THE PHILISTINES AND

OTHER SEA PEOPLES IN

TEXT AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Archaeology and Biblical Studies

Tammi Schneider, Editor

Number 15
The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples
in Text and Archaeology

THE PHILISTINES AND

OTHER SEA PEOPLES IN
TEXT AND ARCHAEOLOGY

edited by
Ann E. Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann

Society of Biblical Literature

Atlanta, Georgia

THE PHILISTINES AND

OTHER SEA PEOPLES IN
TEXT AND ARCHAEOLOGY
Copyright 2013 by the Society of Biblical Literature
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form
or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by
means of any information storage or retrieval system, except as may be expressly permitted by the 1976 Copyright Act or in writing from the publisher. Requests for permission
should be addressed in writing to the Rights and Permissions Office, Society of Biblical
Literature, 825 Houston Mill Road, Atlanta, GA 30329 USA.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
The Philistines and other sea peoples in text and archaeology / edited by Ann E.
Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann.
p. cm. (Society of Biblical Literature Archaeology and biblical studies ; v. 15)
This volume developed out of a 2001 workshop devoted to the Philistines and
other Sea Peoples, which was co-organized by Ann E. Killebrew, Gunnar Lehmann,
Michal Artzy, and Rachel Hachlili, and co-sponsored by the University of Haifa and
the Ben Gurion University of the NegevIntrod.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-58983-129-2 (paper binding : acid-free paper)
1. PhilistinesAntiquities. 2. Sea PeoplesMediterranean RegionHistory.
3. Iron ageMediterranean Region. 4. Social archaeologyMediterranean
RegionHistory. 5. Bible. O.T.History of Biblical events. 6. Mediterranean
RegionAntiquities. I. Killebrew, Ann E. II. Lehmann, Gunnar. III. Society of Biblical Literature.
DS90.P55 2013
938.01dc23

2012033937
Printed on acid-free, recycled paper conforming to ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (R1997)
and ISO 9706:1994 standards for paper permanence.

Contents

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

Neil Asher Silberman

ix

Acknowledgments

xv

Abbreviations

xvii
Introduction

1.

The World of the Philistines and Other Sea Peoples

Ann E. Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann

The Philistines in Text and Archaeology

2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

7.
8.

The Philistines in the Bible: A Short Rejoinder to a New Perspective

Itamar Singerlyyz
Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery in Philistia: Four Decades of Research
Trude Dothan and David Ben-Shlomo
Philistines and Egyptians in Southern Coastal Canaan during the
Early Iron Age
Tristan J. Barako
The Mycenaean IIIC Pottery at Tel Miqne-Ekron
Penelope A. Mountjoy
Early Philistine Pottery Technology at Tel Miqne-Ekron:
Implications for the Late BronzeEarly Iron Age Transition in
the Eastern Mediterranean
Ann E. Killebrew
Philistine Lion-Headed Cups: Aegean or Anatolian?
Linda Meiberg
A Few Tomb Groups from Tell el-Farah South
Sabine Laemmel

-v-

19
29

37
53

77
131
145

vi

9.

10.

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

Philistia Transforming: Fresh Evidence from Tell es-SDfi/Gath

on the Transformational Trajectory of the Philistine Culture
191
Aren M. Maeir
Neighbors and Foes, Rivals and Kin: Philistines, Shepheleans, Judeans
between Geography and Economy, History and Theology
243
Hermann Michael Niemann
The Other Sea Peoples in the Levant

11.
12.
13.
14.

15.

Aegean-Style Pottery in Syria and Lebanon during Iron Age I

Gunnar Lehmann
On the Other Sea Peoples
Michal Artzy
The Origin and Date of Aegean-Type Pottery in the Levant
Elizabeth French
Mycenaean IIIC and Related Pottery from Beth Shean
Susan Sherratt and Amihai Mazar, with an Appendix by
Anat Cohen-Weinberger
The SKL Town: Dor in the Early Iron Age
Ilan Sharon and Ayelet Gilboa

265
329
345
349

393

Anatolia, the Aegean, and Cyprus

16.

