f Tarsus has some s trong s imilarities to P hilistine Ware. ( 390)

I t

The i s

s ituation i n Cyprus a lso not possible to attribute t he

needs clarification. destructions of s ites

i n Cyprus to specific attacks o f Sea People with a ny degree of certainty. There i s no f irm evidence for t he belief that the appearance of Mycenaean h IC pottery a t a s ite i s proof of the arrival of S ea People. ( 391) Even i f Mycenaean h IC was brought by p eople f rom the Aegean, we cannot be certain that they are i dentical with the S ea P eople who attacked Egypt. Furthermore, the i ntroduction of successive styles of Mycenaean pottery i nto Cyprus could be due t o continuous t rade r ather than l arge-scale i mmigration. Scholars disagree concerning the d ate when l arge s cale immigration replaced t rade or small g roups a s t he main source o f the i ntroduction of new s tyles o f Aegean pottery i nto Cyprus. Some s cholars have p laced t he beginning of l arge s cale Aegean immigration into Cyprus a s early as the 1 3th century, others as l ate as t he 1 1th. ( 392) Aegean pottery was being widely imitated i n Cyprus and Mycenaean style decoration was being applied t o Cypriote vessel forms a lready in t he period of M ycenaean I IIB, before the a lleged arrival of the Sea P eoples. ( 393) I n s ome t ombs of this p eriod the percentage o f Mycenaean I IIB pottery exceeds 3 0%. ( 394) I f t he i nfluences underlying t his Mycenaean I IIB pottery were b rought by t rade or small groups, the appearance o f Cypriote-made Mycenaean h IC could be attributed t o these s ame causes, unless i t can be demonstrated that t here i s a s ignificant i ncrease i n t he percentage of M ycenaean i nfluence i n the whole pottery assemblage, including t he p lain ware, during t he t ime o f Mycenaean h IC. T his h as not yet been done. The Mycenaean i nfluence does become t he dominant f actor i n the decorated pottery d uring t he period when Mycenaean I hIC was popular in Cyprus, j ust a s 1 40

i t does during t he popularity o f P hilistine Ware i n Palestine. The t raditional Cypriote decorated wares a re a lmost entirely d isplaced. However, only a l imited number of t he Mycenaean repertoire o f forms, mostly drinking bowls, became popular in Cyprus. ( 395) A major Mycenaean i nfluence on the p lain daily ware and i n other areas of the culture has not yet been demonstrated. Such a s tudy i s very necessary i f we are to evaluate the t rue degree o f change at the t ime when Mycenaean h IC i s i ntroduced i nto Cyprus. I t would be very s ignificant i f the p lain ware which i s f ound with Cypriote Mycenaean h IC shows the s ame continuity with the p lain pottery of the preceding period a s t hat which i s apparent in Philistia. The Aegean i nfluence i n the s trata which contain Mycenaean I IIB a s well as in those which contain Mycenaean h IC at s ites s uch a s Enkomi i s l imited mainly t o the pottery. The a rchitecture i s non-Aegean. ( 396) Other i tems of the culture such as the s eals, the metal . work, and the tombs do not exhibit sufficient Aegean influence to demonstrate l arge s cale migration as early as 1 200 B .C. ( 397) A lthough the deities may reflect s ome A egean i nfluence, they are p redominantly S emitic i n character. ( 398) The " Philistine" headdress which appears on a s eal f rom Enkomi Stratum I IIB i ndicates that the type of headdress pictured at Medinet Habu was known i n Cyprus at t he time when Mycenaean h IC was being used there, but it does not enable us to determine when i t arrived in Cyprus or where it came f rom. ( 399) The f igure wearing a " Philistine" headdress on the ivory box f rom an Enkomi t omb appears to be a retainer of some sort, rather than a ruler, and t his would agree well with the i dea that Sea P eoples o ften s erved as mercenaries or body-guards. ( 400)

o f

We the

question

will briefly examine evidence from Cyprus of

Philistine

some and

of the i nterpretations i ts relevance for the

origins.

Dothan suggests that Mycenaean I liCi was brought to E nkomi by Aegeans, probably Achaeans, who built Enkomi l ilA. The destruction of Enkomi l ilA i s attributed to Sea P eoples shortly before the eighth year of Ramses I II. The p ottery of the f irst part o f the following stratum, S tratum I IIB, i s Mycenaean h hiCib. According to this i nterpretation t he Sea Peoples were using Mycenaean I liCib i n Cyprus. ( 401) But i f Mycenaean h IC pottery was a lready i n Cyprus before the Sea P eoples a rrived at the e nd of Stratum l ilA, how can i t be any indication of where t hey came f rom, even i f it now appears a s a new phase of M ycenaean h IC? The Mycenaean I hiCib could h ave a rrived i n Cyprus by t he same process as the earlier varieties of Mycenaean I IIB and h IC, and the S ea People could have a dopted it a fter their arrival in Cyprus. What evidence i s there that the destroyers of l evel l ilA were i n f act t he Sea P eople? What evidence j ustifies the d ifferentiation

of

the

inhabitants 1 41

o f

Stratum

l ilA as

Achaeans and those o f Stratum I lIB as S ea People? T he destruction o f l ilA i s a ssigned t o S ea P eople b ecause o f the desire t o a ssociate them w ith the Mycenaean I liCib pottery, but the pottery i s assigned to the S ea People because of i ts connection with the destructions. The f act i s t hat Mycenaean l ilCib pottery i s a ssociated w ith r econstructions i n Cyprus, but what objective evidence demonstrates t hat this pottery and construction must b e connected with the Sea Peoples who attacked Egypt? There does not appear to a s imple solution of this d ilemma on the basis of p resent evidence. However recent work at Maa on the west coast o f Cyprus has provided s ome c larification of the s ituation. Nevertheless much uncertainty remains. The nature of this small fortified s ite suggests t hat its builders were immigrants. Two l evels have been distinguished at Maa. I n the f irst l evel, Level I I, the Mycenaean p ottery i s I lIB. Base R ing I I and White S lip I I are still i n . use. The construction of the cyclopean walls a nd ashlar building of t his l evel i s more carefully done than t he construction of the following period. The fact t hat this architecture has no c lear antecedents i n the A egean l ed K arageorghis t o the hypothesis that the builders of this s ettlement may have been a mixed group, including both Mycenaeans and Anatolians. This p eriod may correspond t o the period during which Mycenaean l u Cia was being made i n Greece.

( 402)

Mycenaean l ilCib i s the pottery of the next l evel, Level I . This pottery does not yet display characteristics of the Granary or C lose Styles. This pottery i s d istinct enough from that of the p receding period to support the idea that i t must be due to n ew i nfluences a rriving f rom Greece, but it i s difficult t o correlate i t with a specific phase on the mainland because of regional variations i n Mycenaean h IC. ( 403) T he excavator suggests t hat the inhabitants of this l evel may have been Mycenaeans only, and that the rebuilding of M aa was another step i n the l ong process of M ycenaean s ettlement o f Cyprus. ( 404) Karageorghis' idea r everses the order o f Dothan who calls earlier arrivals A chaeans and the l ater arrivals Sea People. K arageorghis appears to believe that the earlier group was l ess Mycenaean than the l ater arrivals. The differences between the M ycenaean h IC o f eastern and western Cyprus i s another i ndication of the complexity o f movements and i ntermingling o f various groups which may be involved here. There simply i s not yet enough evidence to make a c lear identification or distinction of t he peoples r esponsible f or these various

constructions.

S chachermeyr s ubstantial who formed the

Aegean

Mycenaean Mycenaean

( 405)

suggests

that

Achaeans

entered Cyprus

numbers as early as 1 260 B .C. t he backbone of the Sea P eople and

Cyprus

at

a l ater date

and

pottery i nfluences as they passed i nfluence on Philistine pottery 1 42

in

The I llyrians passed through picked

up

t he

through. is t hus

The not

direct,

but

i ndirect.

( 406)

H ankey believes that Aegeans arrived i n Cyprus i n Mycenaean I lIB a nd early h IC. Others s ettled i n T arsus or o ther parts o f the Levant. They were too f ew i n number to m aintain their footholds except at Tarsus and R as I bn Hani where the Mycenaean pottery shows development and continued contact with the Aegean. Others s uch as those in P hilistia, e stablished short-lived s ettlements with t he locals. These g roups need not have been t he massive hordes suggested by Ramses I II. ( 407) Although c eramic changes do not a lways i ndicate movement of people, l akovides believes that the amount o f change at the i ntroduction of Mycenaean h IC i s significant enough to warrant this conclusion. However, the association o f this pottery with the Philistines i s complex. l akovides believes that Philistine Ware i s derived f rom Mycenaean h IC, but believes that i t . i s an error to t ie i ts beginning to the arrival o f the Philistines i n P alestine. ( 408) Mycenaean h ilCib began after the attack of the Seapeoples, but before the Philistine s ettlement. I mmigrant or i tinerant craftsmen familiar with Cypriote Mycenaean I hiCi s tyles worked i n Ashdod. The Philistines were thus exposed to mainland influences via Cyprus and these i nfluences were then imitated i n Palestinian Philistine Ware. ( 409) Muhley believes that the events i n t he eastern Mediterranean at the end of the Late Bronze Age have only a most i ndirect connection with those i n Greece. I n the Aegean, especially on the Greek mainland, the i nvaders seem to have c ome overland f rom the north and, for the most part, returned to Europe. There i s no archeological evidence for t he presence of the Sea P eoples i n Cyprus. The pottery that develops i n LC I II i s unlike that f rom Greece and i s r elated only to the wares found at Tarsus. The evidence for the Sea Peoples in Cyprus consists of the two figures with feathered headdresses discussed above. This headgear i s no evidence for ethnic i dentification. Identical headgear ( at l east in appearance) can be traced back

to

the

third millennium

BC.

( 410)

What then i s the relevance of the Cypriote-Mycenaean material to the question of Philistine origins? S ince the Mycenaean I liCib in Cyprus does not appear t o be a natural development from the Mycenaean I hIB which was a lready there, it appears that Mycenaean pottery i nfluences entered Cyprus i n several stages. I t i s not c lear i f heavy migration of Mycenaeans was necessary t o bring this i nfluence. Eastern influences such a s cremation were a lso moving west during this period, which was a t ime of reciprocal i nfluences. Even i f we a ccept the premise that the Mycen ean h IC pottery must have been brought t o Cyprus by a s ignificant number of immigrants f rom the Aegean, i t i s n ot c lear that we can i dentify these people with the Sea P eoples or assume that they made up a major part of the people who s ettled i n Palestine as 1 43

P hilistines. I t very probable that t he Mycenaean pottery i nfluences which underlie Philistine Ware were t ransmitted t o P alestine f rom Cyprus and perhaps f rom other s ites s uch a s T arsus. How t his t ransmission occurred and i ts s ignificance for Philistine origins i s much l ess clear. Regardless o f whether the t ransmission to Cyprus occurred by t rade or l arge s cale migration, the t ransmission t o P alestine could h ave Occurred by other mechanisms o r t hrough i nfluence

different to Cyprus.

people

than

t hose

who

brought

t he

P hilistine Ware and the Mycenaean pottery f rom which i t i s derived do not by themselves provide adequate evidence to i dentify the Philistines as immigrants f rom the Aegean. We would have a much s tronger case f or such a l ink i f we could establish additional parallels t o Mycenaean culture and to the culture of the Mycenaean h IC s trata of Cyprus in the material culture of t he Philistines. We Philistine culture

will t o s ee

now examine i f such a l ink

1 44

other a spects in fact e xists.

o f

F igure 2 0 2 0 a -b Coffin

Lid From

Tel Fara S Compared With Libyan From Medinet 1 l abu

2 0b

2 0 c-d

Coffin

Lids From B eth Shan

•8 . felb I sb

2 0c

2 0 e

L id From Kor n Abou BillOU In Egypt

2 0e

1 45

Fig. 2 1

" PH IL IST INE" H EADDRESSES A ND P OSSIBL E P ARALLELS

-

Coffins From Beth Shan and Reliefs From Medinet Habu a l a

An

I vory From

Enkomi

Cyprus

a lb ‚A Seal From ' Enkomi Cyprus 2 1 c

1 46

>

F igure 2 2

H eaddresses S im ilar T o t he S ea

P po es i i -

-

. 1

2 2b

2 2c

2 2b P hilistine 2c P haistos d isc

2a F rom M ycenaean K rater i n D amascus

2 2d F rom t he T omb O f R amses II 2e I vor ies f rom F ara S outh

2f

Megiddo I vory

2h C anaanite G oddess 2i L ibyan C hief

2 2g

H ittitte W orship 1 47

Figure

9 00

2 3

Series

Tombs From Fara

5 00 Series Tombs From Fara S

2

9

0

1 48

S

BURIAL D iscussion of Philistine burials has centered around two topics, anthropoid c lay coffins with f eathered headdresses and the use of tomb styles which are a llegedly s imilar to Mycenaean or Aegean styles. Gold mouthpieces and cremation have a lso been discussed as possible l inks to t he Aegean. Anthropoid

Coffins

T he principal s ites in I srael which yielded anthropoid c lay coffins are Fara S , Beth Shan, Deir e l Balah, and Lachish. The discussion began when Petrie named f ive chamber tombs at Fara South, which contained Philistine Ware, "The Tombs of the Lords of the Philistines." Two of these tombs a lso contained anthropoid c lay coffins ( Tombs 5 62, 552). Coffin f ragments were a lso found in Tomb 9 35 which contained no Philistine Ware. ( 411) A few observations are i n p lace concerning the association of these tombs with the Philistines. The Philistine forms account for l ess than 1 0% of the pottery in these two tombs. Tomb 5 52 contained one strainer jug, one Egyptian style j ar, one Type 1 5 j ug, and one possible Philistine bowl. ( 6.5% 8.7% Philistine Ware) There were s everal other jars with white s lip and red bands. Tomb 5 62 had one strainer j ug, one Egyptian style j ar, one undecorated bowl and one s triped amphoriskos. ( 7.3%-9.8% Philistine Ware) Only the Egyptian style jars and the Type 1 5 jug have distinctive Philistine painted motifs. The painting of the strainer j ars i s somewhat of a departure from common Philistine patterns. Neither tomb has the spiral bowls so characteristic of Philistine Ware. As far as can be determined f rom the published material each t omb has only two or three vessels out of a ssemblages of 4 1 and 4 6 vessels which have both distinctive Philistine form and decoration. forms similar

Most to

of the vessels are standard Canaanite those found i n tombs as f ar away a s

Madeba in Jordan. ( 412) especially apparent in Tomb

The 5 62.

Egyptian

influence

i s

Tombs 5 52 and 5 62 may have been disturbed, so the coffins may be intrusive on the Philistine Ware burials. Undisturbed tombs which contain Philistine Ware have no coffins. ( 413) Even i f the tombs are not disturbed, the coffins and Philistine Ware may belong to different phases of the tombs' u se. Later i n this chapter we will study s everal one l ate

tombs i n which occupancy.

The coffins

f eatures of the are Philistine.

coffin Libyans

from Tomb pictured i n

5 62 the

the

Philistine Ware

coffins do not The goatee and

are very much Egyptian reliefs.

1 49

comes

f rom only

i ndicate that s ide l ocks on

the the

l ike those ( Fig. 2 0a)

t he

of

A very important group of anthropoid coffins f rom t he Northern Cemetery at Beth Shan was published by E . Oren. There are f ragments of about 5 0 coffins f rom 1 1 d ifferent burial groups. The tombs are reused EB burial caves. The main pottery forms associated with t he coffins are f lasks, l amps, stirrup j ars, and bowls. This assemblage i s s imilar to the Fara S assemblages except for the absence o f Philistine Ware. This group i s of special i nterest because one of the coffins from Tomb 6 6 has a h eadiress that i s s imilar to the feathered headdress worn by t he Sea Peoples at Medinet Habu. I ncidently the " feathers" on this coffin, which i s on display in t he Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem, are i n very high, t ubular relief, s o it i s by no means certain that they are i ntended to represent f eathers. Several other coffins have decorative headbands without " feathers." ( Fig. 2 1) Oren c lassified the f ive " grotesque" coffins with headbands as S ea People burials, but s ince there i s no Philistine Ware at the s ite, he associated the burials with s ome other group such as the Danuna. He c lassifies the rest of the coffin burials as probable Egyptian burials. ( 414) The

third

major

group

are

the

coffins

from D eir

e l

Balah near the Egyptian border, published by T . D othan. This group contains more than 6 0 coffins, mostly with the " naturalistic" s tyle face. Most of these coffins a re more mummy-shaped than the other anthropoid coffins i n Palestine. The coffins were i n p lain graves dug i nto the kurkar. The grave goods are Late Bronze. There i s no Philistine Ware with these burials, a lthough i t does appear in a l ater phase of the s ettlement at D eir el Balah. Dothan identifies the Deir e i Balah burials as Egyptian, but cites the Beth Shan and Fara burials a s Sea Peoples, probably Philistine. ( 415) There are two naturalistic anthropoid clay coffins from a disturbed t omb at Lachish ( Tomb 5 70). One is painted with pseudo-hieroglyphics. There i s no evidence to l ink these burials with the Philistines. ( 416) Anthropoid Delta ( 417) here. that

to

Nubia These

c lay

coffins

and at examples

a lso occur

several sites will not be

in Egypt

f rom

the

in the Transjordan. discussed i n d etail

Their main s ignificance for this study is t o show the anthropoid coffins are a custom which originates

in Egypt. I t was . also used by Egyptians outside o f Egypt and very l ikely imitated by l ocals as well. The occurrence of Palestinian or Aegean pottery with s ome of these coffins i n Egypt does not i ndicate non-Egyptian burials, because Egyptian burials generally have a m ixture of Egyptian and non-Egyptian pottery. There is no t rue Philistine Ware with any of these burials in Egypt. Can

any

of

the

anthropoid

coffins

definitely connected with Philistines Peoples? Today i t i s recognized that burials are Egyptian. Some of the burials 1 50

i n

Palestine

be

or other Sea most of t hese may be n atives

of P alestine i mitating Egyptian practices. These burials cannot be a ssociated with the Philistines or other S ea Peoples i n the s weeping f ashion which was s ometimes done in the past. ( 418) The strongest a rgument f or associating some of the Beth Shan burials with the Sea People i s the f eathered headdress. However, i t should be noted that out o f more than 1 00 anthropoid coffins found in P alestine, only one published example has a feathered headdress, the s ingle example f rom Beth Shan Tomb 6 6. The second example in Dothan's Hebrew edition, P l. 6 4:3, is not actually a s econd example, but an artificial composite f rom R evue Biblique. I t does not appear i n Dothan' s more r ecent English edition. The only other published coffin which may have a feathered headdress i s from Kor n Abou Billou in the Egyptian Delta. This example is cruder than the Beth Shan example and l acks a c lear headband. ( 419) The photograph i s not c lear enough to say with certainty that this i s indeed a feathered headdress. ( Figure 2 0e) B ecause the one f eathered headdress f rom B eth Shan i s very similar to those pictured at Medinet Habu, i t i s reasonable to a rgue that at l east this coffin i s a Philistine or S ea People burial. The absence o f Philistine Ware f rom the Beth Shan burials i s not a strong argument against this being the burial of a Philistine, since it would not be surprising for a person who died away from home to be buried with pottery from the p lace of his death. I t would not be particularly s urprising for Philistine troops or mercenaries stationed outside the Philistine heartland to use whatever pottery was available in the p lace at which they were stationed. I t s eems l ikely that this burial and probably the four coffins with headbands belong to mercenaries in Egyptian s ervice who wore feathered h eaddresses l ike those which appear so often in the Medinet Habu reliefs. However,

we

cannot

be

s ure

that

every

upright

headdress i s n ecessarily Philistine or S ea P eople " feathered" headgear. Feathered or f luted headgear appears in many different forms with a wide geographical and chronological distribution. I t appears on many Palestinian goddesses and the Egyptian Bes. ( Fig. 2 2h) ( 420) Some o f the Libyans wear headgear which l ooks similar to f eathers f rom certain angles.(Fig. 2 2j) Hittite religious ceremonies f eature upright headgear. ( Fig. 2 2g) Upswept banded hair-dos or headgear a lso appears at s everal Canaanite s ites including Jerusalem. ( 421) The c losest parallels to the Medinet Habu reliefs are on an i vory box and s eal f rom Enkomi, Cyprus and on the mysterious P haistos disc f rom Crete. ( Fig.21b,c, 2 2c) ( 422) These t hree examples have, of course, often been l inked to the S ea P eoples. Some i vory pendants f rom Tomb 2 01 at Fara are very s imilar to the Medinet Habu headgear, but they are u sually regarded a s Bes f igurines. ( Fig.22e) The tomb of Ramses I II produced an i nteresting representation o f t he f eathered headdress on a person 1 51

wearing f estive garments o f Syrian s tyle. ( Fig. 2 2d) W e have a lready s een the l ater Assyrian version of t his type of headgear. ( Fig. 8 a) We s hould be careful about drawing sweeping conclusions f rom a s ingle occurrence o f upright headgear on an anthropoid coffin, n amely t he Beth Shan " feathered headdress." B ecause o f their l ocation and date i t i s r easonable t o l ink the F ara coffins with P hilistines, but we have a lready noted that s uch coffins a re not usual in t he burials containing Philistine Ware and may be intrusive. I t i s not e stablished beyond question t hat t hese Fara coffins are i ndeed Philistine burials. Even if w e accept s ome o f the Beth Shan and the Fara coffins a s Philistine, i t i s c lear t hat t hey are not a d istinctive P hilistine s tyle, and n either t heir presence nor absence is i n itself very helpful f or i dentifying a specific burial a s Philistine or non-Philistine. Tomb

Forms

The discussion of t omb forms a lso f ocuses on - "the Tombs o f the Lords" at Fara. Waldbaum argues that these t ombs a re related to Mycenaean chamber t ombs, and c onnects t hem with the Aegean origin of t he Philistines. She a rgues that e arlier Canaanite t ombs were rounded or i rregular, not rectangular. The s tepped dromos a nd the benches are a lso cited a s new f eatures. However, i n Greece a l ong s loped dromos i s more common t han the s tepped dromos which i s s tandard at Fara. Benches are common at F ara, but rare i n Greece. ( 423) S tiebing m aintains that these Fara t ombs can be explained a s part o f the natural evolution of t ombs i n Canaan. The s tepped dromos appears a lready i n MB I IC biolabate tombs a t Fara, and there i s a natural evolution t o benches and a more rectangular shape. Such Fara tombs a s 9 34, 9 35, a nd 9 60 f orm a natural connecting l ink t o the 5 00 tombs. The c losest parallels are t ombs i n Cyprus, not Greece. ( 424) Gonen and Loffreda agree with Stiebing i n rejecting the Mycenaean origin of these tombs. ( 425) Dothan accepts Waldbaum's c laim concerning the Aegean origin o f the stepped dromos tombs o f the 5 00 cemetery. However she does not accept her Mycenaean derivation of s ome of the t ombs i n the 9 00 cemetery, such as Tomb 935, s ince this would break the connection between the a rrival of Aegean tombs and t he appearance o f Philistine Ware. ( 426) However, a comparison o f t he 9 00 and 5 00 tombs reveals strong s imilarities. ( Fig. 2 3) I f this tomb shape i s Mycenaean and reflects t he arrival of i mmigrants, it probably antedates t he appearance of P hilistine Ware, and i t strengthens t he a rgument for the S ea Peoples' a rriving before t he rejects.

appearance

However, i t does shapes are distinctly

o f

P hilistine

W are.

This D othan

not appear that any o f these tomb Mycenaean or Aegean as has been 1 52

claimed. Some o f the i ndividual f eatures of l oculi and bench tombs appear in Greece and Cyprus, but there i s not a s ingle LB-El burial i n Palestine which i s an t rue copy of a foreign burial. ( 427) Whatever foreign i nfluence there may be in the biolabate and bench tombs of P alestine may be ascribed to Cyprus, not the Aegean. Furthermore, the i nfluence s eems to be gradual and t o precede the alleged arrival o f the Sea Peoples. These t omb types do not provide c lear evidence of the Aegean origin o f Philistines. Gold Mouth

Pieces

E longated oval p ieces of gold or s ilver sheet have been found with a number o f burials i n Palestine, including several containing Philistine Ware. S ites having mouthpieces i nclude Fara S , Azor, Beth Shan, Megiddo, Gezer, t he Akko Late Bronze tombs, and Hama i n Syria. The example f rom Fara comes f rom Tomb 9 35,. which has fragments o f an anthropoid coffin. ( 428) The Beth Shan example comes f rom Tomb 2 02, which a lso contains coffin fragments. Oren suggests that i t may have been inside an anthropoid coffin. ( 429) At Megiddo s imilar pieces appear in LB-El tombs 3 9, 6 2, and 9 12B. Guy gives l ittle information on the circumstances of the f inds. Tomb 912B was an MB shaft tomb, reused i n LB I I. Tomb 6 2 was a rock cut chamber tomb. ( 430) The gold mouthpiece from Azor was f ound i n an 1 1th century cremation burial ( Grave 6 9). ( 431) The examples f rom Akko were found i n undisturbed Late Bronze tombs. ( 432) The mouthpieces from Gezer were found in p lace on the skeletons. reported to be 1 0th century or l ater. ( 433) These

gold

mouthpieces

l ink to Mycenaean burial are a far cry from the

have

often

They

been cited

customs. ( 434) f amous full-face

are

as

a

However, they gold masks of

Mycenae. The P alestinian examples are small ovals about 7 5-55 mm. l ong and 2 5 mm. high. They are often decorated with parallel l ines, cross-hatching, or f lower designs. A ll of the published examples of small mouthpieces from the Aegean are f rom l ater than the t ransition from the Bronze to I ron Age. Kurtz traces the Greek examples only t o the 9th century B .C., but refers to Late Bronze Cypriote examples. ( 435) Vermeule mentions only masks, not mouthpieces a s a Mycenaean custom. ( 436) Even masks were not a universal or s tandard practice i n Mycenaean burials. Mylonas states that only 6 of 2 7 male burials at Mycenae had masks. He believes this i s an i ntrusive custom f rom Egypt. ( 437) The Palestinian examples may have the s ame origin. But Cyprus i s another possible s ource of t he custom. It

i s

by

no

means

c lear

that

a ll

of

the

P alestinian

occurrences are mouthpieces. F rom the days of P etrie t o the present some of them have been i nterpreted a s j ewelry which was probably worn as a headband, much l ike the round metal discs which have s imilar decoration. ( 438) Others 1 53

m ay have been decoration which was s own on c lothing. ( 439) U nless t heir position on t he s keleton i s cited, or t hey a re l ip-shaped, a s s ome Cypriote and l ate Greek examples a re, i t i s uncertain what the function o f specific examples really was. ( 440) On the basis o f size and t ype o f decoration the Megiddo examples are most l ikely to b e mouthpieces. The Beth Shan and Akko examples a re probably not mouthpieces. The c lassification of t he Fara and A zor p ieces i s doubtful. The only l iterary reference to mouthpieces is t he P hoenician i nscription of Batnoam o f Byblos f rom the 4 th c entury B .C. This t ext mentions mouthpieces as a standard custom o f Phoenician royal burials. At t his date mouthpieces were still being u sed i n Cyprus a lso. ( 441) Even i f the " mouthpieces" f rom the early I ron A ge were derived f rom Aegean p rototypes, they would be weak grounds f or determining the ethnic derivation of t he occupants o f a specific tomb, s ince Greek burials of t he s ame period i nclude Syrian s eals, Egyptian s carabs, H ittite bronzes, European metal objects, and t he eastern habit of cremation. ( 442) During this period i nfluences were t raveling i n both directions. These objects have l ittle value for the i nterpretation o f Philistine burials, unless better data i s uncovered than presently exists.

Cremation The appearance o f cremation and urn burials has a lso been cited a s an i ndication of the arrival of S ea Peoples and of Aegean i nfluence. ( 443) I n I srael c remations f rom the Early I ron Age appear at F ara, Azor, a nd A jjul. At Fara the cremations were i n urns which were placed between the tombs of the 2 00 cemetery. The jars u sed a s urns are different f rom the j ars f ound i n the t ombs. One strainer j ug was f ound i n these burials. McClellan dates these burials l ast o f the Fara burials, well a fter t he Philistine chamber tombs, but perhaps part of t he s eriation difference i s due t o the nature of the burials, rather than t o chronology. ( 444) The s ingle c remation at Azor i s dated t o the 1 1th century. ( 445) T he cremations at A jjul a re a lleged to be Philistine, but these excavations o f Sukenik are unpublished, except for a brief reference by A lbright. T he l atest undecorated Philistine kraters are c ited as the typical pottery of the burials. ( 446) The most f amous urnfield that has a bearing on the relationship o f S ea P eoples and c remation i s a t Hama i n Syria. This cemetery contained more than 1 640 urn burials dating from the 1 2th through 8 th c enturies. Most of the early burials here a re i n b iconical or g lobular r ing-based j ars with a variety of handle p lacements. Many of the j ars a re p ainted with a style s imilar to t he Bird and Gazelle Ware o f t he 9 00 Cemetery at F ara. Some 1 54

burials

are

i n

multi-handled

kraters.

( 447)

I n

a recent

review of t he f inds at Hama, R iis c lassifies these cremation burials a s more Anatolian than Aegean. The finds at the s ite do not support a theory of Mycenaean settlement i n t his part of Syria. Whatever Mycenaean influences there are appear to be i ndirect. ( 448) Some of t he ceramic forms show some Mycenaean h IC i nfluence, but t he f orms i n question are different f rom Philistine Ware. ( 449) There are other cremations i n the Levant i n the Late Bronze and I ron Ages. The cremations at A lalakh date f rom the end o f the Late Bronze. There i s an apparent cremation cemetery at Tel Sukas i n Syria which has a stirrup j ar f rom LH I IIC:1. Ugarit has apparent cremations f rom the 1 2th century. The cremations at Carchemish are f rom the 9 th-7th centuries. I n the 9th century Halaf has both cremations and gold mouthpieces. ( 450) Phoenician cremations occur at Atlit and Achzib. ( 451) Cremation was a lso known at Troy V I and among the Hittites. ( 452) The urn burials of Central Europe and the E truscans are a lso well known. ( 453) T he most s ignificant cremation cemeteries in Greece are f rom l ater than the t ime of the Sea P eoples' a lleged migration. ( 454) l akovides c lassifies the cremations at Perati in Attica as derivations f rom Anatolian practices. They are not the standard burial form at P erati. lakovides believes that their purpose was to speed up reusability of the tomb by removing the f lesh f rom the bones so they could be pushed aside. ( 455) Since our main concern i s to examine the derivation of cremation i n order to determine what ethnic significance i ts occurrence i n Palestine may have, we will not examine these other cremations i n detail. We will examine the i nterpretation of these cremations only insofar as i t has a bearing on our question. A lthough some cremation o ccurs in Greece i n the Late Bronze Age and even earlier, cremation i s not a standard Mycenaean custom. I t does not f lourish i n this area before the 9th century. Vermeule, Kurtz and l akovides a ll s ee i t as a foreign influence i n Greece of Anatolian or Levantine origin. ( 456) Riis s ees Hittite Anatolia as a possible both the Aegean and the source of the i nfluence for itself McQueen traces the I n Anatolia Levant. ( 457) Turkey i n EB I II. I n t o southeastern practice back was an option, not a cremation Hittite cemet eries rd of burial. ( 458) universal stand a Cremation was not a distinctive ethnic trait anywhere in the eastern Mediterranean during the l ate 2 nd millennium. I t was an a lternate means of burial a long with simple i nhumation in many different regions at some time during the LB or E I. I t was not a distinctive Mycenaean or Aegean t rait. I nfluence toward cremation most l ikely came to Palestine from Anatolia. The evidence 1 55

for cremation at the Amman Airport " temple" i s i nterpreted a s evidence f or the i ntroduction of cremation f rom Anatolia i nto Syria-Palestine at t he end o f the L ate Bronze Age. ( 459) There i s no evidence t o l ink t he cremations i n Palestine with t he arrival of t he Philistines or other Sea Peoples. Most of the c remations i n Palestine date too l ate to be associated with t he arrival o f the Sea Peoples.

Philistine The indicate

Burials evidence which any particular

i s presently available does n ot style of burial which can b e

l inked with the Philistines or which gives proof o f their origins. Philistine burial customs may well have b een t he mixture which occurs at Azor. This i s not surprising since it i s very common that ethnic groups have mixed burial forms and that the boundaries o f burial customs do not correspond with l inguistic or politi- al boundaries. ( 460) A lready in the Late Bronze Age there i s considerable heterogeneity of burial customs i n coastal Palestine. I ndividual f eatures of certain burials are s imilar t o burials in the Aegean, Anatolia, Cyprus, and Egypt, but n o Palestinian burial i s a t rue copy of a foreign burial. Perhaps this reflects small groups o f immigrants f rom many areas, who assimilated quickly, but preserved a f ew features of burials of their o ld homeland. ( 461) We will now examine the various types of burials i n which Philistine Ware occurs. These should b e called Philistine Ware burials, rather than Philistine burials, since it i s not a lways c lear which of them are burials o f ethnic Philistines. Since no burials of this period have yet been excavated from any of the f ive chief c ities o f the for Fara

Philistines, Fara and Philistine cemeteries.

Azor

remain

the

best

candidates

Tombs

The relationship of the rock-cut tombs o f F ara t o Mycenaean prototypes and the role of Philistine W are i n these tombs have been discussed in a preceding s ection o f this chapter. The percentage of Philistine Ware i n these tombs was l ess than 1 0%. This dissertation favored the position that the form of these tombs can be derived from the earlier Series 9 00 tombs at Fara. About 2 8 additional burials f rom F ara c ontained Philistine Ware. The exact number i s uncertain because o f unclarity i n Petrie's records. ( 462) Most o f these burials are s imple pit graves or s tone-lined g raves, except for t he urns containing cremations in C emetery 2 00C. I n distinct

Cemetery 5 00N 4 or Philistine Ware.

5 burials out According

1 56

of t o

1 9 contained McClellan's

analysis 1 4.4%-16.6% o f the pottery of this g roup i s Philistine Ware i n form. This included a wide variety o f Philistine forms. About 8 o f 3 9 tombs in the 8 00 Cemetery had Philistine Ware. McClellan c lassifies 5 .6%-7.2% of the pottery of t his group as Philistine i n form. Two o f 1 7 burials i n t he Series 1 00 cemetery had d istinct Philistine Ware, but McClellan classifies 1 6%-20% o f the pottery from this group a s Philistine i n f orm. This consisted mostly o f horizontal-handled bowls and pyxides, which did not necessarily have distinct Philistine decoration. About 8 of 5 2 burials in Cemetery 6 00 had distinct Philistine Ware. McClellan c lassifies 7 .5% of the pottery of t his cemetery as Philistine i n f orm. This assemblage i ncludes quite a variety of forms. These four tomb groups fall i nto period two of McClellan's s eriation. Three of 3 0 burials in Cemetery 2 00 had c lear Philistine Ware, but McClellan l ists 1 0.3%-12.8% of the pottery of this group as Philistine in form. This i s due l argely to horizontal-handled bo'ls, which McClellan classifies as P hilistine even i f they do not have Philistine decoration. This cemetery a lso contained a significant number of the l otus chalices, which have decoration s imilar to Philistine-Egyptian decoration, but which are not c lassified as Philistine forms. One or two of 2 7 cremations had Philistine Ware. McClellan l ists only . 9% Philistine Ware in form. A single beer j ug i s the only definite Philistine form. The 2 00 Cemetery falls l ast i n McClellan's s eriation. From a ll of the groups which contained vessels were Philistine

registered graves f rom these burial Philistine Ware a total of 1 5 of 6 3 forms. ( 23.8%)

These f igures give a general i dea of the " Philistine" burials at Fara, but they cannot be regarded a s very precise. A ll of the available records and studies contain a number of discrepancies. ( 463) Some vessels i n Duncan's Corpus are assigned to tombs which are not l isted i n Petrie' s register of tombs. I n a number of p laces there appears to be confusion of s imilar numbers such as Tomb 1 03 and 1 05, 6 15 and 6 25. The quality of drawings and the use of the s ame drawing to represent more than one vessel make it difficult t o accurately describe the type of decoration on each vessel. There are a number of apparent discrepancies between McClellan's various charts.

I n spite of these difficulties a number of general observations can be made. Philistine Ware occurs not only in the rock-cut tombs, but a lso in the s imple or stone-lined graves at Fara. On the basis of vessel form the percentage o f Philistine Ware in these s imple burials exceeds that in any of the rock carved tombs, except 5 42. This may support the idea that the Philistine Ware in the rock-cut tombs belongs to a l ate phase of their use, rather than t o the entire occupancy. I n the pit burials 1 57

graves which contained Philistine Ware a re interspersed with graves which do not. A t ypical Philistine Ware grave had one Philistine Ware vessel a long with b etween 3 and 1 0 non-Philistine vessels. One or two examples o f a wide variety of Philistine vessel types occur i n these burials, but most of the Philistine Ware vessels a re horizontal-handled bowls or strainer j ars. Many o f these l ack distinctive Philistine decoration. The cremations are l ate i n the burial s equence. They a re n ot contemporary with t rue Philistine Ware. Azor This cemetery i s s ignificant f or the variety o f burial forms which occurs there. A s imple pit w ith t he body on i ts back i n an east-west position i s t he most common I ron I burial form among the Azor graves containing Philistine Ware. A burial consisting of two storage j ars joined together resembles some Anatolian burials, but i t cannot be c lassified a s Philistine on the basis o f accompanying f inds. Brick tombs containing l ate Philistine Ware have some s imilarity to the tombs of Z eror a nd Saidiyeh which are discussed below. The s ingle cremation was discussed i n the s ection above on cremation. Dothan c ites this as the earliest cremation i n I ron A ge Palestine. ( 464) A jjul Philistine Ware was reported f rom a few burials a t A jjul. Tomb 1 112 at A jjul was a s imple rectangular grave. I t contained an undecorated horn-shaped vessel, a horizontal-handled Type 1 bowl, another possible Philistine bowl, and one cyma bowl. Tomb 1 139, another s imple grave, had a decorated amphoriskos a nd two non-Philistine vessels. Tomb 1 166 was a l arger Form C multiple-burial grave. I t contained a stirrup-jar, a j ar decorated with concentric s emi-circles and triangles o n the neck, and a bowl with vestigial horizontal l oop handles a s well as many non-Philistine vessels. There was a lso a f eeding bottle which i s s imply cataloged " Tomb 1 000." The c lassification of some of these vessels i s uncertain because of inadequate publication of drawings. ( 465) The discussed

a lleged in the

Philistine cremations at A jjul were earlier s ection on cremation. There i s

no i ndication that the cremations f rom A jjul cataloged Gaza I I were Philistine, but some o f the vessel f orms parallel to those f rom Cemetery 2 00 at Fara.

i n are

Aitun We which tomb f ive

have a lready contained 5 .6% 4 .5m x l oculi,

discussed the rock-cut Philistine Ware. I t

tomb at Aitun i s a rock-cut

1 .5-2.0m. I t i s entered by four steps, has and a round repository i n the f loor. There 1 58

is

n o c lear

evidence

that

it

i s

Philistine.

( 466)

Gezer S everal important caves at Gezer contain some very interesting Philistine Ware. Tomb 5 9 i s a small circular chamber approached by 5 s teps. I t has f ive burial recesses cut i nto the sides. Tomb 5 9 contains about 1 30 vessels. About 1 3 of these are Philistine Ware. ( 10%) I f a n umber of pyxoid type vessels were i ncluded, the percentage of P hilistine Ware would be higher. This i s a very unusual collection which i ncludes 5 gourd bottles and 4 f eeding bottles. I t a lso contains a number o f Philistine Ware f ragments. Lamps are the dominant vessel form i n this tomb. ( 467) Tomb 5 8 i s a s ingle chamber with three benches and two sunken, circular cells. Cave 5 8 contains about 9 1 vessels. A horizontal-handled bowl and a basket-handled feeding bottle can be c lassified a s Philistine Ware, although both a re decorated with stripes, not with distinctive Philistine motifs. ( 2.2%) There are s everal pyxoid vessels which could be c lassified as Philistine Ware, but none o f these have Philistine decoration. Lamps and c halices are t he dominant vessel f orms. ( 468) Tomb 9 i s a chamber tomb with benches and two sub-chambers. P illars support the roof. The tomb contained about 2 2 vessels, including a n icely decorated Philistine krater and stirrup jar. ( 9.1%) The krater i s unusual in that it has three handles. The tomb a lso contained a Mycenaean piriform j ar, a Mycenaean stirrup jar, Base Philistine

Ring Ware, and several or Mycenaean. ( 469)

sherds

which

are

either

Tomb 8 4-85 contained about 4 7 vessels, including an undecorated Philistine bowl and a striped pyxis. ( 4.3%) I t also contained an angular pyxis, a stirrup j ar, a strainer-spouted vessel different in shape f rom the usual Philistine form, and the neck of a basket-handled vessel. All of these vessels are undecorated, and i t i s uncertain if t hey should be classified as Philistine Ware. The tomb also contained a Base Ring tankard, j uglet and wish-bone handled bowl. ( 470) These four caves contained about 2 75 whole vessels of which 1 9 were Philistine Ware. ( 6.9%). But i f a ll the undecorated vessels which are c lose to Philistine forms are i ncluded, the percentage of Philistine Ware would at least double. Much of the pottery i n these tombs i s from earlier than t he t ime of Philistine Ware. There i s a striking contrast between the r ichness o f the Philistine Ware in these caves and in a cult cache from Gezer and the comparative l ack of Philistine Ware in the most recent excavations at Gezer.

1 59

B eth

S hemesh

Tomb 1 1 at Beth S hemesh had m any generations o f u se, mainly during the LB Age, parallel t o Stratum I V. I t contains Cypriote bilbels and related wares. T he single Philistine krater and s carab of R amses I II appear to b e f rom the l ast phase of use. ( 471) Megiddo There are one or two non-Philistine burial cave. striped beer a lso produced ( 472)

three burial caves at Megiddo which c ontain pieces of Philistine Ware among l arger assemblages. Tomb 1 101 i s a r eused ES I t contained a Philistine bell b owl, a j ug and a handleless bell bowl. T his tomb a Mycenaean sherd decorated with a dove.

Tomb 7 3 i s an i rregular rock cave which was p robably cut during the Late Bronze Age. I t contains a jug fragment which may have a Philistine s cales a nd dot pattern and an undecorated beer jug. I t contains i mitation Mycenaean Ware. ( 473) Tomb 3 i s a cave expanded by carved burial n iches. i s approached by steps. Most of the pottery i s L BI and

I t

LBII. I t contains from Tomb 1 101. ( 474)

a

Philistine

bowl

s imilar

to t he

one

Tombs 9 12B, 3 9, and 6 2 which contain " mouthpieces" do not contain Philistine Ware, but t here i s some fine Mycenaean Ware in 9 125. ( 475) Afula Early I ron burials at Afula, contemporary with Stratum l ilA, are oblong pits, containing s ingle b urials on the back with the head NNW. Storage jars and bowls are the main ceramic forms. The only P hilistine Ware is a nicely decorated, braided-handled j ug from Tomb 2 . A Philistine style banded bowl and a sherd f rom a s imilar bowl were found i n c lose proximity to t hese graves. ( 476) Tel

Beit

Mirsim

The East Cave contained a Philistine Ware beer jug and krater. The excavator's l og l ists about 24 o bjects from this cave. The objects correspond both to S trata C and B on the t ell and include Cypriote milk bowls a nd Base Ring Ware, and LB painted ware. ( 477) Z eror The stone-lined cist burials at Z eror do not c ontain decorated Philistine Ware, but have s everal undecorated vessels s imilar to Philistine Ware forms. ( 478)

1 60

L achish Cave 4 034, P it B contains Philistine Ware s herds, but t his material a ppears t o represent an occupancy r ather t han remains o f a burial. The cave appears t o h ave been a potter' s workshop f or at l east p art of i ts h istory. At any rate, the P hilistine Ware i s a l ate addition t o the occupancy o f t his cave. Most of t he material i s described a s p arallel to Tell Beit Mirsim C2 and B i. ( 479) There i s Dothan assigns Ware. ( 480) P ottery

Types

n o evidence that t he t o t he 1 2th century

I n LB/El

other t ombs which contain Philistine

Burials

An attempt was made t o catalog and evaluate the p ercentage o f v arious vessel types which o ccur i n burials o f this period i n order t o determine i f the burials containing Philistine Ware can be distinguished f rom . other burials on the basis o f the vessel types which a re most common i n them. The common vessel types of Philistine W are burials were a lso compared with vessel types of burials i n Greece and Cyprus. The conclusion was that P hilistine Ware burials cannot be d istinguished f rom other burials i n Canaan on the basis of vessel type. We g roups s ection s ection

will l ook at the statistics from a f ew specific i n s upport o f this c laim. The statistics i n this are b ased on the tomb registers documented i n the on burials above.

The f our chamber tombs at Fara could be called bowl b urials. They contain from 3 5.8% to 4 7.3% bowls. I n a ll f our tombs f lasks, j uglets, and l amps f all around the 5 %-10% r ange. Tomb 5 52 i s unusual i n that i t had a s ignificant number of storage j ars ( 12.8%) and jugs ( 14%) Bowls are somewhat l ess dominant in a group of four tombs f rom the 9 00 Cemetery. ( 27.4%) ( 481) Bowls are a lso the m ain form o f t he 5 00, 6 00, and 8 00 Cemeteries at Fara, but l ess decisively than in the chamber tombs. ( 482) Bowls a lso p redominate at Madeba in Jordan ( 44%) and S aidiyeh in t he Jordan valley ( 28%). Neither of these b urial groups contained any Philistine Ware. The tomb at M adeba c losely p arallels the material from the 5 00 and 6 00 Cemeteries at F ara. Lamps ( 21.7%) and f lasks ( 14%) were t he other major f orms at Madeba. ( 483) The cist graves a t Saidiyeh s how very heavy Egyptian i nfluence, but there i s no good basis for connecting them with the Sea P eoples a s Pritchard d id. A wide variety o f vessels a ll f alling i n t he 6 %-7% r ange make up the r est o f t he S aidiyeh a ssemblage. ( 484) Most of t he M egiddo t ombs o f this p eriod can a lso b e c lassified a s bowl burials. ( 485) L amps ( 44.3%) i n Tomb

are and 5 9,

t he dominant vessels i n Gezer Caves 5 9 5 8 ( 31.9%). The l ack o f bowls i s conspicuous but t hey are more common i n Tomb 5 8 ( 19.8%). 1 61

( 486) Lamps are a lso the l eading f orm at but bowls are well represented ( 26%). ( 487)

Aitun

( 33.8%),

A lthough Beth Shan i s just a f ew miles from S aidiyeh, and both show considerable Egyptian i nfluence, bowls p lay practically no role i n the assemblages i n t he coffin burials f rom Beth Shan. This a lso contrasts w ith the dominance of bowls in the coffin burials of Fara. Four burial groups containing anthropoid coffins i llustrate t he great diversity of vessel types even i n contemporary burials of one s ite. Tomb 2 21 A-C had 3 9% stirrups, 16.9% l amps, and 1 7% f lasks. This tomb had a s ingle M ycenaean bell bowl and a strainer spouted j ug with a braided handle. Tomb 6 6 had 7 0% l amps, 1 6% f lasks, a nd 3 .3% stirrups. This i s the tomb which had the f eathered headdress sarcophagus. Tomb 2 19 had 4 3.1% stirrups, 30.1% f lasks, and 8 .6% l amps. Tomb 9 0 had 3 8.8% f lasks and 3 2.8% l amps, and 6 % stirrups. ( 488) As this diversity at even a s ingle s ite i llustrates, i t does not seem possible to detect a pattern in t he types of vessels which occur in Philistine and non-Philtstjr ie burials of this period. Gonen a lso observes a g eneral s imilarity of grave goods i n a ll types of burials in the Late Bronze Age. ( 489) However, the f requent dominance o f bowls and l amps appears to be a Canaanite different from the fashion i n Greece where occur i n burials of this period. ( 490)

Burial

Change

At

the

Beginning

of

the

trait, quite bowls rarely

I ron Age

The t ime of the a lleged arrival of the cannot be i dentified a s a time of s ignificant change of burial customs in Palestine. More

Sea P eoples l arge-scale significant

changes took p lace at the beginning of LBI and I ron I I. ( 491) We must be cautious in drawing sweeping conclusions f rom any differences between the burial customs o f the " Philistine" p lains and the " Israelite" mountains during I ron I , because the difference between burial customs of the p lains and mountains was a lready well established earlier i n the Late Bronze Age. During this period caves were the dominant burial in the mountains as they h ad been i n the Middle Bronze. Pits were dominant i n the p lains. This difference was not purely geological, because caves had been used a long the coast in earlier periods. ( 492)

most

I n and near the mountains P hilistine Ware a ppears frequently i n burial caves which were often a lready

i n u se during the preceding period. ( Aitun, Tell Beit Mirsim, Beth Shemesh, Gezer, Megiddo) I n the p lains Philistine Ware most often occurs i n burial pits. ( Ajjul, Fara, Azor, Afula) Both of these f orms appear to be continuations of the style of the preceding period. I t i s striking that there are few new caves used during I ron I in comparison with the number of reused LB c aves. However, in I ron I I there are many new caves. ( 493) 1 62

R egardless o f whether the Mycenaean or non - Mycenaean interpretation i s accepted, the chamber tombs at Fara are unusual in the l owlands, but even here there i s a basic continuity with t he burial form of the preceding period, rather than a sharp break. A gain we must remember that we l ack a cemetery major Philistine city to complete the picture.

Skeletal

from a

Material

At the present t ime the available s keletal evidence is i nadequate t o s erve as a basis for dependable conclusions about the racial characteristics of the Philistines. The skulls from the " Philistine" burial at Aitun are basically Mediterranean, s imilar to f inds from Megiddo and Lachish. The " Philistine" and " Canaanite" tombs at Aitun c annot be differenti ated on the basis of the s keletal material. One s kull f rom Aitun ( 13) does differ from the rest of the material and can be c lassified as A lpine. ( 494) We cannot s ay with certainty that any of t he graves at Aitun are those of ethnic Philistines.

but

T he graves at Nitzanim do not contain Philistine Ware, b ecause they l ie i n the Philistine coastal p lain, they

have

often

been

i ncluded

i n

this

discussion.

