The Philistines

The Archaeological Evidence

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?

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.

Criteria for mass migration

1. The intrusive culture must be distinguished from contemporary indigenous cultures in the new area of settlement

2. The homeland of the migrating people must be located and its material culture identified

3. The route of migration must be traced and checked for its archaeological, historical, and geographical plausibility.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Pottery conclusions1. Myc IIIB is earlier than Myc IIIC at all sites

where its found2. Myc IIIC (monochrome) is earlier than

Philistine pottery (bi-chrome) at sites that have both

3. Thus, Stage 1 seems to be invasion of Sea Peoples at sites with Myc IIIC pottery (around 1185-75)

4. Philistine pottery (bi-chrome) found next at sites further west, so this is Stage 2

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)

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)

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)

Denyan PictureDenyan Picture

Tjekker pictureTjekker picture

Philistine picturePhilistine picture

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

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

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

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

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