17.
18.
19.
20.

21.

No Land Could Stand Before Their Arms, from Hatti on ?

New Light on the End of the Hittite Empire and the Early Iron Age
in Central Anatolia
Hermann Genz
Cilicia
Elizabeth French
Early Iron Age Newcomers at Kinet Hyk, Eastern Cilicia
Marie-Henriette Gates
The Southeast Aegean in the Age of the Sea Peoples
Mario Benzi
Aegean Elements in the Earliest Philistine Ceramic Assemblage:
A View from the West
Jeremy B. Rutter
The Late LH IIIB and LH IIIC Early Pottery of the East Aegean
West Anatolian Interface
Penelope A. Mountjoy

469
479
485
509

543

563

CONTENTS

22.

23.

Aegean-Style Material Culture in Late Cypriot III: Minimal

Evidence, Maximal Interpretation
Maria Iacovou
The Ceramic Phenomenon of the Sea Peoples: An Overview
Susan Sherratt

vii

585
619

Appendix
24.

The Sea Peoples in Primary Sources

Matthew J. Adams and Margaret E. Cohen

645

Bibliography

665

Subject Index

739

When the Past Was New: Moshe Dothan

(19191999), an Appreciation
Neil Asher Silberman*

Moshe Dothan was my most important teacher, though he never gave me a written examination and I never attended any course he taught. From 1972 to 1976,
I worked as his assistant at the Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums in
Jerusalems Rockefeller Museum, working on the publication of his Ashdod excavations and participating in the beginnings of his ambitious Tel Akko dig. It was a
time that now seems so distant. Archaeology in Israel was still living in the warm
afterglow of its Yadin-esque heyday; extensive excavations around the Temple
Mount and the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem were still underway. Yet it was also a
time of archaeological transition from an era of romantic national celebration to
a more complex engagement with the material remains of the past. The study of
the Sea Peoplesand of the Philistines in particularwas part of this dramatic
transformation. Old-style antiquarianism and the quest for biblical illustration
was giving way to a recognition that archaeology could also shed important new
light on the nature of ancient ethnic dislocation, cultural interaction, and social
change.
As a member of the pioneering generation of Israeli archaeologists, Moshe
Dothan was born in Poland and immigrated to Palestine in the late 1930s,
exchanging his former surname, Hammer, for a new identity and a new life in
the soon-to-be-established Jewish state. After service in a Palestinian unit of the
British army during World War II among the ruined modern cities and ancient
monuments of Italy (whose impression on him would never be forgotten) and
after further service in the 1948 Israel War of Independence, he began his studies
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the guidance of Israeli archaeologys
founding fathers, E. L. Sukenik, Michael Avi-Yonah, and Benjamin Mazar. His

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

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

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

classical gymnasium education in Krakow served him well as he embarked on

an archaeological career; it provided him with a solid background in Greek and
Latin and a familiarity with a wide range of historical subjects and philosophies.
In 1950, he joined the staff of the newly created Israel Department of Antiquities and Museums, gaining valuable field experience and a deep appreciation
for rigorous archaeological method during his work with the legendary British archaeologist, P. L. O. Guy. His PhD dissertation on the ancient settlement
patterns of the lower Rubin Valley was not only one of the first wide-ranging
modern archaeological surveys undertaken in Israel; it also marked the beginning of his continuing interest in coastal archaeology.
In the annals of Sea Peoples scholarship, Moshe Dothan will of course be
remembered first and foremost for his excavations at Ashdod. Following his earlier discoveries of Philistine remains at Azor (1958) and at Tel Mor (19591960),
he embarked on nine seasons of digging at Tel Ashdod between 1962 and 1972,