The

skulls

from this group have more African affinities, suggesting to A rensburg that some of the a lleged i nvaders may have come from the Mediterranean coast of Africa. I n some respects the skulls of this s ite are c loser to skull H 3 from Aitun. The pottery at this s ite shows very heavy Egyptian i nfluence. ( 495) Again i t i s open to question if t hese are true Philistine graves. T he s keletal material from Azor i s heterogenous. Two skulls were c lassified as Armenoid and one as A lpine. Ferembach's conclusions l inking these skulls with i nvaders from the Aegean are too sweeping to be justified by the very l imited amount of evidence. ( 496) O ne skull Mediterranean type

f rom Beth Shemesh I II i s s imilar to Nitzanim H 2. ( 497)

a

cruder

T he skeletal material from Deir e l Balah appears to correspond with t hat from Lower Egypt, as we would expect s ince these were very l ikely Egyptian burials. ( 498) I n summary, a f ew skulls at Azor and one at Aitun differ from the norm for skulls of Canaanite s ites. Skulls at Nitzanim have African affinities. But this l imited evidence does not provide adequate evidence for an Aegean or Anatolian origin of the Philistines as Ferembach suggests. The brachycephalic skulls i n I srael may well be a

l ocal

far,

they

variant of tend

t o

Mediterranean, be

i solated 1 63

rather

than

occurrences.

A lpine.

So

They

are

u sually a ssociated with other skulls very similar to t he norm found i n I srael. I srael has produced only t wo brachycephalic groups. These come from MB a nd Roman-Byzantine graves. ( 499) To obtain reliable skeletal information concerning t he Philistines we would need a l arge number o f skeletons f rom a definite Philistine s ite such as Ashdod or M iqne. W e must a lso have earlier material f rom the same , s ite f or comparison. There a re a l arge number of skeletons f rom Ashdod f rom the Assyrian period, but an adequate analysis o f this material has never been published. T here i s, therefore, at present no adequate s keletal information f or determining the racial affinities o f the Philistines. T he extremely l imited information which i s available suggests a heterogenous population.

1 64

METAL T he relevance of metalworking to a discussion o f the culture of the Philistines depends on how we answer two questions. Did the Philistines i ntroduce i ronworking i nto Palestine? Did the Philistines i ntroduce distinctive metal forms from the Aegean or e lsewhere, which give s ome hint a s to their origin? The

I ntroduction of

I ron

F or a l ong t ime the Philistines' i ntroduction o f i ron into Palestine and their t emporary monopoly of i ts production were cited as two of their outstanding achievements. This i dea still remains entrenched i n the popular l iterature and forms one of the main impressions which the non-professional reader of ancient history has of the Philistines. I n its l atest edition the Encyclopedia

Britannica describes

the

Philistines

thus:

Only one Philistine innovation had a l asting effect on the civilization of P alestine:the working of i ron. The Bible credits the Philistines with introducing this metal i nto the country and maintaining a monopoly, at f irst, in i ts use.... I t i s f rom 1 200 B .C. that the archeologist's I ron Age conventionally begins. Knowledge of the metal must have been a cquired by the Philistines in Anatolia."(Vol. 1 7, p. 9 41) Through the years this theory was popularized by Wright and A lbright. ( 500) However, in recent years it has become clear that neither the l iterary nor archeological evidence supports this conclusion. The l iterary evidence on i ronworking in Palestine i s l argely l imited to the O ld Testament. I n spite of Aibright's statement to the contrary i t i s c lear that the Old Testament does not credit the Philistines with the introduction of i ron i nto Palestine. The O ld Testament mentions i ron s everal t imes before the conflict of I srael and the Philistines. One of the most striking references is t he mention o f an iron bed, throne, or sarcophagus W 1V ) of Og, king of Bashan. ( Deut. 3 :11). I Samuel 1 3:19-22, the passage which i s cited as the basis for the a lleged Philistine monopoly of i ron, does not even mention i ron. I t does refer t o a Philistine control of metalworking, which aimed at maintaining an embargo of metal implements to I srael i n order to restrict them to f arm implements, rather than weapons. There i s no indication that the Philistines used mainly i ron weapons, while the I sraelites used bronze. The weaponry of Goliath i s t he only Philistine weaponry described i n the Old Testament. ( I Samuel 1 7:5-7) A spearhead of i ron i s 1 65

mentioned, but his armor i s bronze. The material of t he sword i s not specified. I Chronicles reports t hat l arge quantities of i ron were available during t he reign o f David i n the 1 0th century. ( I Chr. 2 9:7) T he Hittites did trade i ron with other nations, b ut the i dea of an Anatolian monopoly of t he knowledge o f i ronworking i s based on a misunderstanding o f a single t ext, KBo I 1 4. The text merely speaks of t he Hittite king's i nability to f ill an order f or i ron, because there was none available i n the warehouse. I t is s imply t he equivalent of putting someone on backorder. T here is n o evidence for a monopoly in this text or e lsewhere. ( 501) The earliest l iterary evidence for i ronworking comes f rom l ate i n the 3 rd Millennium and early i n the 2 nd Millennium. KU AN ( the heavenly m etal) may originally b e a reference to meteoric i ron, but i t i s replaced by t he words AN BAR and parzillum. The f irst syllabic s pelling of parzillum i s from the i st Dynasty of Susa, early in t he 2 nd M illennium. The t erm occurs only once in t he Kultepe correspondence. ( 502) The

most

i nteresting

reference

to

i ron

objects

among

the Hittites i s the reference to an i ron throne of King Annitas from the f irst half of the second millennium. ( 503) This provides an i nteresting parallel to t he Biblical reference to a i ron couch of the Amorite king, 0g. I t i s not l ikely that these l arge i tems w ere made entirely of i ron, s ince l arge objects could not be cast with the technology available at the time. I f t he iron was not l imited to trim, but formed the framework, perhaps these objects were constructed of wrought iron rods.

gifts

The Amarna which the

l etters mention i ron objects a mong 1 8th Dynastry Pharaohs Amenophis I II

the and

I V received from the Mitanni king Tushrata. ( EA 2 2:I,38;II,3,16; 2 5:22,28). I t i s l ikely that the Sea People mercenaries i n Egypt used bronze swords, but some of the Egyptian s oldiers of Ramses I II are pictured with b lue swords, which could possibly be i ntended to r epresent i ron. ( 504) The archeological evidence agrees well w ith the general picture presented by the l iterary sources. Iron was widely u sed in the Near East as a precious metal long before the so-called I ron Age. Non-meteoric iron a ppears a s early as 2 700 B .C. ( 505) I t continues to the s econd millennium.

in Mesopotamia at Chagar Bazar. appear in many areas throughout

The continued predominance of bronze was not due to any s ecret monopoly of i ron in Anatolia or e lsewhere. I t i s due to the f act that bronze i s a s uperior material for weapons, unless iron i s properly quenched and hardened. The l imited number of hardness tests which have b een made indicate that proper quench-hardening was a hit-and-miss 1 66

affair

well

i nto

the

I ron

Age.

( 506)

I n

addition

t he

working of i ron i s more t ime consuming and costly t han the casting of bronze. I ncreased use of i ron may have been due m ore to necessity, than to superiority or desirability of i ron. I ron ore i s widely available, and i ron production does not require a rare material l ike t in, which might be become unavailable during t imes o f international turmoil. I f the a lleged movements of the Sea P eoples had anything to do with the increased use o f iron, their " contribution" was more l ikely disrupting regular patterns of trade, than bringing new knowledge.

which

M uch, is

but found

not i n

a ll of the Palestine

1 2th and 1 1th century i ron i s found at s ites with

Philistine pottery, but this may be more i ndicative of a time period than of a specific ethnic group. F ara Tombs 552, 5 62, & 5 42, Megiddo VI & V IIA, Azor Burial 5 6, Tell Qasile XII-X, Beth Shemesh I II, and the Philistine l evels of J emmeh are among the early occurrences of i ron i n Palestine, but it a lso occurs at non- hilistjne s ites such as M adeba in Jordan, et-Tell, and Gibeah. ( 507) The earliest known i ron smelter in Palestine may be associated with an LBII t emple at Yina' am near the Sea of Galilee. It i s not c lear that this i s in fact a smelter. ( 508) An earlier 1 5th century smelter i s reported at K amid e l Loz in L ebanon, but the evidence i s not adequately published. ( 509) It i s not clear that either of these i s a l arge scale operation, but these installations s eem to rule out a P hilistine introduction or monopoly of i ron i n the area. T he evidence presently available indicates that the great increase in the use of iron for weapons and tools occurred in the 1 0th century, not in the 1 2th century, when the Sea Peoples arrived. Of 2 90 items available to Waldbaum for study about 2 0 are dated to the 1 2th century, 7 8 to the 1 1th, and about 1 92 to the 1 0th. ( 510) I f w e accept McClellan's l ater dating of the Fara tombs, the 1 2th century total would be reduced further. At Tell Jemmeh the increase from the 1 2th to the 1 0th century was from 4 objects to 3 0. At Megiddo it was from 1 2 to 3 3. Unless there i s a very great distortion of the s ample, the significant increase in the use of i ron occurred in the 1 0th c entury, not at the t ime of the Sea Peoples' arrival. W aldbaum may be l ess secure in assuming a relative insignificance of iron before the 1 0th century. I ron probably has a l ower s urvival rate than bronze, so the percentage of i ron in u se in a ll centuries i s probably greater than Waldbaum's statistics indicate, s ince her statistics are based on survival rate, rather than the original proportions of i ron and bronze. Nevertheless, the p attern i s quite consistent. According to Waldbaum, the p ercentage of iron objects among weapons in Palestine increases f rom 2 % in the 1 2th century to 1 4% in the 1 1th to 5 4% in the 1 0th. For t ools the increase was f rom 9 % i n the 1 2th century to 2 3% in the 1 1th to 6 0% i n the 1 0th. ( 511) For the entire Eastern Mediterranean the f igures 1 67

f or and

weapons are 6 9%. ( 512)

3 %,

1 6%,

and

5 4%,

and

for

tools

1 1%,

2 7%,

I n spite o f references to i ron works i n s ome s ite r eports f rom Philistia t here i s at present n o c lear archeological evidence f or smelting and t he primary p roduction o f i ron i n Philistia. ( 513) Thus t he evidence for a s ignificant r ole by t he P hilistines i n t he introduction or increased u se of i ron i s ambiguous at best. There i s no g enuine l iterary evidence to s upport this c laim. Nor i s t here c lear evidence that i ron offered s ignificant advantages a s a material f or weapons as early as t he 1 2th century when t he Philistines a llegedly arrived f rom the Aegean. Whatever domination the Philistines had was based on c ontrol o f f inished metal products, not on the possession of t he s ecret or s ources of i ron. James Muhley has recently proposed that t he major advance in i ron t echnology which was due t o a better understanding of the effects o f quenching and t empering began i n the Aegean and moved east f rom t here. H e s uggests that the Sea Peoples' migration may h ave been a f actor i n carrying this technology t o Palestine. H owever, he does not explain how the i ncreased use o f i ron i n P alestine, which only becomes apparent in t he 1 0th c entury, can be connected with the arrival of S ea P eoples f rom the Aegean i n the 1 2th century. S uch a c onnection would only be possible i f our archeological evidence i s deficient or i f s eeds of knowledge which arrived in t he 1 2th century took a couple of centuries to d evelope. Muhley acknowledges that any advantage w hich t he Philistines had was due to political embargo, rather than t echnological s ecrets. ( 514) Much c learer evidence i s n eeded before a definite connection can be e stablished between the arrival of the Philistines and the i ncreased u se of i ron for weapons and t ools.

Specific

Metal

Forms

The basic metal objects at P hilistine s ites a re not s ignificantly different in form o r style from t hose a t other Palestinian or Transjordanian s ites. T his i s i llustrated by comparing the objects from t he Madeba tomb i n Jordan with those of the Fara t ombs. P arallels from F ara are l isted for a lmost a ll of the metal objects from Madeba. ( 515) The metal objects which are f ound a t P alestinian s ites which show the strongest continuity with Canaanite t radition are j ewelry, knives, a rrowheads, and o ther small i tems. A lleged Aegean i nfluences are l argely l imited to swords and other l arge items l ike a xes and cauldrons. Even i n Cyprus the Aegean i nfluence i s m inimal i n small i tems l ike arrowheads and daggers. I t i s most apparent i n l arge i tems l ike swords. ( 516) M uhley's observation that a ll o f the i ron weapons f rom this p eriod 1 68

are

f rom

interesting sample i s ( 517)

Philistine i n too

v iew s mall

s ites o f to

rather

than

highland

s ites

i s

I Samuel 1 3, but the s ize o f the draw any sweeping conclusions.

T o analyze t his most important aspect of Philistine metal working we must compare the various examples o f S ea Peoples' weaponry which are pictured at Medinet Habu, described in I Samuel 1 7, or found i n Palestinian excavations, with weapons produced i n the Aegean or Anatolia. Some o f the swords pictured in the S ea Peoples' hands in their battles with the Egyptians have parallels from the Aegean, but this does not necessarily i ndicate migration from the Aegean, s ince these weapons appear many places in the Near East and Egypt. ( Fig. 2 4) ( 518) Indeed, many f eatures of the Aegean swords, such a s f langes and the T-shaped pommel, originate i n the East, not in the Aegean. ( 519) I nfluences on manufacture of weapons were reciprocal throughout the period, and Aegean swords appear i n the Levant well . before the Hittite advance. ( 520) Furthermore, the extent of Aegean influence on Sea People weaponry has been exaggerated. The famous " Sherdana Sword," purchased near Tel Aviv i n 1 911, does resemble some weapons found in Greece and the Western Mediterranean, but i t could be derived f rom the weapons of MB Palestine a s well. ( 521) The s loped shouldered swords used by the Sherden at Medinet Habu are not Aegean, but hybrids. ( 522) We should be very cautious about drawing conclusions about migrations f rom the spread of weapon types, because superior types of weapons could s pread on their own merit, not necessarily by m igration. An example i s the 6 th century S cythian arrow which s pread to areas never reached by the Scythians. ( 523) Goliath's greaves, bronze helmet, and his spear " like a weaver's beam," that i s, with a l oop for throwing, are three alleged p arallels with Aegean weaponry. ( 524) However, we have no descriptions of any these objects, other than the vague reference in I Samuel 1 7, so they hardly form an a dequate basis for a meaningful comparison with Aegean weaponry. The opinion that " a spear l ike a weaver' s beam" means with a l oop for throwing i s based on Yadin' s conjecture rather than on any hard evidence. Furthermore, none of these forms appear in the reliefs depicting the S ea People at Medinet Habu. Even i f we concede that Goliath's weaponry i s Aegean, there i s no evidence to connect i t with the arrival of migrating S ea Peoples, unless we accept l ater waves, who brought different equipment from that known at Medinet Habu. I f these weapons were not brought by the i nvaders at the t ime of Ramses I II, trade would provide a s l ikely an explanation of their arrival f rom the Aegean a s mass migration. • Dothan appears in

suggests that the small round the Medinet Habu reliefs, on 1 69

shield which a s eal f rom

Cyprus, in the hand of a Cypriote i dol, and on a v ase f rom Mycenae i s another i ndication of the Philistines' Aegean origin. ( 525) However, the correspondence of t hese i tems i s not exact. Moreover, Negbi has pointed out t he occurrence of this type of shield i n the Near East already i n the Late Bronze Age. I t occurs for example in t he Megiddo Ivories in the hands o f non-Philistines. ( 526) A type of corselet with downcurved r ibs which appears i n the Medinet Habu reliefs i s another a lleged t ie to t he Aegean. ( 527) However, the only examples which we h ave of " Aegean warriors" wearing i t occur on artwork f rom Cyprus, not the Aegean. A socketed bronze ax-aize tound in a Temple o f Stratum X at Tel Qasile i s cited as an unmistakable indicator o f the Philistines' Aegean origin. ( 528) It i s hard t o justify such an assertion, s ince ax-adzes and double axes are very rare in Palestine, and may s imply b e due t o trade. Double axes have been f ound at Megiddo VI a nd Gezer, which were probably not populated by Aegeans. ( 529) So f ar no t rue double axes have been found at a P hilistine s ite. The ax-adze from Qasile i s t he only example of this form f rom a Philistine s ite. There i s another ax-adze, somewhat different i n form, from Megiddo. ( 530) Double axes appeared in the Near East well before the time o f Ramses I II. Syrian l umberjacks are pictured felling trees with double axes a lready in the reliefs of Seti I . ( 531) The only depictation of an ax in the hands of o ne of t he Sea People i s the man from Cyprus pictured in Figure 21b. He i s carrying a s ingle a x, not the double ax, which may have been primarily a woodworking t ool. Furthermore, t he origin and diffusion of these double axes and ax-adzes i s not f irmly established. Many of the influences need b e traced back no further than Cyprus. Catling a ccepts a n Aegean origin for the double ax, but sees Mesopotomia a s the u ltimate source of the ax-adze. ( 532) B uchholtz seems to regard Mesopotamia as the original home a lso o f the double ax. ( 533) Of a ll the metal objects under discussion i n this chapter the best case for Aegean origins can be made for the double ax, but this o bject i s so rare in Palestine that we must be very c areful i n drawing sweeping conclusions from such skimpy evidence. Muhley has recently classified a one-edged curved knife of i ron with a hilt of ivory or bone fastened with three bronze rivets as a form that moved east f rom t he Aegean. These knives often occur with Mycenaean I lICi pottery. An example occurs in the 1 2th century l evel a t Qasile. ( 534) I t i s interesting that the s imilar i ron-bronze knives at Perati in Greece are classified a s Syrian by the excavator. ( 535) On Shan

the basis Pritchard has

of tomb p roposed

i n introducing new forms Valley. ( 536) However, l imited. A cauldron and

finds f rom Saidiyeh n ear Beth that the Sea People h ad a role

of metal working i nto t he Jordan the evidence for this i s very a t ripod which occur at S aidiyeh 1 70

are t ypes rarely found i n Palestine and do h ave s ome affinities to objects found i n the Aegean region. The burial in bitumen i s a lso unusual i n P alestine, but t his appears t o be an attempt t o i mitate Egyptian mummification, r ather than an Aegean t rait. Many of the artifacts f rom S aidiyeh are s imilar to those f rom B eth Shan, which yielded the anthropoid coffins which have often been connected with the S ea P eople, but this s imilarity i s hardly suprising i n view of the proximity o f the s ites. Moreover, Muhley has pointed out the Egyptian derivation of the metal wine s et. ( 537) Furthermore, Negbi has i ndicated the general continuity of Early I ron metal working at Saidiyeh and other s ites f rom Canaanite LB metal working. She c lassifies only 4 of 6 7 i tems i n these hoards as A egean influenced. She l ists the ax f rom Qasile as the only Aegean item from a Philistine s ite. ( 538) As we s aw in the chapter on burials, the pottery at S aidiyeh a lso shows heavy Egyptian i nfluence. At both Saidiyeh and Beth Shan the dominant i nfluence i s Egyptian, not A egean. Many of the "Aegean" metal forms i n Palestine cou1d originate in Cyprus or be mediated through Cyprus. When s imilar metal f orms occur in the Aegean, Cyprus, and Syria there i s o ften d isagreement about the original home of the f orm. There i s a lso disagreement about the degree o f Aegean i nfluence on Cypriote metal working. Catling accepts the greatest degree of Aegean i nfluence. Heavy i nfluence does not begin until LCIII. Catling s ees the heaviest Aegean i nfluence in swords armor, and tools. Aegean influence on smaller objects, l ike daggers and arrowheads and on tripods and stands i s much more l imited. ( 539) Bass s ees much l ess Aegean i nfluence on Cypriote metal working and analyzes the objects of the Cape Gelidonya wreck and the Cypriote copper and bronze industry as a lmost entirely Eastern i n origin. ( 540) Lena Astrom a lso minimizes the degree of Aegean influence on Cypriote metal working, even in LCIII. She criticizes Catling for attributing anything vague a sserts that the Mycenaean influence working i s hardly greater in LCIII than Snodgrass, Muhley and Negbi a lso

to the Aegean and on Cypriote metal i n LCII. ( 541) caution against

over-emphasizing the degree of Aegean influence in Cypriote metal working. ( 542) Even i n Cyprus the exact derivation of metal forms i s often uncertain because of two-way trade and l ong-time reciprocal influences between Cyprus and the Aegean. We should therefore be very cautious in interpreting "Aegean" metal objects found i n Palestine a s evidence for direct t ies with the Aegean. Sum mar y A lthough a origins appear

f ew metal forms which may have Aegean a t Philistine s ites, there does not appear

t o be a distinctive Philistine metal working t radition which distinguishes them from the rest of Canaan, which i ndicates their o rigin, or which would help us to i dentify 1 71

Philistine s ites. Most of the Aegean i nfluence appears i n a f ew special t echnology i tems l ike swords and axes. Even these i tems a re very r are at true Philistine s ites.

1 72

Figure

2 4

SWORDS

AND

DAGGERS

OF

ALLEGED

AEGEAN DERIVATION

T ype B T ype D T ype C

N aue I I

" Sh ar da n a S word

- r

1 73

F igure

2 5 PARALLELS OF THE

S HIPS

SEAPEOPLES

Urn From Hama Syria

Vase From Skyros I n

TO THE

The Aegean

" Seapeople Sailors" From Mycenaean Pottery

2 5f

2 5e

B ird

Ships From The

Urnfield Culture

2 5h 2 5g 1 74

SHIPS T he representations of t he Sea P eoples' s hips on t he reliefs at Medinet Habu provide another s ource o f information for t rying t o t race the Philistine culture t o the A egean or s ome other area. S . Wachsmann has recently published a thorough review of the subject. ( 543) The main point of comparison with the Aegean i s the b ird-head figureheads which are pictured on the Sea Peoples' ships. Similar figureheads appear on a number of ships p ictured on A egean pottery. The c losest parallel i s the ship on an LH h IC s tirrup j ar from Skyros. ( Fig. 2 5a) A s imilar ship appears on an urn f rom Period one of the cremation cemetery at Hama. ( Fig. 2 5b) Some Aegean pottery a lso pictures s ailors whose headgear i s s imilar t o the Sea Peoples ' . An MU sherd f rom Aegina appears t o depict a horned helmeted s ailor on a ship with a bird f igurehead. ( Fig. 25c). An LH h IC sherd from Cos p ictures a rower whose headgear resembles a feathered c own. ( Fig 2 5d) .

S eal imprints and ceramic models provide s ome f urther examples of Aegean ships for comparison. ( 544) Another source for comparison i s ship models f rom t he U rnfield Culture, but a ll of these examples s eem t o be f rom l ater than the Peoples' Geometric

Late ships ships.

Bronze a lso ( 546)

Age. show

( Fig. 2 5e,f) ( 545) some s imilarities

to

The Sea Greek

An examination of a ll of these sources does reveal some similarities of construction between the Medinet Habu ships and Aegean ships. The bird f igurehead i s perhaps the most striking parallel, s ince this i s not a known feature of Egyptian, Minoan, or Syrian ships. ( 547) There are a number of similarities which connect the Sea Peoples' ships with the stylistic development of the Aegean galley. However, it would be hazardous to draw conclusions about the ethnic i dentity of the Sea Peoples from these s imilarities. Improvements i n ship design were often adapted very rapidly by people other than their inventors. ( 548) There are, moreover, a number of differences between the M edinet Habu ships and Aegean ships of the period. The Sea Peoples' ships have a double steering oar, a characteristic that does not appear on Aegean ships until the Geometric P eriod. ( 549) The brailed r ig, t he down-curved yard-arms and the crow's nest a ll appear t o be c haracteristics of LB Syrian shipbuilding. ( 550) The Sea P eoples' ships pictured at Medinet Habu appear t o be a hybrid, l ike many other aspects of their culture. I t has recently been s uggested t hat a s hip p ictured on a n altar from A kko, which may date to the 1 2th Century, may be associated with the Sea Peoples. ( 551) Study o f this drawing i s s till in very preliminary phases, but t he 1 75

ship very

as pictured i n the published drawing appears s imilar to a standard Egyptian s hip form.

1 76

to

b e

M INOR ARTS

Seals Dome-shaped or conoid stamp seals a re o ft E n called "Philistine" or " Sea P eople" seals, especially tiose with carving on four upper s ides. Such dome-shaped o .- conical seals appear at many Philistine s ites and i n Cjprus and Tarsus. ( 552) The motifs on these s eals are o ften animal or battle s cenes. Some are s imilar to Aegean m c tifs, but others are distinctly Egyptian. ( 553) The s hap o f these seals is not Aegean. I t i s generally c las;ified a s Eastern or Syrian. ( 554) Thus the origin o f : he conoid seals is not f irmly established, but t hey appear t o be a composite style combining Eastern and s c me Aegean influences. Cyprus i s a l ikely p lace f or dev l opment of the style. Even i f the conoid and dome s eils were o f Aegean derivation, not much weight could b? put on a comparatively small number of s eals. S eals r v ved f reely in both directions between the Aegean and the East. For example, there are over 1 000 Eastern style cy inder s eals which were found i n Greece, both imports and l ocal imitations. ( 555) Conoid s eals are not the predominant type at Philistine Ware s ites. Egyptian style s carabs still predominate, though l ess decisively than b E fore. ( 556) Therefore Philistine s eals, l ike most e lem i nts o f their culture, seem to be a composite which i icludes heavy influences both f rom Cyprus and Egypt.

Ivory Ivory carving i s another art i n whLch there was reciprocal influence between the Aegean and t he East. The first main influence i s from the East t o Greece. I n the 1 4th and 1 3th Centuries Eastern influence i s s o s trong i n the Aegean that the presence of immigrant craftsmen f rom the East has been suggested. ( 557) By 1 00 B .C. Cyprus seems to be the chief base of a style which i s half Aegean and half Oriental. ( 558) There i s a reciprocal i nfluence so it i s often i mpossible to say i f a giver i tem should be called Oriental Mycenaean or Mycenaean Oriental. I n Palestine a strong Egyptian influence i ; a lso added, s o that specific i vory i tems found at Megidd are c lassified as Egyptian, Canaanite, Canaanite-Mycenae an , or Mycenaean in style. ( 559) At Fara and Qasile t he Egyptian influence seems s trongest.

1 77

F igure

2 6a

2 6

S quirting B reast G oddess F rom T ell Qasile

A shdoda a nd C ypr iote a nd M ycenaean Parallels

2 6b

2 6c

1 78

2 6d

F ig.

2 7 C ypriote G ods

4

' .

27 a The

Ingot God

2 1b The

Horned God I --

27 C E :

1 79

„

F igure 2 8

M YCENAEAN

F IGURINES

9)

T

I

2

F igure 2 8a T hree F orms o f M ycenaean F igur ines

F ig . 2 8b

M ou f iigur ines O n AB ow l F rom P erat i

5

3

F ig 2 8c-d

O ther F igur ines F rom T he A egean

1 80

F igure 2 9

M OURNING F IGURINES F ROM I SRAEL

2

J emmeh

A zo r

1 81

RELIGION A ll religious basically

of

the l iterary references to the Philistines' practices i ndicate t hat their religion w as S emitic i n character.

Dagon was the principal god of A shdod i n the 1 1th century. He was represented by a s izable image in h is t emple at Ashdod. ( I S am. 5 :1-5) Dagon and the A shtoreths were the deities associated with the P hilistine celebration of Saul's death at the end of the 1 1th century. ( I Chronicles 1 0:10, I S amuel 3 1:10) Dagon w as a lso worshipped a s a chief god a t Gaza, s o he appears t o be universal to the Philistines. ( Judges 1 6:23) H is worship period.

survived at l east as ( I Maccabees 1 0:83, 1 1:4)

l ate

as

the

Hellenistic

Dagon i s a Semitic weather god and grain god, a lso known from Man , U garit and Ebla. ( 560) At Uganit he i s the f ather of Baal. There s eems t o be no sound basis f or the o ld theory that he was a merman god. This belief m ay have been fostered by a f alse etymological connection with the word " dag", f ish, and the f act that Ashtoreth d id appear in f ish-bodied, human-headed form at Ashkelon i n the Hellenistic period. ( 561) " Dagon" p lace names

appears a s an e lement of from Mesopotamia, Syria,

personal n ames and and Palestine both

before and after the t ime of Ramses I II. The name i s much more f irmly attested for Syria than for Palestine. There are however at l east three p laces named " Beth D agon" i n Palestine. One i s the well-known Beth Dagon in North Philistia. This town may be mentioned in a l ist o f Ramses I II. ( 562) The other Beth Dagons are in Asher and near Nablus. Dagan-takala was a third generation Egyptian vassel during the Amarna period. ( EA 3 17, 3 18) I f Dagon was a Canaanite god, it i s strange that the O ld Testament a lways associates him with the Philistines, never with the Canaanites. This, p lus the fact that he i s so strongly attested i n North Syria i n the 2 nd Millennium, suggests that he may have been brought i nto Palestine by e lements of the Philistine population coming f rom the north. S cholars have universally assumed that the Philistines adopted D agon f rom the Canaanites after their arrival i n Palestine, because o f the non-Philistine occurrences of the name i n Palestine which are c ited i n the preceding paragraph, but this evidence i s less weighty than it appears. The Beth Dagon in Asher i s n ear the coast, routes i n the

and can be explained by movements a long commercial f rom the north. No other B eth Dagons are attested O ld T estament. They are deduced from modern Arabic

p lace n ames. The personal name " Dagan-takala" f rom the Amarna l etters i s evidence against the view that Dagon was i mported from Syria, only i f we assume that none o f the " foreign e lements" of the u ltimate population of 1 82

Philistia arrived before the t ime of Ramses I II. The evidence i s i nadequate to prove e ither the Syrian or Canaanite explanation for the Philistines' adoption o f Dagon, but since Dagon i s l inked s o strongly with t he Philistines in t he O ld Testament and never with other Canaanites, the possibility that he was brought i nto Palestine from t he north and that his worship remained confined mainly to the coast i n Palestine should be kept open. Ahaziah, a 9 th century king of I srael, inquired o f Baal-Zebub, a god of Ekron who appears to be a ssociated with fortune t elling and perhaps healing powers. ( II K ings 1 :2-5) I n the f orm Baal Z ebul this title a lso occurs at Ugarit. ( 563) All of the Philistine deities known f rom the O ld Testament, Dagon, Ashtoreth, and Baal Z ebul, are Semitic deities well known in Syria-Palestine. I t may be s ignificant that the Sea Peoples are portrayed as i nvoking the name of the Semitic god Baal a lready in the t exts of Ramses I II. I f they were a lready familiar with Baal at the time of t heir attack on Egypt, i t would be important evidence that t hey had a lready been established i n the Near East for some time. Perhaps not too much weight should be attached to this reference. The name Baal may be put i nto the mouth of the Sea Peoples s imply because he was the foreign god best known to the Egyptians. Egyptians a lso i nvoke Baal i n the Medinet Habu t exts. ( 564) I n fact, the Egyptians were worshipping Semitic deities a s early as the t ime of Tutmose I II and even had priesthoods established for these deities. ( 565) The main example o f the Sea Peoples' invoking the name of Baal in the Medinet Habu texts could be a l ogographic representation o f the Egyptian god Set, but the name Baal i s

spelled

out

i n other

passages.

The hieroglyphic inscription of one o f the Megiddo ivories may i ndicate that the Egyptian god Ptah was worshipped in A shkelon around the t ime of Ramses I II. ( 566) Temples to Egyptian deities may have been erected i n Gaza and Aphek during the Ramesside period. ( 567)

with

The only l iterary references which connect Philistia Aegean deities are classical references which connect

Ashkelon with Cretan deities.

( 568)

There i s very l ittle l iterary Philistine religious practices. What the perspective of their enemies, Sacrifices were apparently a normal worship. ( Judges 1 6:23) The concept to appease an offended god appears Philistines had a reputation for ( Isaiah (y j

view

)

of

2 :6) into this

evidence concerning there i s comes from t he I sraelites. part o f Philistine o f a guilt offering i n I Samuel 6 . The divination ( )

The Philistines carried or wore images battle as amulets. ( II Samuel 5 :21) I n v ery l imited evidence Philistine religious 1 83

practices will have archeological evidence,

to be unless

reconstructed mainly f rom new t exts a re uncovered.

A . Mazar has recently published a thorough s tudy of Philistine cultic apparatus and architecture i n his publication of the cultic f inds at Tell Qasile. ( 569) There i s l ittle evidence o f specific cultic p ractices, except for possible building foundation deposits and the burial of retired cult objects. These practices a re f ound e lsewhere i n the Near East, i ncluding a possible example in a Temple at Enkomi which some s cholars have a ssociated with S ea P eoples. ( 570) Anthropomorphic vessels, shrines, cultic s tands and bowls, masks, and l ibation vessels are among t he cultic apparatus i llustrated and analyzed by Mazar. S ince Mazar's study i s readily available, we will note only a f ew i tems of special i nterest. A f emale anthropomorphic vessel was apparently designed so that milk or some o t her l iquid could s quirt out of the breast. ( Fig. 2 6a) Mazar l ists this as a unique vessel i n P alestine, but i t appears to be a partial parallel to a " squirting breast vessel" f rom Beth Shemesh I I. ( 571) This and other vessels s imilar in concept may be related to s imilar vessels which existed in Egypt a lready in the Early Kingdom. The Egyptian form of this vessel may depict the pregnant goddess Toueris. ( 572) The prominence o f many types of l ibation vessels seems to indicate an important role for l ibations and the ceremonial handling of l iquids in the cult. A l ion-head rhyton i s especially s ignificant because s imilar vessels are depicted in Egyptian pictures of Aegean envoys, and because this particular example has painted decoration very s imilar to that on Philistine pottery. ( 573) Mazar i llustrates a number of other l ibation or trick vessels. The hollow-rim bowl with bull's head spouts has a c lose parallel at Beth Shemesh. An incomplete example of this type of hollow-rim vessel from Tel Qasile has P hilistine style painted decoration. ( 574) t 4 azar's discussion of kernoi ( ring vessels) i s important s ince kernoi have often been cited a s a l ink with the Aegean. ( 575) However, kernoi are rare in Mycenaean pottery. Those that appear i n the Aegean may well be due to i nfluences traveling west from Cyprus, rather examples Cyprus. in 2nd animals a lready

than the other way around. ( 576) I solated of kernoi occur i n EB and MB Palestine and ( 577) A rough equivalent of t he kernos occurs Millennium Egypt, and the b asic concept o f p lacing and other objects around a cultic r ing occurs in the Chalcolithic " crowns" f rom the Cave o f the

Treasures. ( 578) of cult object was I n

I ron

Age

The general tradition ancient in the Levant. P alestine 1 84

kernoi

are

behind

this

type

predominantly

a

l owland l onger appear Nasbeh,

f orm, a nd their popularity continues at Ashdod than at most other s ites. ( 579) However, they do during t he Early I ron Age at highland s ites s uch a s north o f J erusalem, and S asa i n Galilee. ( 580)

Dothan s ees a relationship between Philistine kernoi and l ate Mycenaean forms, but Furumark believed t hat the u ltimate origin o f the kernos form was i n the East. ( 581) There i s not a dequate evidence to demonstrate that the Philistines' u se of the kernos i s a t rait derived f rom the Aegean. Mazar discusses a number of other cult objects. A " Naos" s tyle s hrine has apparent Egyptian prototypes. The cylindrical cult stands are well known i n Canaanite t radition, but s ome of those from Qasile are decorated with Philistine painted motifs. I t i s d ifficult t o pinpoint a precise influence for the human and animal masks which occur at Qasile. ( 582) Mazar's

overall

conclusions

are

very

important

f or

our

purposes. " True Aegean traditions were not strong here, i n contrast to the s ituation at Ashdod. Local Canaanite t raditions, as well a s much original creative imagination, not connected with any tradition, characterize both the architecture and the cult objects of Tell Qasile. Special emphasis should be put on the connections between cult objects f rom Qasile and s imilar objects found in Cyprus." Most of the objects can be connected with previous Canaanite or Egyptian t radition or have uncertain origins. Of the items f rom the temples only the rhyton has strong Aegean ties. T he renewed excavations at Tel Qasile may modify these overall conclusions to some degree, s ince the small finds f rom the f irst season i nclude a f igurine s imilar to the " Ashdoda" described below, except that i t i s holding a baby l ike some of the Mycenaean prototypes, and a small s ix-spoked wheel, s imilar to some f ound i n Cyprus from the 1 2th century. ( 583) We number

must turn to of objects with

Ashdod and Cyprus to f ind a greater a lleged Aegean connections.

The most f amous object f rom Ashdod i s a goddess o f a lleged Mycenaean origin, who has been nicknamed " Ashdoda." The form of this goddess i s abstract. Her body is blended into the throne on which she i s s eated, except for the head and neck which rise above the back o f the o f

chair and the chair.

Mycenaean P hilistine

the breasts, which are applied ( Fig. 2 6b). The head i s

f igurines. ( 584) style painting.

The

image

i s

to the back s imilar to

decorated

with

Ashdoda i s a lleged to be an " earth mother" of the t ype associated with Anatolia or the Aegean, but f ertility goddesses are c ertainly well known i n Palestine and need not be imported " earth mothers." There are a lso s ignificant s tylistic differences between Ashdoda and 1 85

Aegean and Cypriote parallels. The Aegean or Cypriote examples of enthroned goddesses are e ither f ormed s eparately f rom their t hrones, or at l east have a distinctly formed body. ( Fig. 2 6d) With o ne possible exception they are not an abstract b lend with the throne. ( 585) There i s one other Mycenaean f igurine constructed with the same kind of b lending which i s used i n "Ashdoda", a mounted f igure in which t he r ider and mount b lend together. ( 586) The form of A shdoda's throne is s imilar to the four-legged offering tables often found at Palestinian s ites. I ts form i s not identical t o the Mycenaean thrones which a re usually o pen-backed, three-legged chairs. ( 587) Even between Cypriote examples and Ashdoda s ome of the s tylistic differences a re quite striking. Ashdoda i s a chair with b reasts a nd a head. The Cypriote goddesses a re human bodies with chair l egs on their posterior. ( Fig. 2 6c) Ashdoda i s not one of a k ind. The significance of this type of f igurine for interpreting t he culture of Ashdod has been i ncreased by other incomplete examples of this s ame type of f igurine which have been found at Ashdod. A lthough there appears to be Aegean influence on t he form of A shdoda, this f igurine i s a mixed form, not a p ure Aegean form. I t may be a combination o f Canaanite t radition and Mycenaean i nfluences which were a lready i n Canaan before the t ime of Ramses I II. Mycenaean figures appear in Palestine at Ashdod, A fula, Abu Hawam, and B eth Shemesh. ( 588) Most of these are of the psi type. T he original inspiration for these Mycenaean f igurines i n Greece may well come f rom the East. These figurines may be another example of l ong-standing reciprocal i nfluences between the Levant and Aegean. ( 589) I n the discussion of Mycenaean f igurines special attention has been given to the " mourning woman" figurines from Aitun, Azor, Beth Shan, and Jemmeh, but most of t hese f igures appear to be as much Canaanite as Mycenaean in their style. ( Fig. 2 8 & 2 9) The Aitun and Beth S han f igures are much more naturalistic than the abstract Mycenaean style. The Jemmeh and Azor f igurines are more abstract, but not i dentical to Mycenaean f igurines o f Greece. ( 590) Some of the Mycenaean mourning figurines appear on krater rims, and it i s a ssumed that t he same may be true of the Aitun f igures. ( 591) Krater rims with cups a lso appear in Philistine ware from Azor and Ashdod. ( 592) Here again, a s with A shdoda, there s eems to be a blending of Mycenaean and Canaanite i nfluences.

1 2th

" Ashdoda" century,

and her duplicates a re very l ikely from t he but most of the other published f igurines

f rom Ashdod come f rom I ron I I ‚ Area D , so t hey are o f l imited value for a ssessing t he degree of Mycenaean influence on cultic apparatus at A shdod in E I I . A 1 0th century cult stand, decorated with f ive musicians, i s 1 86

interesting for t he depictation of i nstruments, but i t does not add specific i nformation on Aegean i nfluences. The figures a re reminiscent o f another l yre p layer figurine f rom Ashdod. ( 593) Many of Aegean parallels to f inds f rom Ashdod are determine the direction of i nfluences Millennium. ( 594)

t he Cypriote or t oo l ate t o help in the l ate 2 nd

There c laim that practically Aegean and

i s not enough evidence to j ustify- Aharoni's the Aegean cult objects at Ashdod make i t certain that the Philistine pantheon was that t hey show the Aegean origin of the people. ( 595) Further study i s needed on the role of t hese figurines at Ashdod and other s ites before such sweeping c laims can be made. Recently special attention has been given to s everal images of deities from Enkomi, Cyprus, because the s anctuary there has been a ssociated with Sea Peoples by some scholars. ( 596) The so-called " Ingot God" has some a lleged Aegean or S ea People f eatur s such as the greaves, l inen thorax, horned helmet, and kilt. ( Fig 2 7a) However, he i s probably a Nergal/Reshep, perhaps the patron of miners. He appears to be a hybrid, namely, a S emitic deity in partially Aegean dress. ( 597) Another very f ine example of a horned god may be a Horned Apollo, equivalent to a Nergal/Reshep. ( Fig.27b) ( 598) Two other gods appear to be distinctly Semitic, Baal and E l. ( Fig. 2 7c,d) ( 599) Even i n Cyprus, true Mycenaean i nfluence seems small in comparison to the S emitic e lement. There i s l iterary evidence f rom Ugarit that the principal gods of A lasia ( Cyprus) were the Semitic deities Baal, Ashtarte, and Anat, but t his text may antedate the images i n question and i s s ubject to more than one i nterpretation. ( 600) Cypriote t emples s eem to maintain a very heavy Eastern i nfluence in their architectural style. ( 601) Other Palestinian sites which have Philistine Ware have a mixed cult with the S emitic e lement predominant, though it i s often hard to determine chronological development i n the cult because of i nsufficient evidence. Beth Shemesh Level I II i ncludes a metal Reshep and an I sis amulet. Several Ashtarte p laques are apparently l ater i n date, but some with Egyptian style hair are found in c lose proximity with Philistine Ware. The " squirting breast" j ug of Level I I, the hollow rim bowl of Level I II, and the Mycenaean psi f igurine have been referred to previously. ( 602) Megiddo has a standard m ixture of Canaanite and Egyptian images, with a small sprinkling o f Mycenaean i nfluence. A s eated male Reshep, attributed to Stratum V III, i s reconstructed a long l ines s imilar to the s eated f igure from Beth Shemesh I II. A number of standard Ashtartes appear throughout the period, i ncluding one with a f luted or f eathered headdress. The only Mycenaean f igurine published was a deer. Megiddo has a standard 1 87

P alestinian a ssemblage s tands. ( 603)

of

cult

vessels

such

as

k ernoi

and

Egyptian s tyle sha ahtis dominate at Beth S han, a t l east i n the tombs. However, Oren c lassifies three f igurines f rom a coffin in Tomb 2 41 a s crude, naturalistic imitations of the Mycenaean f igurines discussed above. ( Fig. 2 8 & 2 9) ( 604) A f emale l ute p layer century Beth Shan appears to represent the same as the musicians' cult stand of Ashdod. ( 605) A l arge f igurine Mycenaean f igurines, but ( 606)

f rom the

Afula has parallels

f rom 12th t radition

affinities t o are u ncertain.

Summary The e lement adapted Ashdoda raises e lement,

Philistines' religion had a very heavy S emitic from the beginning. The Mycenaean i nfluences are to Canaanite style even in t he early period. The f igurines are the only a spect of their cult which questions about the dominance o f the S emitic and even this i s not a pure Aegean i nfluence.

1 88

ARCHITECTURE

P hilistine t emple architecture i s another topic for which A . Mazar h as recently provided a thorough study. ( 607) Temple 3 19 of Stratum X II at Tell Qasile may be grouped with a number of small temples in Bronze and I ron Age Palestine which have a direct entrance i n the cente of t he east wall o f a comparatively small broad celia. ( 608) Temple 2 00 of Stratum X I has no exact parallels in I srael. I t i s a small non-symmetric t emple with an off-center entrance. ( 609) Temple 1 31 o f Stratum X i s also unique. I ts notablo features are an antechamber, indirect access, and pillars carrying the roof. Mazar attributes this i rregular type of t emple to the non-Canaanite population of Palestine and a ssociates the symmetrical, direct entrance, monumental structures l ike those at Hazor, Megiddo, and Shechem with the Canaanite population.

( 610)

The t emples at Tell Qasile do not have exact parallels i n the Aegean or e lsewhere. I t s eems best to Mazar to a ssociate them with a t radition o f cultic architecture known in LB Palestine and 1 3th century Cyprus and Mycenae. These t raditions continued t o be s trong i n 1 2th and 1 1th c entury Cyprus, contemporaneously with the Tell Qasile t emples. The relationship between the irregular temples of these areas i s not yet c lear. At any rate it appears that the Philistines at Tell Qasile had no strong, crystallized tradition of cultic architecture. The "Hearth Building" discovered in Stratum X II during the renewed excavations at Tell Qasile may be the f irst architectural e lement in the Philistine culture which points to the Aegean. ( 611) The

Philistines

and

I sraelites

seem

t o

have

s hared

a

common tradition o f domestic architecture, i ncluding the four room house. I t has been debated whether the Philistines or I sraelites were responsible for this development. Most s cholars have accepted the premise that I sraelites introduced this form i n Palestine, but E . Oren suggested Philistine priority on the basis of evidence at Tell Sharia. ( 612) Four room houses occur i n Level X at Tell Qasile. Other probable Philistine or non-Israelite s ites with four r oom houses or partial pillar buildings i n the 1 1th century i nclude Tel Sippor, Megiddo V IB, Afula, Tell Kisan, and Aphek. However, priority still appears t o go to highland or i nterior s ites s uch a s Ai, I zbet Sartah, Masos, K hirbet Radana, and especially Giloh. ( 613) This style p robably started i n the interior and spread t oward the coast. One regional difference i s t hat in the h ighlands the p illars are usually monoliths, while at s ites on the coast or i n the northern Negev s tone -s egments or wooden

p illars were

used.

( 614)

1 89

I n the l arger residences o f s uch Egyptian i nfluence i s predominant. ( 615) The possible

s ites

a s

Fara

Y

casemate wall has a lso been s uggested as a Philistine i nnovation because o f its o ccurrence

at Ashdod, but recent discoveries a t Yovata indicate that it may be Egyptian. ( 616) Other r ecent s tudies b y Graham and N . Lapp s uggest that some casemate construction was present i n Palestine well before the early I ron Age. ( 617) The casemate construction occurs in Ashdod X II G . ( 618) A problem with reaching c lear decisions on the matter i s the ambiguity o f the t erm " casemate." I t i s not c lear that a ll the examples called casemates by the excavators are the s ame s tyle. Where c lear p lans are not published, valid comparison i s difficult. I n the analysis o f small s ettlements in the Negev s ettlements with an encircling band of houses have some t imes b een confused w ith true casemate fortresses. ( 619) Enkomi i n Cyprus h as some casemate-like construction, but most other fortifications in Cyprus are " cyclopean." The exact r elationship o f these Cypriote fortifications to Mycenaean f orms i s uncertain, but the connection does not s eem s trong. ( 620) Tell Qasile p lanning which may

X has a pattern o f orthogonal urban reflect a Cypriote i nfluence. ( 621)

An unusual type of architecture i n Abu-Hawam IVA, namely, rectangular houses divided s ymmetrically into three or four rooms, has been associated with the S harden or s ome other S ea People by Aharoni, but there i s l ittle specific evidence to justify this a ssociation. ( 622) Unusual 7m x 7 m houses a lso occur i n the pre-Philistine stratum at Aphek. The c losest parallels to this t ype of architecture appear to be in North Syria. ( 623) The consideration of Philistine a rchitecture i s still handicapped by l ack of architecture p lans for a wide area of one of the major Philistine cites. L ittle architectural information nas yet been published f rom the key strata at Ashdod. There are f ew remains in A rea A . From Stratum X III a high p lace, a workshop, a street and two buildings are reported i n Areas G and H . From S tratum X II an apsidal building i n Area H i s the only distinctt architectural feature discussed i n t he report besides the casemate wall mentioned above. ( 624) Summary There i s not yet enough i nformation available to justify solid conclusions about Philistine architectural traditions. We are excessively dependent on data f rom a s ingle s ite, Tell Qasile. I t i s uncertain w hether information f rom s ites l ike Beth Shemesh can be considered as evidence for Philistine architecture, and there i s very l ittle data from the main Philistine cities. However on the basis appear to

of the available evidence t he . - P b .ilistines d o not have a distinctive architectural t radition which 1 90

distinguishes them from other i nhabitants o f Palestine. There is l ittle c lear evidence of Mycenaean t radition i n Philistine architecture. This conclusion must r emain tentative until t here i s more architectural i nformation available f rom a major Philistine s ite such a s Ashdod or Miqne.

1 91

F igure 3 0 I ,

/

1 \mE T 't 1 E1M ' .il k MA

‚

l if , ' 1 -0 '

.

w '

AL L, *n• i ': ' : '# ' i ' I F

V

±M z FAY < S y -

' i ts 4

3 0a

C yp ro - Mt IOaf l

T ab le t

/ 3 0b

3 0c A D e ir A l'3 T ab let

3 0 d

I zbet S artah I nscription 1 92

C la ss ica l Cyp r io t S cr ip t

LANGUAGE

T he s earch for the l anguage of the Philistines h as undoubtedly been t he most frustrating aspect o f the s tudy of t he Philistines. So far those who have t ried t o f ill in t his gap i n knowledge have not been rewarded with any solid r esults. T he l iterary s ources do not p rovide much help i n determining what t he Philistine l anguage was. The O ld Testament accounts do not reflect any l anguage barrier between the I sraelites and Philistines i n the stories o f Samson, Saul, and David, even though they indicate l anguage barriers in I srael' s dealing with other peoples such a s the Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians. T he reference to " the l anguage o f Ashdod" in Nehemiah 1 3:23 does not n ecessarily contradict this l ack o f a l anguage barrier or i ndicate the use of a non-Semitic l anguage by the Philistines. A lthough i t i s the l anguage of A shdod which i s s ingled out for derogatory comment, the text a lso contrasts the Hebrew of Judea with the l anguages of Moab and Ammon, which were Semitic dialects not far removed from Hebrew. Since this incident occurs after any population t ransfers which the Assyrians and Babylonians may h ave made i n P alestine, perhaps Aramaic dialects were used i n all of these regions. T he Adon Letter indicates the use of Aramaic as a diplomatic l anguage i n Philistia as early as the s eventh or e ighth century B .C. ( 625) The l anguage of a 7 th Century l etter ' found near Yavneh Yam i n the Philistine plain cannot be distinguished f rom Hebrew. S ince it i s a common man's complaint against an unjust t ax collector, it may b e letter.

more representative ( 626) An Aramaic

of common speech than the Adon ostracon f rom Ashdod, dated to

the m id-fifth century B .C., c lose to reads 1 )r n_ 0 ‚ " the vineyard of

the t ime of Z ebadiah ."

