The Philistines

1. The Philistines The Archaeological Evidence

2. What Archaeology Can Tell Us? • Are they a separate ethnic group? • Where did they come from? • How did they interact with their neighbors? • Does this interaction change with time? • What is their absolute chronology? • Does any of this have an impact on reading the biblical accounts of the Philistines?

3. Bibliographic note Much of this lecture has been taken from Lawrence Stager, “The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185 - 1050 BCE),” in Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, ed. by T. Levy (New York: Facts on File, 1995), pp. 332-348.

4. Criteria for mass migration • The intrusive culture must be distinguished from contemporary indigenous cultures in the new area of settlement • The homeland of the migrating people must be located and its material culture identified • The route of migration must be traced and checked for its archaeological, historical, and geographical plausibility.

5. Distinguishing the intrusive culture • Should produce a “wave” of new settlements • If there is population replacement, the nature should be clarified (is it invasion or otherwise?) • Can you identify destructions and resettlement with a new material culture and architectural plan? • Are there other distinctive features?

6. A Wave of New Settlements • The Sea Peoples includes groups other than the Philistines • Your textbook, pp. 280-1: refers to other groups such as Tjekker (Tel Zeror), the Sherden (Tel Accho), and the Denyon (Tell Qasile) • In addition, the Sikils (same as the Tjekker) are believed to have landed at Dor • The Philistines landed at Ashkelon, Gaza, and Ashdod

8. Attack on Cyprus • Many cities destroyed in early 12th century • New cities built with Mcy IIIC pottery • Many of the new cities had earlier strata with Myc IIIB pottery • Homer ascribes this to the Achaeans or Danaoi • Both groups referred to by Ramesses III

9. Attack on Ugarit • Ugarit is capital of Syrian coast under the suzerainty of the Hittites • Correspondence between Ugarit and Cyprus reveals that Sea Peoples were attacking from the sea • The Sikils defeated Ugarit ca. 1187-85 • The Sikils are mentioned by Ramesses III as part of the Sea Peoples confederation

10. Sikils attack Dor • Sail down coast and attack Dor • 11th century Egyptian Tale of Wen-Amon describes this • Late Bronze city of Dor destroyed and new city built on top of it • Fortified city with walled ramparts and built a harbor with ashlar blocks

11. Attack on Ashkelon • Ashkelon is a port city • Late Bronze Age city destroyed and new city built on top of it • Iron I city was huge (50-60 ha) with 10,000+ inhabitants • Has Myc IIIC pottery • Has weaving industry

12. Criterion #1 and #3 met so far • There is definitely a “wave” invasion • Extra-biblical texts indicate that the sea-peoples have Aegean origins • They definitely travel by boat and have technology to carry out attacks • A study of the pottery will confirm these conclusions

13. Pottery of the Sea Peoples • Myc IIIB was earlier than Myc IIIC:1b (sometimes called Myc IIIC or “monochrome” pottery) • During the Late Bronze Age II, Myc IIIB pottery was dominant • Remember imports characterize Late Bronze Age • Many sites have Myc IIIb in strata below strata with Myc IIIC pottery (Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, etc)

18. Pottery conclusions • Myc IIIB is earlier than Myc IIIC at all sites where its found • Myc IIIC (monochrome) is earlier than Philistine pottery (bi-chrome) at sites that have both • Thus, Stage 1 seems to be invasion of Sea Peoples at sites with Myc IIIC pottery (around 1185-75) • Philistine pottery (bi-chrome) found next at sites further west, so this is Stage 2

20. Criteria revisited • #1: material culture is different (pottery, economy, and architecture) • #1: wave of new settlements in stages • #2: homeland-- somewhere of Aegean origin; hard to say more • #3: route of migration confirm by texts, and archaeological record confirms (Myc IIIC above layers from Late Bronze Age)

21. Absolute Chronology • Need to return to the issue of dates • There are 3 views here • Old, traditional view (high chronology) • Newer, middle chronology • Tel Aviv school (low chronology)

22. Traditional Chronology • Egyptian texts from Medinet Habu (Ramesses III) • Sea People come by land and sea • Some of their ships reach the Nile before Ramesses III defeats them • Ramesses III reasserts control over Canaan (remember Lachish VI) • He recruits defeated enemies as mercenaries and stations them in Canaan and Nubia • Egypt again in control of the Ways of Horus (Via Maris)

23. Denyan Picture

24. Tjekker picture

25. Philistine picture

27. Problem with this view • Lachish VI is Egyptian but no monochrome pottery • In reliefs of Ramesses III there is only 1 departure scene and one victory celebration • Bietak conclude they occur in close proximity • Thus, the Sea Peoples were threatening the Egyptians in Egypt and not in north • If Philistia had already been established, this would account for land travel of troops in 1175

30. Concept of Acculturation • Philistines take on Canaanite culture • They also preserve some of their own traits • Cooking pots were one to stay for a long time • We read from Samson accounts about contact • Anthropoid coffins were seen as evidence of Philistine mercenaries

32. The anthropoid coffins • Found at many Egyptian sites around 1200 to 1150 • Many of them have Egyptian inscriptions • Excavations at Deir el-Balah have dozens of these coffins dating from a century or two before the Sea Peoples arrive en masse

33. Moderate or Low Chronology • There is no monochrome pottery at Lachish (Myc IIIC) • Lachish was a big site and Egyptian controlled during Level VI, so Ussishkin says Myc IIIC dates to after 1150 • This would place arrival of Sea Peoples much later

34. Sharp boundary • Stager (and others) argue that there is a sharp boundary between Philistines and Egypt • He interprets Medinu Habu as text about Philistines trying to invade Egypt • Philistines are repelled, but there is strict boundary between Philistines and Egyptian sites • Occupation gap argument: Stager says that it doesn’t make sense for Ramesses III to leave Ashkelon, Gaza, and Ashdod unoccupied when he reasserts control in Canaan