MOSHE DOTHAN, AN APPRECIATION

xi

uncovering unprecedented evidence for the character and evolution of Philistine settlement. It is not an exaggeration to say that with this project, the modern
understanding of Philistine culture entered a new era, refining and expanding the
archaeological framework established by his wife and colleague, Trude, in linking
the origins and interactions of Philistine culture with the wider Mediterranean
world.
In earlier eras of exploration, the Philistines had been seen as archetypal
biblical villains, ethnically linked to the Aegean and historically implicated in a
struggle for Lebensraum with the emerging Israelite nation. The Aegean-style decorative motifs on Philistine pottery had long been seen as static ethnic markers;
the fearsome biblical image of the looming Philistine giant, Goliath, shaped popular perceptions of Philistine culturefar more pervasively than the archaeological
evidence. Yet, the Ashdod excavations played an important role in overturning
that simplistic perception, shifting the archaeological focus from a stark vision
of ethnic invasion to a recognition of the complex economic, cultural, and social
changes experienced by the Philistines during their initial settlement and subsequent development on the Canaanite coast.
Indeed, Ashdods most spectacular finds have become distinctive icons of the
modern archaeological understanding of Philistine material culture. The astonishingly abstract cultic figurine nicknamed Ashdodahalf offering table, half
Aegean-style goddessclearly showed the creatively composite character of Phil
istine culture, in its amalgamation of Mycenaean and Bronze Age Near Eastern
styles. The inscribed seals from Iron I strata were the first evidence of Philistine
literacy. Yet even though their characters resembled Cypro-Minoan script, they
could not be pinned down to a particular place of origin, further suggesting the
hybrid nature of Philistine society. In the higher levels, the famous Musicians
Stand, the red-burnished Ashdod Ware, and the citys impressive six-chambered
gate (so close in plan and dimensions to the supposed Solomonic monuments)
demonstrated the gradually strengthening links of the city to the contemporary
Levantine cultures of Iron Age II. The Ashdod excavations thus revealed the slow
evolution of a complex society, tracing its beginnings as an urban coastal center in
the Bronze Age, through its period of distinctive Philistine culture, to its eventual
destruction as a petty vassal kingdom under the Assyrian Empire.
Particularly crucial for the modern understanding of the Sea Peoples initial settlement throughout the entire eastern Mediterranean was the discovery
at Ashdod of an initial post-Late Bronze Age stratum containing locally made
monochrome Mycenaean IIIC-style pottery types. These distinctively decorated
vessels were clearly not offloaded immigrant housewares, but the product of a
creative transformation, in which a vague and generalized memory of Mycenaean
styles was gradually articulated into distinctive regional variants. Ashdods Myce-

xii

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

naean IIIC proved to be just one of many versions that were produced in the
widely dispersed archipelago of sites across Cyprus and along the coasts of Cilicia and the Levant established by new settlers in the wake of the Late Bronze
collapse. In the case of Ashdod, it is now clear that Philistine history and cultural evolution involved far more than just a sudden, violent displacement from
a specific Aegean homeland; Dothans excavations showed it to be a process of
complex social adaptation in the cultural cauldron of the Iron Age Levant.
Ashdod was also a new kind of excavation in a very practical sense. Conceived as a joint Israeli-American expedition, sponsored by the Israel Department
of Antiquities and Museums, the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, and Pittsburghs Carnegie Museum, it brought together archaeologists trained in separate
national traditions and field methods to forge a common excavation style. It was
also a site where nearly an entire generation of post-Hazor-era Israeli archaeologists received their first extensive field experience. Anticipating the later appeals
of Yigael Yadin for passionate amateurs to come join the excavations at Masada,
the Ashdod expedition was the first of its kind in Israel to solicit and welcome
the participation of enthusiastic volunteers from abroad. No less important were
the multi-disciplinary and international scholarly connections; the excavations at
Ashdod were the first in Israel to utilize extensive Neutron Activation Analysis
for ceramic provenience (specifically of its Mycenaean IIIC wares), and the first
to engage in continuous and close dialogue with scholars working on Cyprus on a
similar Sea Peoples phenomenon.
Soon after the completion of the Ashdod excavations, Dothan began his
ambitious excavations at Tel Akko (19731989), the last major archaeological
undertaking of his life. These excavations provided intriguing new data on the
nature of the Sea Peoples process of settlement farther up the coast. Amidst the
extensive finds of Hellenistic houses and fortifications, Crusader ruins, Phoenician public buildings, and an imposing Middle Bronze Age rampart, the Akko
excavations revealed evidence of the Sea Peoples presencein this case, presumably the Shardana, localized in this area by the Onomasticon of Amenope. The
discovery of an area of pottery and metal workshops, containing implements for
copper smelting, metal working, unbaked vessels, and scattered fragments of yet
another variant of Mycenaean IIIC pottery. These finds suggested that the shortlived settlement of Sea People at Akko functioned as a center for craft production
at the end of the thirteenth and early-twelfth centuries b.c.e. In subsequent years,
Dothan became fascinated by the possible connections of the Shardana with Sardiniaand the hypothesis of post-Late Bronze cultural and possibly economic
contact between the Levant and the western Mediterranean suggested by such
a link. In 1992, he summed up his insights about the Sea Peoples in a popular
book he coauthored with Trude: People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines,