Nehemiah, A lthough

this could be i nterpreted as Hebrew, e specially in l ight of the Yahveh name, Naveh prefers an Aramaic interpretation. The I n in the second l ine i s interpreted as a n abbreviation for " half a j ar" ( ') . ( 627) An ostracon with the brief inscription -- j , the potter, may also i ndicate u se of a Semitic dialect at Ashdod i n the 8th c entury. ( 628) A weight from Ashdod i s inscribed with the " Hebrew" term W . ( 629) Other examples of similar weights and small ostraca have been found in territory that i s probably Philistine. ( 630) Thus there is c onsiderable evidence for a Semitic dialect being spoken in Philistia in the pre-exilic period. A ll of the p reviously cited examples come from the period when Philistia may have been dominated by kings of Judah, so earlier evidence would be valuable. The well-known Gezer t ablet provides a 1 0th century example of 1 93

the but time

use of a Semitic l anguage i n t he P hilistine p lain, I K ings c lassifies Gezer as a Canaanite city u ntil t he o f Solomon. More

important

i s

a Semitic

i nscription

from Qubur

e i

Walaidah, which i s l ocated in Philistine t erritory between Tell Fara and Tell Jemmeh. Cross dated this t ext to t he early 1 2th century on epigraphic grounds. ( 631) Study o f this and other texts of this p eriod l ed Cross to t he conclusion that in the 1 1th Century the s ame a lphabet was used by the Phoenicians, Arameans, Hebrews, a nd in a ll probability the Philistines. ( 632) Both personal names which occur i n the brief inscription are Semitic ( simi-pa ' al son of ayyae l) The associated pottery and t he bowl on which the inscription was written belong to t he .

very end of the Late Bronze I I or the but it does not appear f rom the available that the bowl was found Philistine context. ( 633)

beginning o f I ron I , l imited i nformation i n s itu i n a c lear

Most of the seals from Philistia in the first half o f the i st Millennium B .C. have Semitic names indistinguishable from Hebrew or Canaanite, but H err c lassifies a f ew, written in " Hebrew" l etters a s possibly i ndicating some distinctive Philistine t raits. ( 634) A number of the personal names on s eals from Philistia do not have any apparent Semitic derivation. I n at l east one case the s on has a non-Semitic name and the f ather a Semitic name. ( 635) A few seals with a lleged Cypro-Minoan characters are discussed l ater in this chapter. ( 636) A ll other possible sources of highly speculative, but we will the candidates. The

Deir

A lla

Philistine l anguage a re briefly examine some o f

Tablets

These small tablets were found at Deir A lla in t he Jordan Valley, one l evel below the " Philistine Ware." The a lleged s imilarity o f the s igns to Cypro-Minoan l ed A lbright and others to l ink t he tablets w ith t he Philistines. ( 637) The parallels to Cypro-Minoan a re l imited to a f ew s igns of simple shape. ( Fig. 3 0) There have been several attempts to translate the tablets, none particularly satisfying. Mayani has t ranslated one of the tablets as a cultic inscrip t ion by using a lleged parallels to I llyrian. ( 638) Although the s cript appears to be a lphabetic, Mayani uses two d ifferent s igns to represent the same sound i n t hree s eparate cases. This i s not i mpossible s ince c and s , c and k , and j and g sometimes represent i dentical sounds in English, but t he number o f s uch peculiarities raises doubts about M ayani's i nterpretation. For example, he spells the same word with different s igns, a lthough this i s a very short inscription, and he resorts to abbreviation to m ake sense of the inscription. The s ite o f the find s trongly 1 94

s uggests a cultic i nterpretation, s o guess would yield that much o f an i nterpretation.

work

a lone

Van den B randen has t ranslated the t ablets a s a c ultic i nscription i n an Arab dialect, u sing a lleged p arallels to S outh Semitic i nscriptions. ( 639) The p resent t endency s eems to be to accept • a S emitic d erivation o f the t exts without accepting Van den B randen's interpretation. Francken rejected even Van der B randen's direction o f reading. This s eems to be a deaJ e nd unless new i nformation i s revealed, or someone makes a b reakthrough. I zbet

( 640)

Sartah

This t ext f rom a small s ite near Aphek appears to be f rom the 1 2th c entury on the basis of epigraphic analysis. I t was found i n a pit, so it i s not certain with which l evel of the s ite i t should be connected. One l ine o f t his inscription i s p lainly a writing of the West Semitic a lphabet in the pe-ayin order. ( Fig. 3 0d) ( 641) The rest d oes not appear to make s ense as a Semitic inscription. I t i s probably j ust a beginner's a lphabetic practice, but N aveh s uggested l ooking for an Aegean or Anatolian l anguage in the senseless l ines. This theory i s connected w ith B . Mazar's idea about a Philistine role i n the early t ransmission o f the a lphabet to the Greeks. ( 642) H owever, A . Dotan has recently c laimed that the text has a pattern of S emitic names and may be writing practice c opied f rom a docket s imilar to the Samaria ostraca. ( 643) T his find s eemed to be very significant because i t i s f rom e arly i n the Philistine period, f rom a s ite only a few k ilometers f rom Aphek, a s ite a ssociated with the P hilistines. S ince some preliminary descriptions of I zbet S artah i ncorrectly reported a heavy concentration of P hilistine Ware at I zbet Sartah, it appeared that this f ind provided evidence that the Philistines were using the W est Semitic s cript, and maybe even Semitic l anguage, very e arly. However, the f inal s ite report for I zbet Sartah s hows only a very small percentage of Philistine Ware at t he site. The s ite i s presently i nterpreted as an I sraelite s ite, so i t appears unlikely that this t ext can -

b e

tied

H ebron

t o

the

P hilistines.

( 644)

Manuscripts

I n 1 966 eight manuscripts which are supposedly r elated to Carian, Etruscan or some Anatolian l anguage w ere obtained i n Jerusalem by W . Brownlee. They are a lleged to be f rom near Hebron. Brownlee and Mendenhall h ave suggested that these documents may be an I ndo-European l anguage used by the Philistines. They s uggest 1 4 test

a date of t he

of the 7 th Century B .C. Because a carbon manuscripts yielded a modern date, many

s uspect that t hey are forgeries. ( 645) b y Joseph Naveh that the documents l etters apparently derived f rom the 1 95

The recent c laim have s equences of Siloam I nscription

would provide strong evidence that these documents are a forgery i f i t proves to be correct. ( 646) M endenhall continues to defend the authenticity o f t he documents even after the appearance of Naveh's article. ( 647) The

Phaistos

Disc

A mysterious disc f rom Crete has l ong been c onnected with the Philistines because one o f the main s ymbols o f the pictographic writing system i s a man wearing a feathered headdress s imilar to t he Philistine h eaddress. ( Fig 2 2b,c). The i dentification of Caphtor w ith Crete appears to strengthen the association o f the d isc with Philistines. However, most s cholars believe that t he disc i s not native to Crete. The o rigin o f the disc i s probably earlier than the t ime of R amses I II. T hough many attempts have been made t o decode the d isc, t he mystery appears to be unsolved to the p resent. Some o f t he extensive l iterature and attempted t ranslations a re in the bibliographic section on Aegean l anguages. Cypro-Minoan

listed

Seals

Two s eals f rom the 1 2th century l evels of A shdod have a few signs that are s imilar to Cypro-Minoan, b ut great caution must be used in drawing any conclusions about Philistine origins from a f ew i solated seals. ( 648) Seals traveled freely in both directions between the L evant and Aegean. ( 649) Even i f the s eals were accepted a s e vidence of the Philistines' origin, they would only d emonstrate connections with Cyprus, not the Aegean. Cypro-Minoan s igns a lso appear in LB assemblages f rom b efore t he attack of the Sea Peoples. ( 650) Conclusion Unless bilingual materials or greater quantities o f materials are found, or there i s a breakthrough in a l anguage which could be related to Philistine, such a s Etruscan, the chances for gaining significant k nowledge about the Philistines' l anguage are not good. Even t o work profitably in the materials available r equires considerable specialized knowledge in Anatolian, Cretan, and Cypriote l anguages and scripts, which are t hemselves often obscure or untranslatable. There i s at p resent n o c lear evidence that there was a distinct P hilistine l anguage. There i s at present no evidence for t he use o f Greek

or

any

Aegean

l anguage

among

t he

Philistines.

Loan Words Because to the

of

s earching for Philistines

Philistine

proper

these

circumstances

Hebrew words and to names

for 1 96

scholars

which may analyzing

a re

reduced

be l oan words t hese w ords

indications

of

A egean

from a nd o r

Anatolian origins. Neither o f these approaches s ee r t is l ikely to produce very valuable results. The a lleged l oan words are so f ew in number that even i f solid comparisons could be drawn, a handful of l oan words would not be v ery decisive evidence for a migration or a people's p lace o f origin. A further problem i s that even i f an Indo-European parallel can be be cited, this would not necessarily distinguish between an Anatolian or " Greek" origin. We will, nevertheless, briefly examine the chief sources of i nformation. The Philistine t itle " saren" ( lord= 1 j_) has often been compared to the Greek wor d " tyrant" (T Pa .3c Rabin and others suggest that the Greeks may have borrowed this word f rom t he Anatolian l anguage of the Lydians. ( 651) Petrie, however, derived t his t itle f rom the Egyptian t itle f or nome rulers ( sar) ( 652) This t itle plus the first person p lural suffix ' n' would be translated " our l ord," and the origin of this title among the Philistines would be traced to vassal relationships of Philistine kings to pharaohs of the 1 9th Dynasty, rather than to Aegean origin of the Philistines. The Septuagint .

translates " saren" a s " satrap", which reflects of a regional ruler under a higher authority. solution s eems awkward, but it does demonstrate etymological s earchs are often open to s everal with at l east some degree of p lausibility.

this idea P etrie's that such solutions

M ore important than Petrie's attempted s olution i s the possibility that the root s rn occurs i n Ugaritic with the meaning " prince" or " ruler". The root s rn occurs at l east seven times as a personal name, but none of these occurrences helps specify the meaning. ( 653) The most important occurrence i s yn-smnm, wine of princes. This translation i s s omewhat conjectural, because it i s based primarily on the s imilarity with the Philistine term. The translation i s made more p lausible by the near proximity of t he phrase, qc l -mlkm, delicacies of kings. ( 654) The root s rn may a lso occur as a QT verb form meaning " act as a ruler." ( 655) Neither of these passages i s c lear, They

so do,

these translations however, open up

explanation of t he c loser to Palestine Philistines' use of

are the

both open to possibility

question. that the

Philistine term " saren" l ies much than Greece or even Anatolia. The t he t erm i s not strong evidence of

Anatolian or Aegean origin of of t he term remains obscure.

the

Philistines.

The

origin

Further discussion has mainly centered on three words. The f irst i s koba ‚ " helmet", which E . Sapir i dentified as a possible l oan word from the Philistines a lready in 1 937. More recently C . Rabin has suggested a Hittite derivation. ( 656) Rabin has a lso suggested I ndo-European derivation of j j p ilegesh, " concubine." ( 657) " box" ( 658)

The I ndo-European origin of the word T1 F argaz, or " chest," was a lso suggested by S apir i n 1 936. Cyrus Gordon c laims Greek derivation for these 1 97

words the

o f

and

others

in

the

i nterest

o f

his

t heory

c onnecting

Philistines with the Greeks. He a dds such w ords a s mekerah, " s wo r d 1' T t JW? l eshke, " chamber," a nd l appid, " torch" " lamp", to t he l ist of Hebrew words Greek origin. ( 659) A ll

o f

these

words

do

have

a certain

similarity

t o

Greek or Anatolian words of s imilar meaning, b ut this s erves l ittle practical purpose for solving the q uestion of Philistine origins. I t i s by no means c lear t hat these words actually came to Hebrew f rom an Indo-European l anguage, or even i f they did, at what date t hey were received. Even i f these words are borrowed from I ndo-European, there still i s no evidence for c onnecting any o f these words except saren with the Philistines. Sometimes impression of

these grasping

etymological arguments g ive a n at straws to bolster a preconceived

notion of Philistine origins. For example, in t he study referred t o above, Rabin i s arbitrary i n his citation o f the Biblical usage of the word " pilegesh." H e quotes passages which would support his t heory that the w ord was i ntroduced by the Philistines and properly belongs in t ime of the judges, but he dismisses examples which do f it his theory a s due to archaic or unusual usage by author.

the not the

A llen Jones goes even further and proposes a 91reek derivation of the word Philistine, namely, p uXn J T Lt phule Hestia, t ribe of Hestia. On this basis he c laims a Philistine role in introducing hearth worship into I srael. Jones would undoubtedly be very i nterested i n Van Windeken's theory that " istia" i s a P elasgian word, borrowed by the Greeks i n the form " hestia." ( 660) This would further

carry to the

the derivation Pelasgians.

of

" Philistine"

back

o ne

step

Such evidence from etymology i s not persuasive unless there i s a cumulative weight of many examples f rom a s ingle, specific l inguistic s ource, rather then a few sporadic, unclear examples, a s i s the case w ith the Philistines. The possibility of a f ew I ndo-European loan words borrowed from the Philistines by the Hebrews i s not weighty evidence for Aegean or Anatolian derivation o f the Philistines. The great danger i n t his type of word study i s that it easily degenerates i nto a s earch f or a few examples to support a preconceived notion of origins. The s ame danger exists i n t he study of p ersonal names. From Biblical, A ssyrian, and Egyptian s ources a l ist of about two dozen definite or possible Philistine names can be assembled. The majority of Philistine names known to us are definitely Semitic. From Genesis 2 0 and 2 6 Ahuzzath are Semitic. ( 661) i s unclear, but perhaps it i s 1 98

the names Abimelech and The d erivation of " Phicol" Egyptian. ( 662) T he t itle

of P salm 3 4 a lso connects the t itle Abimelech with Achish, king of Gath i n David's t ime. Two possible Philistines from the t ime o f David, the Gathites Obed-Edom and I ttai, both possess S emitic names. ( II Samuel 6 and 1 5) There i s s ome doubt a bout the S emitic derivation o f the name Ittai, but i t occurs as an I sraelite name i n I Chronicles 1 1:31. I t i s not known i f Delilah was a Philistine or an I sraelite t raitor, but a Semitic derivation o f the n ame : possible. ( 663) Non-Semitic derivations are possible for the names o f Goliath, Saph, and some of their relatives, but the t exts classify a ll o f these men as part of t he " Raphite" substratum o f t he population of Philistia ( I Chronicles 2 0:4-8) I t i s, o f course, possible that they adopted names current among their " Philistine" a ssociates. The name Goliath (i ) has l ong been associated with the Lydian " Alyattes" ( Walweiattes) ‚ but the parallel i s not compelling. ( 664) There i s l ittle here t o make a case for t he Aegean or Anatolian nature of Philistine names. .

Of about a dozen Philistine names i n Assyrian annals, all are West S emitic or Akkadian, with one possible exception, i -ka-u-su o f Ekron, who i s mentioned i n the annals of Asshurbanipal. ( 665) This name appears t o be the same as that of the Biblical Achish (tÜ J ) of Gath. The has

Septuagint c alls him been connected with

A ouc

the

( Anchous) ‚ and this name Homeric Greek name Anchises

ytonc) ( 666) Achish's father, Maoch ( f l ) DV ) also appears to have a non-Semitic name.

or Maachan ( 667)

The Achish/Anchises equation i s a good example of the hazards of comparing names f rom different l anguages in spite of a l ong process of t extual t ransmission. The original name was probably Akawush ( t tf lD ) . I n the course of t he Hebrew t ransmission there was a shift f rom a w /u sound

( vav) to y /i ( yod) ‚ so that Akawush became Akish The S eptuagint translator apparently still heard a " u" sound, 'yxou =Ankous. I t i s not c lear i f this " ou" represents a diphthong or two distinct vowels, or how nasalized the gamma i s at this t ime. The Assyrian form i-ka-u-s(u) s upports t his i nterpretation o f the name. Both the nazalization and the ' i' sound i n Achish, which are important to the parallelism with the Greek Anchises, are developments i n the course of the Hebrew t ransmission, not valid points of comparison. This Achish/Anchises comparison begins f rom a Hebrew speaker's e ffort to transcribe a f oreign name i nto his own l anguage. This transcription t hen was t ransmitted through centuries o f orthographic a nd pronunciation change unti another Hebrew speaking t ranslator t ranscribed the result i nto Greek, another foreign l anguage. The resulting n ame i s then compared with a n ame f rom Homer which a lso has a l ong history o f t extual t ransmission. These two n ames are compared on the basis of our present understanding of how these l anguages were pronounced 2 000 years ago. The weaknesses and l imitations of this ; method are very c lear.

w

)

.

1 99

There i s a further problem with study o f p ersonal n ames. Even i f there are some i solated non-Semitic names among the Philistines, this i s not very s ignificant since non-Semitic names were a lready present in Philistia well before the t ime of Ramses I II. I n chapter one w e discussed two rulers o f cities i n Philistia during t he Amarna period with the non-Semitic names Y idiya a nd S huwardata. From U garit there i s a l ist o f a bout 2 0 merchants f rom LB Ashdod. Fourteen names a re c lear S emitic names. Two are non-Semitic, and four are p robably non-Semitic. ( 668) A s imilar m ixing of S emitic and n on-Semitic name types occurs i n Cyprus, even b efore t he a lleged Seapeoples or Mycenaean m igrations. ( 669) T he s ame mixed pattern of names o ccurs i n Philistia both before and after the time o f Ramses I II. In both t ime periods Semitic names predominate with a small n umber o f non-Semitic names a lso occurring. There i s no evidence of any P hilistine influence o n p lace names. Even Ekron, which s ome people have s uggested i s a Philistine foundation, appears to have a Semitic name. ( 670) Name studies cannot help can be t raced to a definite convincing case. This s eems greater number of Philistine through t ranslation and a t ransmission.

us much unless enough names l inguistic source t o make a unlikely unless we o btain a names which have n ot passed l ong process of t extual

Summary There i s at present no decisive evidence for t he general use of a non-Semitic l anguage among t he Philistines at any s tage o f their history. I t appears that they used a dialect s imilar to the people around them. I f they used an Aegean or Anatolian l anguage for a s hort time after their arrival, no c lear evidence of i t has yet been found.

2 00

CONCLUSIONS A ll of the evidence which we have examined supports the conclusion t hat the culture of the Philistines was a composite culture, with the " Canaanite" e lement predominant. The implications of each type of evidence for explaining t he origin of the Philistines and t heir culture have a lready been stated in t he summaries which conclude each chapter of this dissertation. Those conclusions must now be collected into a comprehensive final statement. Although there were s ignificant foreign influences in t he Philistine culture, especially " Mycenaean" influence which can be traced through Cyprus, i t was t he indigenous " Canaanite" culture of Palestine which contributed the most to Philistine culture as a whole. Although there are some striking new e lements i n the Philistine culture, the culture as a whole shows a high degree of continuity from the culture of Late Bronze Palestine. A lthough there are points of abrupt cultural change, such as t he introduction of Mycenaean h IC pottery and the subsequent development of Philistine Ware at Ashdod, the i ntroduction of foreign influences into Philistia appears to be a gradual process extending over several centuries. The Aegean component o f Philistine culture i s very short l ived. I t i s the " Canaanite" component which endures. The strongest Aegean influence appears to be l imited to the Philistine pentapolis and its immediate environs. Let us briefly review the evidence which supports this conclusion. The l iterary sources suggest a gradual amalgamation of n ative and foreign peoples into the composite called "Philistines." This explanation of the origin o f the Philistines i s most strongly represented i n the O ld Testament which says that the Philistines came f rom Caphtor, but which nevertheless mentions other e lements i n the population o f Philistia. The O ld Testament a lso applies the name " Philistine" to peoples who were l iving in s outhwestern P alestine before the time of Ramses I II. Although it has often been c laimed that the Egyptian sources show that the Philistines could not have been i n Palestine before the time of Ramses I II, we have s een that this common assumption i s mistaken. The t exts of Ramses I II imply that h is enemies were a mixture of peoples f rom near and far, s ince they refer both to northern i slanders and to the enemies' nearby towns. Other Egyptian sources, such a s the Amarna l etters, a lso indicate t hat the appearance o f the Sea Peoples in the Near E ast was a gradual process extending over s everal centuries. The Philistine proper names from O ld Testament and Assyrian texts are a lmost entirely Semitic. There i s at present no evidence that the Philistines ever used a non-Semitic 2 01

l anguage. I f such a l anguage existed, i ts use must h ave been very short l ived. The O ld T estament, t he Egyptian t exts, and the majority of the cultic apparatus from T el Qasile point t o t he Semitic nature o f Philistine r eligion. I t i s only the " Ashdoda" f igurines from Ashdod which suggest not

a

purely

s trong Aegean,

Aegean but

are

influence. a ssimilated

The Aegean influence i ntroduced most abruptly in pottery has very c lear Aegean Mycenaean i nfluences decorative

Ware. I t i s particularly techniques.

Even to

these

f orms

Canaanite

a re

style.

i s most apparent and i s the Philistine Ware. This roots, but i t is n ot a t rue

heavily a ssimilated to L evantine in i ts white s lip a nd other The " Mycenaean" pottery which

preceded i t at Ashdod could be derived from Cyprus, rather than directly f rom the Aegean. This pottery m akes up a relatively small percentage of the pottery at most of t he s ites at which i t occurs. Even at key s ites l ike T ell Qasile and Ashdod i t makes up l ess than 3 0% of t he pottery. Even at s ites where Philistine Ware i s heavily represented the common domestic wares continue t he Canaanite traditions of the Late Bronze Age. There i s no burial trait of which one can s ay, i s distinctly Philistine." A ll customs and f orms o ccur with Philistine Ware burials a lso occur

" This which with

non-Philistine burials. The burials which contain Philistine Ware cannot be strongly differentiated from other Palestinian burials either i n f orm or grave goods. Even the famous chamber tombs of Fara appear to be a n atural development from the earlier Series 900 t ombs a t the s ame s ite. The anthropoid coffins which o ccur with two Philistine Ware burials occur in many other non-Philistine Ware burials which have a heavy E gyptian i nfluence. Most Philistine Ware burials are pit g raves o r caves which continue the earlier traditions of Late Bronze Age Palestine. Philistine Ware sometimes occurs as the l ast phase of u se in burial caves which were used mainly i n the Late Bronze Age. The majority of the pottery i n burials which contain Philistine Ware i s pottery which continues Canaanite pottery traditions. Philistine architecture uses t he s ame forms c ommonly found a lso at non-Philistine s ites, such a s the f our-room house and the casemate wall. I t i s not possible at the present to i dentify any architectural form which i s distinctly Philistine. The Philistine t emples a t Tell Qasile are different from many of the Canaanite t emples o f Palestine, but i t i s not possible to identify t hem with Aegean architectural forms. Philistine architecture i s probably the aspect of their material culture f or which the evidence presently available i s l east adequate. Examples of Aegean metal forms i n the Philistine culture are l argely l imited to a f ew specialized forms l ike swords and double axes. The i ntroduction of n ew i ron t echnology appears to take p lace too l ate to be associated 2 02

with I II.

the arrival Although Sea

of the Sea Peoples at the t ime o f R amses Peoples' ships have some characteristics

that appear on Aegean ships, they a lso have d istinctly Levantine characteristics Minor arts, such a s seals and ivory carving, s how some Aegean i nfluence, but Egyptian and Levantine i nfluences are stronger. I n a ll these areas of P hilistine material culture it i s possible to detect some foreign i nfluence, but overall the continuity of local traditions predominates. The Aegean influences appear mostly a s hybrid forms, rather than pure Aegean forms. I n analyzing Philistine culture, i t i s important to devote as much attention t o the routine continuity of " Canaanite" Late Bronze traditions as to t he i ntroduction of n ew foreign f orms which may be more dramatic. The ordinary must r eceive a s much attention as the extraordinary. This study has tried to be as comprehensive as possible in assembling evidence which may be h elpful in analyzing the origins of the Philistines and their culture. At t imes this has meant i ncluding evidence which is s econdary in value or perhaps even t rivial. This approach has a c ertain amoun t o f danger in that the -

inclusion of weaker or l ess s ignificant points in an argument may give the appearance of weakening, rather than helping the overall argument. Nevertheless, because a major weakness of many past discussions of the Philistines has been their d ependence on a very narrow s egment of the evidence, it has been considered best to be broadly inclusive i n the t ype of evidence presented i n this study. Throughout this s tudy an attempt has been made to indicate which data i s considered to be most reliable and which i s more doubtful, t o i ndicate which points are most crucial and which are s econdary. free t o make such j udgments

study

This of

I n any case, for themselves.

Study makes three Philistine culture.

the distribution contribution of good base for

the

readers

are

useful contributions to the The quantitative studies of

of Philistine Ware are the most important n ew data. These studies should form a comparing the degree of " Philistine"

influence at various s ites and for assessing the degree of ceramic continuity and change i n the Philistine culture. The compilation o f s tatistics from s ome of the o lder excavations has been somewhat l ike a salvage operation because of the l imitations of the available data, but salvage i s better t han nothing. Even this data will provide a u seful base for comparison with the more reliable data now available from s ites such as Qasile and I zbet Sartah and the data which will be forthcoming from such sites a s S haria and Timna i n the future. This part of t he study w ill be kept up-to-date whenever new information becomes available.

using

S econdly, t his a ll e lements

discussing

their

study of

has the

origins. 2 03

stressed the Philistine Any

theory

importance of culture when about

the

Philistines continuity aspect has s tudies.

must do j ustice to t he strong " Canaanite" a s well as t o the " Mycenaean" additions. This not received adequate attention in p revious

F inally, it i s hoped that the wide range of e vidence collected here will p rove u seful to those doing f uture s tudies of the Philistines, whether o r not t hey agree with the i nterpretation o f the evidence which has been o ffered here. The evidence which i s available concerning Philistine origins i s still l imited enough that i t i s not possible to make an a irtight case f or one explanation o f Philistine origins. The key i ssue which i s still o pen t o dispute i s change at i ntroduced. Philistine migration

the nature and i mportance of the c ultural the time of Ramses I II when Philistine W are was I s this change really the beginning o f culture? Does this change require l arge s cale f rom the Aegean? This dissertation has

s uggested that the answer to both of these questions i s " no." A lthough the events of Ramses I II's eighth y ear and t he i ntroduction of Philistine Wart may be significant episodes i n the formation o f Philistine culture, the Philistine culture a s a whole and the population o f Philistia both have roots which reach back i nto the B ronze Age. The strong Canaanite component o f Philistine c ulture does not s eem to have been acquired only by g radual a ssimilation, but to have been present f rom the beginning. The amalgamation theory of Philistine origins offered i n this study explains a ll of the existing evidence better than a theory which suggests a s udden cultural break i nduced by l arge s cale migration from the Aegean world at about the time of Ramses I II. Evidence f or the hypothesis suggested here i s quite good from the outlying a reas of P hilistia, but the evidence from the pentapolis i tself i s much l ess complete than we would l ike. Hopefully t he next decade will f ill i n s ome of the gaps i n our knowledge. New evidence may demonstrate a greater Aegean influence i n the pentapolis itself than i s suggested by this s tudy, but i t s eems c lear that the culture of Philistia as a whole, i ncluding the S hephelah and northwestern Negev a lways maintained a " Canaanite" e lement which was s tronger than any Aegean e lement. The strong continuity of culture from the Bronze Age suggests a very s trong continuity of population i n Philistia f rom the Bronze Age into t he I ron Age. The

s trong

degree

o f

cultural

continuity

f rom

the

Late Bronze Age i nto the Philistine culture of t he Early I ron Age and the very heavy Semitic e lement i n a ll phases of Philistine culture s uggest that any s ettlement of immigrants f rom the Aegean at the time of Ramses I II was a small s cale arrival of rulers or military men, comparable to the arrival of the North inen i n various areas of E urope. On the basis improbable that S lays i nto the the Galatians

o f the archeological evidence i t i s t his was a mass movement l ike that o f the Balkans or a tribal m igration l ike t hat of i nto A sia Minor. N evertheless, s uch a 2 04

possibility cannot be ruled out completely because there have been l arge s cale movements o f people which h ave l eft practically no a rcheological evidence. ( 671) I t i s a lso l ikely that any " Sea Peoples" component of the P hilistine population began to arrive i n Philistia well before the time of Ramses I II, especially those who m ay have been mercenaries in Egyptian service under previous Pharaohs. Much about the Philistines and their culture remains obscure or uncertain. Many questions must s till be l eft open. It i s possible that some important questions will never be answered with certainty. Much work remains to be done. ( 672) Hopefully, this study will s erve as a useful step in t he continued study of the Philistines and their culture.

2 05

ABBREVIATIONS These

abbreviations

are

used

in

t he

notes

and

b ibliography. Shortened titles which are used i n t he notes, but which are easily recognized under the a uthor entry i n the bibliography, are not i ncluded in this l ist. AASOR

Annual of Research

ABSA AfO ADAJ

Annual of the British School at Athens Archiv fuer Orientalforschung Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan American Journal of Archeology American Journal of Theology R . Amiran, Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land

AJA AJTh Amiran

the

American

ANET An. Or. AS

Ancient Near Eastern Analecta Orientalia Ain Shems

BA BAR BASOR

Biblical Biblical Bulletin

Schools

of

Oriental

Texts

Archeologist Archeological Review of the American Schools

of

Oriental

BP

Research Bulletin of the British School of Archeology i n Jerusalem Bulletin of the I srael Exploration Society, Also called Yediot. Beth Pelet

BSAE CAH

British School of Cambridge Ancient

BBSAJ B IES

Archeology in Egypt History, 3 rd Edition

Dothan,English, Trude Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture Dothan, Hebrew Original Hebrew Edition of the same work EAEHL Encyclopedia of Archeological Excavations in the Holy Land E I HUCA 1 DB

Eretz I srael Hebrew Union College Annual I nterpreter' s Dictionary of

I EJ

I srael

INJA

I nternational

Exploration

t he

Bible

Journal

Journal

of

2 06

Nautical

Archeology

JAOS JBL

Journal Journal

of of

t he American Oriental B iblical L iterature

Society

JCS JEA JFA

Journal Journal Journal

of of of

Cuneiform Studies Egyptian Archeology F ield Archeology

JHS JJS

Journal Journal

of of

Hellenic Studies Judaic Studies

JPOS KAI MEM OA

Journal of t he Palestine Oriental Society Kanaanaejsche und Aramaeische I nschriften Mycenaeans i n the Eastern Mediterranean Opuscula Archeologia

PEFA Palestine Exploration Fund Annual PEFQS/QSPEF Palestine Exploration PEQ QDAP RB

Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine Revue Biblique

RDAC

Report of of Cyprus

SCE

Swedish

SIMA TA

Studies in Tel Aviv

TBM

Tell

TDOT

the

Department

Cyprus

Beit

of

Antiquities

Expedition

Mediterranean

Archeology

Mirsim

UF

Theological Dictionary Old Testament Ugarit-Forschungen

VT ZAS

Vetus Testamentum Zeitschrift fuer Aeqyptische

ZAT

Zeitschrift

des

ZAW ZDPV

Zeitschrift Zeitschrift

fuer A lttestamentliche Wissenschaft des Deutsches Palaestins-Verein

A ltes

of

the

Sprache

Testaments

2 07

PHILISTINE The bibliography l isted below. I tems

i s of

B IBLIOGRAPHY

divided into e ight s ections as a general nature are relisted in

the special bibliographies if they have special relevance for that topic. The bibliography and a computer s earch program of the bibliography, which can provide a v ideo search or printouts of a ll the items on a given will be available on f loppy discs for the Apple M icrocomputor. In this way the up to date with minimum effort, searched with ease. I . I I. I II. IV.

General Pottery Metal Burial

V . VI.

Art and Architecture Language

VII.

Site

VIII.

Ethnic

GENERAL

and

can be topics

Literature

P . P . p . P .

2 08 2 24 2 31 2 34

P . 2 42

Studies of

and

Methodology

asterisks

indicates

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND

P . 2 48

the

L ITERARY

importance

Aharoni,

Yehohanan,

of

Antiquities

& Rainey,

Anson,

BIBLE, Philadelphia: Westminster, 2 28, 2 68 -ff. THE

ARCHEOLOGY OF

THE

of

LAND

Cyprus, THE

1 979,

OF

A lbright, CAH 1 1:2,

William, 507-537.

p .

I SRAEL,

New

‚ THE Haven:

AJA

5 4

the

A Colony of Cretan Negev," JPOS 1 ( 1921) ,

A lt,

A .

VOCALIZATION ASOR, 1 934.

OF

Philistines,

EGYPTIAN

" Some Oriental Glosses ( 1950) , p . 1 62-176.

"Aegyptische

Tempel

on

the

in

2 08

OF

THE

and

Homeric

2 18,

FROM

F IRST 1 981.

SYLLABIC

Mercenaries p . 1 87-194.

THE

1 12-114,

Palestinian Cities

" Syria,

a

1 979.

LAND

PREHIST OR IC BEGINNINGS TO THE END OF THER Heb. 1 978, Eng. Philadelpr iia: Westminster, A lbenda, Pauline, " Syrian 4 3-4 ( 1980) , p . 2 22-229.

of

SOURCES

Acts of the I nternational Archeological Symposium, RELATIONS BETWEEN CYPRUS AND CRETE 2 000-500 B .C, Nicosia: Department

kept can be

p . 2 37 p . 2 39

Reports

The number given item. I .

Bibliography

bibliography and specific

topic,

in

TEMPLE,

Stone,"

BA

Phoenicia,

ORTHOGRAPHY,

Problem,"

on

the

Coast

Palaestina

und

die

of

Landnahme Astour, 1 965.

*

P .

Lund,

Barnett,

Ross,

THE

PILESER

TU ,

PALACES

OF

Beck,

esp.

D avid,

THE

" The

C .G.

University Berard, 38

THE

of

,

Philistine

OF

Daniel,

" The

Boling, R . & Wright, New York: Doubleday,

pp.

G .

"Who

2 51-262.

Botta,

P . E.

THE

1959,

End of 4 0-47.

IV

1 C

6 9

& IV

1 1:2,

p .

3 59-379.

NASIR APLI I I, T ILGLATH THE CENTRAL AND SOUTHWEST Museum, ROLES

PERIOD,

1 962. OF

THE

Southern

from

the

pim

ANCIENT

Were

& F landin,

of

MIDRASH

ON

the

Baptist

Ashdod, and

the

nsp,"

GREEK

UF

1 1

CYPRIOTES,

1 980.

The

JOSHUA,

in JBL

THE

ARCHEOLOCIQUE

Age,"

Ancient 1 03-3

AJA

I sraelite ( 1984),

P .

B IBLE,

5 0

( 1946)

,

Linguistic.

MONUMENT

PSALMS,

Bronze

ANCHOR

Philistines?"

theory. E .

Greek

Language

I dentity,"

G.E . 1 982.

I llyrians

Wm.

p .

AJA

7 63-781.

Prehellenes,"

NINEVEH:INSCRIPTIONS, Vol. IV, Nationale. A lso I I, p 1. 8 4-100. Braude,

Vol.

dissertation, et

Role

Perceptions of National 321-340, esp. 3 30.

Bonfante,

Brill,

1 29-142.

Betancourt, Philip, " The ANTIQUITY 5 0 ( 1976) , p . Block,

CAH

Talent

Shamra,

" Philistins

p .

1 -20.

Ugarit,"

7 06-754,

INTERNATIONAL BIBLICAL 1 980.

CULTS

of

EXPEDITION,

5 2-471,

Peoples,"

Pennsylvania

Jean,

( 1951)

p .

Ras

p .

,

Leiden:E.J.

London:British

Lynn,

A .

( 1945)

Days

SCULPTURES OF ASSHUR AND ESARHA55ON FROM

Ugaritic Talent f rom ( 1979), p. 2 9-46. Bennett,

Last

CYPRUS

PHILISTINES DURING THE Seminary Dissertation, Ben

6 7

Greece.

the

1C

" Sea

NIMRUD,

Bruce

in

on

SWEDISH

1 972,

ZDPV

HELLENOSEMITICA,

i nfluence

"New Evidence PP. 2 53-258.

Astrom,

1D,

Philister,"

Michael,

Semitic

( 1965), *

der

DE

Paris,

New

Imprimerie

Haven: Yale

Press,

5 13.

B reastad, James, ANCIENT RECORDS OF EGYPT, Vol. I II & IV, Chicago:University of Chicago, 1 906, esp. Vol. I II p . 569-617, Vol. IV p. 5 9-82, 2 38-264. * *

Burns,

Andrew

R .

M INOANS,

PHILISTINES,

2 09

AND

GREEKS,

Westport,

Conn.:

Burton-Brown,

Greenwood

T .

EARLY

Press,

1 974,

MEDITERRANEAN

IN ARCHEOLOGICAL I NTERPRETATION, University Press, 1 959. SECOND Eng.:

M ILLENNIUM

Personal

Cassuto,

Umberto,

Jerusalem: Magnes

1 978.

COMMENTARY Press,

1 949,

1 16-173.

M IGRATIONS:

Manchester:

ARCHEOLOGY,

Publication,

esp.

A N

ESSAY

Manchester

Wooten-Woodstock,

Caucasus.

ON

GENESIS,

P .

1 97-206.

Catling, H .J. "Reflections upon the I nterpretation of Archeological Evidence for the History of Cyprus," D IKAIOS MEMORIAL VOLUME, Nicosia Lions C lub, 1 979, p . 1 94-200. CENTER ( Haifa

FOR MARITIME University) .

Chabas,

F .

STUDIES NEWSLETTER 8 ( NOV. 1 982) P . 1 . Report on ship drawing.

" Circoncision

ARCHEOLOGIQUE

3

( 1861)

Champollion de jeune, NUBIE, 4 Vol., Paris, Coles,

J . M.

& Harding,

New York: St.

the

Martins,

Chez P .

,

l es

Egytiens,"

REVUE

2 98-300.

MONUMENTS 1 845.

DE

A .F.

BRONZE

THE

L ' EGYPTE

AGE

ET

IN

DE

LE

EUROPE,

1 979.

Courville, Donovan, THE EXODUS PROBLEM, Vol. I I, Loma Linda, Ca.: Challenge Books, 1 971, esp. pp. 2 23-239, 2 67-288.

Radical

Craigie,

P .C.

Cross, BASOR

F . M. 1 75

and

THE

SpD,

Freedman,

SEA

,

3rd

1 973,

publication Silvio,

Navora,

Danelius,

9 1

D . N.

( 1972)

"The

p .

,

Name

of

2 39-240. Ashdod,"

p .48-50.

PEOPLES

AGE,

Prehistory,

Curto,

JBL

R .A. & Birchall, Ann, ( eds.) BRONZE AGE I N THE AEGEAN, Park Ridge, N .J.: Noyes,

BRONZE

f inal

" Shamgar,"

( 1964)

Crossland, MIGRATIONS

THE

redating.

AND

Some may

RELATED

EVENTS

I nternational i ndividual never

NUBIA,

AT

Colloquium parts

are

1 974.

THE

END OF

on

Aegean

available.

The

appear.

I nstituto

Geographico

de

Agostini

1 965.

Eva,

" Shamgar

Ben

Anath,"

JNES

2 2

( 1963),

p .

1 91-194. Delcor,

M .

Delitzsch, Clark,

"Jahweh F .

1 899,

et

Dagon,"

NEW COMMENTARY P .

VT ON

3 07-346.

210

1 4

( 1964),

GENESIS,

p .

1 36-154.

Edinburgh: T

& T

Demetriou, AGE,

A .

CYPRO-AEGEAN

University

Desborough, SUCCESSORS, " The

of

V.R . dA. Oxford:

End

of

RELATIONS

Edinburgh

the

I N

THE

dissertation,

THE LAST C larendon,

MYCENAEANS 1 964. Esp.

Mycenaeans,"

CAH

EARLY

I RON

1 973. AND THEIR pottery.

1 1:2,

6 58-678.

p .

De Vaux, Roland, " Les Philistens dan l a Septante," WORT, LIED, UND GOTTESSPRACHE: BEITRAEGE SEPTUAGINTE. Joseph Schreiner Echter Verlag, Katholisches Bibelwerk, Wuerzburg,

1 972.

ANCIENT

I SRAEL

York:McGraw Hill, THE Darton,

EARLY

Longman,

I TS

1 961,

H ISTORY and

L IFE 4 6

p .

OF

Todd,

AND

I NSTITUTIONS,

( French, ANCIENT

1 978,

p .

1 958,

New

7 8-82)

p .

I SRAEL,

London:

4 88-516.

( French,

1971) Dhorme, E . "Les Peuples i ssus de chapitre X de l a Genese," Syria De W it, Constant, " La Egyptiens," ZAS 9 9-1 *

Dietrich

M ,

and

Concision chez l es ( 1972), p . 4 1-48.

Loretz, ( 1978),

0 .

Sikala,"

OF

Dionysius xxiv-xxv,

of Halicarnassus, ( Loeb edition pp.

Donner,

1 0

Herbert,

Jordan,"

in

p .

Rudolf,

" The

STUDIES

" Das

THE

W .

Vol.

THE

Dossin, SYRIA

Dothan, ( 1970)

G.

20

,

ARCHEOLOGY OF Milwaukee: "Les

( 1939) Moshe, p .

p .

" The

von

of

H ISTORY

the of

I ron

Early

Musicians

of

du

in

Antiquities

Public

economique

Age

ARCHEOLOGY OF

TRANSJORDAN

9 7-113.

UND

Wiesbaden: O.

AND

Dept.

THE

Bk.I,

KANAANAEISCHE I & I I,

Milwaukee

archives ,

Volk

ROMAN ANTIQUITIES, 7 7, 8 1-89, 9 3-97.)

JORDAN I , ( A. Hadidi, ed.) Jordan, 1 982, p . 1 24-125.

IRON AGES,

Seefahrende

Beginning

IN

anciens

5 3-57.

& Roellig,

ARAMAEISCHE INSCHRIFTEN Hariasowitz, 1 962, 1 964. Dornemann,

Japhet d ' apres l e 1 3 ( 1932), p. 2 8-49.

I N

THE

Musuem, palais

Kaptara

Ashdod,"

of

BRONZE

AND

1 983.

de

man ,"

texts. ARCHEOLOGY

2 3

3 10-311.

Dothan, Prude, PHILISTINE MATERIAL CULTURE, Jerusalem: I srael Exploration Society, 1 967. ( Hebrew ). * * **

THEIR

Updated MATERIAL

English

CULTURE,

edition,

New

Haven

2 11

THE ‚

PHILISTINES

Conn.: Yale

AND

Press, 1982.

THE I N

THE

PHILISTINE

EARLY

1 96 T T hsp.

IRON

AND

AGE,

EGYPTIAN

Hebrew

"The Philistines," pictures.

Driver, 1 904,

S . R.

esp.

Drower,

I N

PALESTINE

dissertation,

1 50-190.

p .

‚ "Philistine Archeological Egypt," EI 6 ( 1958), pp. 5 5-66

Color

POTTERY

University

THE

BOOK

F inds Heb.,

I n

BAR VIII-4

OF

GENESIS,

I srael a nd 8 6 Eng.

P .

( 1982),

London:

p .

2 0:44.

Methuen

& Co.,

1 12-132.

p .

Margaret,

" Ugarit,"

CAH

1 1:2,

1 30-161.

p .

Edel, Elmar, DIE ORTSNAMENLISTEN AUS DEM TOTENTEMPEL AMENOPHIS I II, Bonn: Bonner Biblische Beitraege, 1 966. Kheftiu. **

Edgerton,

OF

RAMSES

Wm.

I II,

John

A .

Chicago:University

F .

& Wilson,

of

HISTORICAL RECQRDS Chicago,

1 936,

p .

1-103. Eissfeldt,

Otto,

PHILISTER

UND

PHOENIZIER,

Leipzig,

1 936. " Philister," 2 ,

PAULEY-WISSOWA

X IX

C .2390.

Erlenmeyer,

M . L.

Aegaeischen

Bildelementen,"

Headdress Erman,

& H .

" Einige

Syrische AfO

2 1

Siegel

mit

( 1966),p.

3 3-34.

seal.

Adolf,

Leipzig:

J .C.

Faulkner, p .

REAL-ENCYCLOPAEDIE

R . O.

WOERTERBUCH

DER

Hinrichs,

1 928.

" Egypt

the

to

AEGYPTISCHEN

1 9th

SPRACHE,

Dynasty,"

CAH

1 1: 2,

2 17-252.

Fensham,

F .C.

" Shamgar

Ben

Anath,"

JNES

2 0

( 1961)

p .

1 97-198. Forrer, Emil, UGARITICA 6 , *

Galling,

"Der Untergang des Hatti Paris, 1 969, P . 2 07-225.

Kurt,

" Die

Kopfzier

Darstellung von Medinet 1 965, p . 2 47-265. *

Gardiner,

Oxford

A lan,

University " The

Palestine,"

ANCIENT Press,

Ancient JEA

der

Habu,"

Reiches,"

P hilister

UGARITICA

EGYPTIAN

in

6 ,

ONOMASTICA

den Paris,

I ,

1 947.

M ilitary

6 ( 1920),

Road p .

2 12

Between

9 9-116.

Egypt

and

Oxford:

Gibson, 1 975,

John,

p .

SYRIAN

1 10-116.

SEMITIC

The

Adon

I NSCRIPTIONS

I I,

Oxford,

text.

"Observations on Some I mportant Ethnic Penteteuch," JNES 2 0 ( 1961), p. 2 17-238. Ginsburg, H . L. " Baal, ( 1938) ' p . 1 -11.

Anat,

Dagon,"

WEN

AMUN,

Goedicke, H . THE Hopkins, 1 975,

REPORT

Goetze,

" Cilicians,"

A lbrecht,

Gordon, Cyrus, 3 0 ( 1956), p . ‚ "The ( 1965)

and

Hebrews,"

Greenberg,

and

Lewis

Perspective," Greenfield, D ICTIONARY

The M .

Bible,"

" Peoples

KADMOS

Jonas, OF

THE

1 1-4

ETHNOGRAPHY, ( Hebrew )

Hakibbutz

6 4.

p .

( 1966) , Corsica.

R .

Gueterbock, JNES

26

Haag,

Hall,

,

----‚"The

,

P l.

of

p .

4 8-58.

p .

,

ANTIQUITY

AMERICAN

2 12

Vol.

of 1 7

Sea: An

Art

P .

4 3-108.

Historical

7 7-88.

p .

INTERPRETER' S

I II, in IN

( 1955),

p .

7 91.

the Pentateuch EARLY B IBLICAL 1 969,

the First ( 1945) p.

and

7 2-90,

p .

Their 9 9-129,

Philistines in 3 2-42, TARBIZ

the 1 9

Work 2 9-31.

der

Oxford,

Caucasian p .

Corsica,"

Late

Conquest

ANTIQUITY

4 0

evidence

i n

Shardana

of

Cyprus

Reconsidered,"

R ichter,"

BIBEL

UND

LEBEN

4

Pelasgians.

" Kheftiu,"

,

in

7 3-81.

p .

Z eit

( 1929)

,

in

S .

1 927,

K asson, p .

Relations

ESSAYS

IN

AEGEAN

3 1-32. of

the

Peoples

of

the

Sea,"

3 35-344.

Hara, Georgiou, " Relations Between East in the Middle and Late Bronze ( 1979),

( 1962)

2 6

the

Hameuchad,

H ittite

3 1-38.

H . R.

22

The

"Die p .

ARCHEOLOGY,

KLIO

"Recent

( 1967)

H .

( 1963)

1 6

( Hebrew)

1 90,

p .

HUCA

"Philistines," BIBLE,

‚ "The Immigration I nscriptions," TARBIZ

Grosjean,

7

Baltimore: Johns

SCIENTIFIC

( 1977)

Grintz, Y . M. "The Philistines Egyptian Equivalent," STUDIES

,

the

1 02-111.

"Homer

( 1947)

JCS

i n

ORIENTALIA

" The Role of the Philistines," 2 2-26. Greek Connection.

Greeks

p .

,

OF

and

Terms

8 4-100. 2 13

Cyprus Ages,"

and the LEVANT

Near 1 1

Hayes, J . & Miller, J . M. I SRAELITE Philadelphia: Westminster, 1 977.

AND

Heinisch, 1 930.

Bonn:

Paul,

DAS

BUCH

GENESIS,

JUDEAN

H ISTORY,

Peterhanstein,

** Heick, Wolfgang, D IE BEZIEHUNGEN AEGYPTENS VORDERASIEN ZUR AEGAIS B IS IN 7 . JAHRHUNDERT,

U ND

Wissenschaftl. Buchgesellschaft, 1 979. ‚ DIE BEZIEHUNGEN AEGYPTENS I N VORDERASIEN 2 . JAHRTA US END, Wiesbaden: Harraso Ttz, 1 962. Hellbing, Lennart, Sweden: Paul Astrom *

Hencken,

H .

ALASIA PROBLEMS, Forlag, 1 979.

TARQUINIA,

VILLANOVANS,

ETRUSCANS, BULLETIN OF AMERICAN RESEARCH 2 3, Cambri e, Mass., * Hestrin, Jerusalem:

Ruth, I srael

S IMA

5 7,

AND

SCHOOLS OF 1 968. esp.

THE PHILISTINES Museum, 1 970.

I N

3 .

U ND

Goteborg,

EARLY PREHISTORIC on Pelasgiäns.

AND OTHER

SEAPEOPLES,

Hindson, Edward, THE PHILISTINES AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1 971. Popular survey. Anachronism problem. Holmes, Y . Lynn, THE LATE BRONZE, *

Hooker,

Kegan

J .T.