MOSHE DOTHAN, AN APPRECIATION

xiii

presenting the most important discoveries and the general conclusions they had
both formulated about the archaeology and history of the Philistines and the
other Sea Peoples they had investigated in the course of their careers.
For Moshe Dothan, the past was not a static reality but a dynamic and
ever-changing field of research in which new ideas and new theories were not
disturbing exceptions but important motivations for serious archaeological work.
Over an active career of more than four decades, his contributions extended far
beyond the geographical and chronological boundaries of Sea Peoples studies.
In his years of surveys and excavations on behalf of the Israel Department of
Antiquities and Museums, he had also uncovered the important Chalcolithic site
of Horvat Batar, near Beersheva (19521954); the seaside Canaanite temple at
Nahariya with its silver sea goddess and seven-spouted lamps (19541955); the
Iron Age desert citadel at Tell el-Qudeirat, identified with Kadesh Barnea (1956);
and the late Roman-to-Early Islamic era synagogue at Hammath Tiberias with its
spectacular zodiac (19611963). The finds from each of these excavations have
enriched many subfields of the discipline with rich material for continuing discussion and questions for further research.
In 1972, Dothan was appointed professor of archaeology at the University
of Haifa. He served as chairman of the Department of Maritime Studies from
1976 to 1979 and was instrumental in the establishment of the Department of
Archaeology where he also served as its departmental head. Yet Moshe was never
entirely comfortable in the classroom, presenting lessons from a well-polished
syllabus. He was far more at home in the field and at his excavation sites, huddling with his surveyor over sections and top plans or studying assemblages of
newly dug pottery. Whether it was the nature of Chalcolithic culture, of Canaanite religion, the expansion of the Iron Age Israelite kingdoms, or the use of pagan
imagery by Jews in the Late Roman period, Moshe Dothan contributed abundant
evidence for understanding the evolution of human culture in the Land of Israel
over the millennia.
As an unforgettable personality and independent thinker, he rarely gained
the main spotlight of archaeological celebrity. Yet Moshe Dothans contribution to
the archaeology of Israel in general and of the Sea Peoples and the Philistines in
particular was profound. He worked with energy and impatience, under conditions and with resources that few of todays archaeologists would ever attempt. He
possessed more creativity, historical scope, and courage to challenge conventional
wisdom and to break disciplinary boundaries than many other of his contemporaries who fancied themselves more famous, more erudite, or more rigidly
systematic than he. In his life and work, Moshe Dothan embodied the belief that
the past is always new, forever awaiting the next discovery or insight that might

xiv

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

shatter our preconceptions and change our understanding of human history in

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

Acknowledgments

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

Abbreviations

AA
AASOR
ABD
ADAJ
AEL
AEO
AJA
AJBA
ANET
AnSt
AOAT
AoF
ARAB
ARE
ASAE
ASOR
Atiqot
BA
BANEA
BAR
BAR
BASOR
BIES
BK
BKAT
BN
CANE

Archologischer Anzeiger
Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman. 6 vols.
New York, 1992.
Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan
Ancient Egyptian Literature. M. Lichtheim. 3 vols. Berkeley,
19731980.
Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. A. H. Gardiner. 3 vols.
London, 1947.
American Journal of Archaeology
Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Princeton, 1969.
Anatolian Studies
Alter Orient und Altes Testament
Altorientalische Forschungen
Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Daniel David
Luckenbill. 2 vols. Chicago, 19261927.
Ancient Records of Egypt. Edited by J. H. Breasted. 5 vols.
Chicago, 19051907. Reprint, New York, 1962.
Annales du service des antiquits de lEgypte
American Schools of Oriental Research
Atiqot
Biblical Archaeologist
British Association for Near Eastern Archaeology
Biblical Archaeology Review
British Archaeological Reports
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society
Bibel und Kirche
Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament. Edited by M. Noth
and H. W. Wolff.
Biblische Notizen
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M.

-xvii-

xviii

CRAI
CTH
EA

ErIsr
FM
FS
HO
IEJ
IstMitt
JAOS
JCS
JEA
JEOL
JNES
JSOT
JSOTSup
KAI
KBo
KTU

KUB
MDAIK
MDOG
MVAG
NABU
NEA
NEAEHL

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

Sasson. 4 vols. New York, 1995.
Comptes rendus de lAcadmie des inscriptions et belleslettres
Catalogue des texts hittites. Edited by E. Laroche. Paris,
1971.
El-Amarna tablets. According to the edition of J. A.
Knudtzon. Die el-Amarna-Tafeln. Leipzig, 19081915.
Reprint, Aalen, 1964. Continued in A. F. Rainey, ElAmarna Tablets, 359379. 2nd revised ed. Kevelaer, 1978.
Eretz-Israel
Furumark Motif
Furumark Shape
Handbuch der Orientalistik
Israel Exploration Journal
Istanbuler Mitteilungen
Journal of the American Oriental Society
Journal of Cuneiform Studies
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Gezelschap
(Genootschap) Ex oriente lux
Journal of Near Eastern Studies
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement
Series
Kanaanische und aramische Inschriften. H. Donner and
W. Rllig. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 19661969.
Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazki. WVDOG 30, 36, 6870,
7273, 7780, 8286, 8990. Leipzig, 1916
Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit. Edited by
M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J. Sanmartn. AOAT 24.
Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1976. 2nd enlarged ed. of KTU: The
Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani,
and Other Places. Edited by M. Dietrich, O. Loretz, and J.
Sanmartn. Mnster, 1995 (= CTU).
Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazki
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo
Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch-gyptischen Gesellschaft.
Vols. 144. 18961939.
Nouvelles assyriologiques brves et utilitaires
Near Eastern Archaeology
The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the
Holy Land. Edited by E. Stern. 4 vols. Jerusalem, 1993.

ABBREVIATIONS
OBO
OIP
OJA
OLA
OLP
Or
PEFQS
PEQ
PRU
Qad
QDAP
RAr
RB
RDAC
RGG
RS
SAOC
SBL
SCIEM
SHCANE
SIMA
SMEA
TA
TGI
TUAT
TZ
UF
VAB
VT
VTSup
WMANT
YCS
ZS
ZDPV