Paul,

THE FOREIGN RELATIONS OF CYPRUS Brandeis dissertation, 1 969. MYCENAEAN

1 976,

"The

End

STUDII MICENII p . 2 09-217.

esp.

of

GREECE,

1 10-132.

Pylos

and

London: Routiedge

Minimizes

the

D URING

Linear

ED EGEO-ANATOLICI,

F .

mass

&

migration.

B Evidence,"

XXIII,

Rome,

1 982.

Hrouda, Bartel, " Die Einwanderung der Philister i n Palaestina," VORDERASIATISCHE ARCHAEOLOGIE STUDIEN AUFSAETZE,

Bonn:

Berlin:

Mann

Verlag,

1 964,

p .

KULTUREGESCHICHTE DES ASSYRISCHEN Rudolf Habelt Verlag, 1 965.

Hutchinson,

Richard

W .

PREHISTORIC

1 26-136.

FLACHBILDES,

CRETE,

Baltimore: Penguin,

1 962,

p .

6 4-90,

1 06-112.

I srael

Society,

Papers

of

Exploration

Conference

in

I srael,

May

Jacob, Benno, DAS ERSTE Schocken Verlag, 1 934. Jones, A llan AND DANITES,

2 8-29,

BUCH

DER

UND L it.

7 th

Kheftiu.

Archeological

1 980. TORA,

GENESIS,

Berlin:

H . BRONZE AGE CIVILIZATION-THE PHILISTINES Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1 975.

2 14

the

"The Philistines and the Hearth-Their Levant," JNES 3 1 ( 1972), p . 3 42-350.

Josephus,

COMPLETE

WORKS,

Grand

Journey

Rapids: Kregel,

Kallaj-Kleinmann, Z . " The Town Lists of Judah, Benjamin, and Dan," VT 8 ( 1958) , p . 1 34-160. ‚ "The Shephelah 2 26-229. Hebrew.

of

Judah,"

BIES

Kapera, Z .J. " The Rebellion of Yamani ORIENTALIA 1 4 ( 1972-1973), p . 2 07ff, ( 1979) , p . T3-317. Karageorghis, V . RECENT A CYPRE,

NOUVEUX DOCUMENTS Paris, 1 965.

CYPRUS, THE Ekdotike

Geneva:

Nagel,

CIVILIZATIONS

Atheniou,

1 976.

OF

" Gath and 8 4 ( 1965)

,

POUR

the p .

Simeon,

( 1955)

p .

,

L ' ETUDE

p .

4 0-66,

PREHISTORIC

U seful

1 960.

in Ashdod," FOLIA FOLIA ORIENTALIA 2 0

1 968,

DU

BRONZE

1 35-150.

CYPRUS,

pictures.

"Exploring Philistine Origins Cyprus," BAR 1 0-2 ( 1984), p . 6 -28. Kassis, Hanna, Society," JBL

1 9

to

on

the

I sland

of

Structure of Philistine 2 59-271. Phili s ti nes

indigenous. Katzenstein, Kingdom,"

H .

J .

JAOS

" Gaza

1 02-1

Keil, C .F. GENESIS, printing, p . 1 61. Kempinski, LB and the Conference K itchen,

K . A.

RAMESSIDE Vol.

"Review of *

‚

( 1969)

,

Grand

the

Egyptian

p .

,

" The

A .

V .

Rapids:

Nibbi,"

Oxford,

"Kheftiu," BASOR p . 223-225.

of

Eerdmans,

JEA

in

D .

1 81

6 4

AND

1 969.

( 1978),

Wiseman, p .

p .

Egyptian

1 69-171.

PEOPLES

OF

OLD

5 3-79.

( 1966),

p .

2 3-24,

JEA

5 5

Kochavi, Moshe, " Israel and Philistia in the Light of Archeological Research of Tel Aphek and its Region,"

2 15

New

At the End of the 6 th Archeolgical

B lackwell,

1 973,

the

1 951

I NSCRIPTIONS-HISTORICAL

Oxford:

Philistines,"

TIMES,

Texts

1 11-113.

A . " The Overlap of Cultures Beginning of the I ron Age," in Jerusalem, Mar. 1 979.

B IOGRAPHICAL, texts.

TESTAMENT

in

( 1982)

the

Jerusalem:

4th

Archeological

Koenig, E . 1 925, esp.

DIE GENESIS, p . 3 98.

Conference

C .

in

Berteismann

I srael,

i n

1 977.

Gueterloh,

Knudtzon, J . A. DIE EL-AMARNA TAFELN I & I I, Aalen: Zeller Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1 915, 1 964 reprint. Lambdin, T . " The Misi People of the Letters," JCS 7 ( 1953) , p. 7 5-77. Layard,

A . H.

NINEVEH

AND

I TS

London: Murray, 1 849. A lso Pictures of Philistines in * Lehmann. G .A. "Der Grossreiches und die

( 1970) *

,

pp.

‚

"Die

Lesko,

REMAINS,

Amarna

2 Vol.

MONUMENTS OF NINEVEH, Assyrian t imes.

Shikalaiju,

Richard, Leipzig,

Leonard,

ein in

neues

DENKMALER 1 897-1913. Serapis

6

Z eugnis

spaeten

1 3.

AEGYTEN

( 1980)

,

UND

p .

den

Jh.

v .

Ch."

Elisha,

SHIPPING,

Brandeis

Lochner-Hutterbach, Gerold,1960, analysis.

esp.

David,

Reaction,"

Loud, Gordon, Chicago, 1 939, Luckenbill,

MacCarter, Doubleday, Madhloom,

OF

DIE

1 970,

PELASGER,

1 41-147,

of

UGARIT,

the

Sea: An

( 1977),

p .

ANCIENT New York:

THE

RECORDS

THE

I SAMUEL,

CHRONOLOGY

2 16

No.

OF

7 0-25577.

University

ASSYRIA

AND

1 926,

London:

Chicago,

ANCHOR

OF

A S TUDY

Egyptologist's

Press,

PHILISTINES,

Argonaut reprint, good on names.

I N MEMORY

7 0-74.

OF

Greenwoo

5

Vienna: Linguistic

1 77-182.

MEGIDDO IVORIES, Chicago: P late 4 , headdress.

P . Kyle, 1 980. T .A.

F .

1 1-4

Robert,

1 914. still

TEXTS

Dissertation,

"Peoples

D . D. I I,

Macalister, Academy, c lassic,

p .

KADMOS

VOL. I AND reprint.

MARITIME

1 1

8 6.

Linder,

THE

UF

AETHIOPIEN,

C . "Who Were The Amorites?" i n STUDIES FREIDUS, New York, 1 929. A llophuloi.

Lorton,

2

3 9-73.

Levias, OF A .S.

LB

I 7 4,

Untergang des H ethitischen neuen Texte aus Ugarit," UF

Seenvoelkern Heerfahrten ( 1979) , p . 4 81-494. Lepsius, volumes,

Byblian

Otto

NEO-ASSYRIAN

BABYLON, 1 968

British

1 965.

B IBLE,

of

Early

New York:

ART,

London:

Athlone

Press,

1 970,

esp.

8 0.

P .

Feathered

headdresses. Malamat, I II,

A .

WORLD

Jerusalem,

Matthiae, 1 980,

HISTORY

Masada

Paolo,

EBLA,

1 87-188.

P .

OF

THE

Press,

JEWISH

1 971,

London:

-

-

-

-

Vol.

in

‚

1-7,

Jerusalem,

Malamat,

I II,

PEOPLE,

Hodder

and

WORLD

and the ACADEMY

( 1909)

H ISTORY

OF

THE

JEWISH

2 52

Carol,

( 1983)

MIDRASH

PEOPLE,

" Zur

Beschneidung

der

the

Hill

Phoeniker,"

ZAT

2 9

1 52.

P .

Meyer, Martin, THE HISTORY OF GAZA, 1 907. Reprint- N . Y.: AMS, 1 966, p. Myers,

Rise of I srael OF SCIENCES AND

1 64-183.

P .

Eduard, ,

Stoughton,

1 964.

"The Early I sraelite Settlement in Country," BASOR 2 41 ( 1981), P . 7 5-87. Meyer,

Vol.

2 3-39.

Dagan.

Mazar, Benjamin, " The Philistines and Tyre," PROCEEDINGS OF I SRAEL HUMANITIES

P .

" The

P .

on

Premonarchic

Columbia University 3 -41. 1 15-125.

Tribes

of

Galilee,"

BASOR

4 7-61.

the

Philistines:

2 52, 254; Leviticus 2 65, of Solomon 2 49; Ruth 5 8;

Genesis

2 98,

3 23, 3 48; Numbers Ecclesiastes 1 00;

4 76,

4 79;

Exodus

2 85, 6 07; Song Numbers 1 25,

1 30. Mitchell, J .C. " Philistia," in Winton Thomas, ARCHEOLOGY AND OLD TESTAMENT STUDY, Oxford: Oxford Press, 1 967, p . 4 05-429. Montalbano, CATHOLIC Moran,

Frank

J .

BIBLICAL

W . L.

"The

" Canaanite

QUARTERLY Death

of

Dagon: Origin

1 3,

( 1951)

,

P .

Abdi-Ashirta,"

& Nature,"

3 81-398. EI

I I

( 1969)

,

p .

9 4-100. Moscati,

S .

Saggiatore Mueller,

FENICII di

Max,

Engel man,

ASIEN

1 893,

Muhley, o f

James,

Greece

BERYTUS

1 904,

1

and

" Homer

( 1970),

EUROPA,

3 87

Keftiu and

IN

SARDINA,

Milan:

1 968. Leipzig:

Verlag

ff.

RESEARCHES,

1 906.

the

Mondadori,

UND

esp. p.

EGYPTOLOGICAL I nstitute,

E CARTAGENESI

A lberto,

the

Near

East

p .

1 9-64.

Washington:

Carnegie

p lates. Phoenicians,

in

2 17

the

LB

and

The Early

Relations I ron

Age,"

Mulder,

M . J.

" I

Chronik

Tradition," JOURNAL 1 975) , p . 1 41-166. MYCENAEANS

*

Department art.

IN

of

THE

7 :21b-23

FOR

THE

EASTERN

n f l uities

Mylonas,

G .

Na' aman, Several **

MYCENAE

Princeton N .

"The

Amarna

Nelson,

AND

Press,

Cyprus,

THE

1 966.

Origin

and

Letters,"

Harold,

die

OF

" The ,

Naval

COMMUNICATIONS

‚ " The M IGRATIONS,

Nicoleau,

MYCENAEAN

Princeton,

Historical 1 1

,

Background

( 1979),

HABU

I AND

Pictured

at

I I, 9 ,

of

673-684.

pp.

Chicago:

1 930

Medinet

& 1 932.

Habu,"

JNES

ORIENTAL

Chicago,

I NSTITUTE

1 929.

Identification 2 03-209.

of

the

Sea

Park

People,"

Ridge,

Crossland,

THE

J .

of

p .

Mycenaeans

AND

of

in

the

ARCHEOLOGY OF

Antiquities

" Fall

Paris,

"The

HISTORY

of

Ugarit

Jordan,

Texts,"

Near

East,"

JORDAN 1 982,

I , p .

( A. 1 21-126.

UGARITIICA V

7 9-89.

Obed, B . "Neighbors on the West," WORLD HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE IV-I, ( ed. A . Malamat), Jerusalem:Masada Press, 1 979, p. 2 22-246. Palmer, 1 965.

L . R.

Pendlesbury, Bronze

Age,"

MYCENAEANS

J . D.S. JEA

16

AND

" Egypt

M INOANS,

and

( 1930),

p .

the

New York:

Aegean

in

the

Knopf,

Late

7 5-92.

P iperov, B . N. "Die Alte Ethnographie des Orients n ach Bibel, Genesis 1 0," JRHB. DER THEOLOGISCHEN FACULTAT SOFIA, ( 1948) , P . 1-113. *

Porten,

( 1981)

,

p .

2

p .

Hadidi) ‚]5ept.

( 1965)

AGE,

Metal.

THE SEAPEOPLES AND EGYPT, 1 975. Seapeople l ocal.

Kyriakos,

IN

Nougayrol,

and

New York:

Habu-1924-28," NO.5,

Nibbi, Alessandra, N .J.: Noyes Press,

STUDIES

Pottery

40-56.

p .

"Medinet

‚

Battle

( Dec.

ANCHOR B IBLE,

UF

MEDINET

6 -2

Nicosia:

1 973.

Oriental Institute Publications 8 and P lates of Seapeoples of Ramses I II.

( 1943)

rabbinische

JUDAISM

MEDITERRANEAN,

of

Myers, Jacob, I CHRONICLES, Doubleday, 1 965.

N . J.:

und

STUDY

Bezalel,

" The

I dentity

3 6-53.

2 18

of

K ing

Adon,"

BA

der

441

Prignaud, ( 1964) *

J .

p .

,

" Caftorim

2 15-229.

P ritchard,

Princeton:

et

Two

James,

ed.

Princeton

Keretim,"

REVUE

B IBLIQUE

7 1

migrations. ANCIENT

University

NEAR

EASTERN

Press,

1 958,

TEXTS, esp.

p .

1 6-24, 263. Wen Amon and other texts. ( The paper back editions called The Ancient Near East I & I I contain a few more recent texts, not in the hardback edition.) "New Evidence on the Role of the Sea Peoples in Canaan in the Beginning of the I ron Age," in THE ROLE THE PHOENICIANS IN THE INTERACTION OF MEDITERRANE AN CIVILIZATION, William University, 1 968.

Ward

( ed.)

‚

Beirut:

Procksch, Otto, D IE GENESIS, Leipzig: Deihertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1 924. Proffit, T .D. "The Philistines, NORTHEAST ARCHEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1 972 Masters thesis. Pythian-Adams, Palestinian Rahtjen, 2 4

Baban, AJA

B . D.

( 1965)

,

Rainey,

" Philistine

" Hebrew

" The

( 1984), A .F.

EL

( 1983)

,

( 1975)

,

in

the

3 ( 1923),

Philistine

Light

of

2 0-31.

p .

Amphyctyonies,"

JNES

Ship: Another

Interpretation,"

AMARNA

TABLETS

3 59-379

( AOAT

8 )

1 978. Shephelah

of

Judah,"

BASOR

2 51

Philistine

Gath,"

EI

1-22.

"The

Reade,

A .

11-19.

Biblical

P .

Identification

of

1 2,

6 3-76.

p .

J .E.

Evidence

Thera

p .

Neukirchen-Vluyn, ‚ "The

and

Erlangan

Aegeanized Semites," BULLETIN 1 2 ( 1978), a lso

Origins

BSAJ

American

1 00-104.

p .

Avner,

6 8-1

W .

Archeology,"

OF

" Sargon' s

from

the

Campaigns

Sculptures,"

of

7 20,

JNES

3 5

7 16,

and

( 1976)

7 15: p .95-104.

,

No p lates. Redpath, p .

H . A.

2 95-301.

" The

Geography

of

the

LXX,"

AJTh

7

Allophuloi.

Reimschneider, M . "Die Herkunft der Philister," ANTIQUA 4 ( Budapest) , ( 1956) , p . 1 7-29. Reinach, Theodor, Circoncision chez 4 ( 1893) Ross,

,

Alan

( 1903),

p . P .

"Relatifs a L ' Historie de l es Peuples de l a Syrie,"

ACTA

La ANTHROPOLOGIE

2 8-31. " The

Table

of

Nations

219

i n

Genesis

1 0,"

B IBLIOTHECA B IBLIOTHECA

SACRA SACRA

1 37

Ruffini, Otilleo, KULTUR SARDINENS,

THE

"North and Age: Aspects of an

Sauer,

2

3 40-353, 2 2-34.

Hans-Dietrich, KUNST C .F. Muller, n .d..

PEOPLES,

for

7 6,81,82.

New York:

Archeology

Note

Torgny,

UNIVERSITETS PRIVATE

p . p .

UND

Thames

and

4 3-68.

p .

"Prospects

p .

Saeve-Soedebergh, UPPSALA

SEA

( 1980), ( 1981) ,

South at the End of the Mycenaean Old Problem," OXFORD JOURNAL OF

( 1983),

James,

4 5-2 ( 1982) Syria.

5 48) 5 49)

& Genscher, Karlsruhe:

** Sandars, Nancy, Hudson, 1 978.

ARCHEOLOGY

( No. ( No.

T T

on

"The

Navy

ARSSKRIFT

TOMBS

AT

in

Jordan,"

Seapeoples

of

1 946,

THEBES,

the

in

1 8th

No.6.

Oxford,

BA

Jordan —&

Dynasty,"

Esp.

p .

1 957,

6 3-66.

K heftiu

pictures. Sayce,

A .H.

in

S .

p .

1 07-111.

Sasson, JBL *

" Crete

Casson,

8 5

Jack, ( 1966)

in

Babylonian

ESSAYS

IN

AEGEAN

" Circumcision

Schachermeyr

in

O ld

Testament

the

Ancient

Texts,"

Oxford,

Near

1927,

East,"

4 73-476.

p .

,

and

ARCHEOLOGY,

F .,

DIE

AGAEISCHE

FRUEHZEIT,

VOL.

I -V,

ESP. VOL. V , DIE LEVANTE IN ZEITALTER DER WANDERUNG, Vienna: Osterr T hischen A deme der Wissenschaften, 1 982. ‚ "Hoernhelme und Federkronen a ls Kopfbedeckung bei Seevoelkern der aegyptischen Reliefs," UGARITICA VI

den

( 1968), Schaden, AOAT

451-459.

p .

2 03

Otto,

Schaeffer, 1 971. *

On

" Some

( 1979) C .

ALASIA

Enkomi,

Schmoeckel,

Observations

on

the

Sea

Peoples,"

1 43-155.

p .

I ,

esp.

Paris:

Libraire

K lincksieck,

gods.

Hartmut,

DER GOTT

DAGON,

Leipzig:

B orna,

1 928. Seeligmann, OF

ITS

I . L.

PROBLEMS,

THE

LXX

Leiden:

VERSION E . J.

OF

Brill,

I SAIAH, 1 948,

A DISCUSSION esp.

P .

4 8,

8 1, 87. Simons,

J .

HANDBOOK

TOPOGRAPHICAL

LISTS

FOR

THE

RELATING

STUDY TO

E . J. Brill, 1 937, esp. p . 8 5- n, on problem of transcription.

2 20

OF

EGYPTIAN

WESTERN 1 76

on

ASIA, "prst",

Leiden: p .

1 6-21

THE TESTAMENT,

GEOGRAPHICAL AND TOPOGRAPHICAL Leiden: E .J. T hFill, 1 958.

"The ( 1954),

1 0,

Table of Nations," P . 1 55-184.

Simpson, Hope, Press, 1 981. Skinner,

J .

GENESIS,

A CRITICAL

AND

Park

1 910,

Spannuth, Jurgen, D IE PHILISTER, DAS Osnabrueck: Otto Z eller Verlag, 1 982.

"Man, edition,

p .

p .

Ethnic

THE

People

and

( 1980)

Gerd,

Wm.

p .

,

" Neue

" The

7 -21.

Alashiya

End

of

August,

p .

"The

‚

( 1958)

Hayim,

,

,

p .

DER

p .

Taylor, p .

I II,

1 962

of

I srael,"

JBL

7 9

( 1960)

the

Texte,"

KADMOS

Mycenaean

Mention

1 ( 1962)

Age,"

BA

p .

,

4 3-1

NEW

INVESTIGATION,

SPAETBRONZEZEITLICHE De

Gruyter,

1 976.

ARCHEOLOGICAL GUIDE TO THE ANCIENT Dept. of Antiquities, 1 982.

" Philistia

Under

Assyrian

Rule,"

BA

2 9

8 6-103. Campaigns 77-83.

‚ "The Decline 1 200B. C.," in ASOR

1 979,

New York:

conditions.

Berlin:

Swiny, Helen Wylde, AN KOURION AREA, Nicosia,

( 1966)

ON

VOLK,

Statuette of an Egyptian JEA 2 5 ( 1939), p. 3 0-32.

Natural

SEEVOELKERSTURM,

Tadmor,

STUDIEN

N .J. : Noyes

UNBEKANNTE

1DB

* S trange, John, CAPHTOR/KEFTIEU: A Leiden: E . J. Brill, 1 980.

Strobel,

OLD

1 87-223.

p .

B IBLE,

o f,"

Nation

Steindorf, George, " The Comissioner in Syria," of P hilistia.

Stiebing,

ANCHOR

Divisions

THE

2 35-243.

"The 1 57-163.

Steiner, 1 30-138.

Ridge,

EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY

T & T Clark,

Speiser, E . GENESIS, Doubleday, p . 6 7-74.

OF

OUDTTESTAMENTISCHE

MYCENAEAN GREECE,

Edinburgh:

TEXTS

of

Sargon

I I

of Empires in 7 5th SYMPOSIA

to

Philistia,"

JCS

1 2

Western Asia about ( F. Cross, ed.) ASOR,

1 -14. Joan

Du

P lat,

"Late

Cypriote

3 3-94.

2 21

I II,"

PEQ

8 8

( 1956),

Thackeray, H . St. J. "The Bisection of Books in P rimitive LXX Manuscripts," JOURNAL OF THEOLOGICAL STUDIES 9 ( 1907-08) , P .88-98. THEOLOGICAL

DICTIONARY

4 26-433; I I, Baal, IV, Zebul, p .29-31..

OF

p .

THE

Van Soesberger, Peter G . " The KADMOS 2 0-1 ( 1981) , p . 3 8-52. Van

Windekens,

i f Louvain, 1 960.

A .J.

OLD

1 81-200;

LE

I II,

Coming

PELASQUE,

Pelasgeques,"

TESTAMENT

of

the

Paris,

B IBLIOTHEQUE

HIS TIME, 1 978.

Garden

* Vercoutter, J . LE EGYPTE ET LE MONDE PREHELLENIQUE, 1 956, esp. p . 1 -112.

ESSAI

SUR LES

RELATIONS

PREHELLENES. 9 5-127. Best

Paris: Kheftiu

Stanislas Lasalle, discussion.

*

ENTRE

goi,

p .

P .

1 39-141,

Dorians,"

1 952. DU

Velikovsky, Immanuel, PEOPLES OF THE SEA, N . Y.: Doubleday and Company, 1 977. Radical RAMSES I II AND Doubleday and Company,

I I,

Dagan,

MUSEON

49,

Garden City, redating.

City,

N .Y.:

EGEEN

EGYPTIENS 1 954,

ET p .

6 1-72,

Ver r eule, Emily, GREECE IN THE BRONZE AGE, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1 972. Esp. p . 1 48, 2 58, 269-279, Art and ship design. Viroleaud, C . esp. 7 44-768. Von Rad, 1 35-142. *

G .

LE PALAIS ROYAL Fall of Ugarit. GENESIS,

Wachsman,

Shelley,

( 1931)

,

p .

G . A.

V 1 Paris,

Philadelphia: Westminster,

"The

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 1 981) , p . 1 87-220. Wainwright,

D UGARIT

OF

" Keftiu,

Ships

of

the

Sea

or

1 956,

Cilicia,"

1 0-3

JHS

( August

5 1

1 -38.

" Keftiu," " Some

Early

JEA

17

( 1931),

Philistine

26-43.

History,"

VT

9 ( 1959),

7 3-84. ‚ "Caphtor-Cappodocia," ‚

" Some "The

p .

Peoples,"

NAUTICAL ARCHEOLOGY

Crete

1 965.

Seapeoples," Meshwesh,"

JEA

VT JEA 4 8

2 22

6 ( 1956) 47

,

( 1961),

( 1962),

p .

p .

1 99-210.

p .

7 1-91.

8 9-99.

p .

"The ANATOLIAN

Teresh,

STUDIES

A Teucrian p .

the

Etruscans,

9

( 1959)

at

Salamis

,

and

Asia

p .

1 97-213.

i n

Cyprus,"

Minor,"

JUS

8 3

( 1963)

1 46-151.

Weidner, DIE RELIEFS DER ASSYRISCHEN KOENIGS, Onasbrueck T967, Esp. Sb. 4 4, P . 5 1-53. Weinstein, James, BASOR 241 ( 1981) , Wente, p .

Edward,

" The Egyptian 1-28.

Empire

Palestine,"

" Shekelesh

or

Shashu,"

JNES

2 2

( 1963)

1 67-173.

‚ A CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW University of Chicago, 1 977, p.

Wescott, Sea: p .

in

p .

Roger,

A Problem

"Philistines. of

Ethnic

K INGDOM, 217-263.

Persians,

I dentity."

SAOC

3 9, -

and

Peoples

KADMOS

1 1-4

of

the

( 1977),

7 5-76.

Westermann,

Claus,

Buchgesellschaft, Winckler,

Hugo,

GENESIS

1 -11,

Darmstadt, D IE

Wissenschaftliche

1 976,

KEILSSCHRIFT

p .

66-68.

TEXTE

SARGONS,

Leipzig,

1 889. Wisemann,

D . J.

"Genesis

Considerations," VICTORIA

9 25TH

INSTITUTE

* Wreszinski, W . KULTURGESCHICHTE

1 0:

Some

Archeological

ORDINARY

( Dec.

6 ,

GENERAL

1 954)

,

p .

ATLAS ZUR ALTAEGYPTISCHEN I I, Leipzig, 1 935. Reliefs

Wright, G .E. "Archeological Observations the Judges and Monarchy," JBL 60 ( 1941) "Fresh ( 1966)

,

Yadin,

Evidence

for

the

on p .

,

Philistine

"And

Z accagnini,

Dan,

Carlo,

Eastern

Why

Did

He

Stay

in

Z euner,

THE

Ramses

I I.

the Period 2 7-42.

Ships?"

" Patterns

Craftsmen,"

of

JNES

Mobility 42-4

F.E . and

A H ISTORY OF Co.,

1 963,

DOMESTICATED pp.

236-240.

2 23

pp.

Among

( 1983),

Z adok, Ran, "Phoenicians, Philistines, and Mesopotamia," BASOR 2 30 ( 1978) , p . 57-67.

Hutchinson

of

Story,"

JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY 1 /1 ( 1968), Available in Adolf Hakkert reprT t.

Near

OF

BA

of

2 9

7 0-86.

p .

Y .

MEETING

1 4-24.

p .

AUSTRALIAN 9-23.

Ancient 2 45-264.

Moabites

ANIMALS, Zebus.

Also

in

London:

I I.

POTTERY

This

section

s ites,

but

includes

which

were

some

s ites

used

for

which

are

not

comparative

Philistine

pottery

s tudies. Several Cypriote s ites are included only h ere, not in the section on s ites. Additional Philistine pottery i s, of course, found in the items l isted i n the bibliography of site reports. Material on clay figurines i ncluded in this section. Aharoni, Tel Aviv A lin, SCE," *

Y . BEERSHEVA I , University, 1 973.

Per,

" Idalion

OPUSCULA

Amiran,

N . J.:

" The ( 1962)

Pottery

from

1 2

the

POTTERY OF

Rutgers

University,

Vessel

and

University

and

of

Michiagan

Demetri,

Related

' "HE

HOLY

1 970,

I ts

dissertation,

" Composition

Ware,"

" The

‚

OPUSCULA

T el

o f

Aviv:

the

9 1-109.

p .

LAND,

esp.

Family,"

Anderson, William, A STRATIGRAPHIC AND THE LB AND IRON AGE STRATA AT SAREPTA,

Anson,

i s

Excavation

( 1978),

ANCIENT

Arm-shaped

vessels

New

p .

JNES

2 1

1 61-174.

p .

,

cult

THE 1 967-71 SEASONS, Kraters P l. 42.

ATHENIENSIS

Ruth,

Brunswick, 2 66-269.

and

Rude

RDAC

Style,

ATHENIENSIS

and

1 980, Late

1 3

,

OF

1 979.

Provenance

p .

of

Rude

Style

1 09-118.

Cypriote

( 1980)

CERAMIC ANALYSIS SOUNDING Y ,

I IC-Ill

Pottery,"

1 -18.

p .

Artzy M ., Asaro M ., and Pen man Y ., "The Origin of the Palestinian Bi -chrome Ware," JAOS 9 3 ( 1973), p. 4 46-461. *

Asaro,

M .

Mycenaean ( 1971)

Astrom, 4 5-5,

Paul,

4 5-6,

Astrom, RDAC

L ' AGE Bar

P .

HALA

and

Benson,

IN

Pessah,

Exploration J . L.

Mycenaean

SULTAN

French,

LES

BRONZE

Adon,

I srael

" Introductory Tel

Ashdod,"

Study

of

ARCHAEOMETRY

1 3

TEKKE,

S IMA

4 5-1,

45-3,

45-4,

or

E .

" Colloquium

of

LCIII

Sites,"

2 67-269.

p .

Leila, DU

Y . at

1 976-1979.

1 980,

Badre,

1 Ware

1 69-176.

p .

,

& Pen man,

h IC

"A

F IGURINES SYRIE, THE

CAVE

Society,

Problem

Philistine

In

ANTHROPOMORHES

Paris: P. OF

THE

1 980,

TREASURE, p .

TERRE

CUITE

1980. Jerusalem:

2 4.

Orientalizing

Prototypes," 2 24

EN

Guethner,

Cretan

JNES

2 0

Birds,

( 1961)

p .73-84,

BAMBOULA I N KOURION, THE Philadelphia: University of Pa., Bikai, Patricia, POTTERY OF and Phillips, 1 978. Blegen, Carl, of C incinnati,

PALACE 1 966.

PROSYMNA Bounni, A . " Ibn SYRIA 55 ( 1978) Bouzek, and the 4 1-57.

OF

I AND

,

NECROPOLIS, 1 972.

TYRE,

NESTOR

I I,

Warminster,

I ,

Princeton:

Cambridge,

Hani," SYRIA p . 2 33-301,

Eng.:

An s

University

1 937.

5 3 ( 1976) ' p . SYRIA 5 6 ( 1979)

,

2 32-279, p . 2 17-291.

Jan, " The Beginning of the Proto-geometric Pottery Dorian Ware," OPUSCULA ATHENIENSIS 9 ( 1969), p .

Buchholtz,

Hans -Guenther,

"Agaeische

Kultureinfluesse in den Randgebieten ARCH. ANZEIGER 1 974, P . 325-462. Courtois, J-C, UGARITICA VII, Daniel, J .F. 2 61-262.

" Ceramique de Ras Shamra 1 978, p. 1 91-370.

" Excavations

"Reply 5 56-557. Desbourough,

Funde des

to

V .

M .

R .

at

Kourion,"

Mackeprang,"

d .A.

AJA

4 4

PROTOGEOMETRIC

und

Mittelmeers,"

Ugarit

I I,"

AJA

( 1938)

4 2

( 1940),

p .

p .

POTTERY,

Oxford,

1 952. ‚

THE

LAST

MYCENAEANS,

Oxford:

* D ikaios, Porphyrios, ENKOMI I -Ill, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1 969.

Clarendon, Mainz

am

1 964. Rhein:

Dothan, Trude, THE MATERIAL CULTURE OF THE PHILISTINES, Jerusalem: I srael Exploration Society, 1 967. Heb. Updated English edition ‚ New Haven, Conn.: Yale Press, 1 982. "Philistine Material Affinities," in MYCENAEANS p .

1 87-188. "Spinning

V-VII.

E I

Culture and Mycenaean IN THE EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN,

Eng.

p .

Bowls,"

EI

6

( 1960),

pp.

3 8-46.

P l.

2 8.

‚ "A Female Mourning Figure 9 ( 1969) p . 4 2-46. Also E I ,

2 25

From the Lachish Region," 11 ( 1973) , p . 1 20-121.

* Duncan, J . Garrow, CORPUS OF PALESTINIAN POTTERY, London: British School of Arcf i oT y i n Egypt 4 9, 1 930.

Edelstein,

G .

P etrographic HONOR sum.)

OF

S .

" The

YEIVIN,

Epstein, Claire, E .J. Brill, 1 966.

of

in

Tel

Philistine

Y .

"Vessels

4 2-53. French,

Aharoni

Aviv:

PALESTINIAN

" Bi -chrome Wheel-made 1 961, p . 1 37-143.

PEQ

OF 6 4

Origin

Analysis,"

Pottery

( ed.)

Charta,

from

PEQ

in

Cross-line

Style,"

E lizabeth,

"Mycenaean

Pottery

THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS ( 1969), p . 7 1-95 on the last

( Heb.,

Eng.

WARE,

Tankards

on

IN

1 971.

BI-CHROME

B ased

ESSAYS

Leiden:

Tell

e l

1 965,

Series,"

A jjul,"

p .

in

5 9-64 ( 1963-69) , phases including

ANNUAL e sp Vol. h I C.

* ‚ " The Developement of the Mycenaean Terracotta Figurines," ANNUAL OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS 66 ( 1971), P . 1 01-187. P l. 1 3-29.

"Reassesment of the Mycenaean Pottery ANATOLIAN STUDIES 2 5 ( 1975), p . 5 3-76. *

Furumark,

Arne,

Stockholm: Royal I I 87-96, 1 16.

MYCENAEAN

Academy,

POTTERY

1 972

at

Tarsus,"

I & I I,

reprint.

esp.

p .

I 5 41-583,

‚ " The Excavation at Sinda:Some Historical Considerations," OPUSCULA ATHENIENSIS 6 ( 1965) 9 9-116. Closest parallel to Philistine Ware.

" The

Myc.

h IC

Pottery

and

I ts

3

( 1944),

Gittlin, Barry, LATE CYPRIOTE POTTERY FOUND University of Michigan dissertation, 1 977. Cultural

Cypriote 4 9-61.

Pottery

Gjerstad,

Einar,

Age,"

OPUSCULA

and

Trade

" The

Chronological

During

Initial

ARCHEOLOGIA

LB

Date

I I

& I II,

Hachman, Rudolf, ( 1978) ‚ P . 7 -42.

el

Loz,"

226

,

the p .

IN

2 41

PALESTINE,

MUS.

o

f

( 1981),

Cypriote 7 2-102,

Prihceton:

BULL.

to p .

Im p li ca ti ons

BASOR

of

3 ( 1944)

Goldman, Hetty, TARSUS University, 1 956, 1 963. " Kamid

A ,"

p .

Relationship

Cypriote Fabrics," OPUSCULA ARCHEOLOGIA 1 96-265 esp. 2 35-240, 2 60-264.

"The

,

p .

I ron

e sp.

102.

Princeton

BEYROUT

30

Hankey,

Vronwy,

"Mycenaean

Mediterranean," ( 1970-71)

Fas.

,

"Late ( 1966)

,

( 1967)

,

MELANGE 2

Trade

U .

ST.

Southeast 4 7

9-30.

p .

Mycenaean

"Mycenaean

Pottery

at

Beth

Shan,"

AJA

7 0

Pottery

in

the

Middle

East,"

ABSA

6 2

1 07-147.

P .

the

"Pottery and People of the Levant," in ARCHEOLOGIE AU

ed.

) CMO 12 Arch. LB

Herscher,

the

BEYROUTH

1 69-171.

p .

"An 1 31-178.

with JOS.

Temple

Ellen,

9 ,

Lyon,

at

Amman,"

" Crete

Mycenaean 1 110 LEVANT RECEUIL

1 982,

and

Period in ( R. Saidah,

1 67-172.

p .

LEVANT

Cypriote

6

( 1974)

Ceramic

p .

,

Techniques

in

the Late 3rd Millennium B .C.," ACTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE RELATIONS OF CYPRUS AND CRETE CA. 2 000-500 B .C. On transmission of po E y techniques.

P .

8 5

‚ "The ff.

Imported

Pottery"

in

Heuck, Susan, " Kalavasos-Agios Preliminary Ceramic Analyis," Heurtly, W . A. " The Mycenaean Pottery," Holland,

T . A.

"A

Figurines,"

G . D.

Successors," X :4,

Pl.

Study

of

9

SAREPTk ,

Dhimitrios-1979--A RDAC 1 981, p. 6 4-80.

Palestinian

( 1977),

"Predynastic

JEA

Pritchard,

Relationship between Philistine QDAP 5 ( 1936) , p . 9 0-110.

LEVANT

Hornblower,

J .

1 5

( 1929)

,

p .

Iron

Baked

2 9-46,

of

Women

esp.

and

4 4-46.

Mann Verlag, l acopi,

*

1 957.

Guilo, ,

P .

l akovidis,

( 1979)

p .

,

Their

Taf.

VI-X.

Hrouda, Bartel, D IE BEMALTE KERAMIK DES ZWEITEN JAHRTAUSENDS IN N5 T 5MESOPOTAMIEN UND NO RDSYRIEN,

1 933-40)

Clay

121-155.

Figurines p .

Age

and

Traces

" lalysos,"

painting ANNUARIO

Berlin:

motifs. 1 3-14

( 1930-31,

2 53-345. Sp.

"The

Chronology

of

LH

I lIC,"

AJA

8 3

in

B ,

454-462.

PERATI

A-G,

Athens,

Mycenaean

Mourning

1 969-1970.

English

Custom,"

AJA

p .

4 19-470. "A 4 3-50.

P l.

I mmerwahr,

1 5

7 0

( 1966),

& 1 6.

Sarah,

THE

ATHENIAN

2 27

AGORA

X III,

Princeton:

p .

American

School

of

Classical

Studies

Jones, Frances Fallin, " Three Weinberg, THE AEGEAN AND THE N . J.: J .J. Augustin, 1 956, P .

at

Athens,

1 971.

Mycenaean Figurines," in S . NEAR EAST, Locust V alley, 1 22-125.

* Karageorghis, Vassos, K ITION-THE NON-CYPRIOTE Nicosia: Dept. Antiquities of Cyprus, 1 981.

P OTTERY,

K ITION I --THE Antiquites of Cyprus,

o f

*

K ITION,

‚

1 982,

p .

*

N . Y.:

" Excavations 86-109.

p .

Nicosia: Department

Thames

at

" Excavations 1 35.

‚

1 981,

TOMBS, 1 974.

and

Hudson,

Maa-Paleokastro

at

1 976.

1 979-82."

Pyla-Kokkinokremos

RDAC

1 981,"

RDAC

" Kouklia," in STUDIES IN CYPRIOTE ARCHEOLOGY ed.), Los Angeles:UCLA, 1 981, n . 8 9-97.

‚

Breis,

SALAMIS, Kelley, Ontario

A llyn, Museum,

Kilion,

K laus,

Tiryns,"

N . Y.:

Graw Hill,

POTTERY OF 1 976. and

ARCH.

ANCIENT

Podzuweit,

ANZEIGER

1 969.

C .

Popular.

EGYPT,

Toronto:

"Ausgraebungen

1 981-82,

esp.

( J.

p .

Royal

in

1 94-220.

Koehi, Robert, THE BRONZE AND IRON AGE IMPORTED WARES FROM AREA I I, SOUNDING X AT SAREPTA, University of Pa. dissertation, 1 982. Leonard,

Albert,

" Considerations

of

the

Morphology

Variations in the Mycenaean Pottery of the SE Mediterranean," BASOR 2 41 ( 1981) , P . 87-101. **

at

McClellan, T . L. "Chronology Tell e l Farah S ," JFA Su

**

QUANTITATIVE

‚

PALESTINE,

University

STUDIES of

of the Philistine 1 979, p. 57-73. OF

THE

Pennsylvania

McGovern, P . "Exploring the Early I ron Beqa Valley," EXPEDITION 3 5-5 ( 1982),

Jordan, ( 1982)

,

"LBA Pottery Composition p .

Mackenprag, ( 1938)

,

Maiuri,

IRON

AGE

Burials

POTTERY

Dissertation, Burial Caves p . 4 6-56.

OF

1 975. i n

the

Fabrics from the Beqah Valley o f and Origins," MASCA JOURNAL 2 -1

8-12. Mogens,

p .

5 44-559.

A .

IALISOS

"Late

Mycenaean

I -II,

ANNUARIO

2 28

Vases,"

6 -7

( 1926)

AJA

,

p .

4 2

8 3-256.

Mee, Christopher, RHODES IN Eng.: An s & Phillips, 1 982. Meier, 9 0-93.

( 1969)

in

F . G.

,

"Excavations

"The Cemeteries p . 1 16-129.

at

of

THE BRONZE AGE, Warminster, esp. p . 22-47, 9 3-114. Kouklia,"

Old

RDAC

Paphos,"

" Evidence For Mycenaean MEM, p . 6 8-79, 3 31.

1 968,

p .

ARCHEOLOGIA

Settlement

at

Millet, M . POTTERY AND THE ARCHEOLOGIST, I nstitute of Archeology, No. 4 , 1 979.

Old

VIVA

2

Paphos,"

London:

Mylonas, George, " Seated and Multiple Mycenaean i n the Natural Museum of Athens," in Weinberg, THE NEAR EAST, p .110-122.

Figurines AEGEAN AND

Nagel, G . I , Cairo,

EL

Nilsson,

LA CERAMIQUE 1 938.

Martin,

" The

DU

NOUVEL

Mycenaean

Survival," in GREEK RELIGION, esp. 13-120, 2 62, 3 03-305. Papadopoulos, Thanasis J . ( 1979) , Goteborg, Sweden. Pen man, I ., Provenance of Note

EMPIRE

Religion Lund:

"Mycenaean

A DEIR

and

its

Berlingska,

Achaea,"

Beth

Shemesh

Petrie,

W .F.

HYKSOS

Pierdon, A . "Kernoi p . 1 8-27. Greek.

1 950,

S IMA

Mommsen, H ., and Yellin, Y ., " The lmlk Jars," IEJ 3 4/ 2-3 ( 1984),

on

MEDINEH

5 5

1 12.

p .

NAA. AND in

I SRAELITE

LB

and

CITIES,

BSAE

Iron Cyprus,"

1 2

RDAC

1 906. 1 971,

Popham, M . and Milbain, E . "The Late Helladic I II Pottery of X eropolis ( Lefkandi), A Summary," ANNUAL OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ATHENS 6 6 ( 1971), p .333-353. R ainey, ( 1982) , Rast,

A .F. "Wine p . 57-63.

Walter,

TANAACH

Rothenberg, B . and ( 1981) , p . 8 5-114. Rothenberg,

B .

from imik

the Royal jars. I ,

Glass,

T IMNA,

Vineyards,"

Cambridge, J .

Mass. : ASOR,

"Midianite

London:

Thames

BASOR

Pottery,"

and

Hudson,

2 45

1 978. E I

1 5

1 972.

Rutter, Jeremy, " Late Helladic h IC Pottery and Some Historical Implications," in SYMPOSIUM IN THE DARK AGES

2 29

IN

GREECE,

1 977,

N . Y.:

" Ceramic Southern Greece

of

America,

Evidence for Northern Intruders i n in the Beginning of the LHIIIC," AJA

1 7-32,

p .

,

Saussey, p .

Institute

1 -20.

p .

( 1975)

Archeological

E .

"La

AJA

8 0

( 1970)

ceramique

1 86-188.

p .

,

philistine,"

SYRIA

Saidah, Roger, " Fouilles sur l a Premiere Deuxieme ( 19669,

( 1924),

Science,

Schaeffer, summary p . Sinclair, AASOR

3 4

Shanks,

THE

de Khalde--Rapport Preliminaire Campagnes," BULL. MUS. BEYROUT

DIE AEGAEISCHE FRUEHZEIT, VOL 5 , DIE WANDERUNGZEIT,

1 976,

Lawrence, ( 1960)

Kibbutz

Sherratt, E .S., I IIB," ABSA 7 5

AN

esp.

,

VOL. 2 , D IE Vienna: Academy

1 982.

C .F.A. ENKOMI-ALASIA 4 13-422.

H .

SITES,

5 1-90.

p .

Schachermeyr, MYKENISCHZEIT, of

5

1 69-185.

Save-Soderbergh, Torgny, NEW K INGDOM PHARONIC POTTERY, Scandanavian University Books, 1 977.

1 9

79

I ,

Paris,

ARCHEOLOGICAL

1 952.

SURVEY OF

En gl ish

GIBEAH,

1 6-26.

Sasa

Kernos.

BAR

"Regional Variation ( 1980) , pp.175-203.

2 :5 in

( 1976)

Pottery

,

p .

29.

in LH

Shipton, G . M. NOTES ON THE MEGIDDO POTTERY OF STRATA VI-XX, SAOC 1 7, Chicago: University of Chicago, 1 939. Stewart,

James,

TELL EL AJJUL,

S IMA

3 8

( 1974),

Goteborg,

Sweden. Stubbings,

Frank,

Cambridge:

Cambridge

MYCENAEAN

POTTERY FROM

University

Press,

THE

1 951,

LEVANT, esp.

5 9-88,102-111. " The p .

Mycenaean

Pottery

of

Attica,"

ABSA

47

( 1947),

1 -75.

Tamvaki, ABSA

6 8

Taylor,

Angela, ( 1973) Joan

Cyprus," Thiersch,

,

" Some p .

DuPlat,

Oxford: H .

"Die

ARCHAEOLOGISCHER

Unusual

Mycenaean

Terracottas,"

2 07-266. "Myrtou-Pighades--An

Ashmolean neueren ANZEIGER

Museum,

Ausgrabungen 1 908,

I nterest. 2 30

p .

LB

Sanctuary

1 957. in

Palaestina,"

3 78-384.

Historical

in

Vermeule, VASE

E .

and

PAINTING,

Weippert,

K arageorghis, Cambridge:

Manfred,

Geschichte

einer

Provinz,"

Welch,

"The

Palestine," 117-124. Wood,

ZDPV

I nfluence

QSPEF

Bryant,

and I mported P . 7 3-79.

" The

1 900,

Ware

I SSACHAR

See

VII

III.

Section

on

P .

342-350,

in

ABSA

6

TOMBE

I srael

on

South

( 1900),

p .

of

Local

1 4

( 1982),

LEVANT

LA

: Zur

2 68-282.

Relationship

I I,

1 982.

der

Civilization

Megiddo,"

SURVEY,

Site

p .

,

Aegean

DE CHYPRE, VOL. Paris, 1 971.

Zori, Nehemiah, Society, 1 977. a lso

( 1977)

of

at

Press,

Gravidenflaschen

Gafaessgattung

9 3

P ICTORIAL

University

Stratigraphical

Bichrome

Yon, M . SALAMINE XIe S . ay. J .C.,

MYCENAEAN

" Kanaanaeische

Aegyptischen

Asiatischen F . B.

V .

Harvard

T .

I .

du

Exploration

Reports.

METAL

Aschenbrenner, Metallic 251-266. Astrom,

I ron

Lena,

S . in

& Cooke Ancient

" Studies

Cypriote Bronze 88-93, 145.

Age,"

Astrom,

Cuirass

P .

"The

S . R.B.

" The

Copper,"

on

the

SCE

Arts

IV1D,

Tomb,"

Occurrence

JFA

and

Crafts

4

of

the

p .

3 -24,

( 1977),

p .

4 4-48.

Bass, George, THE CAPE GELIDONYA WRECK, American Philosophy Society, 1 967. Bjorkman,

Judith,

A SKETCH

THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST, 1968. Borchardt, Jurgen, Verlag Phillip von

OF

METALS

University

of

p .

1 964,

Lund,

SIMA

of

2 ( 1975),

Late

Philadelphia:

AND

METALWORKERS

Pa.

dissertation,

HOMERISCHE HELME, Zabern, 1 972.

Mainz

am

IN

Rhein:

Bouzek, J . "Local Schools Inspiration, 1 300-1100,"

of Aegean Bronzework of European DIKAIOS MEMORIAL VOLUME,

Nicosia

p .

Lions "The

Ultimately 54-57.

Club,

1 979,

Seapeoples European

and

Origin

4 9-52.

the in

Types

of

Cyprus,"

231

Objects RDAC

of 1 975,

p .

Buchholtz, DOPPELAXT,

Hans -Guenther, 1 949/1959.

ZUR

HERKUNFT

DER

KRETISCHEN

-

Catlir ig, H . W. CYPRIOTE BRONZE WORK I N THE MYCENAEAN WORLD, Oxford: Oxford University P ress, 1 964. " A

Bronze

Enkomi," "An Found

Greave

OPUSCULA

in

from

a 1 3th Century

ATHENIENSIS

Aegean

Sword

Cyprus,"

RDAC

2

( 1959)

Fragment 1 973,

of

p .

the

LBS Paul

Trude, "Forked IEJ 2 ( 1976)

Goetze,

A .

K IZZUWATNA

AND

GEOGRAPHY,

New Haven:

Yale,

Gordon, p .

D .H.

,

"Philistine

Karageorghis,

( 1981)

"A

B .C.

t ' rom

INDUS

AU

Palestine

OF

IN

THE

DANUBE

and

HITTITE

2 7-30.

p .

ANTIQUITY

27

( 1953)

R .,

Ancient

Near

and at

Wheeler,

8

Maxwell-Hylsop, J .

"An

K . R., Iron

Levant James,

Metalwork,"

IEJ

" How

I ron

1 0

B .

Bronzes

Yina' am,"

BASOR

,

p .

1-66,

"Bronze

From

and

from

243

Tomb

Technology

Reply

on

6 9-72.

p .

James,

"Tin

in

the

35-47.

p .

Swords

esp.

in

Western

57-60. T .,

Madden

2 40

at

Tell

J .

and

Fara

p .112-115.

Figurines

( 1980),

and

( 1983)

( 1977),

Stech-Wheeler,

Dagger

Philistines

2 52

1 9

"Daggers

( 1978),

3 0

" Comment

& Muhley,

EXPEDITION

( 1946)

IRAQ

the

of

BASOR

Tamara,

East,"

Asia,"

Gave

Tel

Rothenberg,

Rachel,

Muhley,

at

Yina' a rn,"

Maxwell-Hyslop,

South,"

Hoard

7 2-82.

"Excavation

H .

Working

Muhley,

Cypriote

p .

7 9-94.

Madden,

*

DE

PROBLEM

1 960,

Swords,"

Late

1 973,

H .

p .

,

Liebowitz, I ron

V .

RDAC

Liebowitz,

p .

Ce n t ury

6 7-78.

Sinda,"

*

Bronze Butts p . 2 0-34. THE

1 2th

AND EARLY IRON Papers No. 8

OUTILES DE BRONZE Guethner, 1 960.

Dothan, Egypt,"

at

21-36.

1 01-106.

H .H. Coghlan, NOTES ON PREHISTORIC OLD WORLD, Pitt Rivers Occasional Oxford,1956, p . 6 1-64. Deshayes, Jean, I & I I, Paris:

Grave

p .

,

p .

and

Near

Eastern

1 48-161.

Changed

a Military

the

Edge,"

Ancient BAR

8-6

World

and

( 1982)

4 0-54. Negbi,

Ora,

"The

Continuity

of

2 32

Canaanite

Bronzework

of

the

LB

into

the

E I

A ,"

TEL

CANAANITE GODS University,

IN

AVIV

1 ( 1974),

METAL,

Tel

pp.

Aviv:

1 59-172.

Tel

Aviv

1 976.

" Evidence for the Early Phoenician Communities on Eastern Mediterranean I slands," LEVANT 1 4 ( 1982) , p .

the

1 79-182. Palmer,

Robert,

AT

ABU

TELL

Petrie,

ARCHEOLOGICAL

HAWAM,

W .F.

ANALYSIS

University

TOOLS

AND

of

OF

LHIIIB

California

WEAPONS,

BSAE

3 0,

M .A.,

1 977.

London,

1 916.

Picard-Schmitter, Maria Therese, "Observations cuirasses," ATTI E MEMORIE DE 1 ' CONGRESSO I NTERNATIONALE D I M I ENOLOGIA, R e, 1 967, p . Pigott, Vincent, i n Technological

BRONZES

sur

l es

3 66-387.

" The Innovation of I ron:Cultural Change," EXPEDITION 2 5-1 ( 1982)

,

Dynamics p .

2 0-25. * Sandars, Hudson,

Nancy,

1 978, " The

6 5

( 1961)

THE

p .

SEAPEOPLES,

1 06-110,

First

Aegean

New York:

Thames

&

1 57-158. Swords

and

Their

Ancestry,"

AJA

p .17-29.

,

"Later

Aegean

Bronze

Swords,"

AJA

6 7

( 1963)

der

und

Inselvoelker,"

p .

117-153. Schaeffer, AfO

2 1

Claude,

( 1966)

p .

,

Seager,

Richard,

Boston:

American

Snodgrass, the

Early

"Goetter

A . M.

5 9-69. EXPLORATION

School

of

"Metal work

Bronze

Nord-

Age,"

in

IN

THE

Classical as

I SLAND

OF

Studies,

Evidence

Crossland,

for

MOLCHOS, 1 912.

Migration

M IGRATION,

i n

p -

2 09-215. EARLY

GREEK

" Early

ARMOUR AND WEAPONS,

Edinburgh,

I ron

Swords

in

Cyprus,"

RDAC

T .,

Muhley

J .

Maxwell-Hylsop,

1 964.

1 981,

p .

K . R.,

Maddin,

1 29-135. Stech-Wheeler, R .

" Iron

Eastern

at

David,

East,"

Tholander, and

IRAQ Erik,

" The 2 1

,

p .

Early AJA

I ron 8 5-3

Developement ( 1959)

" Evidence

Quench-hardening

1 0(1971)

and

Mediterranean,"

Stronach, Near

Tanaach

in

,

p .

for

2 33

in

( 1981),

2 45-268.

of

the

p .

Fibula

the

i n

the

1 80-206.

the

LB Cyprus,"

1 5-22.

Metallurgy

U se

of

Carburized

OPUSCULA

Steel

ATHENIENSIS

Wainwright, 3 -15. " The

5-24. **

THE

STUDI ES Sweden. Webb, I ngot **

of

Jane,

BRONZE IN

" Iron

Coming

Waldbaum,

FROM

OF

G . A.

Egypt,"

I ron,"

FROM

TO

MEDIT

in

RANEAN

1 8

ANTIQUITY

BRONZE

IRON AGE

JEA

TO

IN

( 1932),

1 0

I RON:

( 1936),

THE

TfE EASTERN

ARCHEOLO GY 5 4

Jennifer, " A Bronze Oxhorn God, Enkomi," RDAC 1 980,

G . E.

Common

Use

Yadin, 1 955,

Y . p .

" Iron,

in

the

"Goliath's 5 8-69.

Z accagnini, cf.

ZAW

IV.

BURIAL

C .

8 2

Date

Palestine,"

I i

Javelin

ferro

( 1970)

of

AJA

p .

nel 5 02.

TRANSITION

( 1978),

Goteborg,

From the Sanctuary P . 1 00-108.

its

( 1939)

and

the

Vivino

p .

,

orgim

Sahab

B iegen,

Piotr,

in

the

Carl,

PROSYMNA,

Brock, James M . Cambridge, 1 957. Dothan, Moshe, 1 71-175.

" Some

on

LEVANT

the

1 4

Cambridge,

FORTESSA: EARLY

"Excavations

at

2 34

the

City: Tel el ( 1938), p.

LAND OF I SRAEL FROM Tel Aviv University

Material

Remarks

Levant,"

in

BURIAL PRACTICES FROM Pa. dissertation, 1 979.

Arensburg, Baruch, THE PEOPLE OF THE THE EPIPALEOLITHIC TO PRESENT TIMES, dissertation, 1 973.

Bienkowski,

PEFQS

NA

" The Chronology of A South Palestinian A jjul," Am. Jour. of Sem. Lang. and Lit. 5 5 3 37-359, esp. p . 3 58-359.

Cremation

into

Dissertation,

monopoly.

A lbright, W . "An Anthropoid Clay Coffin From Transjordan," AJA 3 6 ( 1932), p . 2 95-306.

Ambercrombie, John, PALESTINIAN 1 200 TO 6 00 B .C., University of

the

4 58-463.

mnor,"

Oriente,

Defends

of

THE COMING

I ntroduction

4 3

"Report on the Skeletal Unpublished typescript.

p .

MEDITERRANEAN,

Wertime, Theodore, and Muhley, James, eds., THE AGE OF IRON, New Haven: Yale, 1 980.

Wright,

p .

GREEK

Azor,"

of

Tel

Aitun,"

Practice

( 1982), 1 937. TOMBS

I EJ

p .

of 8 0-90

esp.

p .

NEAR

KNOSSOS,

1 1

2 28ff.

( 1961),

p .

YEDIOT D othan,

* *

Hebrew

2 5

( 1961)

Trude,

DEIR

University,

Engelbach, London,

P .

,

EL

2 24-230. BALAH,

Hebrew

QEDEM

version.

1 0,

Jerusalem,

1 979.

Reginald,

R IQQEH

AND

MEMPHIS

VI,

BSAE

GUROB,

BSAE

4 1,

London,

1 927.

Ferembach, Denise, "Les Restes Humains des Tombes Philistines du Cemetiere d ' Azor," BULLETIN DE LA DE ANTHROPOLOGIE, Free, BASOR E I

1 961

reprint,

p .

SOCIETE

8 3-91.

Joseph, "Dothan," BASOR 1 52 156 ( 1959) , p. 2 2-29, BASOR

( 1958), p. 1 60 ( 1960)

,

1 0-18, p . 6 -15.

Burial.

*Gonen, A BASIS

Rivka, FOR THE

Unpublished 1 979. Gophna,

Ram,

"An

Herr, ( 1983)

G . L.

esp.

,

"The

l akovides,

S .

Tomb

LATE BRONZE SETTLEMENT,

University,

I Tomb

( 1970),

THE AND

Between

AGE

AS

Jerusalem,

Ashdod

and

1-5.

p .

Groups

From

Jordan,"

PEFA

6

Madeba.

Amman

2 23-228.

p .

Hebrew

Age

VI

" Four

2 7-48.

Larry, ,

I ron

ATIQOT

H arding,

( 1953)

BURIAL IN CANAAN OF STUDY OF POPULATION

dissertation,

Ashkelon," *

2 6,

1 915.

Airport

Structure,"

BA

4 6-4

Cremation.

PERATI

A-G,

Athens,

1 969-1970.

in B . EXCAVATIONS Occasional Paper 8 ,

OF THE NECROPOLIS UCLA Institute of

Expanded

English

English

Summary

Johns, 6

version

C.N.

( 1937)

Kempinsi, Kroeber, ( 1927) Kurtz,

A .

1 21-152. "The

A . L. p .

'

"Excavations p .

,

Pilgrims

BAR

the

Castle

5 -4

Atlit,"

( 1979),

Dead,"

Jean,

John,

and Hudson, " Fouilles

Soudan 1963-64," xxviii, 4 . "Fouilles 1 969-1970,"

of

& Broadman,

Thames

Leclant,

at

QDAP

Cremation.

Hittites,"

"Disposal

1 980.

Summary.

AM.

p .

ANTH.

3 9-40. 2 9

3 08-315.

Donna,

London:

o f

AT PERATI, Archeology,

et

ORIENTALIA

e t

travaux

ORIENTALIA

GREEK

1971,

N .S.

esp.

travaux N .

en 4 0

x x .

2 35

S .

BURIAL CUSTOMS,

en

Egyypte

3 4

Egypte

21-41.

p .

( 1965),

et

( 1971)

,

au

et

au

p .

1 80.

Soudan

P .227-226.

P 1.

P l.

Loffreda, Tombs,"

S .

" Typological

Sequence of

ANNUUS

1 8

( 1968),

Lorimer, H . L. "Pluvis Greek cremation.

et

Umbra,"

Mais 1 er

LIBER

( Mazar)

*

McClellan,

Tell

e i

B .

‚

Vorderasien,"

AfO T . L.

JFA

McFadden, George, Kaloriziki," AJA Naville,

E .

and

"A 5 8

Su

p .

,

7 9,

Petrie,

W .F. 1 906. SEDMET

Griffith,

TANIS

I I, I I,

Price-Williams,

F .

AND

3 5,

Pritchard,

David,

*

Riis,

James,

THE

THE

HAMA

Philistine

MOUND

OF

CEMETERY

B urials

from

THE

AT

at

JEW AND L o

THE

n,

S HAN,

BSAE

1 2,

Exploration

TOMBS

OF

THE

MB

Fund,

I I

S , Dissertation, Petries' records. AT

K ourion

BETH

Egypt

ET

in

1 924.

TELL

University of

FOUILLES

1 61-180.

TEL EL YEHUDIYEH,

CEMETERY

Philadelphia: P . J.

the

London,

London,

p .

Bestattungsbrauch

ISRAELITE CITIES,

BSAE

Rock Cut

57-73.

THE

OF

THE 500 CEMETERY AT TEL FARA Assessment of the quality of

JORDAN,

1 933,

Late Cypriote I II Tomb ( 1954) , p . 1 31-142.

ANTIQUITIES

HYKSOS

Age

2 39-240.

of p .

** Oren, Eliezer, THE NORTHERN Leiden: E . J. Brill, 1 973.

London,

JHS

Aegaeisher

( 1936)

" Chronology

Farah,"

CITY OF ONIAS, 1 887, T890.

"Ein 11

I ron

2 82-287.

p .

ES

PERIOD

FROM

1 977.

SA'IDEYEH

Pa.,

RECHERCHES

1 888.

1 980. 1 931-1938

1 13

LES CIMETIERES A CREMATION, Copenhagen: Glydendalse Boghandel Nordisk Forlag, 1 948. Esp. p. 37-46,110-116,202. *

‚

" The

Excavations Salaman,

Mycenaean at

R . N.

Biological

Hama "What

Point

of

Expansion

and

Sukas,"

Has

Become

View,"

Shanklin, W. and Ghantes, Phoenicians," BULL. MUS. Steindorf, *

Stiebing,

Philistine

G .

ANIBA

W .H. Tombs

Tell

of

PEQ

MEM, t he

5 7

of

the

p .

198-206.

D anish

Philistines:A

( 1925),

p .

3 7-45.

M . "Anthropology of the BEYROUT 1 9 ( 1966), p. 9 1-96.

I -Ill,

"Another at

in Light in

Hamburg,

Look ei

at

t he

Farah,"

1 39-143.

2 36

1 935-1937. Origins AJA

7 4

of

t he

( 1970),

p .

Ucko, P . Funerary

" Ethnography and Archeological I nterpretation Remains." WORLD ARCHEOLOGY I , p . 2 62-277.

Wace, Alan, MYCENAE, Princeton, 1 949. *

Waldbaum,

Aegean

Fred

AASOR

Woolley, Wright, ( 1959),

AJA

Reed,

3 6-37,

L .,

Wm.

ALALAKH,

K .N.

Palace."

ART

AND

Aharoni, I srael,"

2 0

THE

Tel

1 955.

Fara

GUIDE,

and

Their

AT

D IBON

IN

and

Coffins

Cremation. Mercenaries,"

from

Raghdan

BA

2 2

Royal

57-58.

p .

ARCHITECTURE

Y . "The Date of Casemate Walls BASOR 1 54 ( 1959), p. 3 5-39.

G .

Manuscript

AND

3 31-340.

p .

,

EXCAVATION

Coffins

( 1975),

Barnett, R . ANCIENT Jerusalem. 1 982. Cadogan,

at

( 1966)

Oxford,

"Anthropoid

ADAJ

Tombs

7 0

H ISTORY

1 964.

G .E. "Philistine p .54-66.

Yassine,

V.

and

ARCHEOLOGICAL

" Philistine

Prototypes,"

Winnet, MOAB,

Jane,

AN

of

"Maroni of

IVORIES

and

a report

the to

IN

THE

Late

ASOR,

in

Judah

and

MIDDLE

EAST,

QEDEM

Bronze Dec.

Age

of

1 983.

1 4,

Cyprus,"

Ashlar

masonry. Biran, TIMES,

A. ( ed.) TEMPLES AND HIGH PLACES Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College,

Erlenmeyer, ORIENTALIA 269-293,

M . L. 2 9

V

& H .

( 1960)

33,

"Einige

p .

" Ueber p .

,

syrische

Bildelementen,"

AfO

Siegel

21

Philister

1 21-151,

1 99-237.

( 1966)

IN B IBLICAL 1 981. und

241-272,

3 0,

fig.

5d.

Art

motifs.

mit

aegaeische

,

p .

3 3-34,

Kreter," V .

Fortin, Michael, M ILITARY ARCHITECTURE IN CYPRUS THE 2 ND MILLENNIUM B . C., University of London dissertation, 1 981. p. 424-486, 5 25-559. Fritz, Volkmar, " Bestimmung and Herkunft in I srael," ZDPV 9 3 ( 1977) , p . 3 0-45. "Palaeste waehrend Palaestina,"

ZDPV

99

der

( 1983),

Han f, A . " Coastal Buildings Millennium B .C. Palestine,"

Bronze p .

1 1

und

der

p .

DURING

Pfeilerhauses

Eisenzeit

in

ff.

of Foreign Origin in 2nd PEQ 1 10 ( 1978), p . 1 00-106.

2 37

Herzog, Zeev, Wilderness of

Enclosed Settlements i n the Negev Beer Sheva," BASOR 2 50 ( 1983), p .

Hult, Gunnel, MEDITERRANEAN, 6 1-83, 8 8-91.

BRONZE AGE ASHLAR MASONRY IN THE S IMA 6 6 i. Astrom Verlag, 1 983,

Kantor,

J .

Helene

Millennium

B .C.,"

Louloupis,

M .

" The

"Horns

* * Mazar, Amihai, Jerusalem: Hebrew

4 0-2

Aegean

AJA of

51

" Iron

Mazar, ( 1967)

,

Age

1 982,

Orient

Consecration,"

MEM,

Temples

Fortresses p .

in

87-109.

the

From

Tell

Judean

Mostly

Seal

at

1 80-190.

Y .

"The

Smith, Wm. New Haven:

Four EI

Room

1 1

Tel

House,"

( 1973),

p .

p . I ,

Hills,"

Qasile,"

Webb,

1 5

Jennifer,

Structures,"

( 1981), "Late

RDAC

p .

p .

in

ATTI

PEQ

I EJ

YEDIOT .

Eastern

20

277-285

3 1

Crete,"

( 1970), in

pp.

Heb.) NEAR EAST,

Altars

and

Two

Offering

1 13-130.

Yeivin, S . "Mycenaean Temples and Their Possible on the Countries of the Eastern Littoral of the Mediterranean,"

BA

7 0-78.

Cypriote

1 977,

1 2,

Archeological

S . INTERCONNECTIONS IN THE ANCIENT Yale, 1 965. Mostly art.

EI

2 25-244

QEDEM

Van Beek, Gus & Ora, " Canaanite and Phoenician Architecture: The Development and distribution of Styles,"

2nd motifs.

Qasile"

Casemate Walls at Yovata, 7th Jerusalem, 1 980. Unpublished.

( Also

t he Art

l ate.

Sales, Jeffery, "A Bronze Age Quarry in JFA 1 0-1 ( 1983) , p . 3 3-46. Ashlars. Shiloh,

EASTERN e sp. p .

in

1-103.

EXCAVATIONS AT TEL QASILE University, 1 980.

B . "A Philistine p . 6 4-67.

Meshel, Zeev, Conference in

the p .

"Additional Philistine ( 1977) p . 8 2-89.

July-Dec.

and

( 1947),

a nd 4 1-51.

E MEMORE

INTERNAZIONALE DI MICENOLO IA, reprinted in Mivhar 2 .

2 38

DEL

Rome,

I nfluence

I CONGRESSO 1 67.

p .

1 130-1148,

VI.

LANGUAGE

Georgiev, V iadimer, INTRODUCTION INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES, Sophia: Sciences, 1 981.

TO THE H ISTORY OF Bulgarian Academy

THE of

"Sur l 'Origine et l a Langue des Pelasges, des Philistins, des Daneans,et des Achaens," JAHRBUCH FUER KLEINASIATISCHE FORSCHUNG 1 950, P . 1 36-141. -

-

-

-

-

‚

DEI R

ALLA

Albright,

* * *

Wm.

CAH

1 1:2,

p .

5 10.

Cazelles, Henri, " Les text -es de Deir La d eciffrement des ecritures et des International Congress 1975, p . 9 5-99. Francken, 377-379, -

" The

4 17-422,

‚

Found

H .J.

at

of

Deir VT

A lla," in J . Leclant, l angues, 2 9th

Orientalists,

Alla

1 5

Texts,"

( 1965)

"The Stratigraphic Deir A lla," PEQ

,

p .

Paris,

VT

1 4

150-152,

1 973,

( 1964)

Tablets

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ARCHEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS Jerusalem: Masada Press, 1 975, p . 3 21-323.

Mayani, Alla," Sauer,

Z . VT J.

Van den Alla,"

" Un 2 4

apport ( 1974)

ZAW

( 1969),

a l a discussion du p . 318 - 323p .

M .

Wright,

G. E.

Yeivin,

Y.

I zbet

ZDPV BA ARIEL

( 1966)

2 9 2 1

Dotan,

Deir

p .

,

( 1966)

,

( 1970),

de

Deir

229-310.

p .

7 3.

p .11.

Sartah

Aaron,

Aron,

AVIV

texte

1 45 - 1 46-

"A

Proto-Canaanite

Abecedary

Period of the Judges and I ts Implications of the Alphabet," TEL AVIV 4 ( 1977), p .

TEL

I ,

KADMOS 3 ( 1964) p . 1 73; 6

Branden, A . "Deciffrement Inscritior is VT 1 5 ( 1965) , p . 129-150, 5 32-535.

Weippert,

Demsky,

,

,

p .

5 35-536.

Context of the Clay 1 964, p . 7 3-79.

Grumachs, E . Epigraphische Mitteilung, p. 1 86; 4 ( 1965), p . 177; 5 ( 1966) ( 1967), P . 1 54.

,

Pub.

8-2

"New Light ( 1981),

p .

on

the

I zbet

1 60-172.

2 39

from

for the 1 4-27.

Sartah

the History

Ostracon,"

K ochavi, Moshe, " An f rom I zbet Sartah," Naveh, Joseph, I zbet S artah," ** *

Hebron

Ostracon of t he P eriod TEL AVIV 4 ( 1977) , p.

of the 1 -13.

" Some Reflections on t he Ostracon I EJ 2 8 ( 1978) , p. 3 1-35.

J udges

f rom

**

Brownlee, Wm., & Mendenhall, George, " Philistine Manuscripts f rom P alestine," KADMOS 1 0 ( 1971) , p . 1 02-104, 1 73. ADAJ 1 5 ( 1970) , p. 3 9ADAJ 1 6 ( 1971) p .

9 9-102.

Naveh, 2 47

Joseph,

( 1982)

,

" Some

Recently

Forged

Shanks, H . " Clumsy Forger Fools A Time," BAR 1 0-3, ( May 1 984) , A shdod Artzy, p .

M .

& " Cypro-Minoan"

BASOR

" Arethusa

of

the

the p .

S eals Tin

S cholars, 6 6-72.

But

O nly

K napp,

I ngot,"

BASOR

250

( 1983) -

A .B.

Mitford, 3 ,

For

* * *

5 1-57.

Hurrians,"

I II

I nscriptions,"

5 3-54.

p .

& Marchant,

Anne,

RDAC

p .

T .B.

2 nd

1 982,

and

Masson,

Edition,

1 982,

" Cyprus,

Cypro-Minoan,

and

1 5ff. 0 .

" Cypriote

p .

7 1ff.

Syllabary,"

CAH

Stieglitz, Robert, " Inscribed Seals f rom Tel Ashdod:The Philistine Script," KADMOS 1 6 ( 1977), p . 9 7. Will be published in Ashdod V .

**

The

Phaistos

Bradshaw, KADMOS

Arnold,

1 5

Delekat,

L .

P .

" Der und

and

" The

( 1976),

Textlesung Ephron, Disk,"

disc

other

Aegean Connections

Imprinting

of

the

Phaistos

**

D isk,"

1 -18.

p .

Diskos

Deutung,"

von UF

Phaistos, 1 1

( 1979)

Entwurf ,

p .

einer

1 65-178.

Henry D . " Hygieia Tharso and I aon: The Phaistos HARVARD STUDIES IN CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY 66 ( 1962),

1 -91.

Nahm, Werner, " Vergleich Phaistos mit Linear A ,"

von Z eichen des Diskos von KADMOS 1 4 ( 1975), p. 97-101.

Schwartz,

Phaistos

p .

Benjamin,

1 05-112,

Best,

Jan

" The

Disk,"

JNES

REMARKS

ON

1 8

2 22-227.

G .P.

SOME

PRELIMINARY

2 40

THE

( 1959)

DECIPHERMENT

OF

L INEAR

A ,

Amsterdam:

Adolf

Hakkert,

Casson, IRAQ 6

Stanley, " The Cypriot Script of the Bronze ( 1939) , p . 3 9-44. ANCIENT CYPRUS, London:1937, p. 9 8-107.

Daniel,

John

AJA

4 5

F .

( 1941)

" Prolegomena

to

the

"Linear A and 221-235.

Semitic

Languages,"

Mellard,

R .

Canaanite

Passage

Alan to

the

" The

Greeks,"

Daniel,

A Script 228-237.

of

" The Class

Word

and

A .

"Zwei

Alt,

LINEAR

AfO

1 5

Script,"

A ,

Name

KRETIKA

Studies

Neue

( 1979)

Alphabet

( 1976)

in

the

CHRONIKA

p .

,

and

I ts

1 30-144.

p .

,

Berkely:

Pseudo-bilinguals A ,"

2 6

Linear

KADMOS

Packard, David, M INOAN California, 1 974. Was,

Cypro-Minoan

Age,"

2 49-282.

p .

,

1 972.

University

Minoan

2 4

of

Linear

( 1972),

p .

**

Philisternamen,"

ZAT,

1 929,

p .

2 50-251. Bergmann p .

( Biran)

" Two

Hebrew Seals,"

JBL

3 5

( 1936)

2 24-226.

Bonafante, Bork, 1 3

A .

‚

J .

AJA

Ferdinand,

( 1939-1941)

Cross,

F .

Clark,

p .

2 54.

I

Namen

und

Vokabeln,"

Old

Canaanite

AfO

Found

Inscriptions

Scripts,"

CANAANITE

BASOR

MYTHS

AND

in

2 38

( 1980),

LEGENDS

p .

and

1 -20.

Edinburgh: T

& T

1 977.

Gophna, ATI QOT

Bar n, 6

UGARIT,

Oxford, Rabin, ( 1963),

in

the

North

OF

PERSONENNAMEN

Institute,

ANCIENT NW

Press,

1 967.

p .

Negev,"

SEMITIC

DER p .

SEALS,

TEXTE

Missoula,

Containing Keftieu ARCHEOLOGY,

9 0-100.

"Hittite

AUS

2 20.

1 978.

" The Egyptian Writing Board S . Casson, ESSAYS IN AEGEAN

1927,

p.

DIE

Pontifical

SCRIPTS

C .

Hazerim

2 5-30.

p .

,

Scholars

Peet, T . E. Names," in

Age

C .F.Frauke.

Rome:

J.

Mont.:

" Iron

( 1970)

Groendahl,

Herr,

,

224-226.

p .

,

"Newly

J.

( 1946)

" Philistaeische

Early Phoenician Gibson,

5 0

Words

in

Hebrew,"

1 24.

2 41

ORIENTALIA

3 2

( 1974)

Origin

p .

3 53-364.

,

Sapir, ( 1937)

" The

E .

" Hebrew

p .

,

p .

,

H .

Thomas,

David

VII.

JCS

main

pottery

-A

Loan

Pileges,"

Word,"

J JS

JAOS

25

5 7

a Philistine

Word,"

JAOS

5 6

1 2

( 1958),

Winton

p .

( ed.)

8 3.

I

DOCUMENTS

Thomas Nelson, 1 958, in Assyrian records.

FROM

OLD

TESTAMENT

p . 5 5-74. ( Also see

Luckenbill

bibliography.)

SITE

Cypriote

' helmet'

' argaz'

T IMES, London: Philistine names the

Hebrew Word

2 72-281.

Tadmor,

in

the

7 3-77.

" Hebrew ( 1936)

of

REPORTS

and

Mycenaean

comparison

sites

are

in

which were

the

section

used

on

only

f or

pottery.

Aharoni, Yehohanan, LACHISH V , THE SANCTUARY AND RESIDENCY, Tel Aviv: Gateway, 1 975. p . 1 2,41, 72-84. Albright,

**

VOL.

I AND

Wm.

IA,

THE

AASOR

EXCAVATIONS 1 2

& 1 3,

AT

TELL

1 930-1932.

BElT

MIRSIM,

New Haven,

Conn.,

1 932,1933. *

THE

.

2 1-22,

EXCAVATION

1 941-1943.

AASOR

to

2

Ben

Arieh,

Sara

4 5-52.

Aegean F .J.&

ATIQOT

pottery.

1 2

Macalister,

Buelow, IEJ 1 1

S . & Mitchell, R . A. ( 1961) , p . 1 00-110.

Marie

Cohen,

( 1977),

R .A.

1 902.

Buhl,

Geography of

1 -17.

Gershon,

Bronze.

London,

Copenhagen:

Historical p .

AASOR

1 943.

LES FOUILLES VOL. I -Ill.

& Edelstein,

Garden,"

B liss,

the

I II,

DE R . W. HAMILTON University of

A

1 980.

Persian

*

BElT MIRSIM

Conn.,

( 1923),

* Balensi, Jacqueline, TELL ABO HAWAM IV & V 1

Strasbourg,

TELL

New Haven,

" Contributions Palestine,"

OF

Tombs Near p .

the

1 6-26,

Mouthpiece. EXCAVATIONS

IN

PALESTINE,

es-Safi. " Excavation at Tell Former candidate for

Louise,

SHILOH,

THE

National

Museum,

1 969.

Rudolph,

"Akko

Jerusalem,

"Qubur

ei

PRE I IELLENISTIC

Walaida,"

1 94-195.

2 42

I EJ

2 8

Nagila," Gath. REMAINS,

( 1978),

p.

* Dikaios, Porphyrios, ENKOMI I -Ill, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1 969.

*

Dever,

Hebrew

Wm.

GEZER

Union

I ,

College,

The

1 964-66

1 970,

esp.

Doehrmann,

R .

Dothan,

M .

* *

ATIQOT( Eng.) *

Dothan,

( 1955)

and

Cross,

X ,

" The

at in

ed.), "The

11 ( 1973) Heb.

I X,

1 979,

End

of

as

t he

LB

T .

in

"Deir

Miqne

as

IEJ

at

AND

I II,

-

1 971.

Afula,"

ATIQOT

8 6-2

IEJ

and

( 1981)

( 1959)

1 1

I

site.

p .

Ashdod,"

2 71,

I EJ

( 1961) AlA

,

Gershon,

IEJ

3 1

IEJ 3 2 12-18

Typed

( forthcoming) "Philistine Pottery

E I

1 51-153.

p .

,

p .

1 0

1 71-175.

meeting

( 1982) ( 1981)

Unpublished p .

Mor

p .

,

preliminary

manuscript from

1 27-131. reports

( 1982) , p. 1 50-153, and BASOR NEWSLETTER

& Ben Tor, A . Athienou in Cyprus. I srael Exploration Society, 1 983.

Edelstein,

Tel

of

QEDEM

Tel

Eitun,"

Eitun

1 6.

final

QADMONIOT

125-131.

p .

Eshel,

I

1 967,

1 5

Shardana

( Albright I nstitute) and BASOR NEWSLETTER, 1 983, 36-3, Jan.1985, p. 2 .

1968.

Tel

EI 9

Balah,"

Ekron.

at

Azor,"

AJA

e l

Age Heb.

possible

reported

*

I & I I,

Communications.

ASHDOD

at

F ields

the

2 7.

1 25-137.

P .

1 22-133.

p .

,

Akko

report.

D .N.

of

P l.

the Beginning of the LB Age and Beginning ASOR 7 5th Anniversary Symposia, ( F.

"Excavations

Dothan, T . Jerusalem:

in

Personal

Jerusalem,

Annual

2 5-28.

Seasons 1 974.

Excavation

Preliminary reports, ( 1960) , p .123-125.

Dothan,

4 -5,

Rhein:

1 9-71.

‚ "Ashdod I ron Age,"

of

excavations. F reedman,

VII,

Moshe,

p .

,

Hesi

am

Seasons.

p .

* ‚ GEZER I I, The 1 967-1970 Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College,

Mainz

Itzak,

CHRONOLOGY

th es is,

1978.

PETRIES OF

THE

EXCAVATIONS IRON

AGE

OF

LEVEt ,

TELL JEMMEH:POTTERY Tel

Aviv

M .A.

Hebrew.

* Finkelstein, I srael, THE I ZBET SARTAH EXCAVATIONS AND THE I SRAELITE SETTLEMENT IN THE HILL COUNTRY, Tel Aviv

dissertation, Fischer,

C .S.

1 983. THE

Hebrew. EXCAVATION

AT

2 43

ARMAGEDDON,

Chicago:

University

of

Chicago,

1 929.

Headdress,

* Franken, H .J. EXCAVATION AT DEIR Brill, 1 969, esp. 1 9-25, 2 40-248.

Fritz, Volkmar, Tell DEUTSCHES PALAESTINS

ALLA

Masos

Report,"

"The

I sraelite

E I

1 5

Conquest

in

Khirbet el

( 1981) Light

Meshash,"

Zvi,

pottery

Tel

for

Garstang, J . PEFQ 1 921, 1 923,

p .

,

of

" Iron

Gordon,

1 924,

p .

Haseri rn

of

2 4-34.

in

the

Northern

and

ATIQOT

the

Iron Age

2 8

( 1964),

Telul

ed

Between P .

Dhahab

Beersheba

236-246. in

and

Tell

Hebrew.

Jordan.

AJA

86-2

2 62.

p .

Elihu,

Haverford,

and Pa.

Nancy, ( 1982)

THE THIRD CAMPAIGN-TELL EL esp. p. 2 3-36, 4 7-62, 7 9-80.

,

Wright,

G .E.

1 931-1939.

AIN

Beth

SHEMS,

Shemesh.

EXCAVATIONS ( Vol.

I II

i s

Rumeilah

Guy,

P . L.O.

Chicago,

,

Humbert, PHENICE I brahim,

MEGIDDO

1 938,

Hamilton, ( 1935)

Aphek

Negev,"

A . R. L.

,

called *

of

Communication.

Age

YEDIOT

Grant,

I -V

p .

,

auf der Hirbet ZDPV 92

Ashdod

Graham, John & Lapp, FULL-1976, AASOR 4 5 * *

( 1981)

"An Iron Age I Tomb Between ATIQOT 6 ( 1970), p. 1-5.

" Sites Fara,"

( 1982)

2 41

2 5-30

p .

e i

1 54-180.

Recent

BASOR

Preparation

Personal

DES

and Pythian-Adams, W . J. " Askalon Reports," 1 2-16, 7 3-90, 1 62-174; 1 922, P. 112-119;

6 0-84;

p .

University.

E . J.

p .

Gophna, Ram, Ashkelon,"

6 ,

Aviv

publication.

Leiden:

ABHANDLUNG

"Vorbericht ueber die Ausgrabungen e l Mshash. Tel Maesos, 3 Kampangne 1 975," ( 1976) , p. 8 3-104. Gal,

4 9.

I ,

Masos Final Report. VEREIN Forthcoming.

"Tel

Excavations at 6 1-75. Masos.

Fig.

Chicago:

154-160,

"Excavations

at

1 62

Tell

Abu

University

of

ff. Hawam,"

QDAP

4

1 -69.

J-B, IN

1 35-138,

p .

R . W.

p .

TOMBS,

and

Briend,

GALILEE,

M .,

Survey-1975,"

Sauer

J .

Paris, J .,

BASOR

TELL

Yassine,

2 22

KEISAN,

UNE

CITE

1 980.

( 1976)

2 44

K . ,

p .

" The

East

4 1-66,

Jordan

esp.

Valley

5 4-56.

* James, Francis W . THE Philadelphia: University

IRON AGE AT BETH of Pennsylvania,

23-30,

1 74-178.

1 13-139,

Kaplan,

1 49-150,

Yakov,

AVIV-YAFO,

THE

Tel

ARCHEOLOGY

Aviv:

Masada,

ARCHEOLOGICAL York:

Thomas ‚ "The

BA

3 5

"Tel Kelso, esp.

and

Shalaf,"

James,

p .

esp.

B IES

TEL

5 0-65.

p .

IN

esp.

THE

HOLY

LAND,

Aviv

and

New

1 13-119.

Archeology

6 9-95,

p .

,

1 967,

H ISTORY OF

1 959,

D ISCOVERIES

Cromwell,

History

( 1972)

AND

SHAN, 1 969,

of

Tel

Jaffo,"

77-82.

21

( 1957)

THE EXCAVATION

AT

,

p .

BETHEL,

2 02-203. AASOR

3 9

( 1963)

6 3-66.

p .

* Kochavi, M . "The History and Archeology of Aphek-Antipatris," BA 4 4-2 ( 1981) , p .75-86.

Lamon, of

S .

& Shipton,

Chicago,

Lapp,

MEGIDDO

I ,

Chicago:

University

1 939.

Nancy,

Liebowitz,

G .U.

H .

TELL EL

FUL-1964.

AASOR

Yina' am

Excavation,

IEJ

4 5,

1 982.

3 2

( 1982)

p .

,

64-65. * *

Loud,

Gordon,

of

Chicago,

1 1-1935-39.

Chicago:

University

1 948.

Macalister,

*

MEGGIDO

R .A.S.

GEZER

I-Ill,

London:

John

Murphy,

1912. McCown,

C.C.

TELL EN NASBEH

MacDonald,

*

London,

1 932.

McKenzie,

May,

Berkeley,

J . L.

BETH

1 947.

PELET

I I,

Mizpeh. BSAE

5 2,

Fara.

esp.

H. G.

Chicago:

& Starkey,

Duncan,

1911-1913. *

E .

I ,

" Excavations p .

MATERIAL

University

at

Ain

Shems,"

PEFA

41-94. REMAINS

of

OF

Chicago,

THE

MEGIDDO CULT,

1 935.

Figurines,

kernoi.

Mazar, A . EXCAVATION AT TELL QASILE, Hebrew University dissertation, Hebrew, published in English as EXCAVATIONS AT TEL QASILE, QEDEM 1 2, Jerusalem: HebreW -

-

University, 1 980. EXCAVATIONS AT -

-

Update 1985,

p .

on

TEL

QASILE

Qasile,

I I,

ASOR

Forthcoming

Newsletter

3 6/

Qedem

2 0.

4-5,

Mar.

1 5. "Giloh,

An

Early

I sraelite

2 45

Site

Near

Jerusalem,"

2 1

I EJ

( 1981)

Mazar,

A .

and

I sraelites at 8 9-97. Heb.

1 -36.

p .

,

Keim,

G . L.

" Canaanites,

Timna/Batash,"

" Timnah, A Biblical ARCHEOLOGY May-June 1 984, " Tel

Batash," Oren,

IEJ E .

Philistines

QADMONIOT

1 3

City i n the Sorek p . 5 8-59, 7 8-79. 3 2

( 1982)

" Tel

p .

,

and

Mazar, B . of Acre,"

" The Stratification of Tell Abu BASOR 1 24 ( 1951) , p. 2 1-25.

"The Excavation 1 25-140, 1 94-218. "The Naveh, ( 1962)

J . p .

,

Cities

*

IEJ

Negbi,

I EJ

1 6

Ohata, 1 970.

at

Ora, ( 1966)

a l 8

Dan,"

1 0

Mesad

p .

A .

87-100,

2 4

( 1974)

Huwam

on

t he

( 1960)

1 ( 1950), .

65-77;

p .

,

p.

H ashavyahu,"

I EJ

12

Archeological

1 65-171.

" Stratigraphy

of

Tell

Sippor,"

1 966,

1 967,

** Oren, E liezer, THE NORTHERN CEMETERY AT BETH Leiden: E .J. Brill, 1 973. Coffins and Pottery.

S I IAN,

‚

( 1973), ‚

BA

" Ziklag--A ( 1982)

Pachman, I ron

,

Dalia,

Petrie,

I-Ill,

2 2

( 1972),

Tokyo,

p .

1 67-169.

I EJ

23 -

Biblical

City

1 55-166.

Hebrew

on

the

Edge

of

the Negev,"

Sera.

Union College.

P lates

of

LB and

Dan.

John, A TOPOGRAPHICAL SURFACE SURVEY OF THE CITIES, Seabury Western Theological Seminary

dissertation,

Burial.

ZEROR

IEJ

p .

Pottery--Tel

Peterson, LEVITICAL

*

TEL

"Tel Sera," 2 51-254.

4 5-3

Bay

2 27-235. IEJ

An

W .F.

1 977. BETH

PELET

I

BSAE

4 8,

London, 1930.

Fara. ANCIENT

p .

,

1 60-173.

p .

Kiyoshi,

IEJ at

p .

,

Valley,"

IEJ

Qasile,

Muquanna--Ekron,

( 1958),

& Biran, ,

4 ( 1954)

Tel

" The Excavations 8 9-113.

"Khirbet Survey,"

of

Ma' aravim,"

I EJ

p .

1 52-154.

Mazar, A . 2 69-270.

"Gath-Gittaim,"

and

( 1980),

GAZA

1 -1V,

BSAE

2 46

5 3-56,

1 931-1934.

ANCIENT

GAZA

ANTHEDON Gaza,

esp.

BSAE

Alan,

1 1:1,

Philadelphia:

THE

London,

A jjul.

1 937.

4 3,

London,

FOUR CANAANITE

Small

s ites

near

University

1 928.

Jemmeh.

TEMPLES of

Pa..

OF

BETH

1 940.

SHAN

Figurines,

pottery.

Schaeffer,

C .F.A.

summary

4 13-422.

( 1984)

6 5.

Zuweyid.

Rowe,

Seger,

BSAE

S INAI,

GERAR,

kernoi,

V1

p .

ENKOMI-ALASIA

Joe,

"Tel

"The

Location 4 7-54.

p .

,

Sellers,

Halif,"

O . R.

of

IEJ

3 0,

Bibl i ca l

Sharia

or

I ,

Paris,

3 -4

1 952.

( 1980)

Z iklag,"

,

BA

English

p .

2 23-226.

4 7-1

Halif?

THE CITADEL OF

BETH

ZUR,

Philadelphia,

1 933. Shanks, Herschel, " Did I sraelite Sanctuary at Sukenik,

E .

"Jerishe,"

Tufnell, O lga, 1 940. LACHISH IV,

Oxford,

Ussishkin, TEL AVIV Van

( 1983) *

,

p .

Wampler,

Berkeley, Yadin,

1 958,

D .

G .

QDAP

4 ( 1934),

p .

p .

3 -5.

2 08-209.

LACHISH I I, THE FOSSE TEMPLE, Oxford, I II, THE IRON AGE, Oxford, 1 953. LACHISH To mbs

& coffins.

EXCAVATIONS

REPRINT

Beek,

the Philistines Destroy the Shiloh?" BAR 1 -2 ( 1975) ,

AT

TEL LACHISH,

1 973-1977.

COLLECTION.

"Digging

Up

Tel

Jemmeh,"

EN

NASBEH

ARCHEOLOGY

3 6

1 2-19. J .C.

TELL

I I,

THE

POTTERY,

1 947.

Yigael.

HAZOR

1 11-1V,

Jerusalem:

Magnes

Press,

1 961. Yeivin,

S .

IST

PRELIMINARY

REPORT

1 961.

2 47

ON

TEL

GAT,

Jerusalem,

V III.

METHODOLOGY

AND

ETHNIC

STUDIES

Adams, W . Y., " Invasion, 4 2 ( 1968), p . 1 94-215.

Diffusion,

Bikai,

REPORT

Patricia,

TYRE,

Arbor: University of migration. Carpenter, ( 1958) , p .

Microfilms,

OF

Evolution?"

AN EXCAVATION,

1 976.

Rhys, " Phoenicians 3 5-53.

in

Pottery

ANALYTICAL

ARCHEOLOGIST,

Ann

as

the West,"

* Clarke, David, ANALYTICAL ARCHEOLOGY, York:Columbia University Press, 1 978.

‚

ANTIQUITY

indicator

AJA

6 2

New

London:

Academic

P ress,

1 979. Cook,

R . M.

ANTIQUITY Davis, De in

" Archeological 3 4

( 1964),

R . H.C.

THE

Argument-Some

1 77-179.

p .

NORMANS

Vaux, Roland, "On J . Sandars, NEAR

AND

Fargo, I II,

Valerie,

F leming,

Andrew,

Culture," Franken,

in H .J.

MATHEMATICS 1 975.

SETTLEMENT

IN

of

Dissertation,

Chicago

"Models

Renfrew,

for

the

Problem

Fritsch, F . J. Populations,"

" The Sackers of Cities and in Crossland, MIGRATIONS,

Gerstenblith,

Patty,

Geva,

Shulamit,

Godfrey,

THE

Identification p .

LEVANT

MESOPOTAMIA

AND

DURING EB

of

the Wessex

In

Biblical

3 -11.

IN

MB

the p .

I AND

ANATOLIA,

Movement 2 33-243.

of

ITS

Harvard

1 977.

Pottery Types: A 1 09-112. Laurie,

Archeology,"

of

"Population

Changes

Proposal,"

PEQ

" Biological

AMERICAN

a s

Analogy,

3 7-45.

2 48

Reflected

July-Dec.

ANTHROPOLOGIST

i n

1 979,

p .

Diffusionism, 8 1

IN

1 979.

571-588.

p .

Jan.

1 976,

AND COMPUTORS

Development

EXPLANATION,

" The

Dissertation,

1 976.

p .64-82.

SOUTH PALESTINE

PEQ

WITH

London,

1 970,

Archeology,"

CONNECTION

burial.

THEIR MYTH,

Doubleday,

and Hodson, F . R. Cambridge, Mass.,

University

Dorian

Right and Wrong U ses of Archeology," EASTERN ARCHEOLOGY IN THE 20TH

CENTURY, Garden City, N .J.: Text-pottery co-ordination. Doran, J .E. ARCHEOLOGY,

Principles,"

( 1979)

,

p .

and

Grant, Michael, Scribner, 1 980,

THE ETRUSCANS, p 4-84, 2 35.

Haider, A lfred, Brill, 1 971. Hammond

N .G. L.,

6 78-713. Herr n, *

WHO

" Literary

Concerning

Gerhard,

Hodder,

THE

Ian,

ARCHEOLOGY,

WERE

and

THE

CELTS, Orton,

York:

AMORITES,

CAH

evidence New

York:

Clive,

Charles

Leiden:

Tradition,"

l iterary

Cambridge:

New

E .J.

1 1:2,

p .

for

LB

migrations.

St.

Martin's,

SPATIAL ANALYSIS

Cambridge

University

* Hodder, Ian, " Spatial Analysis of in SPATIAL ARCHEOLOGY ( D. Clarke, Press, 1 977, p . 2 23-342.

1 976. IN

Press,

Archeological Data," ed.), London: Academjc

I sserlin, B .S. J. " The I sraelite Conqu ' st of Canaan: Comparative View of the Arguments Applicable," PEQ July-Dec. 1 983, p . 8 5-94. Kamp,

Kathryn

Western ( 1981) ,

and

Yoffee,

Asia During p . 8 5-104.

the

Norman,

2nd

MacWhite,

Eoin,

" An

New

Boulder,

" The Hittites and ( 1974) , p . 3-10.

Orton, Clive, MATHEMATICS Collins and Sons, 1 980.

IN

the

IN

2 37

and

AMERICAN

Westview

B IBLICAL

Aegean

ARCHEOLOGY,

Pallottino, Massimo, THE ETRUSCANS, University of I ndiana, 1 975.

Ancient BASOR

Harcourt

Co.:

THE APPRAISAL OF ARGUMENT Leiden Ph. D. 1 976.

Muhley, James D . EXPEDITION 1 6-2

A

Archeological

Social Terms," p . 3-25.

MacQueen, J . G. THE H ITTITES, Press, 1 975, esp. 1 36-138.

in

B .C.,"

York:

I nterpretation of

Evidence in Historical and ANTHROPOLOGIST 5 8 ( 1956) ,

Martin, M .E. ARCHEOLOGY,

" Ethnicity

Millennium

Kroeber, Alfred, ANTHROPOLOGY, Bruce & World, 1 948.

1 976.

World,"

London:

Wm.

Bloomington,

Ind .:

Palmer, L . R. MYCENAEANS AND MINOANS, New York: Knopf, 1965. Linguistic change and archeology. *

P arr,

Peter

ARCHEOLOGY

IN

J . THE

Philips,

1 978,

Renfrew,

Coh n,

p .

" Pottery,

People,

and

LEVANT,

Warminster,

2 02-210.

Nabatean

TRANSFORMATIONS:

2 49

Politics," Eng.:

An s

&

ware.

MATHEMATICAL

APPROACHES

TO *

CULTURAL CHANGE, Renfrew,

Coh n,

New THE

York:

Academic

EXPLANATION OF

Press, CULTURE

CHANGE: MODELS IN PREHISTORY, Pittsburgh Press, 1 973.

Pittsburgh:

Rogers, Everett The Free Press,

M . DIFFUSION 1 962.

OF

I NVENTIONS,

Rouse, I rving, " The Inference Anthropological Evidence," in

of T .

Migration Thompson,

NEW WORLD CULTURAL H ISTORY, Arizona, 1 958, p . 6 3:68.

Tucson:

Jo, " Explanations p . 4 7-52.

Winter, Frederick Dorian I nvasion," New York: 6 0-71.

and

University

of

New York:

From MIGRATION

University

Smith, Grafton, THE MIGRATIONS OF EARLY Manchester, Eng.: Manchester University, diffusionist controversy. Watson, Patty EXPLANATION,

1 979.

I N

o f

CULTURE, 1 915. O ld

Models,"

in

R enfrew, -

A . "A Historically Derived Model for t he SYMPOSIUM ON THE DARK AGES IN GREECE,

Archeological

Institute

2 50

of

America,

1 977,

p .

CREDITS

FOR

DRAWINGS

I would l ike to thank the f ollowing authors and publishers f or permission to use the following d rawings, most of which are copyrighted. Complete publication i nformation about the sources i s contained i n the bibliography. F igure 1 : Macalister, B ritish Academy, 1 914.

The Philistines ' Argonaut r eprint,

p . 1 9-22. 1 965.

F igure 2 : T . Dothan, Philistine Material Culture Originally i n the Hebrew edition, this drawing a lso appeared i n the English edition, p. 6 . I srael Exploration Society a nd Yale U niversity. ( Ultimately f rom H . Nelson, M edinet Habu . P l. 4 4. Oriental I nstitute.)

University of

Chicago

F igures 3 : N . Sandars, The Sea P eoples, a lso f ig. 7 9, 9 3,94). Thames and Hudson. Wrezinski, Atlas ‚ P late 1 60)

Press,

The

F ig.68 ( Cf. ( Ultimately.from

F igure 4 : N . Sandars, The Sea P eople, F ig. 1 13. Thames and Hudson. ( Ultimately f rom Nelson, Medinet Habu, P l. 1 18c) F igures 5 & 6 : Nelson, Medinet H abu ‚ P l. 3 2, 3 7. U niversity of Chicago, The Oriental I nstitute. Via Dothan, Philistine Material Culture ' p . 8 , 1 0. Yale U niversity Press and I srael Exploration Society. F igure 7 a: BAR Apr. 1 982, p .27. U ltimately f rom L ibrary of Congress and Egypt Exploration Society. From Temple o f Amun at K arnak. F igure 7 b: BAR Apr. 1 982, p. 3 2. U ltimately from Wrezinski. F igure 7 c: Sandars, The Sea Peoples P l. 6 8. Thames and Hudson. U ltimately f rom Wrezinski. F igure 8 a: Hrouda, Kulturegeschichte des A ssyrischen F lachbildes, Tafel 5 1. Rudolf Habelt Verlag. A lso i n O lmstead, History of Assyria. U ltimately f rom Layard. The headdress i s an original drawing patterned after Hrouda. Figure 8b: BA F all 1 980, p. 2 22. U ltimately f rom Layard, Courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum. F igure 9 a, 9 b: BA Winter 1 981, p. 4 6, 4 8. Botta F landin, Monument de Nineve, 1 848, P l. 9 3, 9 4.

and

F igure 1 0: Original map, but modeled after Hencken, Tarquinia ‚ F ig. 4 96. American S chools of P rehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard.

2 51

F igures 1 1-17: T hese p lates are a daptations and r earrangements taken f rom numerous p lates o f Trude Dothar i's The Philistines and Their M aterial Culture, p 9 4-207. I srael Exploration Society and Yale University P ress. The main a rtists for the drawings of this volume were Judith Arnold, Jean Leger, and Esther Huber. F igure 1 8: This i s an original map which i s an updating o f t he s imilar map i n Dothan, English edition, p . 2 6. Where n ames are c lustered c lose together the p lacement o f the dot i s sometimes approximate, r ather than precise. F igure 1 9: Excavations

These drawings are adapted f rom H . J. F rancken, at Deir A lla, P l. 4 7, 5 1, 5 2. E . J. B rill Co.