xix

Orbis biblicus et orientalis

Oriental Institute Publications
Oxford Journal of Archaeology
Orientalia lovaniensia analecta
Orientalia lovaniensia periodica
Orientalia (NS)
Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Le palais royal dUgarit
Qadmoniot
Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine
Revue archologique
Revue biblique
Report of the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus
Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Edited by K. Galling.
7 vols. 3rd ed. Tbingen, 19571965.
Ras Shamra
Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilizations
Society for Biblical Literature
The Synchronisation of Civilisations of the Eastern
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C.
Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East
Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology
Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici
Tel Aviv
Textbuch zur Geschichte Israels. Edited by K. Galling. 2nd
ed. Tbingen, 1968.
Texte aus der Umwelt des alten Testaments. Edited by O.
Kaiser. Gtersloh, 1984.
Theologische Zeitschrift
Ugarit-Forschungen
Vorderasiatische Bibliothek
Vetus Testamentum
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum
Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
Yale Classical Studies
Zeitschrift fr gyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde
Zeitschrift des deutschen Palstina-Vereins

Chapter Four

Philistines and Egyptians in Southern Coastal

Canaan during the Early Iron Age
Tristan J. Barako*

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

Egypts Role in the Philistine Settlement

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

* Office of the Vice President for Research, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912. I wish
to thank Ann Killebrew for the invitation to contribute the following article to this volume. Appreciation is also due to Mario Martin and James Weinstein who made helpful suggestions in
terms of bibliography.
1. The Low Chronology, which yields dates of 11821151 b.c.e. for the reign of Ramesses

-37-

38

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

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

BARAKO: PHILISTINES AND EGYPTIANS

39

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

From this passage it was assumed that, following their unsuccessful attack on
Egypt in the eighth year of Ramesses IIIs reign, the Philistines were garrisoned
in southern Canaan. Once they had grown sufficiently strong and numerous, they
then extricated themselves from Egyptian authority.
As a number of scholars have observed, however, there are two fundamental
problems with this proposed scenario: 1) Papyrus Harris I does not specify where
the Philistines were garrisoned (Singer 1985, 109; Higginbotham 2000, 56); and
2) there is little or no evidence for an Egyptian presence at sites within Philistia
during the Twentieth Dynasty (Weinstein 1992, 145; Bietak 1993, 299300). The
majority of texts that describe the disposition of prisoners of war, in fact, favor
a location within Egypt (B. Wood 1991, 48; Cifola 1994, 6). For example, in the
Rhetorical Stela from Deir el-Medineh, Ramesses III claims to have caused the
defeated Libyans and Meshwesh to cross the Nile streams, (they being) brought
to Egypt and being made (to settle) into strongholds by the victorious king
(Peden 1994, 65).
Alternatively, war captives were settled in regions over which Egypt exercised hegemony, as did Ramesses II according to an inscription from the Great
Temple at Abu Simbel: bringing the land of Nubia to the land of the north, the
Asiatics (+mw) to the land of Nubia filling the strongholds, which he built,
with the captivity of his mighty sword (ARE III 457). In either event, to settle
ones enemies in the very region those enemies seek to conquer, as the traditional
paradigm would have it, makes for poor military strategy (Bietak 1991, 37; Higginbotham 2000, 56).
Archaeological Data
Nor does the archaeological data support the old paradigm (fig. 1). Twelfthcentury b.c.e. strata at Canaanite sites, particularly in the northern Negev, inner
Shephelah, and interior valleys, have produced an abundance of Egyptian and
Egyptianized material culture (e.g., Weinstein 1981, 20; Bietak 1993, figs. 23). At
Philistine Pentapolis sites, on the other hand, there is an almost complete absence

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

40

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

Fig. 2: Map of the southern Levantine coastal region

(drawing adapted from T. Dothan 2000, fig. 7.1).

of evidence for an Egyptian presence during the Twentieth Dynasty (Weinstein

1992, 145; Bietak 1993, 299300; Stager 1995, 344).
The Pentapolis site with the best exposure of twelfth-century b.c.e. strata,
which correspond to the period of the initial Philistine settlement, is Tel MiqneEkron. In Stratum VIII (= thirteenth century b.c.e.), a limited assemblage of
imported Aegyptiaca was found, mostly the type of small luxury items common
at Canaanite sites during the Late Bronze Age (e.g., T. Dothan and Gitin 1993,
1052).2 This apparent lack of Egyptian interest in Tel Miqne is not surprising