F igure 2 0a: Petrie, B eth Pelet I ‚ P l. XXIV ( Tomb 5 62). British School of Archeology i n Egypt. F igure 2 0b: Sandars, The Sea P eoples, F ig. 9 3. T hames and Hudson. ( After Medinet Habu P l. 9 8) F igure 2 0c&d: Oren, Northern Cemetery at Beth S han, P l. 5 3:4, 5 2:2. E .J. Brill. F igure 2 0e: Drawn f rom a photo i n Leclant, Orientalia 4 0 ( 1971) , Taf. 8 . F igure 2 1a: E . Oren, The Northern Cemetery at B eth Shan. E . J . Brill. F igure 2 1b: D ikaios, Enkomi l IlA, P l. 1 87, F ig. 1 9(184). Verlag Philip von Z abern. F igure 2 1c: Dothan, English, p. 2 77. I srael Exploration Society and Yale University Press. This f igure h as been widely published. The original s eems to go back t o Murray and Walter, Excavation i n Cyprus ‚ 1 900. P l. I , f ig. 1 9. F igure 2 2a: J . Borchardt, Homerische Helme ‚ T afel 1 6. No. RS 6 0 2 2, 2 53. Verlag Philip von Z abern, Mainz. F igure 2 2b&c: Gardiner, Onomastica ' p . 2 03. Oxford U niversity Press.. F igure 2 2d: Max Mueller, Asien und Europa p . 3 66. Wilhelm Engelman. 1 893. F igure 2 2e: Petrie, Beth P elet I P l. XL. Tomb 2 01. B ritish S chool of Archeology i n Egypt. F igure 2 2f: Megiddo I vory PAM 3 8.780, Original M egiddo I vories P l. 4 :2b. U niversity of Chicago, The Oriental I nstitute. F igure 2 2g: McQueen, The Hittites . F ig. 6 1. Westview Press and Thames and Hudson. F igure 2 2h: Pritchard, I ron Age F igurines Fig. 6 . American Schools o f Oriental Research. F igure 2 2i: Sandars, The Sea P eoples . F ig. 9 0. Thames and Hudson. ( Ultimately f rom Wrezinski, P l. 1 60b, or Medinet Habu, P l. 3 5.) F igure 2 3: These p lans are edited and condensed f rom McDonald, Beth Pelet I I ‚ fold out p lan, & Petrie, Beth P elet I ‚ P l. LXIV. British School of Archeology i n Egypt.

2 52

F igure 2 4: The l arge " Shardana Sword" i s f rom the H ebrew edition o f Dothan. I srael Exploration Society. The upper row of weapons i s f rom J . T . Hooker, The Mycenaeans . Routledge & K egan Paul. The bottom row i s adapted f rom S andars, The Sea Peoples ‚ F ig 1 08-110. Thames a nd Hudson. F igure

2 5a:

H encken

Tarquinia

‚

'

p .

5 37.

F ig.

4 86.

American S chools of Prehistoric R esearch, Bulletin 2 3,Peabody Museum. Original drawing courtesy of E . Vermeule, University of Chicago. F igure 2 5b: Drawn 1 12 ( GVII 5 51) p. Nordisk Forlag.

from Riis, Hama I I ‚ F ig. 2 7 and Motif 9 7. Copenhagen. G lydendalse Boghandel

Figure 2 5c & d : W achsmann, I JNA 1 0 ‚ P . 1 99, 2 01. Figure 2 5e-h: Hencken, Tarquinia ' p . 5 16, 5 69. American Schools o f Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 2 3, Peabody Museum. Copyright 1 968 by the President and Fellows o f Harvard College. Figure 2 6a: Exploration

A . Mazar, Society.

Qedem

1 2

‚

F ig.

1 8.

I srael

Figure 2 6b-d: Sandars, The Sea P eoples, F ig 1 16. and Hudson. ( Originals: H . Dothan, A shdod I I-III, 91. Cypriote Museum A 39. Mylonas, Aegean and Near P l. X III.)

Thames P 1. East ‚

Figure 2 7a: S andars, The Sea Peoples, F ig. 1 12. Thames and Hudson. U ltimately from Catling, A lasia I . Figure 2 7b: Drawing based on D ikaios, Enkomi l ilA, P late 1 40, drawing by G . W. P atten. Verlag Philip von Zabern. Figure 2 7c,d: S chaeffer, A lasia I ' p . 5 12, F ig. 5 , p . 518, Fig. 7 . Drawing by L . Courtois. Courtesy of Mrs. Schaeffer. Figure 2 8a: 87. F ig. 1 .

Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery Royal Academy Stockholm.

Chronology

'

p .

Figure 2 8b-d: Dothan, English, p . 2 39,243. I srael Exploration Society and Yale University Press. Figure 2 9: A ll f rom Dothan, English, p . 2 39-243, ( Yale University Press a nd I srael Exploration Society) except figures 3 and 4 which are from Oren, Northern Cemetery Beth Shan, ‚ P l. 5 0. E . J . Brill Leiden. Figure 3 0a,b: Adapted f rom D . Packard, Fig. 1 , P . 1 1. University of California of C alifornia at B erkeley. Figure 3 0c: Francken, Figure 3 0d: I EJ 2 8 Kochavi, Tel Aviv 4

VT 1 4 3 1. and i s

p .

Minoan Press,

Linear A , University

' p . 3 78. E .J. Brill. The original i s f rom H . u sed with h is permission.

2 53

at

The pottery graphs pertaining t o F ara, Megiddo, and Beth S han a re adapted f rom the dissertation o f Thomas M cClellan and are u sed with h is permission. T he graphs pertaining t o I zbet S artah and Tell Qasile are adapted f rom m aterial p resented i n the dissertations of Amihai Mazar and I srael F inkelstein, which they were kind e nough to l et me use.

2 54

EN DNO TES A Roman numeral following a footnote i ndicates t he s ection o f the b ibliography i n which t he f ull reference i s f ound. These are used only when deemed necessary. For e xample, i n the e ndnotes to the chapter on burials t he e ndnotes a re t agged with a Roman numeral only when the m ain reference does not appear i n the burial s ection o f t he bibliography. Book t itles are f requently shortened i n t he endnotes. F or abbreviations o f p eriodicals s ee t he chart of abbreviations. E NDNOTES TO CHAPTER S ee Bibliography I . 1 See Culture,

I ,

L ITERARY

Dothan, T he Philistines p . 1 3-16, for a brief

SOURCES

and Their a ccount.

Material Beck's

d issertation, The I nternational Role of the Philistines i n t he Biblical P eriod, provides a more detailed treatment. T admor' s a rticles in BA 2 9 ( 1966), p. 8 6-103, and JCS 1 2 ( 1958) , p. 7 7-83, provide i nformation on the l ate p eriod. 2 4 80

The O ld Testament reports that the Exodus occurred years before t he building of Solomon's Temple ( I K ings

6 :1) and that I srael's 1 2:40) . Taken at face end of the patriarchal the Septuagint reading

stay i n Egypt l asted 4 30 years ( Ex. value, these dates would p lace the period i n the 1 9th century B .C. I f of Exodus 1 2:40, which i ncludes the

patriarchal period i n the 4 30 years, i s adopted, the 1 9th century would be t he beginning of the patriarchal period. Various attempts have been made t o connect the patriarchs with a rcheological history. A lbright a ssociated the patriarchs with MB I . De Vaux t ended toward MB I I. Cyrus Gordon f avored LB. A lt, Noth, Thompson and Van S eters are among those s ceptical o f any basic historicity of the patriarchal accounts. A full discussion of the question i s beyond the s cope of this study. For a r ecent bibliography of the question s ee Hayes and Miller, I sraelite and Judean History, p . 9 2-93 and the discussion on pages 7 0-212 of the s ame work. S ee a lso Rainey, BASOR 2 51 ( 1983) , p .5. I t i s not possible to d ate the patriarchal age by archeological means, s o the date which an i ndividual chooses will depend on his view of t he patriarchal accounts i n the O ld Testament. 3 I Kings 6 :1 p laces the Exodus 4 80 years before t he t ime of Solomon. The Jephthah account ( Judges 1 1:26) p laces I srael's s ettlement in the Transjordan 3 00 years before the t ime o f Jephthah which was probably around 1 100 B .C. See F ritz, B ASOR 2 41, p . 7 1 on the i dea of I srael's " migration" being a s early as the 1 5th Century. He of course uses this t erm i n a different s ense t han the O ld Testament does. 2 55

4 Hayes and M iller, I sraelite a nd Judean History, p rovides a bibliography and summary o f recent thought about t he nature and date of the Exodus and Conquest on p ages 2 13-285. S ee a lso Weippert, T he Settlement o f the I sraelite Tribes, 1 971; Fritz, B R 2 41 ( 1981j p . 6 1-75; B . Mazar, BASOR 2 41, p . 7 5-86; A . Mazar, I EJ 3 1 ( 1981), p . 1 , 3 2-36; C . Meyers, BASOR 2 52 ( 1983), 4 7-60; Mendenhall, BA 2 5 ( 1962) ' p . 6 6 7; and I sserlin, " The I sraelite Conquest of Canaan: A Comparative View o f t he Arguments Applicable." PEQ July-Dec. 1 983, p . 85-94. There are three mdjor i nterpretations of the n ature o f I srael's s ettlement. Mendenhall's i dea of the " conquest" a s an i nternal revolt did not receive widespread acceptance, but Meyers' a rticle points o ut that a s ociological approach to the s ettlement o f the t ribes o f I srael i s gaining f avor. The A lt/Noth model of p eaceful i nfiltration s eems to be more widely accepted today than A lbright's military conquest model. There a re many varieties and r ecombinations of these three basic v iews s ince m any s cholars believe that t here i s an e lement of t ruth i n a ll of them. S cholars who accept the same model, such a s t he peaceful i nfiltration m odel, may nevertheless d iffer on the date and duration of t he settlement p rocess. Writers who s trongly defend a d ate in the 1 5th century generally begin their argument on t he basis of date given in I K ings 6 :1. They then interpret t he

the

archeological evidence i n such a way a s to harmonize with this date. They explain terms which appear to p lace the Exodus i n the 1 3th century, such a s the city of R aamses i n Exodus 1 :11, as editorial updatings s imilar to t he one i n Genesis 4 7:11, rather than as evidence that I srael w as i n Egypt during the 1 9th or 2 0th Dynasties. B imson's Redating the Exodus and Conquest ( Eisenbraun's, 1 981) i s a recent version of t his minority v iew. Dating the s ettlement to the 1 3th or 1 2th Centuries B .C. i s based on i nterpreting the p attern o f occupation and the destructions at cities in P alestine and the Transjordan at the end of the Late B ronze Age and t he establishment of new s ettlements in t he hill country at the t ransition f rom the Late Bronze t o I ron Age. 5 There are arguments and counterarguments every point of t he discussion, so t hat there

for a lmost i s no

decisive archeological evidence for f ixing t he time or reality of the I sraelite conquest. S ee I sserlin' s a rticle i n the p receding note on t he difficulty of demonstrating i nvasions archeologically. M iller c oncludes that a part f rom the appearance o f P hilistine Ware, no one would conclude f rom the material remains t hemselves that newcomers entered P alestine f rom the outside at any particular t ime during LB or I ron I . The one thing t hat can be s aid with confidence i s that t he process by w hich 2 56

I srael

g ained

I sraelite M azar, I EJ

possession

and 3 1

o f

t he

J udean H istory, p . 3 6.)

l and p .

r emains

2 55,

2 79

unclear. .

S ee

a lso

6 The S eptuagint p laces the Shamgar i ncident i n Judges 1 6:31 suggesting a l ater date than the MT p lacement i n J udges 3 , but this appears to be an a rtificial a rrangement t o connect the i ncident with the S amson s tory. 7

Bibliography on Shamgar ben Anat: Boling, Anchor B ible, Judges, p . 8 8-89. Maisler, PEQ 6 6 ( 1934) P. 1 92-194 on the Hurrian o rigin of the name. Albright, JPOS 1 ( 1921) , p. 5 8-62. Fensha r n, JNES 2 0-3 ( 1961) , p. 1 97-198. Craigie, JBL 9 1 ( 1972) , p .239-240. Danelius, JNES 2 2-3 ( 1963), p. 1 91-194.

a lleged

The f irst i ssue i s whether the name Shamgar i s a H urrian name r elated to the name S himig-ari or whether s ome other derivation should be sought. The s econd i ssue i s whether " ben Anat" designates Shamgar's hometown, p erhaps the B eth Anat i n Galilee, or whether i t marks him a s a member of a m ilitary group devoted to the goddess A nat. There does not s eem to be decisive evidence to s ettle e ither question. 8 Donner and Roellig, KAI I I, p . 1 99, provides the o riginal t ext. P ritchard, The Ancient Near East I I, p .12, provides an English t ranslation. S ee Chapter X on l anguage f or further examples of such t exts. 9 The f irst chapter of Dothan's The Philistines and T heir Material Culture provides many examples of this t ype of Aegean connection. The s ame tendency i s strongly p resent i n the s ections on the Philistines i n Aharoni's, T he Land of the B ible, and The Archeology o f the Land o f I srael. I ndivival examples will be d iscussed i n the a ppropriate chapters o f this dissertation. 1 0

J .

S trange,

Caphtor-Keftieu,

A New

I nvestigation,

1 980. 1 1

1 2

Wainwright, VT articles l isted The

l oss

o f

6 in

the

e xplained a s normal K itchen i n Wiseman,

( 1956) , p . 1 99-210, the bibliography. ' r'

from

Egyptian P eoples

Kaptara

to

and

his

K eftiu

phonetic decay o f OT, p . 7 0,

other

can

be

a ccording fn. 6 .

P rincipal sources on the Caphtor/Keftiu debate: Strange, Caphtor-Keftiu, A New I nvestigation. Wainwright, JEA 1 7 ( 1931) , p .26-43, JHS 5 1 ( 1931) p . 1 -38. Edel, Ortsnamen, e sp. p. 5 3-56, 6 6. K itchen in Wiseman, P eoples o f the OT,

2 57

p .54

t o

Vercoutter, Essai, p . 6 1-75, 9 5-127. Vercoutter, Le Egypte et l e Monde Egeen. Vermeule, Bronze Age Greece, p. 1 48, 3 40. Strange f avors the i dentification with Cyprus, Wainwright with Cappodocia, the rest with Crete. 1 3

J . Strange, Caphtor-Keftieu, 1 980, p. 1 09.

A New

I nvestigation,

1 4 The tombs of S enmut and Rekhmare a re two o f t he chief s ources of K eftiu pictures. T hese p ictures a re reproduced i n many works i ncluding Mueller, Egyptological Researches, P l. 3 -7, p . 1 2-18, and the s ources l isted i n note 1 2. The topographic l ist of Edel, Ortsnamen, p . 6 6 and Wise 1nan, Peoples of t he OT,

Amenophis I II can be f ound i s mentioned by Kitchen in p . 5 4.

1 5 See the works of Wainwright and Strange i n note 1 2 the most comprehensive p resentations o f t he arguments against the i dentification of Caphtor with Crete.

i n

f or

1 6 On the Ugaritic u sage s ee Astour, Hellenosemitica, p . 1 07,110, 1 37. The main t ext i s RS 1 6.238. A stour believes that the U garitic K aptar i s Crete. He a lso discusses the 1 8th Century usage at Mari on p. 1 43, 3 27, 3 48. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends p . 5 5, maintains that the U garitic kptr i s probably not Caphtor/Crete. 1 7 S ee the definition o f K retim i n Gesenius' a nd Brown, Driver, Briggs' s tandard l exicons. Etymologies based on the root krh, meaning " dig," " trade," o r " bring" or on the root krt ( cut) with the meaning of " executioners" or " exiles" have been suggested. The renderings r eflect the great confusion about this t erm the t ime o f this t ranslation.

LXX at

P elethites has been explained a s coming f rom a n a lleged root o f = meaning " swift" or "messengers," but the I i nterchange i s not convincing. 1 8

Ethiopic: Gesenius,

1 9

Seeligman, p. 8 1, 8 7. D eVaux, L a S eptante,

2 0

S eeligman,

S eeligman, The Septuagint, Hebrew Lexicon, p . 6 77.

p .

8 1,

p .

footnote

2 8.

1 85ff.

8 7.

2 1 The various theories of the p rocess o f t ranslation by which t he S eptuagint was created a re d iscussed i n S . Jellicoe, The S eptuagint and Modern Study, Oxford, 1 968, especially p . 6 9, 2 70. I t i s usually held t hat J oshua was

2 58

a dded

to

t he

P entateuch

i n

a nd that Judges i s l ater Geography of t he LXX."

the

early

work.

A lso

s tages s ee

o f

t ranslation

Redpath,

" The

On t he tendency of books of the Septuagint t o be d ivided f or t ranslation or copying s ee Thackeray, " The B isection of Books i n P rimitive LXX Manuscripts," Journal o f Theological S tudies 9 , ( 1907-1908), p. 8 8-98. Both these factors would weaken the force of the argument concerning the t ime o f change i n the t ranslation of the n ame Philistines. 2 2 It i s not agreed whether the conjuction vav before t he word " Avvites" at the end of verse 3 i ntroduces an additional i tem o r i s explanatory. The Jerusalem B ible i nterprets the f ollowing phrase a s an additional i tem. " This i s the country r emaining: A ll the regions o f the Philistines and t he whole country of the Geshurites . .the l and i s counted a s Canaanite. ( The f ive chiefs of the Philistines are t hose of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron; The Avvites are i n the South. )" However, the N IV t ranslat e s i t a s explanatory. " The territory o f the f ive P hilistine rulers i n Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron-- t hat of t he Avvites." .

2 3 Various interpretations o f this obscure passage are d iscussed by M .J. Mulder, " I Chronik 7 :21b-23 und die r abbinsche Tradition," Journal for the Study of Judaism 6 -2 ( Dec. 1 975) p. 1 41-166. 2 4 Josephus, Bk.I, ch. VI.) 2 5 the a re 3 4.

Complete Works,

p .31.

( Antiquities,

The Genesis commentary by Koenig gives an example o f Mt. Casios i nterpretation. Those of Keil and Delitzsch among the supporters of the Colchis theory. S ee note

2 6 The Genesis c ommentary of Procksch Cyrenica theory. Cassuto supports the See note 3 4. 2 7 This t ranslation appears t reatment of this passage in Genesis.

supports the Scylace theory.

to originate from the Anchor Bible

Speiser's volume on

2 8 This i dentification, f irst suggested by Dhorme, s ince been followed by many others. ( See Ross, B ibliotheca Sacra 5 49 ' p .31, note 1 0.)

has

2 9 Speiser argues that the t ext must be l ate, f rom a fter the assimilation o f t he Philistines. ( Anchor Bible Genesis, p . 6 3) , but one could j ust a s well argue that the text must be e arly, f rom the t ime when the P hilistines were

still

under

E gyptian

i nfluence.

2 59

3 0 Speiser, 1DB I II, P . 2 36. Two of the weaknesses of Speiser's approach are too much confidence in the superiority of our modern distinction of " Hamitic" and " Semitic" groups on purely l inguistic grounds. See 1 DB I II p . 2 38, where he says l anguage i s the only dependable method of ethnic classification which i s capable o f scientific

control.

This

is

an

oversimplification

basis for c lassifying ethnic groups. much on a distinction between t ß ) and a lways reliable. Compare his view i n 1 57-163,

with

TDOT

3 1 For I srael' s differences among " Canaanite" differences 3 2

D . J.

see see

p .

'

Deut. 3 :9. On Jer. 1 3:23.

around

maintains 2000

B .C.

the

a lso depends too which i s not JBL 7 9 ( 1960), p .

426-433.

awareness of groups which

Wiseman

s ituation

2

of

He

l inguistic or dialectic were c lassified as their

that

the

Aharoni

awareness

t ext and

of

r acial

reflects

Piperov

the

are

among

those supporting a 1 3th century date as the setting of the text. Speiser, Von Rad and others f avor a date l ate i n the monarchy. See note 34. 3 3 of

Simons' those

who

"non-core"

" The

Table

seek

to

sources

of

Nations"

e liminate

which

Allen

Ross,

"The

an

contradict his

interpretation. Speiser, Von tendency to divide the text. see notes 3 4 and 3 5. 3 4

i s

Table

example

difficulties

by

those

geographic

Rad, and others On the unity of

of

o f

deleting

Nations

in

follow the the table

Genesis

1 0,"

Bibliotheca Sacra 5 48 & 5 49 p . 3 40-353 & 2 2-34, i s the most helpful study and offers a very extensive bibliography in his notes. I have derived the most from his study. Speiser's treatment of the text in the Genesis

Volume

article in influential Other Nations,"

of

the

Anchor

1DB I II ' p . treatment.

Bible,

235-243

are

important articles -are J . Oudtestamentische Studien

p .

6 4-74

perhaps

and his

the

most

Simons, "The Table 1 0, ( 1954) , p .

1 55-84, Piperov, "Die a lte Ethnographie des Orients der Bibel, Gen. 1 0:1-30," Jhrb. Der Theologische

nach

Facultaet Sofia, 1 948, p. 1-113, Wiseman, " Genesis 1 0:Some Archeological Considerations," 9 5th General Ordinary Meeting of the Victoria Institute, 1 954, p . 1 4-24. See also Aharoni, Land of the Bible, p . 8 , 7 5, 8 3, 8 5. Commentaries Commentary Jacob, Das Genesis

which

are

especially

useful

are

of

8 2,

Cassuto,

on Genesis, Heinisch, Das Buch Genesis, and Erste Buch Der Torah, Genesis. See a lso the

commentaries

Procksch, Skinner, bibliography.

of

Driver,

Westermann,

2 60

Delitzch, and

Von

Rad

Keil, i n

Koenig,

the

main

3 5 Commentators who analyze the t ext a s a unit i nclude C assuto, Ross, Jacob, Wiseman and t o a l esser degree A haroni. S ee note 3 4. S ee a lso J .P. Fokkelmann, N arrative Art i n G enesis, Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1 975, p . 2 . 3 6

See

note

3 2.

3 7 On t he s econd millennium " Caphtor" s ee note 1 3. On the 1 3th Century B .C. s ee Wiseman,

character o f the n ame emergence o f Tyre a fter " Genesis 1 0," p. 2 1.

t he

3 8 Strictly s peaking the Philistines a re not part o f t his table. T he r eference to the Philistines i s an e xplanatory note t o the term Casluhim. There are s eventy n ames in t he l ist without the Philistines, and there are s even names i n the Casluhim group without t he Philistines. T his pattern o f s even in a group appears e lsewhere i n the t able. 3 9 Several r eference by evidence f or 4 0

Compare on page

recent English t ranslations r emove emending the text, but there i s no t his. I S amuel 1 8 with the Egyptian 1 7 o f this dissertation.

this manuscript

custom described

4 1 On the subject o f circumcision among I srael's n eighbors s ee DeVaux, Ancient I srael, Eng. p. 4 6, F r. p. 7 8-82. J . S asson, JBL 8 5 ( 1966) , p .473-476. C . de Wit, Z AS 9 9-1 ( 1972) ' p . 4 1-48. T . R einach, Anthropologie 4 ( 1893) p. 2 8-31. E . Meyer, Z AT 2 9 ( 1909) , p. 1 52. For a representation M egiddo I vory i n F ig. 2 0 I vories, P l. 4 :28/

of Canaanite circumcision s ee the or the l arger original, Meggido

4 2 Even i f the Philistines are c lassified with the Egyptian group i n Genesis 1 0, it does not follow that I srael a lways would have c lassified them with this group. I f t he s etting o f the table i s actually the s econd m illennium a s we h ave s uggested, i t could reflect the time when l imited numbers of Sea People were i n southwest P alestine s erving a s Egyptian garrisons, before a l arger i nflux at the t ime of Ramses I II. 4 3

Breastad,

4 4

Wrezinski, This i s the

Vol.

I II,

p .

1 36,

A tlas, P lates b est source o f

1 38,

1 41.

8 :20, 9 /1 0 :19. p lates for R amses

I I.

4 5 The n ames o f a lmost a ll o f these p eoples have been t ransliterated i nto Egyptian and i nto English i n s everal d ifferent ways. I have generally u sed t he versions o f

2 61

Breastad s ince h is work i s the most r eadily available English collection o f a ll o f t he t exts. H is t ransliterations o f these n ames are f ound i n his t reatment o f t he M ernepthah t exts, Vol. I II, p. 2 43-250, 2 55-256. The versions of the names i n f igure 1 are f rom Macalister, T he. P hilist ines, p. 1 9-22. No attempt has been m ade to f ollow a consistent spelling o f these n ames throughout t he paper. The t ext most often uses the s pelling adopted by the source which i s being discussed a t that point o f the paper. Normally there i s no difficulty r ecognizing the variants. 4 6

Breastad,

Vol.

I II,

p .

2 49.

4 7

Breastad,

Vol.

I II,

p .

2 49

way

Mueller i nterprets the custom i n t he exact opposite on p. 3 0 of Egyptological Researches. The

( note

c ircumcision of the Ekwesh raises i dentification as Achaean Greeks. World History,

a ),

p .

q uestions

4 8

Malamat,

4 9

Edgerton and Wilson, Historical B reastad, I V, p. 2 4-25.

2 47

( note

about

h ).

t heir

p .32. R ecords,

p .

3 0-31.

5 0 The L ibyan War i s depicted i n N elson's, Medinet Habu, P lates 1 3-26. A ll p late numbers i n t his d iscussion are r eferences t o Nelson, Medinet Habu. F igure numbers refer to the i llustrations within this dissertation. 5 1

See

Edgerton

and Wilson,

p .

1 4,

note

2 4a.

5 2 The t ranslation of t hese t exts i n Edgerton and Wilson H istorical Records of Ramses I II, p . 3 5-58, i s co-ordinated with P lates 2 9-46 of t he reliefs which are reproduced i n Nelson's Medinet Habu I & I I. Page a nd p late numbers i n this discussion a re f rom t hese t wo works. The Egyptian texts are i n K itchen's R amesside I nscriptions, Volume 5 . 5 3 See Edgerton Cilicia. Yereth Syria. Yeres i s

and Wilson, p. 5 3, f n 1 79. Kode i s i s probably Arzawa i n C ilicia o r A rvad probably A lashiya/Cyprus.

5 4

Gardiner, Breastad,

Onomasticon, p . Vol. I II, p. 1 43.

5 5

Edgerton

and

Wilson,

p .41.

5 6

Edgerton

and

Wilson,

p .

5 7

Edgerton

and

Wilson,

p .42.

3 1,

5 8 Breastad, Vol. IV, p. 2 01. substitutes the Sherden for the H abu

t exts. 2 62

1 87-190.

note

5 3a.

Note t hat Shekelesh

t his p apyrus o f the M edinet

i n

5 9

Sources o f P ritchard,

t he T he

A zitawaddda t ext: Ancient Near East

I ,

2 15-216,

p .

E nglish. Donner and Roellig, Text 2 6, Phoenician. For t he i sles of the Danuna reference s ee Ancient R ecords I I, P . 2 73. discussion o f the " Sicel of t his d issertation.

6 0

See t he page 3 0

6 1

Edgerton

and

Wilson,

p .

6 2

Edgerton

and

W ilson,

p .56.

6 3

B reastad,

6 4

Edgerton and W ilson, Historical Records p . 3 0-31. Breastad, I V, p . 2 4-25. I would l ike t o thank Sarah Groll of Hebrew University f or d iscussing the t exts with me.

I V,

Letter"

Luckenbill,

on

3 5.

p .201.

6 5

Edgerton a nd Wilson, p .130, P l. 1 07. This t ext could be translated " . . . the T jekker of the f latlands, the P hilistines. . . rather than . . . the T jekker, the f latland of the Philistines. . . a s I have chosen. The t erm f latlands i s therefore associated with either the T jekker or Philistines, the two peoples who are described with l ocal geographic references i n the records of R amses I II. S ee the comments i n Goedicke's Wen Amon, p . 2 8, 1 75, for t he u se of T jekker a s a geographic t erm. "

"

"

6 6

B reastad, I V, p. 4 2 E dgerton and W ilson,

6 7

F or s ee

6 8

Muhley, Berytus W ainwright, J EA

p .

bibliography of the notes 1 18 and 1 29. 1 9 4 7

1 46,147. Sea

( 1970) ( 1961)

Peoples

p .

p .

and

1 9-64. .

4 6

6 9

G ardiner, Onomasticon, p . 2 06-208 E rman, Vol. I II, 1 1; I I, 2 27. N ibbi, Sea P eoples, p . 5 1-58. V ercoutter, E ssai p . 3 7-47.

7 0

E dgerton

7 1

Wainwright, J HS 5 1 ( 1951) , p . 1 -38. F or Palestinian kilts s ee Medinet Habu,

7 2

B reastad,

and W ilson,

I II,

p .

Greeks

p .111.

2 46.

2 63

p late

9 9.

7 3

Zeuner, History p . 2 36-240.

of

Domesticated

Animals,

S ave-Soderbergh, Private Tombs, Helck, 1 979, P . 1 41, fn. 4 2. 7 4 For the Palestinian

p .

2 5-27,

P l.

2 3.

s imilarity of the Philistine women a nd other women see Helck, 1 962, p. 3 47 and Helck, 1 979,

p . 1 41-142. the preceding

See a lso p lates in Wrezinski period esp. P I 2 66.

Atlas

from

7 5

Wrezinski, Atlas, P lates 5 :58, 6 :43, 7 :155-156. Note a lso the striking similarity of this figure to

the The

Sixth Century Etruscan cup opposite page 240 Etruscans. This i s probably co-incidental.

7 6

Pritchard,

ANET,

p .

of

2 5-29.

The Egyptian text can be found i n A . Gardiner, Egyptian Stories. A study of the text i s provided Goedicke, Report of Wen Amun, 1 975. 7 7

On

the

theory

of

commercial

Phoenicia see the footnote Dothan, English, p . 4-5. 7 8

For

p . 1 66, 7 1, P .

non-Semitic

For

Semitic

7 9

Gardiner,

8 0

M .

8 1

Gardiner,

see

3 1

p .

( 1981)

Onomasticon,

Steindorf,

JEA

2 5

p . p .

,

P .

( 1939)

,

p .

p .

World

Amon,

2 7

and

and

H istory, &

p .

JAOS

32-34.

1 10.

2 01. 3 0.

p .

Gardiner,

Onomasticon,

p .

1 94.

8 3

Gardiner,

Onomasticon,

p .

1 95.

For an evaluation of the Ramses I II see Faulkner,

Philistia

5 13, fn 4 , 1 72-174. Wen

by

1 90-204.

8 2

8 4 of

ANET,

Goedicke,

Onomasticon, IEJ

between

see Mazar,

CAH I I : 2, 5 4 ( 1950) ‚

origin

Dothan,

ties

Pritchard

derivation

and A lbright, 2 59-262, AJA

Grant,

historical value of CAH I I, p .241-244.

t he

texts

After the text of this study had been completed, an article by L . Lesko in Serapis 6 ( 1980) , p. 86, came to my attention. He a lso challenges the historical reliability of Ramses I II's historical records. 8 5

For

of

the Hittites and Ugarit Hooker, Myc. Greece,

discussion

of

the

Seapeoples' see: Ch.

7

B . Mazar, BASOR 2 42 ( 1981) Lehman, UF 2 , p .39-73. Desborough,

Last

Astrom,

IViD,

SCE

,

Mycenaeans, p .

7 60-781.

2 64

a lleged

p . P .

7 9 2 07.

destruction

Schaeffer, B AR 9 -5 ( French o ri gi nal

( 1983), i n U g.

P .

V .

7 4 75. p .768)

Heilbing, A lasia, p . 9 0. Tadmor, " The Decline of Empires ASOR Symposia, p . 1-14 Karageorghis, K ition, Dothan, English, p. 2 90.

i n

Western

A sia,"

i n

. 8 1.

p .

8 6 Most of the A kkadian originals of t hese t exts are i n U garitica V . The p late and page references i n the f ollowing discussion and notes are t o this volume. The t ranslation and extensive discussion i n this volume i s i n F rench. Some of t he t exts are t ranslated i nto English i n L inder' s dissertation. The following notes l ist the r egistration number from Ugariticia V , the page in Linder, a nd the p age i n U garitica V . 8 7

Text R S20:238. p .383, 8 7.

8 8

Text p .

8 9

Text p .

9 0

Linder,

RSL1.

6 2.

p .

Ugaritica

V ,

Ugaritica V ,

L inder,

p .

6 9.

Ugaritica

V ,

8 5.

RS20;162.

9 1,

2 5.

p .

8 3-85.

3 83,

Text p .

RS20:18.

3 82,

L inder,

Linder,

p .

6 6.

U garitica

V ,

1 14.

9 1 Text RS20:33. The Akkadian t ext, French t ranslation, a nd summary are i n Ugaritica V 1 p . 3 80-381, 6 8-76, 6 89-690. The t ext i s discussed at l ength i n other s ections of Ug. V . 9 2

On

the

kiln date

9 3

Text

9 4

Lehmann,

9 5

Text 2 014 ( UT 3 11). An.Or. 3 8, M . Dothan, A shdod I I, p .18.

9 6

Hooker, The Mycenaeans, P . 1 55-162. Helck, 1 979 p. 1 41. Goedicke, Wen Amun, P . 1 80. Hankey, Archeologie, p . 1 71. Strange, Caphtor, p . 1 59. See a lso material i n note 8 5.

9 7

S chaeffer, U garitica V , p . 7 68. i n BAR 9 -5 ( 1983) , p .74-75.

RS34:129, U F

X I,

s ee UF

X ,

CAH p .

1 12,

1 45-147.

p .

8 5-86.

p .481-494.

9 8 A ll Amarna r eferences are cited numbers u sed i n K nudtzon's standard s upplemental volume by R ainey.

2 65

p .

6 *.

English

t ranslation

by the standard edition and the

EA

9 9 A lbright, AJA " sherda" a s a word H ebrew mw . S ee

5 4 ( 1950) , p . 1 67, note 1 8. H e reads meaning s ervitor, p arallel t o t he Dothan, English, p .1.

1 00

For different views on Abdi-Ashirta a nd the M ishi s ee the note i n K nudtzon, EA I I, P . 1 197-1198, S aeve-Soederbergh, 1 8th Dynasty Navey, p . 6 3-68. Lambdin, JCS 7 ( 1953) , p. 7 5-77. Moran, E I 1 1 ( 1969) , p . 9 4-100.

1 01

Lambdin,

1 02

S ee the l etters

1 03

Na'aman,

1 04

A lbright,

JCS

7

( 1953)

7 5-77.

p .

,

chart of I ndo-European n ames f rom t he Amarna i n Helck, 1 969, map b efore the index. h F

1 1

CAH

( 1979) 1 1-2,

,

p .

6 76-684.

1 09.

p .

1 05 Luckenbill, Ancient Records, p . 1 66, 1 89. F or most of the Assyrian texts references w ill be t o the E nglish t ranslations i n Luckenbill's collection. Akkadian references are provided there. Akkadian references or additional English references will be given where necessary. -

1 06

Luckenbill,

I I,

1 07

Luckenbill, I I, p. 1 05. Akkadian: Winckler, Keilschrift

p .

2 05,

2 78,

1 08

Luckenbill,

I I,

p .

2 30.

1 09

Luckenbill,

I I,

p .

1 3.

1 10

H .

JCS

1 2

( 1958)

Tadmor,

this view i n Ashdod communication, 1 983. 1 11

-Luckenbill, Cyprian) .

I I,

I I,

p .

p .

4 0,

,

p .80.

1 92,

4 6.

3 25.

f n.

" The

Sargons,

Tadmor 3 .

A lso

l amanean

p .

1 89.

maintains personal

( Ionian,

"

-Winton Thomas, Documents, p . 6 2. " lamani" -Winckler, p. 8 2. I n l ine 1 5 W inckler reads L U i a-ma-na-ai and translates " die J amnaer." I n l ine 1 1 h e reads i a-ma-ni without determinative and translates a s a proper name, Jamani. On p. 1 48 where he reads K UR as t he determinative, he t ranslates " die Jamna." a s

In Pritchard, ANET, p . 2 85, Oppenheim translates both s ingular and p lural, " the Greek ( Ionians)."

In I raq 1 954 ' p . 1 99 and P l. L I C .J. Gadd h as a parallel t ext from a Nimrud prism which he t ranscribes K UR i a-am-na-a-a and t ranslates " the I onian."

2 66

1 12

I n

Thomas,

1 13

winckler,

Documents, p .

p .

6 0.

1 48.

1 14 Luckenbill, I I, 2 73-274. Akkadian i n K AH I , p 7 5. I n h is i ntroductory note to this t ext Lu f lbil1 o ffers t he conjecture that l adanana means " island.of the D anuna." This s eems f arfetched. The D anuna o r D enyen a re t he "Sea P eople" whom s ome have t ried t o connect with the D anaans ( Greeks) and the Biblical t ribe o f Dan. The D anuna were a lready mentioned in the Amarna l etters a s a s tate, a pparently Northwest o f Ugarit. ( EA 1 51:52) I n a .

9 th century " Phoenician" i nscriptions the Danuna l ive i n t he area of Anatolia/Syria where the north and east shores o f the M editerranean meet. S ee note 5 9 for i nformation on t he

Danuna

texts.

1 15

Hrouda, F lachbilder, O lmstead, History of Layard, M onuments o f

1 16

B .

Porten,

1 17

C .

K rahmalkov,

4 4-4 1 18

( 1981)

BA

( 1981)

Letter

,

i n

p .

f ig.

1 23.

3 6-53.

response

t o

BA

Porten.

1 97.

p .

,

4 4-3

1. P late 7 and 5 p . 2 99, Assyria, I 7 4 . Nineveh,

For the p hilistines a s Greeks s ee: A llen Jones, Bronze Age Civilization — The P hilistines and Danites, 1 975. Yadin, Australian Journal of Archeology

1 -1

p . 9 -23. Burns, M inoans, Philistines, and Greeks. A lso see t he articles of C . Gordon i n the

( 1968)

1 974. general

bibliography. 1 19 H . Hencken, Tarquinia, p . 6 07-614, 6 25-628, p rovides a good summary. See a lso Dhorme i n note 2 8. References to c lassical Greek authors will be cited t he

traditional

o ne

edition.

1 20 G reek

Hencken,

division

numbers,

Tarquinia,

p .

not by

6 10.

page

Consult

numbers

a lso

by

o f

s tandard

l exicons.

1 21

GeorgieV,

1 22

Hencken, these

I ndo-European Tarquinia,

p .

Language, 6 12,

has

p .

1 07.

a s ummary

V I o f

s ources.

1 23 I n the Loeb edition of D ionySiUS s ee S ections 2 4-25, p ages 7 7, 8 1, 8 5-97. D ionysiuS a lso has i nteresting r emarks on how one name comes to apply to more than one p eople.

Loeb,

1 24

the

On

p .

8 3.

3 t heories

o f

Etruscan

2 67

origins

s ee

P allottino,

The

Wainwright,

Anatolian

Etruscans. S tudies

I X

( 1959)

1 25 P allottino, d iscussion of t he

The Etruscans, g ives t he date o f Etruscan coming.

1 26

S ee

and

1 27

G . G . F .

1 28

F . Schachermeyr, A egean ( German). Esp. Vol. V .

notes

9 6

9 7

and

page

3 1

of

,

1 97.

p .

best

this

dissertation.

Bonafante, AJA 5 0 ( 1946) , p. 2 51-262. Wainwright, VT 5— ( 1959) , p .73-84. Lochner-Hutterbach, D ie P elasger. P rehistory,

Vol.

I -V.

1 29 A llen Jones, Bronze Age Civilization--The Philistines and Danites, 1 975. Y adin, Australian Journal of Archeology 1 -1 p . 9 -23. S ee a lso note 1 18. Spannuth,

1 30

J .

1 31

T . Burton-Brown, Early Mediterranean Migrations, 1 959. S econd M illennium Archeology, 1 978. H all, K lio 2 2 ( 1T 29) , p. 3 35.

1 32

A .

Nibbi,

D ie

The

Philister,

S eapeoples

d as

( 1968),

unbekannte V olk , .

and Egypt,

1 975.

1 33 I . Velikovsky, Peoples of the S ea, 1 977. Velikovsky has published s everal o ther books on t his period. The periodical Chronos was established t o his views. 1 34

D .

Courville,

1 35

J .

Muhley,

The

Exodus

Expedition

Problem,

1 6-2

Vol.

( 1974)

,

p .

I I,

time study

1 971.

3-10.

1 36 An overview of t hese ethnic s tudies and further bibliography i s found i n Sandars, Oxford Journal o f Archeology 2 ( 1983), p. 6 3-65 and I sserlin, PEQ 1 983, p . 8 5-94. See a lso the l ist of i tems i n the l ast section o f the b ibliography on ethnic studies.

Chapter I II Pottery B ibliography I I Bibliography V II for s ite reports unless

1 37

1 38

Welch, QSPEF 1 900, p. 3 42-350 T iersch, Arch. Anzeiger 1 908 p. A lbright,

TBM

I ,

p .

5 3-56.

2 68

V II

on pottery noted.

3 78-384.

or

1 39

For p .

1 40

example

s ee

E .

Oren,

Beth

Shan Cemetery,

1 48.

Aharoni,

BAR

8 -3

( 1982)

,

p .21.

1 41 For a detailed presentation o f the t heory t hat P hilistine pottery shows that their culture i s Aegean s ee Dothan, English, p . 9 4, 2 17. 1 42 Philistine decoration on other vessel forms besides D othan' s 1 8 forms. ( Some of these c lassifications are d ebatable.) -flasks: Qasile 2 8:20, 4 0:10,11, 4 6:11 ( multiple f lask) -small shallow bowls: Dothan, English, p . 1 02. -cy r na rim bowl: K eisan 8 0:11 -amphoriskos: Dothan, English, p. 1 25. ( Classified as a subdivision of pyxis. -a different type amphoriskos: Qasile 2 3:42, -braided handle j ar, Afula 2 0:2. -storage j ars: F ara, Duncan 4 3 L 2 . ( debatable) -vertical h andle krater: Dan, unpublished. S ee Dothan, English, p . 8 4. S imilar to her Type 1 8. "coal bucket" strainer bowl: K eisan 7 1:8. -chalice: Dothan, English, f ig. 5 3, p. 1 79. Qasile 2 7:5 ? . -goblets: Qasile 3 6:7. -unusual s trainer j ars: Qasile p 1. 3 9. For cult vessels s ee the chapter on religion. 1 43 Lustre i s s tandard i n Greece, but s ome matt paint a ppears a t Perati cemetery. ( lakovides, Perati I I, p 4 29) 1 44 Lustre i s common in Myc. I lIB in p aint i s s tandard in Myc h IC. ( Kling, 1 05). A lso see S chaeffer, A lasia I , 1 45

Schachermeyr,

Aegean

Cyprus, but RDAC 1 982, p . 7 3.

Prehistory V 1

p .

matt p .

2 36-239.

1 46 See Dornemann, Archeology of the Transjordan, the d rawings and chart of f igure 5 for a study of the o ccurrence of painted motifs on LB/Iron painted pottery of Syria-Palestine. 1 47

M . C .

1 48

Wood,

1 49

Gittlin, BASOR 2 41 dissertation on Late

1 50

Artzy, JAOS 9 3 ( 1973) , p .446-471. Epstein, Palestinian Bichrome Ware. Levant

p .

5 04.

M .

Asaro,

1 4

( 1982)

,

p .

7 3-79.

( 1981) , p . 5 2-54. A lso s ee his Cypriote pottery i n Palestine

A rcheometry

1 3

2 69

( 1971)

,

p .175.

1 51

McClellan,

1 52

B ell

JFA

bowls

are

6

( 1969)

counted

,

a s

p .

6 9.

Philistine

Ware

even when

undecorated, because t hey have such a distinctive f orm. Strainer j ars and pyxides which have p ainted bands a re counted e ither as probable Philistine Ware or as non-Philistine, s ince these vessels o ccur both as P hilistine and non-Philistine forms. E ach c ase was a n i ndividual decision. 1 53

M .

Dothan,

1 54 I would examine this 1 55 5 128, 5 330, 4 305, 4 145,

A shdod

1 -1V.

l ike t o t hank Moshe Dothan material, much o f which i s

for a llowing unpublished.

me

t o

A shdod l oci used i n this study:H X II 5 355, 5 371, 5 373, 5 376, 5 379, 5 336, 5 312, 5 320, 5 322, 5 332, 5153, 5 351, H X I 5 319, 5 338, 5 364, 5 397, 5 310, 5 324, 5029, 5 305, 5 303, G X II 4 124, 4 127, 4 110, 4 141, 4 307, 4 238, 4 233, 4 012, 4 117, G X I 4 205, 4 206, 4226, 4228, 4 147, 4 133, 4 118, 4 123, 4 115, 4 150.

1 56 Other s ites which may have a very high percentage, but f or which adequate data i s not yet available i nclude Miqne, Jemmeh, and Z ippor. 1 57 I would l ike to t hank Trude Dothan and Sy Gitin a llowing me to examine some of the m aterial f rom t he s easons at Miqne and for discussing i t with me.

for first

1 58 See 3 6-3

Dothan and Gitin, I EJ 3 3:1-2 ( 1983) , p . 127-128. ASOR Newsletter, 1 983, p . 1 2-18 & ASOR NEWSLETTER ( Jan. 1 985) , p .2.

1 59

Garstang 1 923.

and

Pythian-Adams,

PEFQS

1 921,

Dothan,

English,

p .

3 5.

1 60

Dothan,

English,

p .

3 5.

1 61

B liss and Macalister, Excavations i n 8 9-96. P lates 2 0, 3 5, 3 7, 4 2, 4 4. Dothan, English, p . 4 8-49.

1 62

McClellan,

JFA

6 ,

p .

1 922,

P alestine,

p -

6 7,69,70.

The other maiT Ed a sources for Fara S : McClellan, Quantitative, p .260-264, 3 03-309, 4 61. Petrie, B eth P elet I , p .6-10, P late X II, XXII, Reg is ter. McDonald, Beth P elet I I, p . 2 3-32. P lates LX, LXIII, LXXXVI, LXXXIX & Register. The l ists i n the register must b e connected with the drawings i n Duncan's Corpus. 1 63

McClellan,

JFA

1 64

McClellan,

JFA

6 , 6 ,

p .

p .

7 0. 6 0

2 70

MacDonald,

Beth

P elet

I I,

p .

2 3-27.

1 65

McClellan,

Quantitative

Studies,

p .

2 62.

1 66

McClellan,

Quantitative

S tudies,

p .

3 45.

1 67

McClellan,

Quantitative

Studies,

p .461.

1 68

McClellan, Quantitative S tudies, Calculated computor printouts. S ee a lso p. 3 45.

f rom

1 69 There i s one additional Philistine vessel which i s n ot clearly recorded. I f t his were i ncluded, the p ercentage of Philistine Ware would be i ncreased t o 1 4.9%. 1 70

For examples of Philistine Ware f rom T . Dothan, Material Culture ( Heb.)

,

Stratum I s ee: From S tratum

D -p.83:3, p .117:1, From S tratum X &Y-p.87:8, p .103:1, p .136:5. See a lso MacDonald, B eth Pelet I I, P 1. LX, L XIII:27 and Duncan's drawings which match the register. 1 71 The main data s ources for Tell Qasile are A . Mazar's H ebrew dissertation and the typed manuscript o f the f orthcoming English edition. These have not been e xtensively footnoted i n this d issertation because the p age numbers i n t he forthcoming edition will differ f rom t hose of the typescript. I would l ike to thank him for a llowing me to u se these materials before their p ublication. 1 72

Mazar,

Qedem

1 2,

p .

1 0.

1 73 There are a couple of pieces of Philistine Ware S haria l abeled S tratum I X ( 1079 and 2 329) , but these n ot come f rom c lear l oci.

f rom do

For progress reports on Sharia s ee: Oren, BA Su 8 2, p. 1 55-166, I EJ 2 2 ( 1970) , p. 1 67-169. I E 23 ( 1973) , p. 2 51-254. Dothan, English, p . 8 7. 1 74

Sharia Study Loci-- K ey l oci, 8 77, 8 58, 8 66, 8 68, 5 27, 8 59, 8 62, 1 96. Other non-house l oci, 9 37, 9 70, 9 18, 9 60, 8 92, 9 96, 9 28, 2 831, 2 854, 2 816, 8 79, 8 80. H ouse l oci, 5 53, 5 54, 9 27, 9 25, 9 31, 9 80; 9 76, 9 47, 9 29, 9 35, 9 89, 9 66, 9 90, 9 81, 9 85, 9 88, 9 32, 9 42; 9 83, 9 68, 9 93, 952, 9 48, 9 40; 9 46, 9 53, 9 65, 9 55, 9 72, 9 95, 9 24. T he semi-colons i ndicate the phase divisions f rom l atest t o earliest, except for 9 24 which was t reated as a s pecial l ocus. 1 75 This does not i nclude s imple painted d ecorate 2 5% of t he Philistine Ware. 1 76

White-slipped

1 77

Concentric

bowls

No.

s emi-circles

7 691

and

appear

2 71

on

bands

which

2 226. sherds

1 910

and

1 0118. One of t hese may belong t o Locus 5 27 which was p art o f t his study, but i t was not with t he material of t his s tudy when t he s tudy was made. 1 78 B ichrome decoration One of t hese may be f rom s tudy.

appears o n sherds 3 234 a nd 1 079. Locus 8 79 which was part o f our

1 79 Strainer spouts with white s lip No. Other spouts No. 6 590, 2 308, and 7 240. bottle

No.

7 246

a nd

5 260.

1 80

Horn

7 316.

1 81

P inched

waist vessels

1 82

Feeding

bottle

1 83

I would to l ook

l ike to thank E . Oren for a llowing m e at the f irst s eason m aterial f rom H aror.

1 84

Ma'aravim. S ee I EJ Dothan, English, p .

No.

No.

2 258.

5 242

and

5 248.

This number

2 4 ( 1974) 8 7-88.

,

p .

i s

unclear.

2 69-270.

1 85 I would l ike to thank Z eev Herzog for a llowing me t o s tudy the unpublished Philistine Wäre l oci from t he first s easons of the renewed excavations at Gerisa. F or an overview of the s ite s ee Dothan, English, p . 6 7. 1 86

ASOR Newsletter

3 5-3,

Jan.