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

BARAKO: PHILISTINES AND EGYPTIANS

41

given the sites diminutive size: The Late Bronze Age settlement was confined to
the 2.5-hectare acropolis in the northeastern corner of the tell. Built on top of a
thick destruction level, the Stratum VII settlement, however, encompassed the
entire tell, an area of ca. 20 hectares (T. Dothan 1998b, 15052; but see Killebrew
1996b, 2127; 1998a; this volume for an alternative interpretation). The sudden
appearance of the Philistine material culture, especially considerable quantities of
locally produced Mycenaean IIIC:1b (Myc IIIC:1b), characterizes Stratum VII. At
the same time, the amount of Egyptian material culture at Tel Miqne decreased.
It is surprising that a large site in southern Canaan should produce no evidence
for Egyptian presence or interaction at a time when Egypt, reinvigorated by
Ramesses IIIs reign, attempted to regain control of the region.
Ashdod is the only other Pentapolis site where a significant amount of the
twelfth-century-b.c.e. settlement has been exposed. As a coastal site along the
Via Maris, Ashdod was undoubtedly of interest to New Kingdom Egypt. A large
fortified building in use throughout the Late Bronze Age (= Strata XVIXIV)
was excavated in Area G and identified as a Governors Residence or palace
(M. Dothan and Porath 1993, 10, 3949, Plan 7). With this Residence the
excavators associated an inscribed stone fragment, possibly from a doorjamb,
which was found in a later fill context (= Stratum XIIB) from the same area.3
The inscription reads Fanbearer on the Kings Right Hand (tAi hw [hr] wnmy n
nsw), an honorific accorded only to high officials in the pharaonic court (Kitchen
1993). Egyptianized bowls (M. Dothan and Porath 1993, 45, figs. 10:1; 11:16;
812), a beer jar (fig. 11:24), and an alabaster vessel (fig. 12:15) were also found
in Area G, Stratum XIV.4 In Stratum XIII, after a partial destruction of Area G,
Myc IIIC:1b first appears at Ashdod and Egyptianized material culture virtually
disappears.
The destruction levels at Tel Miqne and Ashdod briefly described above
constitute further evidence against the traditional paradigm. At both sites, thick
layers of ash and burnt mud brick separated the Canaanite (Miqne VIII, Ashdod
XIV) from the initial Philistine settlements (Miqne VII, Ashdod XIII). At Tel
Miqne the small Canaanite settlement ended in a great conflagration, over which
the much larger Philistine city was built (T. Dothan 2000, 147). At Ashdod the
clearest sequence comes from Area G, where the Canaanite city ended in an
intense destruction followed by a settlement of a different character marked

3. Note also that a surface survey in the area between Ashdod and Tel Mor produced a fragment of a monumental statue of one of Ramesses IIs queens (Schulman 1993).
4. At Late Bronze Ashdod, Egyptianized bowls were found also in Areas A (M. Dothan 1971,
fig. 1:1), B (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967, fig. 22:14), and H (M. Dothan 1971, fig. 81:3).
Another beer jar was found in Area H (M. Dothan 1971, fig. 81:14).