1 984,

p .

5 .

1 87 Gerisa l ocus l ist: 1 63, 2 516, 5 12, 2 21, 214, 2 29, 2 24, 2 09, 2 13, 2 15, 2 19, 2 11, 2 32, 1 252, 9 17, 1 303. The Philistine Ware was concentrated most heavily i n t he f irst two l oci. 1 88

Beth Shemesh Philistine Ware- Whole Vessels: AS IV P l. 3 6:1,9, 3 8:20,21, 6 0:15,18, 2 5. Pos sible Philistine Ware: 3 6:23, 5 9:21, 6 0:14,21. For Philistine Ware sherds see-Pl. 3 6:22-25, 2 7,28,30,35,36; 3 7:6, 3 8:4,5,(2,6). Possible Philistine Ware sherds-39:3; 40:22-23,(24) .

1 89

To obtain these f igures one m ust work back a nd forth f rom the p lates to the catalog and register. I t i s difficult to have much confidence i n the data because o f unclarities in the records. 1 90

Grant,

Ain

Shems

I I,

3 3-34.

p .

1 91 Dot f illed s emi-circles f rom A shdod:H226-2, a b ichrome sherd f rom St. X I, and H2312-1, a monochrome s herd f rom X III-XII. F rom Enkomi: See Enkomi I II, P l. 8 1, 6 5 3 1, & Enkomi I I 3 07:201. 1 92

Grant, I .

A in

Perlman,

Shems I EJ

I , 3 4/

p .

2 -3

3 7. ( 1984)

2 72

,

p .

1 12.

1 93

Grant, A in p . 2 9,39.

S hems

1 94

A lbright,

TBM

1 95

Aharoni,

L and

I , of

I ,

P l.XXVII,

AS

P l.

2 3,50,51.

TBM

t he

B ible,

2 62.

p .

I II

( Rumeilah)

I II,

P 1.12.

I

1 96 The i nformation on T imna/Batashi was based on 'a typescript of a f orthcoming BASOR articles which A . Mazar k indly permitted me to u se. ( Since the writing o f t his dissertation this manuscript has appeared a s BASOR 2 48 ( 1982) , p . 1 -36. 1 97

Dever,

1 98

See

1 99

Dever,

Gezer

Dever,

I ,

p .

Gezer

Gezer

I ,

4 ,

Gezer

I I,

f orthcoming p .

2 6,

p .

5 4.

volume.

Gezer

I I,

p .

5 4-55.

2 00 The i nformation on Aphek i s based on a discussion with Zvi Gal, who i s responsible for the s tudy of the Philistine material. S ee the article by Kochavi i n note 2 01. A lso see Dothan, English, p . 8 9. 2 01 Kochavi, BA 4 4-2 ( 1981) , p . 7 5-86, would l ike to tnank Zvi Gal and Jacqueline discussing this a rchitecture with me.

esp. 7 9-80. Balensi for

I

2 02 U ssishken, T el Aviv Reprints of Lachish P reliminary Report. A lso R eport of 7 th Archeological Conference, p 3 3. Aharoni, Lachish V , p . 4 1. Dothan, English, p . 8 8,276,279. 2 03

Tufnell,

Lachish

I II,

Lachish

IV,

2 04 This s ection i s Doehrman, one of t he English, p . 8 8. 2 05

J . J . J .

P l. pp.

1 28. 6 6,

6 8,

K aplan, B A 3 5 ( 1972) , p. 5 6-95, K aplan, T el Aviv-Jafo, Tel Aviv, p . 5 0-65. Hebrew. Kaplan, EAEHL, p . 5 32-541.

K aplan, A rcheology 1 7 Kaplan, A rcheological Land, p . 1 13-119. Dothan, English, p . 5 7.

Negbi

and

B iran,

F ig.

2 73

3 :4.

8 :6

by

R .

e sp. 7 7-82. 1 959.

( 1964) , p . D iscoveries

2 06 Nebgi and B iran, I EJ 1 6 ( 1966) , p . Fig. 3 ,5,6. I have based my analysis on interchanging descriptions 2 & 4 on f ig. English, p . 4 8. S ee

p 1.

based on information provided excavators. A lso s ee Dothan,

J . J .

2 07

2 91-293,

2 70-276. i n t he Holy

1 60-173, e sp. the correction 3 . S ee Dothan,

of

2 08

S ee

Negbi

and

B iran,

p .

1 62.

2 09

S ee

Negbi

and

B iran,

p .

1 63.

2 10 S ee Negbi and B iran. F ig. 6 :1,2, 4 ,9,13 are c lassified a s definitely Philistine W are. F ig. 6 :3,4,8,10 as possible Philistine Ware. F ig. 6 :11-12 non Philistine Ware.. 2 11

P etrie, Dothan,

Anthedon S inai, English, p. 2 5.

2 12

I .

2 13

Van Beek, Archeology 3 6 Van Beek, I EJ 2 7 ( 1977) Dothan, English, p. 3 3.

Eshel,

Petrie's

English,

P l.

xxxi:32.

Excavation o f

,

Tel

Dothan,

2 15

Yeivin,

Tel

Gat,

p .

6 .

2 16

Yeivin,

Tel

Gat,

P .

1 0.

2 17

A lbright,

2 18

R ainey,

2 19

P etrie, xxxvi Dothan,

2 20

M .

2 21

Dothan,

2 22

Edelstein, Qadmoniot 4 -3 ( 1971), p. Hebrew. Edelstein and G lass, Yeivin Memorial

BASOR

2

2 45

Eretz

English,

p . 1 25-131. Dothan, English,

1 978.

8 8.

p .

( 1923)

,

p .

1 5.

( 1982)

,

p .

5 7-65.

Ancient Gaza I I, P l. xxviii 9 4 A . English, p . 3 5. Fig. 1 8:4.

Dothan,

Jemmeh,

( 1983), p. 1 2-19. p . 1 72-173.

2 14

AASOR

a s

I srael p .

p .

4 3.

1 5

( 1981),

2 6

1 3 3 ,

p .

1 51-153.

Mor 8 6-90. Volume,

4 4.

2 23 I would l ike to thank Gershon Edelstein for l etting me u se the unpublished English manuscript of the f inal report for Tomb Cl at Aitun. The data in this d issertation i s based on comparing this report with the pottery i n s torage at the Department o f Antiquities. The number of dipper j uglets was changed f rom the f igure in the r eport t o conform with the number at the Department o f Antiquities. 2 24

Dothan, A shdod I I, A itun Mycenaean ware.

p .

2 16-219

2 74

o n

the

NAA

test of

2 25

M . Dothan, I EJ 1 1 Dothan, English, .

( 1960) , p . 5 4. A zor.

1 71-175.

2 26 I would l ike t o t hank Trude Dothan f or a llowing me t o e xamine t he unpublished pottery f rom the p its at D eir e i B alah which contained Philistine Ware. See a lso Dothan, I EJ

3 1

( 1981)

2 27

Dothan,

,

p .

1 27-131.

English,

p .

Dothan,

8 9-90.

English,

I zbet

p .

2 55.

Sartah.

2 28 I srael Finkelstein, The I zbet S artah Excavations and t he I sraelite S ettlement of the H ill Country, T el Aviv, 1 983. ( Hebrew ) . I would l ike to thank I srael F inkelstein for a llowing me to use t he manuscript o f his d issertation before i t had been published and for d iscussing i ts contents with me. I was not able t o double check his typology and analysis against the pottery i tself. 2 29 The f inal Abhandlung des

publication of M asos i s forthcoming Deutsches P alaestinverpin. I n the

i n

m eantime s ee K empinski, Eretz I srael 1 5 ( 1981) , p . 1 54-180. Tel Aviv 1 ( 1973) , p . 6 4-74. Tel Aviv 2 ( 1975) , p . 9 7-127. T el Aviv 4 ( 1977) , p . 1 36-158.

t he

-

2 41

A lso s ee F ritz, Z DPV 9 2 ( 1976) , p . 8 3-104. BASOR ( 1981), p . 6 1-75, and Dothan, English, p . 8 6.

2 30

Herzog,

2 31

I nformation on Beersheba

I I. 1 70,

BASOR

2 50

( 1983), i s

p .

4 7.

forthcoming

i n

B eersheva

See I EJ 2 3 ( 1973), p . 2 54, I EJ 2 5 ( 1975), p . BASOR 2 50 , ( 1983), p . 4 4, & Dothan, English, p . 8 7.

2 32 I would l ike t o t hank Joe Seger for discussing H alif with me. S ee I EJ 3 0 ( 1980), p . 2 23-226, BASOR 2 52, ( 1983) , p . 1 -24. A lso the provisional reports of t he 4 th Season at the A lbright I nstitute. 2 33 I would l ike t o thank Rudolf Cohen for d iscussing Qubur e i Walaida with me. S ee R . Cohen, I EJ 2 8 ( 1978) p . 1 94-195 and Dothan, English, p . 8 8. 2 34

M aliha. Dothan, English, p . 8 8. Quneitra. Dothan, English, p . 8 8. ( Abu B IES s ame

Huera on D othan, English, p . 8 8 2 8 ( 1964), p . 2 36-246, appears a s Tel Haror.)

2 35 The Hazerim. Gophna, Atiqot 3 Atiqot 6 ( 1970) , p . 2 5-30. Yediot 2 36-246. ( all Hebrew )

( 1966) , p . 2 8 ( 1964)

2 36

T . Malat .. B . M azar, D othan, English, p.

I EJ 9 0.

1 0

( 1960)

2 37

Q atra.

B IES

1 7

( 1953),

J .

K aplan,

2 75

and R . Gophna, to be the

,

,

4 6-51. p .

p .

7 3.

p .

1 42.

B . M azar, I EJ 1 0 ( 1960) D othan, English, p . 9 0. 2 38

2 39

2 40

,

6 5-77.

p .

S halaf. J . K aplan, B IES 2 1 ( 1957) , p . B . Mazar, I EJ 1 0 ( 1960) , p . 7 6-77. P eterson, Levite Cities, P . 3 09. Aharoni, Land o f the B ible, p . 3 76. R as Abu n . 2 1.

Hamid. B . Mazar, Dothan, English,

P etrie, p . 1 7, A lbright,

I EJ 4 ' F—. 9 -6 .

Hyksos And I sraelite P l. xvii 6 ,10,12,13. TBM

I ,

p .

5 8.

( 1954)

Cities

Dothan,

2 02-203.

P .

,

2 34 7 2 35,

( BSAE

English,

1 2) p .

2 8.

On M idianite Ware s ee Rothenberg and G lass, E I 1 5 ( 1981) , p. 8 5-114, and Rothenberg, T imna, e sp., p 1 07-111, 1 25. See a lso the s tudy on p ainted pottery i n Dornemann, Archeology of t he Transjordan. 2 41 Wampler, Nasbeh I I, 9 4,88,234.) Cf. P l 3 0:8,19. baby bottles. 2 42

K elso, B ethel, 5 9:9, 6 0:12.

2 43

S ellers, A lso s ee

2 44

Graham,

2 45

There p lace

2 46

I srael

2 47

Ohata, Tel Z eror I , p . I II, p .73. Dothan, English, P. 6 9

2 48

Amihal

2 49 Dor: p . 8 0-82. 2 50

p .

p .

Beth Z ur, AASOR 3 8 AASOR

4 5,

F inkelstein,

Mazar,

p . 3 7, ( 1968)

Stern,

P l.

3 8:12-14,

F ig.31,

P l. VII,

personal

I I,

communication, P .

verses

communication,

1 2,25;

( 1924), 3 34-337. BAR

V III.

2 9,30,38.

question whether these i n Geba or Gibeah.

personal

S ee BBSAJ 4 EAEHL, pp.

Mevorakh:

5 0,64,65.

P .

i s a textual t he garrison

6 1, P l. 8 0. ( cf. a lso p . S ee no. 7 93, 7 94 s ide handle

3 5-45. Dothan,

May-June

1 974,

2 51 Dothan, English, has a description of p . 7 4-79. A lso see t he note i n S inclair, 1 6-17.

p .40,

P l.

X ;

1 983. BBSAJ 7 ( 1925) English, P . 6 9. p .

3 4.

these sherds Gibeah, p .

2 52 Philistine Ware and possible Philistine Ware Megiddo St. V II- Meg. I I, P l. 6 9:7, 6 8:8, 7 0:9? 7 1:15, 7 1:14). Mycenaean-72:16.

2 76

1 983.

f rom ( 68:9,

on

2 53 Philistine Ware and possible Philistine Ware f rom Megiddo St. VI- M eg. I I, P l. 7 4:9, 7 6:1, 7 5:22, 7 8:19; 7 3:9, 12, 1 3?, 7 4:10, 1 6,(11), 7 5:20,23,21, 7 7:8, 91 ( 10), 8 0:3, 7 , ( 4,5), 8 2:2-5, 8 4:10, 8 5:5, 6 ,2, 8 6:12.

2 54 Megiddo s tratification: For brief s ummaries s ee Sinclair, Gibeah, f n 2 , P. 1 7-18, and Lance, The Archeologist and t he OT, p . 7 7-81. For various v iews s ee Crowfoot, PEQ 7 2 ( 1940) , p. 1 32-147; A lbright, TBM I II, p . Bulletin

2 -3, & A JA 5 3 ( 1949) , p. of the London I nstitute of

p . 1 43-151; Ussishken,

Aharoni, BASOR 2 39

JNES 3 1 ( 1980) '

2 15; K enyon, Archeology 4 ,

( 1972) p . 1 -17,

( 1964)

3 02-311; esp. 7 .

p .

2 55 Afula: Philistine Ware: Dothan, A fula, P l. 1 5:1,2, 5 -12,16,18. Some o f these are uncertain. Even more doubtful-Pl.14:15, 1 5:3,4,13-15,17, ( cf. 1 3:27, d ipper with painted bands) 2 56

Graham,

AASOR

2 57

Dothan,

Afula,

2 58

F . James, B eth Shan I ron, p . 2 4-26,150. P l. 4 9:13, 5 4:4, 4 9:2,13,15, 5 0:17, 5 2:3,21. This material i s a lso collected on Dothan, English, p . 8 2. Hankey, AJA 7 0 ( 1966) , p. 1 69-171.

2 59

Yadin,

2 60

Oren, 4 8. p .

2 61

I EJ

4 5,

p .

f n.

3 .

4 1-42.

p .

3 4/

3 8,

2 -3

( 1984)

Beth S han Cemetery, Cf. a lso McClellan's

,

1 18.

p .

p . 1 03,130. P l. 4 4, 4 7, redating, Quantitative,

4 61.

Humbert and B riend, Humbert, RB 1 981, Balensi, RB 1 981, See and

Tell K eisan, 3 73-399. p . 3 99-402.

P aris,

1 980.

p .

262 Stratum 65:14, 6 6:2,

9 ab. 6 5:2j

2 63 Stratum 7 2:7, 8 0:11,

9 c. S ee P lates 7 1:8a, 7 2:6, 7 2:10, 7 2:5, 8 0:12, and other bichrome on p late 7 2.

264

Stratum

1 0-11.

265

The

i nformation

Tell Keisan P lates 6 1:3, 6 1:16, 1 7, 6 6:2b, 2 d, 2 e,

S ee on

P late lokneam

8 1:13 i s

and

based

8 1:3, on

6 2:7, and 2 k.

8 1:20.

examining

t he

excavation records of the Philistine Ware and the collected Philistine Ware sherds. I would l ike t o thank Amnon Ben Tor for m aking this i nformation available t o me. 2 66 The material f rom Qiri was a lso d iscussed with A . Tor. Ben Tor, BA 4 2-2 ( 1979), p. 1 05-114. Ben Tor, IEJ 2 6, P . 2 01. Dothan, English, p. 9 0.

2 77

Ben

2 67 The information concerning Qashish i s based o n p ersonal communication f rom the excavator, Amnon B en and h is a ssistants. 1 983. 2 68 The survey f inds at Tivon, Reisim, mentioned i n Dothan, English, p . 9 0.

and

Reala

Tor,

a re

2 69

The l imited f inds at Harbaj are b riefly mentioned i n B BSAJ 2 ( 1922) , p. 9 , and BBSAJ 4 ( 1924) , p. 44-46.

2 70

Jacqueline 2 90, 3 71.

Balensi,

2 71

Jacqueline

Balensi,

Tel

Abu

personal

H awam,

e sp.

2 71,

p .

communication,

1 983.

2 72 B iran, A . " Tel Dan," BA 3 7 ( 1974), p . 2 6-51, esp. 3 5,37,40; I EJ 2 2 ( 1972) 1 65-166; I EJ 2 6 ( 1976) p . 2 05. I w Td l ike to thank Dalia P achman for permitting me to use the unpublished p lates from D an. 2 73

Dothan

English,

2 74

Dothan, English, p . 9 0. Y . Yadin, Hazor,The S chweich Lectures, p . 1 29-134 on these strata.

2 75

The Deir A lla t his thesis.

p .

t exts

8 2.

are

discussed

on

page

1 86

of

2 76 Spouted j ar: Franken, D eir A lla: P l. 4 7:4. F or examples of birds s ee Hama I I, motif 1 07. For b ichrome t riangles see 1 l ama I I, motif 1 5, a lso Amiran, 3 8:11. S ee bird

and

gazelle ware

Lachish Temple painted motifs Transj ordan. 2 77 P 1. The

from Lachish

and

other

sites.

I II, 4 8:251. See a lso Dornemann's s tudy i n his study of the a rcheology of t he

Concentric s emi-circle sherd: F ranken, 5 1:52. On the occurrence of this motif Archeology of the Transjordan.

2 78 Looped base krater: The Deir A lla Philistine English, p . 8 4.

o f

Deir A lla: see D ornemann,

Franken, D eir A lla, P l. 5 2: 4. Ware i s a lso collected o n Dothan,

2 79 Other l ooped base kraters: See Amiran 6 9:9 f rom Megiddo V I, 7 1:11 f rom Abu Hawam I II. S imilar vessels a lso occur i n Syria and in Cyprus. 2 80 Stripes on j ar necks: See I ron, P l. 5 1:13, 5 1:15. Afula a ll b ichrome.

Hazor CCI 2 2. B eth Shan P l. 2 0:14. These are n ot

2 81 A . R . L . Gordon reported the " Philistine Ware" from Tulul ed Dahab at the A lA meetings i n December 1 981. This r eport was briefly mentioned i n the 1 982 volume o f AJA 8 6-2,

p .

2 62. 2 78

2 82 Personal communication, J . S auer, 1 983. S ee a lso Lapp, AASOR 4 5, p . 3 5, & I braham, Lapp, & Y assine, BASOR 2 22 ( 1976) , p. 4 1-66, esp. 5 4-56, which l ists other small s ites i n t he area of Deir A lla. 2 83

Dornemann,

Archeology of

2 84

Riis, Hama 1 5, 4 6, 4 7,

2 85

Bikai, Pottery of P l. 4 8:4,5.

2 86

See

note

I I, 5 8,

the

F igures 1 30 6 9, 8 3, 1 07. Tyre,

Transjordan, A &B,

P l.

p .

e specially

4 1:19.

A lso

7 9-81. motifs

s ee

3 89.

2 87

Ugarit: Courtois, Ugaritica V II ( 1978) , p. 1 91-370. Ras I bn Hani: A . Bounni, Syria 5 3 ( 1976) , p . 232-279. Syria 5 5 ( 1978), p. 2 33-301. Syria 5 6 ( 1979), p . 2 32-279. I n BA 4 5 ( 1981), p. 6 0, J . Lagarce expressed the opinion that t his pottery i s s o authentically Mycenaean that i t must have been made by i mmigrant potters. 2 88

Dikaios, 4 58, 4 59.

Enkomi,

p .

4 64,

fn.

3 55.

A lso

p .

2 72,

2 89 The following f igures summarize the quantitative studies that have been attempted at various s ites i n Cyprus. Some of these studies receive only passing mention in t he respective works, so the quality o f the s ample and study involved i s not a lways c lear. More work i s needed on t his aspect o f Cypriote archeology. A t Hala Sultan Tekke the p lain pottery runs f rom 7 4% to 8 2% in various areas. The Mycenaean i nfluence, including White Painted Wheel Made i s l ess than 1 0%. These figures are based on total sherds, not r ims. I n s ome cases the f igures may be d iluted by a l arge number of storage j ar sherds. I n one group of s ealed sherds f rom Area 2 2 Mycenaean pottery was 2 3%. The percentage i n some tombs was much higher than i n the habitation areas. The figures from Hala Sultan Tekke are especially i mportant because this was t he most systematic quantitative study. S IMA 4 5, HST 3 , p . 9 2-93, HST 5 , p . 4 2, HST 6 , p . 5 9) I n I dalion I 6 2.7% of the wheel-made pottery i s plain. Painted wares i ncluding the Levanto-Helladic sub-Mycenaean account for 1 6.3% of the wheel-made pottery. Since 45% o f the pottery was c lassified a s hand-made or l arge pithoi, this means that only about 8 .8% of the pottery i s painted wheel-made pottery. ( SCE I I, 6 19-624, SCE

I ViD,

p .693-694)

2 79

At Kouklia t he LHIIIC pottery i n the c ity i s 7 -10%. ( Meier, HEM, p . 6 8-79, esp. 7 4) A t K ourion Bamboula i n LCIIIA about 8 0% of t he pottery i s p lain. The Mycenaean i nfluenced pottery i s i ncluded i n t he 4 % WPWM I II. ( SCE IV1D, p .693. RDAC 7 0 ) At S inda 4 9% i s p lain, a nd 34% WPWM I II, but the quality and nature o f this sample i s unknown. ( SCE IV1D, p .695) I t i s r eported that 9 5% of the pottery�in the relevant stratum at K ition i s M yc. h IC, but nothing i s mentioned about p lain ware i n this s tatement. ( Karageorghis, Symposium on the Relations Between Cyprus and Crete, p .324) . K arageorghis m akes a s imilar comment about the predominance of Myc. H IC at Maa. ( BAR 1 0-2 1 984, p . 2 7.) 2 90

F rench, e sp. p.

Anatolian 7 2.

Studies

2 5

( 1975),

2 91

Grant,

Rumeila ti ,

AS

Map

I I.

2 92

P etrie,

2 93

M azar,

Qedem

1 2,

p .

2 94

D ever,

Gezer

I I,

p .57.

2 95

Amiran,

2 96

Herscher, p . 5 .

2 97

Van Beek, I EJ 2 7 ( 1977) , Dothan, EngTi h Tp. 3 7, 3 4.

2 98

Dothan,

2 99

Dothan, Ashdo, I I, p. 2 16-219. A saro & Pen man, Archeometry 1 3

Gerar,

P l.

Pottery, The

I II, VI,

p .

p .

5 3-76,

VII.

1 0.

2 66-267.

Relationship of Crete

English,

p .

5 4

p .

and

Cyprus,

1 72-173.

5 5.

( 1971)

,

p .

1 69-176.

3 00 For the manufacturing studies o f the Aitun ware see note 2 22. I t i s possible that this s and temper could have been i mported f rom t he coast. For a s imilar case o f t ransportation of t emper s ee B iegen, Palace of Nestor, p . 3 53. On the Beth Shemesh Ware s ee I . P en man et al. IEJ 3 4/ 2 -3 ( 1984) , P . 1 12. 3 01

Dothan,

English,

3 02

K ling, Pager delivered t o publication forthcoming.

3 03

Dothan,

English,

p .

p .

9 4-106 ASOR D ecember,

1 983,

9 6.

3 04 Dothan, English, p. 1 05,106. I n footnote 2 4 s he c lassifies a bell bowl f rom an LB tomb at Aitun a s i ntrusive. This i s possible f or Philistine Ware a lso is

2 80

sometimes a l ate a ddition to LB t ombs. McClellan with the l ate date for bell bowls i n P alestine Quantitative, P . 2 62).

agrees

3 05 For possible e arly examples o f bell bowls and s imilar kraters s ee 1 ) Beth Shemesh Stratum I V i n Grant, Vol. I V, P l. 5 7:31. 2 ) Amiran, Pottery, 4 1:7,11, 4 8:13, 5 0:11, 5 7:12,13, 3 0:6,23,24. 3 ) Oren, Beth Shan, P 1.47b:7 ( Tomb 2 21AC) . 4 ) Buchholz, Arch. Anzeiger ( 1974) , p . 4 11 4 1 6, Abb.64:1,5.(Kamid e l Loz). 3 06

See

Dothan,

3 07

l akovides,

3 08

Dothan,

3 09

Note

English, AJA

English,

Megiddo

and

8 3

p .

1 00,

( 1983)

p .

,

F ig.

p .

3 :1.

4 54-455.

1 13.

Beth

kraters i n fn. 2 7 & 3 2 on See MT, P l. 3 4:9, 1 24:8,

Shemesh examples p . &

3 10

D othan,

English,

p .

1 15.

3 11

D othan,

English,

p .

1 23.

of

1 14,115 of Dothan, AS V , p . 1 21.

early English.

312 The observation on s tirrup j ar manufacture i s based on p ersonal study of the Philistine examples and material from Abu Hawam which i s i n the Rockefeller Museum. 313 The based on

observation concerning Cypriote manufacture i s a f ew examples from Enkomi at the Cyprus Museum.

3 14

D othan,

English,

p .

1 25.

315

D othan,

English,

p .

1 30-131.

316 S ee the amphoriskoi i n Amiran, P l. 4 7:4,5, 4 9:10, and Oren, Beth Shan Cemetery, P l. 3 6 and 3 9. These are not identical i n form t o the Philistine types. For Cyprus s ee Gjerstad, I nitial D ate, F ig. 1 . 317

D othan,

English,

p .

1 32.

318

D othan,

English,

p .

1 55.

s trainer

j ars

C oncerning

s ee

Dothan,

English,

p .

132-155. The unusual variety of forms f rom Qasile i s i llustrated i n P lates 3 9, 4 0, and 5 4 of Mazar's dissertation. S ee M . Dothan, Afula f ig. 2 0:2, for braided handled example.

a

F or examples f rom the Aegean s ee P erati Volume B 0 1 examples 2 1b, 7 8e, 1 02g, which are t he only three f rom this s ite. The form i s f airly common i n Rhodes ( Mee, lalysos, f ig. 4 1:62; Mackenprang, AJA 4 2, 1 938, p .544-559)

2 81

F rom Cyprus s ee the material collected by Dothan from S inda and K ouklia ( Dothan, English, p .139, 1 46, 1 47). S ee a lso D ikaios, E nkomi I -Ill, P lates. S ee Meier, M EM, p 6 8-79, F ig. .13:2, f or R ude Style Jug f rom P aleopaphos. F or non-Philistine or undecorated examples f rom P alestine s ee Wampler, Nasbeh, P l. 3 0; James, B eth S han I ron Age, f ig. 5 6:7, 5 7:10, p . 2 32, no. 2 4; Amiran, P l. 8 5:10 ( Ay 6 9:385); Ohata, Z eror I II, 1 0:8. See a lso t he braided handle form i n Oren, Beth Shan T ombs P 1.47b:24. S ee a lso R ast's comment on the non-philistine o ccurrence of this form i n Tanaach I , p 1 1. Undecorated examples or examples which are not d istinctly Philistine a lso occur a long with Philistine examples--see A S I V 6 0:24 and Meg.II P l. 7 5 3 19

3 20

Furumark, OA 3 , Dothan, Eng UsE See

t he

l ast

p .

p .

2 36. 1 54-155.

paragraph

of

note

3 18.

3 21 For " coal bucket" s trainers s ee: Loud, Megiddo I I 6 3:7, 8 ; B eth Shemesh AS IV 5 7:9,10,15; Humbert, K eisan, 7 1:8 ( Philisti iT decoration) . For an amphoroid form s ee Qasile 3 8:20 and perhaps a s imilar unpublished vessel f rom Deir e l Balah. S ee James, Beth Shan I ron Age, 5 6:4, 5 7:9, f or a form which i s i ntermediate between t he coal bucket and the Philistine f orm o f s trainer j ars. -

3 22 Basket handles s trainers mentioned

occur on most of the coal bucket i n t he preceding note. They a ppear

early on Type 7 vessels discussed i n note 3 25 and 3 27. See AL . UL, 5 6:5,6, which are l abeled Stratum IVB. B asket h andles appear on non-strainer vessels from K amid e l Loz, Lebanon which are dated LB ( Hachmann, Bull. Mus. B er. 3 0, p :7-42 and K amid e i Loz 1 968-1970 ) . An angular-bodied beer j ug with a basket handle, which has LB style w avy l ine painting and i s l abeled LB I I, i s on display i n the Hebrew Union College i n Jerusalem. I t i s l abeled " Abdul Organ." The basket handle strainer j ar occurs in Q asile X ( Qasile 3 9:1,3) . The basket handle o ccurs on a graceful s trainer j ar from AS IV, 6 0:18. Compare the heavier forms in Meg. I I, P l. 8 3:1-3. I t appears that t he basket handle cannot be l imited t o l ate degenerate f orms, but more s tudy i s needed. 3 23

Leonard,

BASOR

2 22

( 1976),

p .

9 2.

3 24 Strap handle variety type 7 : Amiran 5 6:5,6, Nasbeh 7 93, 7 94. LXVIII. S ee Furumark, OA 3 p . Cypriote examples. 3 25 Dothan, English, p . 1 57, 7 4, s ays they are Mycenaean. s ays they are not.

footnote F urumark,

2 82

8 9:9, 2 35 for

1 13. S joqvist, OA 3 , P . 2 36,

p .

3 26

Dothan,

E nglish,

p .

1 57.

3 27 Concerning h andle direction on Type 7 j ars s ee P apadopolous, S IMA 5 5, P . 9 9-100, and f ootnote 3 6 t hat work. S ee a lso Dothan, English, p . 1 55-157; F urumark, OA 3 p . 2 26-237; and S joqvist, P roblems 1 8:1,2,2b. For examples 1 55-157; Negbi, 7 4:12; a nd M azar,

S IMA

For 3 6

f rom Philistine contexts s ee S ippor 3 :5, 6 :10; Dothan, Qasile 3 4:11.

other e xamples p . 5 7-59 ( from

f rom Cyprus K alorizi) ;

of

Dot han, A shdod

and t he Aegean Furumark, MP

s ee p .

2 8,34, 8 3; and l alyos I & I I, XXe and XXI. This form q uite common a t P erati i n Greece--43 examples, 3 .5% P erati B , p . 4 27, 2 41-244, F ig. 1 01,102) 3 28

Dothan,

English,

p .

1 59.

3 29

Dothan,

E nglish,

p .

2 17-218.

3 30

Ceccini,

3 31

Dornemann, The Esp. F ig. 5 and

3 32

Dothan,

3 33

Dothan, English, Furumark, OA 3 ,

3 34

Dothan, English, p . 1 88-189. Meg. 4 8:11, 5 7:8. Lachish IV, 7 6:721.

Ceramica

di

Nuzi.

P lates.

Archeology of p . 6 5-89.

English,

i s

the

T ransjordan.

p .131-132. p . 1 54-159. p . 2 36ff.

See

note

3 18.

I I,

7 3:1,

3 35

For more graceful examples of more " Aegean" s tyle which usually have a l ong neck, r im t o shoulder h andle and short s pout s ee Dothan P l. 4 7, 5 2, 6 2, 6 4-67 a nd Fig. 2 4, 2 5, 2 1:2, 2 2. 3 36

Dothan,

3 37

Leonard, See note

3 38

Schachermeyr, Aegean Prehistory V , p . Schaeffer, E nkomi-Alasia I , p . 4 16. Hooker, Mycenaean Greece, p . 1 61-162. l akovides, AJA 8 3 ( 1979) , p .454-462.

l ocal

3 39

English, B ASOR 3 09.

p .

1 55.

2 41,

Even Welch's original ware under Mycenaean

Dothan,

English,

p .

p .

8 8-89,

f ig.

1 .

2 56-258.

analysis emphasized t his i nfluence. QSPEF 1 900,

2 17.

2 83

was a p . 347 .

3 40 3 41

S chachermeyr, F urumark,

Aegean

Mycenaean

P rehistory V ,

P ottery,

p .

Chapter

2 3.

1 21.

3 42 These graphs are heavily dependent on t hose i n T . McClellan's dissertation on the s eriation of I ron A ge pottery i n P alestine. Abbreviation, m inor corrections, and t he e limination of h is complicated numbering s ystem are t he only changes. I would l ike t o t hank h im for h is permission t o reproduce them here. 3 43

McClellan

Petrie and documented credits.

3 44 McClellan, 3 05-306. 3 45 data

The and

reduced

and

adapted

t hese

drawings

f rom

Duncan. I h ave u sed h is r eductions. H e h as t he drawings i n his appendix on drawing

Quantitative

I ron Age

Pottery,

graphs on T el Qasile are my own, drawings published i n A . Mazar's

p -

based on Hebrew

t he -

dissertation on Tel Qasile. My t hanks t o him for m aking this material available to me. The p ercentages are b ased on my own reworking of the material, s o the t ypes a nd f igures do not a lways correspond fully t o Mazar' s. 3 46 The t erm " Canaanite" in this dissertation i s s imply a convention for the pottery traditions o f LB P alestine and does not s tate any conclusions about t he ethnic character of i ts manufacturers. 3 47 Bowls with horizontal l oop handles, but without the bell profile or Philistine decoration are the most difficult typological problem i n the s tudy of Philistine Ware, because horizontal handles a lso occur on other bowl forms besides the bell s haped bowl i n Cyprus and t he Aegean. Some horizontal h andled bowls in Palestine have c lear P alestinian s hapes, but some a re l ess c lear a nd could be c lassed a s Aegean i nfluenced. Thus it is o ften debatable whether s uch bowls should be c lassified a s part of t he Aegean or Canaanite e lement o f t he Philistine pottery repertoire. 3 48

These

types

are

basically

a reworking

of

the

m ore

than 6 0 types which Mazar uses in his d issertation, combining s ome of the minor variant f orms which he distinguishes. 3 49 This s tudy i s heavily based on chart 3 0 of Mazar's Hebrew dissertation f or i ts attribution of certain t ypes to various r egions, but the responsibility for the percentages i s my own. show

t hat

and method of computation and for any e rrors I believe t hat more recent excavations w ill

t he

amount

of

correspondence

2 84

between

Qasile

and

t he mountains s uggests.

i s

greater

3 50 This statement g eneral observation o ther s ites. 3 51

The

p lates

o f

i s o f

than

the

1 9%

which

M azar's

chart

based on Mazar's chart 3 0 a nd the occurrence of t hese f orms

M cCown,

Nasbeh

I ,

and

N aa sbeh mple a i l u s t rI I tion are of tw h igh o o land f the occurrence best sources of 3 52 For a discussion of storage M azar, J EJ 3 1, p . 1 -36.

j ar

at

Vamp1er,

t f he orse more forms.

distribution

s ee

A .

3 53 The Megiddo/Beth Shan graphs have the s ame dependence on M cClellan's d issertation a s the Fara graphs discussed a bove. 3 54 The I zbet S artah graphs are my own, based on data and drawings i n I . F inkelstein's Hebrew dissertation on I zbet S artah. I would l ike to thank him for making this i nformation available to me before its publication. S ince h is typology and c alculations were reworked by me, they d iffer i n some respects from his. 3 55 There i s at p resent no suitable typology for quantitative comparison of the pottery of various s ites f rom this period. McClellan's typology i s too awkward with its complicated, arbitrary system of numbers and i s not consistent i n its criteria for c lassification. Mazar's

system

i s

adequate

for

presenting

the

material from Qasile and i s the best study yet available, but i t i s not comprehensive enough for comparing the l arge variety of forms f rom different sites. He does not use a consistent criterion for determining what constitutes a type. Types are s ometimes based on overall form, s ometimes on d ecoration, s ometimes on s ize or sometimes on a s ingle feature.

at

The I zbet

s ame observations Sartah.

apply

to

F inkeistein's

system

As part of the groundwork for this dissertation this writer devised two more comprehensive typological systems for comparing the pottery of these s ites. The f irst system was s imilar to t raditional systems l ike McClellan's in t hat i t assigned each object to one arbitrary type, but it w as more mnemonic than McClellan's in that a ll bowls were numbered i n t he l OOs, a ll i ncurved rim bowls i n the i lOs, all cyma r immed bowls i n the 1 20s, a ll cooking pots in t he 2 00s, a ll s torage j ars i n the 3 00s, etc. This system was not very s atisfactory s ince each object could only be a ssigned t o one type. This typology a lso i ncluded metal and other non-ceramic i tems.

2 85

A s econd system which a llows multiple a ssignment of e ach vessel and i s therefore more suitable f or computor comparisons was subsequently developed t o replace t he f irst system. E leven columns are f illed in f or each vessel: vessel form, general c lassification, r im s hape, n eck s hape, body s hape, base shape, h andles, decoration, l ocation of f ind, and comment. S ince s imple mnemonic abbreviations are used, t his recording i s not overly t ime Consuming or difficult t o l earn. With this system a s ingle vessel can be sorted i nto different t ypes based on d ifferent criteria, s uch a s form, decoration, or s pecific f eatures. Dr. A lfred K romholz made v ery helpful s uggestions i n devising this system. The whole vessels f rom most of the major Philistine Ware s ites have b een r ecorded i n this system by the present writer, but i t has not been used more i n this chapter b ecause t here a re not yet enough major s ites l ike Qasile which have adequate quantitative information to make meaningful Comparison of l arge assemblages possible. Hopefully this aspect o f this present study can be more fully developed as a continuing research project as high quality data b ecomes available from different s ites. 3 56

Dever, Gezer Gezer I I, p .

I , p . 5 1-54.

2 4-25, P l. P l. 2 6-29.

3 57

Afula: M . Dothan, Atiqot I Beth Shemesh: Grant, AS IV For the pattern at S ippor of this dissertation.

' ‚

and

2 7.

p . 1 9-71, e sp. p lates 5 6-62. Aitun

On the general continuity of this preceding one s ee Amiran, p . 1 91-192, I , P . 1 1-14.

see

3 9-40.

pages

8 7

& 9 0

period from t he and Rast, T anaach

3 58 See these i llustrations of forms i n M . Dothan, A shdod I & I lIll : Lamps: 8 7:12; f lasks: 7 4:16, 8 4:17; j uglets: 8 7:10; s torage j ars: 1 -34:14, 1 8, 1 5, 31; c ooking pots: 8 4:11, 7 4:9,10, 1 01:2,3; bowls: 1 :15, 2 :2,3, 8 4:5,6,7,8,9, 7 4:5, 9 0:3,8, 1 04:1. 3 59

See

the

i llustration 3 60

p lates of

of

common

B legen,

P alace

domestic

ware o f

Amiran, Pottery, p .260. Dothan, English, p. 2 17. Hooker, Mycenaean Greece, S ee note 3 38. note

Ch.

of

Nestor

I

f or

Mycenaean G reece.

7 .

3 61

See

3 62

P .

3 63 e sp.

I . Hodder i n C lark, Spatial Archeology, p . 2 77-342, p . 3 18. V III Even the Hittite i nvasion of Anatolia l eft no

P arr,

3 40. Archeology

i n

t he

2 86

Levant,

p .

2 02-214.

archeological 2 46) 3 64

t races

McClellan,

( Palmer,

J FA

6 ,

Mycenaeans

and

M inoans,

p

7 2-73.

p .

3 65 I n this dissertation we are operating with the early date for the accession of Ramses I II. However, for our purposes i t makes no difference what date i s adopted f or his a ccession. We are interested not so much in the absolute date when Philistine Ware began, but in its relationship to the eighth year of Ramses I II. The absolute dates f or a ll of the strata which are dated by s carabs would change i f the date o f R amses I II i s changed, but t he strata would keep the s ame relative relationship to t he events of R amses I II's eighth year. This i s the only concern to u s. 3 66

E arly

date

o f

O p .

F urumark, P etrie and

Philistine Ware:

Arch. McDonald,

3 ( 1944) , p . 2 60. BP I I ' p . 2 4-26.

3 67

D othan,

English,

p .

2 18,

3 68

D othan,

English,

p .

2 90-292.

that this marks Ugarit and Deir manufacture.

2 85-296. I t

should

be

remembered

the end of the use of Myc. I lIB at A lla, not necessarily the end of the

3 69

Dothan,

English,

p .

3 1,

3 70

Dothan,

English,

p .

7 6.

7 6,

2 94.

Meg.

I I,

p .

1 35,

1 36,

1 56.

371 S ee Sinclair, Gibeah, p . 1 6,17. B . Mazar dates the end o f Megiddo V II as l ate at 1 100 B .C. Rast prefers a date c loser to 1 150. S inclair s ettles for about 1 130. 372

M cClellan,

JFA

6 ,

373

M cClellan, M cClellan,

JFA 6 , p . 7 1. Quantitative,

p .

6 6,

6 7,

p .

374

M cClellan, JFA 6 , 6 5, 6 6, D othan, English, p . 2 4. M cDonald, BP I I, 2 4-26.

3 75

M cClellan,

Quantitative,

3 77

D othan,

378

M cClellan

undecorated and c learly

English, s ays

p .

Type

3 04-307. 7 0.

p .

376 M cClellan, Quantitative, 117-121 of this dissertation) 2 2, 3 4, 3 6, 3 8, 4 6.

7 2.

p .

3 04ff.

3 05. I n graphs s ee such pottery

2 7-28,

9 4-96.

3 16

decorated

i s

but t his does not followed throughout ‚

2 87

and

s eem to be his s tudy.

1 -5 ( p. types as

type

3 17

i s

consistently At any rate

more attention and handles.

h as

t o

be

g iven

to

t he

shape

o f

the

bowl

3 79 Concerning LB t ombs which contain Philistine W are additions s ee the chapter on burials. I t i s conceivable t hat the Philistine Ware of t ombs 5 32, 5 52, and 5 62 could be contemporary with that of tomb 5 42 or even more recent, even i f these tombs as a whole were o lder than tomb 5 42 a s a whole. The Philistine Ware may represent j ust o ne phase o f the usage of t hese tombs. S ince Dothan i s dating more on t he basis basis of the t ruth i n the 3 80

3 81

of i ndividual i tems and M cClellan on t he t otal a ssemblage there may be an e lement dating of both.

Oren, BA 4 5 ( 1982) , p. Dothan, En Tish, p . 8 7. The

observations

on

a rchitectural change are and Jacqueline Balensi. K ochavi, BA 4 4-2 i nformation on the

of

1 66.

the

Aphek

based on S ee a lso

a nd

3 83

Dothan,

English,

p .

2 95.

3 84

Dothan,

English,

p .

2 95.

Hawam

discussions

( 1981) , p. 7 5-86, i nscription.

3 82 On the possible Mycenaean Series 9 00 tombs at F ara S see s tudy.

Abu

e sp.

8 0.

with

Zvi

Note

the

Gal

character of some o f the pages 1 52-153 of t his

Other l ess valid evidence which has been cited in support of the t heory of earlier waves of Mycenaeans in Palestine: the Deir A lla tablets which occur before the Philistine Ware ( See page 1 94 of this study) , the occurrence of cremation at Hama with Bird and Gazelle Ware ( See page 1 54) , the presence of Mycenaean psi figurines i n LB Palestine ( page 1 86) and the Myc. I lIB at Fara Cemetery 9 00 and i n other LB assemblages. 3 85 Ugarit may have 2 90, fn. 5 ; Hankey, 0g. VII, p .191-370. 3 86

See

note

3 87

Lagarce,

8 5 I bn

on

some Myc. I IIC -- Dothan, Levant 6 , p . 1 32-133;

t he

Hani,

question BA

4 5

of

t J garit's

( Winter

3 89

destruction.

1 981)

3 88 Bounni, Syria 5 5 ( 1978) , p . 2 33-301) f ig. 2 8; Syria 5 3 ( 1976) , p . 2 32-279; ( 1979) , p . 2 17-291. Courtois, U garitica V II, p . 1 91-370.

,

,

p .

esp. Syria

Pritchard & Herscher, S arepta, p . 8 5ff. B ikai, Pottery of Tyre, 1 978, e sp. p .73 P loug, Sukas I I, 1 973. Hachmann, K amT el Loz, 1 968-70.

2 88

English, p . Courtois,

6 0. p . 5 6

ff.

2 81,

K amid e i B er. 3 0 3 90

Goldman,

Loz P reliminary Report, ( 1978) , p . 7 -42.

T arsus

I I,

P l.

Bull.

Mus.

3 30-335.

French, Anatolian Studies 2 5 ( 1975) , p . 5 3-76. Furumark, OA 3 ( 1944) , p .- 2 64 on the connection Cilicia a nd Philistine Ware. 3 91 t he

Dothan assumes the connection of the Myc. Sea P eoples i n Cyprus ( English, p . 2 92)

h IC

of

and

3 92 d ate

For a n overview of various i nterpretations of t he of m ajor Mycenaean movement into Cyprus s ee the i ndividual a rticles i n Mycenaeans i n the Eastern M editerranean. A lso s ee Benson, Bamboula, p . 4 9-50 l imited Mycenaean i nfluence on the Cypriote culture of t his period. 3 93

Karageorghis,

K ition,

p .

5 1.

3 94

Karageorghis,

K ition,

p .

2 9-31.

3 95

On the l imited Mycenaean repertoire i n Cyprus see Meier, MEM, p .74, and Furumark OA 3 , p . 1 96-265.

3 96

On

the

degree

o f

Mycenaean

i nfluence

i n

Cyprus

Negbi, Levant 1 4 ( 1982) , p. 1 79-182. Muhley, I EJ 3 0 ( 1980) , p . 1 48-158. Karageorgf iT , RDAC 1 982, p. 9 2. Fortin, M ilitary Architecture i n Cyprus, p . 3 82, 4 71-472, 5 40. Dothan, English, p . 2 93, a lso background on

on

s ee:

2 94.

3 97 On the l imited Aegean influence on Cypriote and Philistine metal s ee page 1 71 of this d issertation and Muhley, I EJ 3 0 ( 1980) p. 1 48-158; Negbi, Levant 1 4 ( 1982) , p. 1 79-182 & Tel Aviv 1 ( 1974) , p . 1 59-172; Bass, Cape Gelidonya, esp. p . 1 18. On s eals s ee: Holmes, Schaeffer, Enkomi-Alasia,

Cyprus 3 98

p . p .

1 14-120 4 13-422

[ Bib [ Bib

On t he l imited Mycenaean i nfluence in general s ee L . Astrom, SCE IV

For 1 87

t he o f

heavily S emitic nature this d issertation.

3 99 D ikaios, Enkomi this dissertation a nd 1 4

I I, p . Dothan,

On the early d ate of see M uhley, ASOR l ecture, forthcoming.

of

'

and

I ] and I ].

i n 1 2th century p . 1 49-150.

the

gods

s ee

page

4 88. See F igure 2 1c o f English, p. 2 93, p .277, f ig

this Dec.

2 89

headdress i n the Near 1 983, publication

East

4 00 S ee f igure 2 1b of this dissertation. On the b ox this man i s walking behind a hunter i n a chariot. Dothan, English, p. 2 74, f ig. 1 3, P. 2 93. T he complete box i s r eproduced i n B arnett, Qedem 1 4. 4 01

Dothan,

4 02

K arageorghis, RDAC 1 982, p. 9 1-93. On the m ixed n ature of the f irst wave s ee G jerstad, Op. Arch. 3 ( 1944), p. 8 7 G . Hult, S IMA 6 6, 1 983.

4 03 D ec. o n

English,

K ling, 1 983.

RDAC

2 93.

p .

1 982,

p .

1 05-107,

S ee a lso Astrom and French, correlation with mainland.

a nd

RDAC

ASOR 1 980,

a lso

l ecture, p .

2 67-269,

4 04

K arageorghis, RDAC 1 982, p. 9 3. BAR 1 0-2 ( 1984),p. 1 6-28 i s a popular t reatment appeared after the t ext of this study was completed. 4 05 K ling, ASOR f orthcoming.

l ecture,

Dec.

1 974.

Publication

4 06

S chachermeyr, Aegean Prehistory V , 1 50, 1 52, 2 56-258, 2 85-286.

4 07

Hankey, i n p . 1 67-172.

Archeolgie

4 08

l akovides,

AJA

8 3

( 1979)

,

p .

4 54-462.

4 09

l akovides,

AJA

8 3

( 1979)

,

p .

4 60-462.

au

which

Levant,

e sp.

( R.

9 0-91,

Saidah,

ed.),

4 10 Muhley, ASOR presentation, December, 1 983. L etter, January 4 , 1 984. S ee a lso N . Sandars, Oxford Journal of Archeology 2 ( 1983) , p. 4 3-68.

Chapter

4 11

IV

Burial

Petrie,

Beth

MacDonald, 4 12

B ibliography

P elet

Beth

I ,

Pelet

I V unless

p .7-8. I I,

p .

2 5.

McClellan, JFA 1 979, p . 6 0,67. T . Dothan, H Few, p . 2 23, 2 29. Harding, PEFA 6 , p . 2 7,28.

4 13

Oren,

4 14

Oren,

Northern Cemetery,

4 15

T . Dothan, give a good

4 16

Tufnell,

p .

noted

p .

I

1 41.

1 42-148. Qedem 1 0, p . 1 03-104. overview of anthropoid

Lachish

IV,

P l.

2 90

4 5-46.

P . 9 8-104 coffins.

4 17 Detail on following n ames

t hese s ites will be f ound under i n t he burial bibliography.

t he

E gypt:Engelbach__Riqqeh & Gurob, Leclant--Basta and Kor n Abou B illou, Navil l e--Yehudiyeh, Petrie--Yehudiyeh and others, Steindorf. -Anjba i n Nubia. T ransjordan :A ibright--Sahab, Winnet--Dibon i n Moab, Yassine--Amman. 4 18

W right, S ee t he

BA 2 2 ( 1954) , views o f Dothan

4 19

L eclant,

Orientalia

4 20

M ay, Meggido Cult, C urtio, Nu I 5Ta, p .

4 21

E xample

p .

4 0

( 1971)

t he

h eadbands

BA on

no.

4 4:3

the

notes

4 14

& 4 15.

P 1.22:8.

,

P l. XXXI, 8 2. I

f rom J erusalem:

S ee a lso F ig. 2 2. 4 22

p . 5 4-66. and Oren i n

5 98.

V II

cover

and

p .

I vory

on

Megiddo

1 31.

T hese two f igures have been very widely reproduced. S ee F ig 2 1 o f t his dissertation and Dothan, English, 1 5 a nd 2 77 for r eproductions.

4 23

W aldbaum, AJA 7 0 ( 1966) P . 3 31-340. D othan, Qeder n 1 0, p . 1 02. P apadopoulos, S IMA 5 5, p . 5 1-53. B legen, Prosymna, esp. p . 2 28ff.

4 24

S tiebing,

AJA

4 25

L offreda, G onen, LB

LA

4 26

D othan,

7 4

( 1972)

,

p .

1 39-143.

1 8 ( 1968), P . 2 82-287, r T hl, p . 3 5-36.

English,

p .

esp.

2 83.

2 60.

4 27

G onen, LB Burial, p . 4 4, abstract p . iv-vi. I would l ike t o thank Dr. Gonen for a llowing me to u se t he English manuscript of this dissertation which was unpublished at the t ime I u sed i t. 4 28

M acDonald,

4 29

O ren,

4 30

G uy,

Beth

Pelet

I I,

Northern Cemetery, Megiddo

T ombs,

p .

p .

Tomb

2 5. 1 19,

9 12B--p.

1 28:10-11, P 1.34-35. Tomb 6 2-Pl. 1 68:15,

Tomb 3 9--p. P 1.68-69.

1 17,

4 31

M .

1 1

1 71.

4 32

B AR

Dothan, March

I EJ 1 982,

p .

( 1961)

,

3 6-38.

2 91

p .

This

P l. F ig.

5 1.

4 6:15.

6 9-72, P l.

gives

V II

P l.

1 65:12,16-17.

a good

color 4 33

p icture.

Macalister, Gezer I I, S alaman, PEQ 5 7 ( 1925) Myres,

4 34

PEQ

( 1907)

2 40-243.

p .

,

2 89. 7 3.

p .

Oren, Northern Cemetery, p . 1 19. Aharoni, Land of B ible, p . 2 28. T . Dothan, Hebrew, p . 2 20. I M aisler ( Mazar) ‚ AfO 1 1(1936),

4 35

K urtz,

4 36

Vermeule,

4 37

Mylonas,

4 38

MacDonald, BAR, March decoration.

4 39

3 9

p . ,

Greek

Burial,

Greek

p .

Bronze

Mycenae,

Age,

p .

2 5. p icture

9 2,93. 1 912, F ig

K arageorghis, Salamis, p . 2 5, f ound i n ashes from c lothing. 4 40

1 08.

1 32.

B eth P elet I I, p. 1 982, p. 3 8. Good

Mylonas, Mycenae, p. R . S eager, Mochlos,

2 39-240.

p .

2 12-213.

9 2,

p .

I

o f

f lowered

8 ,9,10. Gold

was

K urtz, Greek Burial, p . 2 12. F or mouthpiece with l ips s ee K argeorghis, and SCE I , P l. 8 4, 8 8, IV 5 80-582.

4 41

Donner

& Roellig,

KAI,

4 42

Vermeule, Bronze Age, K urtz, Greek Burial,

Text p .

p .

1 1,

P late

I II.

2 11. 2 12.

4 43

On the Aegean-Cremation l ink s ee Hencken, Tarquinia, p .

4 44

Petrie, Beth P elet I , p . 1 2. McClellan, Quantitative, p .461; P ictures of urns. R iis dates these tombs to the 7 th Hama 1 13, p . 3 )9. ( 1961) 5 6.

t o S ea People 4 71, 6 27-628.

JFA and

p .

6 0,67,70.

8 th

centuries

4 45

M . Dothan, I EJ 1 1 Dothan, Engl T H, p.

4 46

A lbright, AJSLL 5 5 ( 1938) , Check P etrie, Gaza I I. P l.

p . 3 58-359. 5 6-58.

4 47

R iis,

Hama

1 13,

4 7ff,

4 48

R iis,

MEM,

P .

1 99,205.

4 49

R iis,

MEM,

p .

2 00,

p .

S alamis,

,

2 9-39,

2 03.

2 92

p .

1 71-175.

Hama

9 7.

1 13,

p .

5 6.

Sauer s ees pottery.

t his

pottery

as

c lose

t o

S ea

People

4 50

Overview and f urther information on cremation: l akovides, P erati B , p . 4 7-50, 4 23 ( Greek) and Hencken, Tarquinia, p . 6 27. On cremation i n Syria s ee R iis, Hama 1 13, p . 3 7-39. MEM, p . 1 98-199.

4 51

C . Johns, QDAP 6 ( 1937) , p. 1 21-152. A lso s ee AJA 5 8 ( 1954) , p. 1 31-142; AJA 6 1 ( 19 7 ), . 3 99; X R T8 ( 1938) , p. 7 5-76. Dothan, English, p. 5 7.

4 52

McQueen,

4 53

Hencken, Tarquinia, throughout, e sp. p . 4 71, 6 27. Grant, The Etruscans, throughout. Coles, Bronze Europe, p . 3 67, 3 88.

4 54

l akovides, P erati B , 4 7-50. Papadopoulos, S IMA 5 5, p . 5 1-53. Kurtz, Burial, p . 2 11. Brock, Fortessa, p . 2 16-217. Crete. Karageorghis, Salamis, p . 2 5. Cyprus. McFadden, AJA 5 8 ( 1954) , p . 1 31-142. ( Kalorizi, Cyprus, 1 2th century)

4 55

lakovides,

4 56

Lorimer, JHS 1 933, p . 1 61, 1 63,168,169. Kurtz, Burial, p . 2 5-26, 3 2-34. l akovides, P erati B , p . 4 23-424. Vermeule, B ronze Age, p .211,301.

4 57

Riis,

4 58

McQueen,

4 59

Herr,

4 60

Kroeber, Am. Anth. 2 9 ( 1927), Ucko, World A rch I , p . 2 70.

4 61

Gonen,

The

H ittites,

P erati

MEM,

p .

LB

1 36-138.

4 7-50,

p .

V III

4 23-424.

1 99.

H ittites,

" Amman

B ,

p .

1 36-138.

p .

A irport,"

Burial,

BA

e sp.

p .

4 62

4 6-4

VIII ( 1983)

p .

3 09.

,

p .

2 23-229.

VIII

6 5.

Fara Graves 5 03, 5 07, 5 23, 5 13?, 5 53?, 5 06?; 1 26, 1 05/103?; 2 39, 2 42, 2 36?; 2 68, 2 51?; 6 01, 6 02, 6 07, 6 49, 6 36, 6 15?, 6 25?, 6 21?; 8 41, 8 03, 8 59, 8 51, 8 28, 8 39, 8 43?. This l ist i s based on a s tudy and comparison o f Petrie's r egister i n Beth P elet I , pottery l isted in Duncan's corpus, McClellan's charts i n JFA 1 979 (p. 5 9, 6 0, 6 7) and Dothan's l ist, English,

2 93

4 63 the

Where possible I have s ources l isted i n note

made probable 4 62 above. I t

corrections in appears t hat a ll

o f the s ources have d iscrepancies. i t i s reported t hat James i s preparing a n ew publication o f t he F ara t ombs. This may help s olve s ome of the d ifficulties. 4 64

M .

Dothan,

I EJ

Yediot Dothan, 4 65

4 66

English,

The A jjul Gaza I I. The

1 1 2 5

( 1960)

,

p .

( 1961)

,

2 24-230.

p .

o f

1 71-175. Heb.

5 4-56.

analysis i s based See a lso Dothan,

evaluation

F .

Aitun

i s

on P etrie's English, p .

based

on

register 3 5.

the

in

English

manuscript o f the f inal report which Gershon Edelstein k indly permitted me t o use before i ts publication. A lso s ee Edelstein, Qadmoniot 1 1, P . 8 6-90 and Dothan, English, p . 4 4. 4 67

Macalister, Gezer I , p . 3 25-327, F ig. P lates 8 4-85. ( Plates are in Vol. I II) A lso s ee Dothan, English, p . 5 2-53.

4 68

Macalister,

Gezer

I ,

p .

3 21-325.

P l.

4 69

Macalister,

Gezer

I ,

p .

3 00.

7 0-71.

4 70

Macalister,

Gezer

I ,

p .

3 34-335.

4 71 the

P l.

8 1-83.

P l.

8 7-89.

The Beth Shemesh analysis i s based on t he excavator's l og which I was able to u se courtesy of I srael Dept. of Antiquities, Rockefeller Museum. Some

information p . 1 61-177,

i s provided and Dothan,

in Grant, A S V , English, p .-5 0 —. P 1.

85-87,

Guy, Megiddo Tombs, P . 1 11-115, 1 59-163, e sp. 1 60:16. F ig. 1 36.

4 74

Guy,

Megiddo

Tombs,

p .

7 2,

4 75

Guy,

Megiddo

Tombs,

p .

6 9-72,

Guy,

Megiddo

Tombs,

p .

1 19,

P 1.

6 8-70,

4 7-49.

P l.

1 9-20,

p .

2 4-27,

6 -9,

4 73

M . Dothan, Afula, e sp. 2 0:2,3,7.

p .

1 25-126,

Guy, e sp.

4 77

Megiddo Tombs, 8 :22, 2 1, 1 2.

p .

4 72

4 76

1 67-171,

P l.

P l.

3 7, P 1.

The Tell Beit M irsim analysis i s excavator's l og which I was able

BS,

6 4-66,

1 35. 3 2-36,

1 23-124.

1 64-168.

based on the to u se courtesy

of

the I srael D ept. o f Antiquities, Rockefeller Museum. Some i nformation i s f ound A lbright, TBM I , p . 6 2. P l. 4 9:2, 5 .

2 94

4 78 4 79

Ohata,

Z eror

I -Ill.

T ufnell, Lachish I V, p . 6 6,68, I II, P l. 2 8. La HTsh I II, p . I V, P . 2 40.

2 91-293, P l. 8 , 9 2; 2 04, 2 22, 2 50, 2 76,

A lso s ee Dothan, d issertation.

and

English,

p .

4 80

D othan,

English,

P .

4 31

On

s ee

4 62.

4 82

Ambercrombie,

4 83

H arding, P EFA 6 ( 1955), P 1.4,5, F ig. 1 2-17.

4 84

P ritchard, F ig. 4 6.

4 85

Ambercrombie,

4 86

F or

Gezer

s ee

notes

4 87

F or

Aitun

s ee

note

4 88

O ren, B eth Shan Cemetery, e sp. summary chart p . 1 03.

4 89

Gonen,

4 90

P apadopoulus,

4 91

F ara

LB

n ote

Cemetery

Practices,

At

Burial

S IMA

Gonen,

4 93

Ambercrombie,

P .

p .

2 7-48,

8 6

o f

t his

Practices,

7 9-83.

e sp.

Sa'ideyeh,

p .32-33,

T able

p .

1 .

6 3.

4 67-470. 4 66.

5 5,

LB Burials, Burial

p .101-129,

4 4.

p .

This s tatement i s based of Gonen, LB Burials, Burial Practices.

4 92

p age

2 76.

Burial

Burial,

2 76

P .

1 00.

B ib.

I I.

on the general conclusions and Ambercrombie,

p .1-12. Practices,

P .

5 2.

4 94

I would l ike t o thank Baruch Arensburg of Tel Aviv U niversity f or a llowing me to use an unpublished study of the skeletal material from Tel Aitun and r elated sites and f or discussing this report with me. 4 95 The Nitzanim m aterial i s a lso discussed i n Arensburg's unpublished report. See a lso Gophna, Atiqot 6 , p . 1 -5. 4 96 de

T he Azor r eport. l a Societe

this

S ee the p eriod

material i s discussed i n Arensburg's The o riginal report i s F erembach, Bulletin de Anthropologie 1 961, p .83-91.

general discussion of i n Arensburg, People

2 95

the skeletal of I srael,

material o f 6 8-102.

p .

4 97

Beth

Shemesh

i s

discussed

The primary source i s Wright's 1 939 report. 4 98

4 99

V

5 00

See the Deir e l See

section Balah,

of skeletal Qedem 1 0,

Arensburg,

Metal

in

People

Bibliography

Arensburg' s

Hooten's

of

I II

Wright, AJA 4 3 ( 1939) A lbright, CAH 1 1:1, p.

p .

report

studies i n 9 2-97.

I srael,

unless

p .

,

5 16.

in

report. Grant

Dothan's

esp.

8 9.

p .

noted.

458-463. I .

5 01

KBo I 1 4, in A . Goetze, K izzuwatna and the Problem of Hittite Geography, p . 27-33. McQueen, The Hittites, p . 5 1. VIII

5 02

B jorkman,

5 03

J .

5 04

Burns,

5 05 5 06

Waldbaum,

CAH T .

A Sketch S IMA

Minoans, 1 :2,

p .

5 4

( 1978)

et

a l.,

fn.

3 19-320.

92,93,94.

1 60.

p .

8-6

( 1982)

AJA

8 5-3

p .

4 5,

,

( 1981), 5 3.

Waldbaum, S IMA 5 4, p . 2 4,25. A good l ist of references: English,

p .

9 2-93.

Liebowitz, BASOR 2 43 The identification of

( 1981) , this as

i s questioned by Muhley, AJA 8 5 '

Rothenberg, p . 2 61.

5 09

Liebowitz,

BASOR

5 10

Waldbaum,

S IMA

5 4,

p .

27.

5 11

Waldbaum,

S IMA

5 4,

p .

4 2.

5 12

Waldbaum,

S IMA

5 4,

p .

57.

5 13

21,

p .

,

1 40-147,

p .

Philistines,

Stech-Wheeler

Dothan, 5 08

Metals,

3 05.

p . 2 45-268. J . Muhley, BAR 5 07

of

and

Stech-Wheeler

et

2 43

a l,

p .

an

BASOR

( 1981)

AJA

7 9-83. iron smelting

2 52,

,

8 5-3,

p .

p .

9 2.

p .

2 58-261.

J .

Muhley,

BAR

8-6

( 1982)

,

p .

5 3-55.

5 14

J .

Muhley,

BAR

8 -6

( 1982)

,

p .

5 5.

5 15

Harding,

PEFA

6 ,

esp.

p .

2 96

3 2.

6 9-72,

site and

516

See

Catling,

Cypriote

Bronze

Snodgrass,

RDAC

5 17

J .

BAR

5 18

N . Sandars, Seapeoples, Dothan, English, p . 2 0.

5 19

Sandars,

AJA

Snodgrass,

AJA 6 7 ( 1963) , Weapons, p .

520

Sandars,

AJA

521

Sandars,

Seapeoples,

Muhley,

Dothan,

1 981, 8 -6

6 5

AJA

6 7

Snodgrass, 2 09-215.

in

523

A . p .

524

Y . Yadin, PEFQ Dothan, English,

1 955, p . 2 0.

525

Dothan,

English,

p .

526

Negbi,

LEVANT

Dothan, English, p. f rom Qasile but the not a double ax. Megiddo

I I,

p .

I I,

P l.

531

Wrezinski,

Atlas

I I,

532

See

1 79-182. from

LB

Megiddo

or

533

Buchholtz,

534

Muhley,

535

l akovides, Perati B , p . P erati Expanded English,

536

Pritchard, " New Evidence p , 1 03-104. I v.

1 83:14,

2 42,

p .

Fig.

to i s

a double ax an ax-adze,

1 5. 3 94.

1 83:19,20.

Cypriote

8 -6

p .

1 82:7,

See

BAR

,

67. Dothan refers published example

P l.

Herkunft

5 8ff.

11.

530

Catling,

Migrations,

example

Gezer I I, be misdated.

Megiddo

1 41.

p .

2 0-21.

an

528

See

1 29.

1 06.

p .

( 1982)

Dothan,

Macalister, This ax may

p .

Crosslands,

527

529

1 31. 2 07, 2 08.

p .

( 1963),

for

English,

1 58-159.

1 2.

Sandars,

1 4

5 2.

2 1-25.

p .

p .

522

See Figure 2 2f ANEP no. 3 32.

p .

,

p .

( 1963)

p .

and

1 29-135.

( 1982)

( 1961)

6 7,

English,

p .

Work,

3 5. Bronze

der

( 1982)

Work.

Doppelaxt, ,

p .

esp.

p .

2 6-33.

4 9-50.

427-429. p . 9 3. VII on

2 97

the

Seapeoples,"

5 37

J .

Muhley,

I EJ

5 38

0 .

Negbi,

5 39

Catling,

5 40

B ass,

5 41

Astrom,

5 42

Negbi, Levant 1 4 ( 1982) , p. 1 79-182. Muhley, I EJ 3 0 ( 1980) , p. 1 48-158. I n h is dissertation on Tel Qasile A . Mazar a more positive view of an Aegean role i n P alestinian metal work.

Tel

3 0

( 1980)

Aviv

Cypriote

1 ( 1974) Bronze

Cape Gelidonya, SCE

I V,

p .

,

1 59-172,

Work,

p assim.

,

Arts,

p .

5 43

S .

5 44

Wachsmann,

5 45

H . Hencken, T arquinia, U rnfield examples. I

p .

5 46

Wachsmann,

I JNA

1 0,

p .

2 11,212.

5 47

Wachsmann,

I JNA

1 0,

p .

2 10.

I

5 48

Wachsmann,

IJNA

1 0,

p .

2 13.

I

5 49

Wachsmann,

I JNA

1 0,

p .

2 11.

I

5 50

Wachsmann,

I NJA

1 0,

p .

2 14.

I

5 51

Center

V II

Minor

5 52

List of conical s eals T el Qasile: A . Mazar's

For

I NJA

1 0

( 1981) p .

,

p .

1 87-220.

I

2 04-206.

Studies

B ibliography

5 16,

f g.

4 78a.

I

Newsletter

I unless

8 ,

Nov.

indicated.

typescript,

English

p . 2 35-237; Hebrew p. 2 32-237. B . M azar, Yediot 1 967, p. 6 4-67. BA 4 4-2, p . 8 0.

T imna: Qadmoniot 1 3 ( 1980), p. 9 3. F ara: B eth P elet I , P l. 2 9, 3 1-35, Beth Pelet U, P l. 6 2, 6 3. M egiddo I I, P l. 1 62, 1 63. Gezer I I, p . B eth Shemesh: AS

t akes

I

1 0,

Maritime

Arts

Aphek:

I JNA

1 69.

1 49-150.

Ships

Wachsmann,

esp

1 18-120.

V I

T el

Bibliography

p .

p .

Minor

1 60-161.

I I,

2 94-295. F ig. 4 37. Excavator's l og, p . p .

2 1,

3 6, 2 98

P l.

4 8.

6 ,

4 3,

4 0.

4 8.

1 982.

Abu

Hawam:

QDAP

IV,

P .

5 ,8,28,34.

Tarsus: Goldman, Tarsus I I, P l. 3 93, 3 94. Enkomi-Alasia, p . 8 5-87, Fig. 2 9-30. Rowe, Catalog, p . 2 33-266, 3 46-347, P l. 2 6-29. Gerishe: 5 53

See

the

ASOR Newsletter, Tel

especially 554

Holmes, Astrom,

Hawam 1 49

1 984,

examples

on

page

Enkomi-Alasja

Bass, Cape Gelidonya, Also see notes 4 42 and

p .

l isted

2 8

of

I ,

p .

5 .

above,

QDAP

Foreign Relations of Cyprus, SCE IViD, p . 6 32-633.

Schaeffer, 5 55

Abu seal

Jan.

IV.

p .

6 9,

1 18.

8 5.

p . 1 51. 6 48.

556

Compare the 9 00 and 500 Cemeteries at Fara. I n the 9 00 Cemetery there are a few domed stamp seals among a s ea of scarabs. I n the 500 cemetery the stamp seals increase 557

and

Barnett, subject work.

558

Barnett,

559

Kantor, The same

VI

the

s carabs

Qedem see

1 4,

pages

Qedem

3 7.

1 4,

p .

I ,

For

an

3 5-38,

p .

Bibliography

Schmoeckel,

Der

I I

D ,

p .

3 1.

overview of

4 3-55

of

the

I .

Ceramic

( Pottery)

Gott

Dagon, of

or

Barnett.

Cult VII

1 928,

Religion

objects ( Site

esp.

and

Ethics,

3 86-388.

Ginsburg, Orientalia 7 ( 1938) , p. 1 0-11. Macalister, Philistines, p . 9 9-106. Theologial Dictionary of the Old Testament p . 1 39-141. Gibson, Canaanite

Myths

Matthiae,

p .

Ebla,

I I II,

Glossary.

1 87-188.

561

Macalister, Philistines, p . 1 00,104. G lueck, Deities and Dolphins, p . 3 82. M . Dothan, Ashdod 1 1-111, p . 6 5. Dothan, English, p. 21.

562

M .

Mueller,

the

same

3 8.

p . 4 7-55. L . Paton, Encyclopedia Vol.

B?

JNES 1 5 ( 1956) , p . 1 53-174. material is also discussed by

Religion

*H.

p .

2 5-31,

are in Bibliography Reports).

560

decrease.

Egyptological

2 99

Researches,

1 906,

p .

4 9.

5 63

B aal

Z ebul--Dothan,

English,

T heologial D ictionary p . 2 9-31. G ibson, U garit

Canaanite t he order

of

t he

p . O ld

2 0.

i v ,

T estament

Myths, G lossary. At i s usually Z ebul Baal.

5 64

Edgerton and W ilson, 7 9:22, 8 3:55, 8 6:25,

5 65

P ritchard, ANET, p . 2 49-250. Heick, 1 962, p . 4 82-484. S ee a lso TDOT article on Baal.

5 66

Pritchard, ANET, t emple i n t he t ext

5 67

ANET 2 60-261. Weinstein, BASOR 2 42 ( 1981) , K atzenstein, JAOS 1 02-1 ( 1982) p . 1 11-113.

5 68

Macalister,

5 69

A . Mazar, 7 8-118.

5 70

Mazar,

Qedem

1 2,

Mazar,

Qedem

1 2,

Grant,

k in

5 71

5 72

H istorical R ecords, 8 7:3, 9 4:7.

p .263. i s not

P hilistines, Qedem

1 2,

S hems

p . p . I ,

esp.

The l ocation certain.

p .96-99, P .

of

Ptah's

p .

1 9.

6 1-73,

1 19-121,

7 3. 7 8-81. P l.

2 7.

Tomb

7 ,

5 73

Mazar,

5 74

Grant, Ain S hems I , P l. X I; Vol. I II, P . 2 9, F ig 2A, p 1. B ; Vol. ' I , p . 1 56-157. Mazar, Qedem 1 2, P . 1 07-108 provides a thorough l isting o f bowls o f this s tyle. Z ori, I ssachar Survey, p . 1 12 for an example f rom Jezreel. Dothan,

1 2,

4 3:23;

1 07.

Weippert, ZDPV 9 3 ( 1977) , p . 2 68-282. Hornblower, JEA 1 5, p . 4 4-46. Very rough equivalents are found at Gezer Beth Shan V II, F ara Tomb 9 05. Qedem

P l.

English,

p .101-103.

p .

2 24.

5 75

Mazar, Dothan,

Qedem 1 2, p . 1 08-110. Hebrew, p . 1 76. English, p . 2 24. G jerstad, S CE IV2, p .283.

5 76

Mazar,

5 77

M azar, Qedem 1 2, p , 1 09-110. For EB o ccurrence s ee Rast and S chaub, BASOR 2 40 ( 1980) , p . 3 4,35. N ilsson, M inoan and Mycenaean R eligion, p . 1 13-120. For Cyprus s ee PT don, RDAC 1 971, p. 1 8-27.

Qedem

1 2,

P .

1 09-110.

3 00

578

Egypt: Nagel,

Cerar nique,

P l.

XVIII,

XXIII:25.

Chalcolithic:

of

Bar

Adon,

Cave

Mazar, Qedem 1 2, P . 1 10-111. Holland, Levant 9 ( 1977) , p. 1 54. BAR 2 -2, P . 5 .

5 80

Nasbeh: Wampler,

Nasbeh

I I,

Aharoni,

Mazar,

BAR 1 1-2, ( 1976) , P. 5 . Qedem 1 2, p . 1 11. Also & 8 1,

Dothan,

1 35,

p .

English,

Furumark,

2 24

p .

Mycenaean

and

583

Mazar, Mazar,

Qedem 1 2, p . 8 2-95. ASOR NEWSLETTER 3 6/4-5

French,

ABSA

586

F .

in

5 87

For offering p . 154, fig.

Jones

6 6

M .

Dothan,

E .

Grant,

Beth

Ashdod Ain Beth

2 0,

p .

p .

,

and

I I,

East,

p .

1 22-125.

3 1,

p .

I II,

Gezer,

P l. p .

P l.

Lachish,

Jemmeh,

6 5:10.

216.

Pl. 4 8:1-8. 4 1, P l. 1 5:19.

Different

590

T .

p .

I I

B .

French, ABSA 6 6 ( 1971) , p . 1 01-187, esp. These f igurines f irst appear in LH l llal. English,

1 5.

1 33.

5 89

Dothan,

p .

,

Holland, Levant 9 ( 1977) Sites include Jerusalem,

Shemesh,

Balensi, Abu Huwam, M . Dothan, Afula, p.

1 29,

1 985)

1 70.

Near

Shemesh,

Shems

( Mar.

2 34.

t ables see 1 7,18,19.

Ashdod, Beersheba, and Nasbeh. 588

( 1971)

Aegean

work.

1 19.

p .

Ashdod I I, English, p.

585

s ites.

6 9-70.

p .

Qedem

Dothan, Dothan,

footnotes

other

forthcoming

Pottery,

Mazar,

M . T .

his

include

5 82

584

1 2,

1 60.

p .

which

2 4.

p .

2 43.

p .

Sasa:

8 0

Archeology,

1 83,185.

Treasures,

579

5 81

F ig.

Syria: Badre, F igurines, P l. Early s olid kernos.

2 37-248.

P l.

form.

1 06.

2 0-27,

fig. 1 1-12. E . Oren, Northern Cemetery, p . 1 24. See his page 1 22 and footnote 377. There i s an unpublished example from Tel Qasile. 5 91

Dothan,

English,

p .

5 92

Dothan, English, P. There i s an example

2 39,245. 2 46. from

Ashdod

H2206-1.

301

not

yet

publishei,

5 93

BAR

VIII

( Jan.

8 2)

3 2.

p .

,

Good

picture.

The l yre p layer from Ashdod: Ashdod or Dothan, English, p . 2 35, P l. 3 5. 5 94

N . Dothan, Ashdod and contrast S .

5 95

Aharoni,

5 96

Schaeffer, AfO

5 97

p .

1 27,129,

Archeology,

p .

1 88.

A lasia I , 2 1 ( 196 T )-,

I ngot god: Wainwright JHS

5 98

Horned

5 99

Baal

6 00

I I,

The

8 3

Schaeffer, interprets ( 1963)

God.

and

p .

l iterary

fn.

P l.

62:1

4 ,9,

5 04-573. 5 9-69.

p .

p .

A lasia I , p . as a T jekker,

1 6ff.

I

1 46-152.

Schaeffer,

E l.

uncertain.

,

I II,

Schaeffer, evidence

A lasia

I ,

p .33ff.

A lasia

I ,

p .

of

Helibing,

Semitic

Alasia,

5 12,

deities

P .

55,

On continuity of Cypriote worship also RDAC 1 977, p . 1 13-130, esp. 1 29. temples are Levantine: Negbi, 1 79-182. Also See Hult, S IMA

5 18.

is

8 3. see

Webb,

6 01

The p .

Levant 1 4 ( 1982) 6 6 ( 1983).

6 02

Beth Shemesh Images. See esp. AS I -II, P 1. L and XLVII and the catalog on pages 2 7-29 of I I. -The Reshep i s XLVII:42, described on P. 2 9. -The pierced breast vessel i s on P l. XXVII at end of Vol. I and its description and locus Vol.11, p. 2 6. -The Ashtartes are best i llustrated by Vol. I II, P l. X IX and Vol. IV, P l. LI:17,18. See Vol. I II, p . 2 8,35,36,48 for discussion of f ind spots.

6 03

Megiddo

Images.

Megiddo

I I:

-seated metal god-Pl 2 36:24; -fluted headdress goddess-Pl. 2 41:7; -Ashtartes-Pl.242:13,14 ( St. V II); -Mycenaean deer-246:25 ( St. VII B ). 6 04

Oren,

6 05

BAR VIII

6 06

Dothan,

VIII 6 07

Northern ( Jan.

Cemetery, 1 982)

Afula,

Architecture Mazar,

Qedem

P l.

,

p .

p .

p .

P l.

50.

27.

1 5:19.

Bibliography 1 2,

1 23,

1 3-58,

3 02

V esp.

6 1-73.

the in

6 08

M azar,

p .

6 2.

6 09

M azar,

p .

6 2.

6 10

M azar,

p .

6 2-66.

6 11

M azar, M azar,

6 12

Qedem 1 2, P . 6 8. ASOR NEWSLETTER ( Mar.

M azar, E . T .

p .

1 985)

,

p .

1 5.

7 5.

Oren, BA 4 5-3 ( 1982) , p . Dothan, English, p . 8 7.

1 61-162.

6 13 M azar again p rovides a good discussion and s ummary o f s ources. Mazar, Qedem, p . 7 4- 7 5, a nd I EJ 3 1-1 ( 1981) , p . 8 -11. T he c lassification o f I zbet Sartah a s a n I sraelite s ite, r ather than Philistine a ffects t he d iscussion o f this t opic. 6 14

Mazar,

Qedem,

6 15

F ritz,

ASOR p aper,

6 16

P hilistine o rigin--B. Mazar, I srael Egyptian origin--Z. Meshel, personal 1 982. S ee

d iscussion

7 5.

P .

A .

Dec.

1 985.

Mazar,

I EJ

3 1-1,

Academy, p .6. communication, p .

6 17

Lapp and Graham, AASOR 4 5 ( 1982) , p. 4 8, concerning the development of casemates. S ee note 6 19.

6 18

M . T .

6 19

Dothan, Dothan,

Herzog,

A shdod I I, English, p.

BASOR

2 50

1 36,

p .

1 37,

1 7. F ig.20

1 55.

4 1.

( 1983)

,

p .

4 1-50.

6 20

Fortin, Military Architecture o f Cyprus, e sp. p . 4 24-486 ( 471-472) , 5 25-559 ( 540) . On casemate l ike construction a t Pyla s ee K arageorghis, BAR 1 0-2 ( 1984)

,

p .

2 2.

6 21

Mazar,

6 22

Aharoni,

6 23

Personal communications, Jacqueline B alensi, Zvi Gal, 1 983. A lso s ee page 8 6 of this dissertation a nd note 2 01.

6 24

H .

I X 6 25

Qedem,

Dothan,

L anguage

p .

7 7.

Archeology,

A shdod

I I,

B ibliography

p .

p .

1 86.

2 6-27,

1 36-137,

1 983,

1 55-156.

V I.

See the d iscussion of Adon at LB Aphek i llustrate the

3 03

on page 3 7. R ecent l ong t radition o f

f inds

multi-lingual 4 4-2, 6 26

communication

7 8-80.

p .

For

i nformation

page

i n

the

a rea

( Kochavi,

7 and

note

on

the

Yavneh

Yam

t ext,

M .

Dothan,

Ashdod

I I,

p .

2 00-201.

6 28

M .

Dothan,

Ashdod

I I,

p .

2 1,

6 29

M .

Dothan,

Ashdod

I I,

p .

4 0.

6 30

Gophna, Atiqot 1 , weight and ostracon

6 31

F .

6 32

Cross,

BASOR

6 33

Cross, Rudolph

BASOR 2 38 ( 1980), p . 1 Cohen, personal communication,

6 34

Herr, 1 60,

6 35 6 36

2 38

Scripts,

2 2.

P . 2 5-30, l ists another from the 7 th century. VII

2 38

( 1980)

( 1980)

see

,

seals

1 -4.

p .

,

1 4.

p .

6 2,

1 57,

1 58,

ZAT, page

1 96

1 929,

p .

and

note

6 48

on

Mayani,

6 39

Van

1 966,

p .

VT

den

For p .

2 4

( 1974)

Branden,

comments

see

VT

p .

,

1 5

p .

p .

VT

1 5

Cazelles,

( 1965),

p .

Les

p .

1 45.

1 29-150.

Textes

5 35-536.

Since there the pe-ayin

6 42

Naveh, I EJ 2 8 ( 1976) , p . B . Mazar, I srael Academy,

6 43

Dotan, I srael May

TA

Deir

note

( Fr.) A lla,

( 1981)

F inkelstein,

,

p .

1 6

ADAJ

( 1971),p.

1 5

( 1970),

3 04

text

1 60-172.

Personal

9 9-102.

6 36.

3 1-35. p . 6 .

communication,

1 983.

Mendenhall, ADAJ

See

are frequent errors in this order may also be an error.

8 -2

8 1,

3 18-323.

( 1965),

6 41

6 45

and

4 4-2,

9 5-99. A lso see comments by Weippert, Z DPV 2 99-310; Sauer, ZAW 1 969, p . 1 45-146;

Francken,

6 44

1 59,

Cypro-Minoan

A lbright, CAH 1 1:2, p. 510. A lso accepted by Aharoni, Archeology,

6 38

6 40

1 983.

2 50-251.

Aegean Seals. See a lso Kochavi, BA for s imilar characters on a tablet. 6 37

June

1 63.

A lt, See

BASOR

s ee

8 .

6 27

Cross,

BA

VII.)

p .

3 9-40,

6 46

Naveh,

BASOR

6 47

Personal

6 48

Cypro-Minoan

2 47

( 1982)

communication, seals

of

G .

See

discussion

page Perati B , Attica. 6 50

6 51

6 53

Qedem

Mazar,

Rabin, Dothan,

1 0,

BASOR

in

graves

p .14.

2 48

Tomb

p .

1 13-139.

Pelet

p .

1 33

on

I ,

p .

7 .

the

obscurity

IV,

p .

1 88.

See

l isting

srn

in

Whitaker,

UT

of

Greece,

1 14.

Woerterbuch

the

in

Orientalia 3 2 ( 1962), English, p .18.

Beth

i n

l akovides, seals i n

1 2.

Petrie,

Concordance.

1 24:18

1 3

and

E .

Shapir, Rabin,

1 443

in

Gordon,

Ugaritic p . i s

2 23. I n a p lace

p .223.

( 1932)

C .

root

A istleitner, Woerterbuch, p . 1 53, Gibson says Srnm

Aistleitner, Syria

6 56

seals

Erman,

See

published

p .

Manual and Canaanite Myths name. 6 55

be

( 1982),

Ugaritic 6 54

will

1 983.

BAR 8-4 ( 1982), p . 3 1 for Dothan, English, p . 4 1-45.

Syrian

Strange, Caphtor, of the etymology. 6 52

Mendenhall,

1 54 of this dissertation. A lso p . 4 57 for Mitanni . and Levantine

Dothan, A .

of

5 3-54.

Ashdod

Vol. V . See S ieglitz, color picture. A lso T . 6 49

p .

,

JAOS

,

p . 5 7

1 13-163. ( 1937)

Orientalia

32

,

p .

7 3-77.

( 1963),

P .

1 24.

6 57

Rabin, JJS A lso Bork,

2 5 ( 1971) , p . 3 53-364. M O 1 3, p . 228.

6 58

Shapir,

6 59

Gordon, HUCA 2 6 ( 1955) , p . 6 0-61, and Antiquity 3 0 ( 19 56) , p . 2 2-26. The l ist of suggested non-Semitic words

JAOS

5 6

( 1936)

p .

,

272-281.

in

the

text

i s not complete. the metal objects

Bork, for example suggests that some i n I Sam. 1 3 may be Philistine terms.

6 60

3 1

Jones, and Van

6 61

JNES

( 1972)

,

p .

3 43-350,

at l ength — i n The Philistines Wendikens, Etudes, p . 87.

Brown,

Driver,

Briggs,

p .

3 05

2 8.

and

D anites.

of

6 62

Phicol

as

Semitic:

Gesenius,

p .

Non-Semitic: Dothan, English, Gordon, Antiquity 3 0, p . A lbright, 6 63

Delilah,

6 64

Bork, p .

6 65

1DB

AfO

M itchell

JPOS I ,

1 3,

i n

1 ( 1921)

p .

6 73

p . 2 3. 2 2-26. 1 89.

p .

,

8 14. 2 27.

p .

Winton

Thomas,

OT

and

Archeology,

4 15.

Sample

names

are

Hanuna

Ashkelon, Aziru of Ekron, Sharruludari son

of

Gaza,

Mitinti

of

Ashdod, S idqa of Ashkelon, Padi of Rukibtu, Sillibel, and I kasu.

(

Thomas, OT Texts, p . 5 6-60 provides a s imple l isting and references. There i s more detail i n Luckenbill a r other sources. 6 66

Dothan, English, p . 2 3. Wainwright, JHS 8 3 ( 1963), P. 1 51. The name A Tsh may appear as a Keftian i n an 1 8th Dynasty text ( Mitchell in Archeology and OT Study, p . 4 15, & Casson, Essays on Aegean Archeology,

6 67

Bork, AfO 1 3, variants of the

6 68

Text 2 014 in AnOr. Groendahi's study of name in the index to

6 69

Hellbing,

S IMA

6 70

Ekron

I I

6 71

See

6 72 until

1DB

notes

Some more

Philistine practices cannot be

p . 2 27. name.

5 7 p .

1 36,

3 8. the his

a lso

discusses

names l ists discussion.

( 1979)

,

p .

the

each

7 0.

6 9.

3 63,

and

of the studies information i s pentapolis.

He

name

Thomas, Peet in p . 9 0-100.

4 10.

which are available

Studies

of

needed cannot be done from cities of the Philistine

burial

and architecture, which are now inadequate, done well until more data i s available from

these s ites. Among the studies which could be done now are development of precise typology for a l arge scale computor analysis s ites, a study of p lain ware systematic

which study

of a ll pottery the percentage occurs of the

types at Philistine and continuity of the

with Myc. h IC in Cyprus, a origin and variants of the type

and 7 j ars, a study of the stirrup jars i n Palestine,

method of manufacture Cyprus, and Greece.

3 06

of

6

f

I NDEX T his i ndex i s a p artial i ndex f or l ocating t opics o r s ites not easily f ound i n the t able of contents. Authors are i ncluded only i f t heir i nterpretations a re specifically discussed at a certain point of t he s tudy. The w ord t ell i s u sually ommitted f rom t he p lace n ames. Abdi

A shirta

3 2. A shkelon

Abimelech

5 ,

Abu

1 01,

1 39,

1 86,

1 90.

Abu

H awam

H uera

Achish Adon

8 0.

1 99.

l etter

Afula

1 98.

3 7,

9 8, 1 86,

Aharoni

1 34, 1 89.

5 3,

Aitun

1 93. 1 60,

1 87,

9 0, 1 58, 1 86.

1 90. 1 63,

8 9,

1 55,

A ssyrian

reliefs

A ssyrian 1 99.

t exts

Avvites

1 0.

2 2,

3 4,

Aphek

1 53-154,

B aal

3 7,

1 83,

Aramaic

9 5.

Z ebul

3 1

f f.,

1 82,

2 00.

1 39,

Amiran

1 07.

Areini

8 9.

2 7.

1 90.

1 93.

Batnoam Besor

t ext

8 5. 1 54.

9 4.

Beersheva/Beersheba 9 4. Eglayim

5 ,

8 9.

9 6

3 2. Beth 6 ,

3 1,

3 3,

3 4,

6 7-68, 1 82, 1 85, 1 90, 1 93, 1 96, 2 00. Ashdoda

1 11-112.

1 71.

Bethel

Ashdod

handles

Batash/Batashi

Beth

Arvad

1 83.

1 95.

6 -7,

3 7,

1 87.

1 58.

l etters

8 6,

1 60,

9 0,

1 53.

1 94,

Anachronism

f f.,

A zor 1 63.

Bass Amarna

1 82,

3 7

1 70.

Basket A lphabet

1 83.

3 6.

Axes

Baal Akko

6 9,

A shtoreth/Ashtarte 1 83, 1 87.

Baalah A jjul

3 2-33,

1 85-186.

1 49, 1 88. B eth 1 60,

3 07

Shan

9 9,

1 50-151,

1 27

f f.

1 62,

1 86,

S hemesh 8 1-83, 1 34, 1 63, 1 84, 1 86, 1 87.

B eth

Z ur

D eir 1 63.

9 6

B ichrome 7 8, 8 1,

p ainting 5 5, 1 05, 1 40.

Burnish

7 9,

Cappodocia Caphtor 4 8, 1 96.

8 ,

9 3.

9 6,

Casluhites

4 6,

1 3,

4 8.

C ircumcision 2 1.

1 3,

P lanning

1 7,

1 8,

4 4.

Crete,

Caphtor 1 84

D agon/Dagan D an

1 6,

8 6,

9 0.

E kron 2 00.

3 3,

3 7,

s ites

1 09-111, 1 69-170.

3 9,

6 9,

1 7. 9 5. s urvey

Etruscans 1 55, 1 95.

ff.

E zer

9 6.

1 1,

1 7,

4 1-43,

9 4.

F ara 7 0-73, 1 15-123, 1 49, 1 50, 1 52-154, 1 56-158, 1 61, 1 63, 1 77.

1 94,

1 82-183.

A lla 1 02, Texts 1 94.

5 4, 1 52,

Eglon

F ul

1 7,

4 2.

E thnic i dentification, m ethodology 3 , 1 1, 1 4, 4 2-43, 4 8-52, 5 1-53, 7 6, 1 07, 1 14, 1 36, 1 54, 1 68-169, 1 97-198, 2 01-205, n ote 7 5.

1 9,

( Gibeah)

9 6.

F eathered headgear 1 8, 2 0, 3 7-38, 1 43, 1 45-147, 1 50-151, 1 96.

1 02.

Danuna D eir 3 84;

8 6,

gods

1 82.

Ephraim

Cyprus 8 , 2 9, 3 4-36, 5 5, 1 05-106, 1 35, 1 40-144, 1 53, 1 54, 1 70-171, 1 77, 1 85-187, 1 89-190, 2 00. Cypro-Minoan 1 96.

1 49,

9 6.

E ltekeh

1 90.

Courville

vessels

2 1,

Ekwesh

Continuity i n Culture 8 6, 9 0, 1 07 f f., 1 15-135, 1 62, 1 63, 1 68, 1 71, 1 85, 2 01-205.

Cult

s ee

Ebla

4 4.

s ee

D ieties,

Dothan T . 1 37, 1 41,

Chronology 5 , 6 , 9 -10, 4 4, 4 8, 5 3, 7 3, 7 6, 7 9, 1 36-139, 1 41 f f.

C ity

1 99.

D ar

1 71.

Caucasus

D elilah

9 1,

D istribution within 1 06-107.

1 90.

1 0,

B alah

D ionysius of H alicarnassus

4 4.

8 , 1 0-11, 2c1

Casemate

Catling

8 7,

e i

2 1.

Gath

note

Gath Gaza 3 08

7 ,

3 3,

G ittaim 3 3,

7 0,

7 0,

8 9.

9 5. 1 82.

Georgiev

4 1-42.

Houses

Gerar

8 0.

l adna/lamani

5 ,

Gerisa

8 0.

l akovides

Geshurites Gezer 1 59,

3 3,

1 89.

1 0. 8 5,

l avan

1 34

‚

1 53,

I bn

f f.

1 43.

3 6.

Hani

1 05,

1 40.

1 61.

Gibbethon Gibeah

I llyrian theory 4 1-42, 4 4, 1 14,

9 5.

I ndigenous

9 6.

A egean

1 87.

Goliath

1 0,

Gordon

1 97.

Greeks

2 0,

H alif

1 69,

1 99.

Jaffa

4 1-44.

Jones,

8 8, A .

1 53,

1 54.

Karageorghis

1 43

Keisan

H arbaj

1 01.

Kerithite

8 0.

H aunebut H azor

K ilts

H earth

1 89,

H ebron

texts

8 . 3 3,

1 50,

Battle

1 8.

4 1. Language

H esi

86,

1 95. Land

H erodotus

2 0.

Lachish 1 61.

1 98.

8 .

1 84-185.

Kretim

1 02.

1 42.

1 00.

Kernoi 2 0.

1 98.

1 0.

H ankey

H aror

of

4 4,

1 86. 4 4,

Josephus

1 05,

1 0,

8 7.

Jemmeh

9 4.

H ama

1 94.

I zbet Sartah 9 2, 1 32-133. Texts 1 95.

1 85-187.

Cypriote

1 42,

neighbors

Philistines 4 8-49, 1 99.

Gods 3 7, 1 78, 1 82-188. E gyptian 1 83, 1 84, 1 85.

7 ,

3 7,

1 93-200.

86. Lesbos

H ittites 1 66. In H omer

2 9, 3 1, 4 7, P alestine 3 4.

4 1.

H ormah H orned 1 79,

3 4

Helmets

Libation

vessels

Libyans

1 7-18

Loan

9 3. 2 0-21,

4 1.

Words

v

4 6,

1 96

ff.

Luka/Lukka/Lukki

1 87.

2 9, 3 09

3 2.

1 84. 1 49.

1 6-17,

Ma' aravjm

8 0.

McClellan 1 38.

5 6,

Madeba

1 14,

7 0-73,

Names,

9 4.

Maliha

8 4,

Manufacturing

methods

Ware

8 4,

of 9 0,

99,

2 2, 3 1, 3 3, Semitic 5 , 1 98.

22,

9 5.

Negbi

1 70.

Nibbi

4 4.

Nitzanim Mari

8 8,

P ersonal:non

Nasbeh

9 4.

Philistine 1 08-111.

Mycenaean

Semitic 1 99-200. 3 7, 1 94,

1 61.

Malat

1 40.

f igurines 1 85, 1 86.

1 63.

1 82. Northern

Masos

9 3.

Masks

1 84.

Mazar,

A .

Megiddo 1 29 -131,

Onomasticon 2 2. 1 84,

Mefalsim

1 89.

Ox

9 4.

Mendenhall

9 7,

1 95. 1 7.

Mevorakh

9 6.

Midianite

Ware

Midrash

9 .

Minoans

4 8.

9 3,

Carts

1 8 of

f f.

Amenope

2 1.

Painting of Philistine Ware 5 4, 7 7, 8 0, 8 1, 8 7,

9 7-98, 1 27, 1 60, 1 87.

Merneptah

War

9 8,

1 02-103,

P atriarchs

5 .

Pelasgians

4 1-44,

Pelethites

8 .

Phaistos

9 5.

1 12.

disc

1 98.

1 96.

Philistine, the n ame, 6 , 9 , 1 5-19, 4 1-42, 4 7-49. See

Philistines,

ethnic

Caphtor.

c lassification

Miqne.

6 9.

9 -12, 1 9-21, 44, 4 6-50, 1 14, 1 36, 1 52-153, 1 56, 1 72, 2 01-205.

Mishi

3 2.

Mizpeh Mor

influence, 1 35 f f. Local i nfluence 5 3 ff., 1 07 f f., 1 35 ff. I nterpretation 1 07-115,

8 9. f igures

1 86.

1 36-144. Muhley

1 68,

Mycenaean Mycenaean

5-6,

Philistine Ware, 5 3-60, 1 35 f f. Mycenaean

9 5.

Mourning

of,

1 70.

1 52, 1 53. pottery forms

1 09 ff. Mycenaean I liCib 8 3, 9 9, 1 05,

See

"Mycenaean,"

1 09, 3 10

Pritchard

1 61,

Qadesh

3 0.

1 7,

a lso

"Painting." 1 70.

Qashish

1 01.

Settlement

Qasile 7 3-76, 1 24-126, 1 70, 1 84-185, 1 89. Qatra

Shalaf

Qiri

I srael

7 .

Sharden/Shardana, Sherder i

1 01.

Quantitative Methodology 6 6, 6 8, 7 5, 7 6, 8 1, 8 2, 8 3, 1 07.

Sharia

Qubur 1 94.

Sheik 8 9.

Ahmed

Sheik

Z uweyyid

e i

Walaida

Quneitra Ramses

9 4.

I I

1 7,

Ramses I II 4 4, 4 6, 5 1, R as

Abu

Red 9 3.

Reshep

3 0,

9 5.

7 8,

8 7,

Sippor

Saren

8 9. 1 70.

Sukas

1 9,

1 75.

3 3,

2 00.

Tell

1 7,

4 4. 8 .

of

Tarsus

3 4.

2 2,

1 05.

Table

1 05. I I

Sicel

87.

Strange

1 97.

Sarepta

8 8.

1 7,

1 3,

Spannuth

1 61,

Areini

S icel/Sikel/ Shikel 1 8, 2 1, 2 3, 3 0.

1 01.

S aidiyeh

e i

1 6, 3 2.

Shipping

8 1,

1 39.

see

Shuwardata

5 5,

7 0,

7 6-80,

Sherden 2 3, 2 8,

1 87.

Risim

Sargon

1 7-21, 1 37.

s ee

7 0.

Shekelesh,

1 01.

s lip

S afi

3 0.

Hamid

Re'ala

Sharuhen

9 4,

6 .

9 5.

Shamgar

9 5.

of

nations 1 06,

Beit

1 0.

1 43-144.

Mirsim

8 4,

1 60. Schachermyr 1 42. S ea

Battle

4 4,

1 9, 1 1,

Seals

1 77,

Seeiim

1 14, Temples

Seapeople 1 9, 3 2-33. 1 54,

5 5,

2 5. 1 6,

Teresh 1 7,

1 94,

1 89. 2 3.

Thucydides Timna

8 6.

T ivon

1 01.

4 1.

1 96.

9 4.

S eptuagint

9 ,

4 6,

T jekker 2 3, 9 7.

1 99.

3 11

1 6,

1 8,

1 9,

2 1,

Tulul

ed

Tyre

1 05.

Ugarit 1 05,

D ahab

8 ,

1 40,

2 9-31, 1 82,

Velikovsky

4 4.

Wainwright

4 4.

Waldbaum

1 52,

Weapons Wen

8 2,

Yavneh

5 5,

7 6,

text

7 ,

Yehudiyah

1 93.

9 5.

Yokneam/Yoqneam

Z eror

77,

9 3. Yam

Yurzah

1 67.

2 1.

s lip

8 7,

4 6,

1 97.

1 69.

Amon

White

1 05.

1 01.

8 8. 9 6,

1 60.

Z ikiag

7 6,

9 4.

Z ippor,

see

Sippor

Zuweyid

8 8.

3 12