42

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

by the appearance of significant amounts of Philistine pottery (M. Dothan and

Porath 1993, 53, Plan 8). Elsewhere, in Areas A, B, and H, the excavators found
ca. 80-centimeterthick ashy layers covering Stratum XIV (M. Dothan and Freedman 1967, 81; M. Dothan 1971, 15859, Plan 20).
During the past few years, key transitional strata at Ashkelon are beginning
to be revealed. In Grid 38, evidence of Egyptian presence, the probable remains
of a fortress similar to Tel Mor and Deir el-Balah, have been uncovered (Master
2005, 33940; Stager et al. 2008, 25657). The associated Egyptianized and
imported Egyptian pottery suggest a date in the late Nineteenth or early Twentieth Dynasty (Martin 2009). Early Philistine remains rest on top of this structure
(Stager 2008, 158081). It is worth noting that during the excavations of Garstang
and Phythian-Adams at the site, a thick layer of black ash was found separating
their Late Bronze (Stage V) from the Iron Age (Stage VI) strata (Phythian-Adams
1923, 6364, figs. 34). Mackenzie observed a similar sequence in the same part
of the tell a decade earlier, and tentatively ascribed the destruction and subsequent settlement to the Philistines arrival (1913, 21, pl. 2). However the current
excavations at Ashkelon in Grid 38 have not uncovered signs of a destruction at
the end of the Late Bronze Age (Stager 2008, 1580).
Such destruction levels are more the mark of hostile invaders than subdued
prisoners of war. The complete absence of evidence for Egyptian involvement in
the strata that follow (i.e., Tel Miqne VII, Ashdod XIII) is a further blow to the
traditional paradigm. What is more, the majority of New Kingdom inscriptions
report that defeated enemies were garrisoned in Egypt. The combined archaeological and textual data, then, strongly suggests that the Philistines settled in
southern Canaan by force, probably in opposition to Egypt.

Chronology of the Philistine Settlement

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

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

BARAKO: PHILISTINES AND EGYPTIANS

43

and Tel Sera IX. In both these strata Egyptian inscriptions dating to Ramesses III
were found (Gilula 1976; Goldwasser 1982, 1984), but no Philistine pottery. On
the other hand, neighboring sites generally thought to be contemporaneous, particularly Tel Haror B42, did produce both Philistine Monochrome and Bichrome
pottery (Oren 1993, 58283).
The underlying assumption of this argument is that cultural boundaries must
be permeable for all types of material culture. A corollary holds that two neighboring sites that do not possess the same full range of material culture cannot
be contemporaneous. Amihai Mazar, however, has adduced examples from the
archaeology of Syria-Palestine to demonstrate that distinct material cultures have
coexisted side by side with little or no interaction (1997b, 158; see also Ben-Tor
and Ben-Ami 1998, 31). Furthermore, as pointed out by Shlomo Bunimovitz and
Avraham Faust, even intensive interaction between cultures does not necessarily
lead to material culture exchange (2001). Indeed, in order to maintain group identity and strengthen solidarity during times of conflict with a neighboring group,
people tend not to acquire items emblematic of their rivals.
Case Study: Philistine Ashdod and Egyptian Tel Mor
The excavations at Ashdod and Tel Mor provide a useful archaeological case study
for this cultural phenomenon, especially as it pertains to the question of the relationship between Philistines and Egyptians in southern Canaan.6 As noted above,
Ashdod was one of the cities that constituted the Philistine Pentapolis established
in the twelfth century b.c.e. on the ruins of a Canaanite settlement. Located six
kilometers northwest of Ashdod on the northern bank of the Nahal Lachish
(Wadi Sukreir) is the small site of Tel Mor (fig. 2). Throughout most of the Late
Bronze Age and into the early Iron Age, Tel Mor functioned primarily as an Egyptian outpost. Indeed, it is likely that Tel Mor corresponds to Mxc/D/z mentioned
in New Kingdom texts (M. Dothan 1981b, 151, n. 3; Barako 2007a, 45) the name
appears as M<?>xc/ in a topographical list of Thutmosis III (Simons 1937, 117); as
Muhhazu (= alMu-u[h]-ha-zi) in EA 298:25 (Moran 1992, 340); and as MwxADA
in another list dating to the reign of Ramesses II at Amara West (B. Mazar 1975).
Despite the proximity of Tel Mor and Ashdod, their material cultural assemblages were markedly different, particularly during the twelfth century b.c.e. As

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

44

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

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

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

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

BARAKO: PHILISTINES AND EGYPTIANS

45

Tel Mor
A large Egyptian-style building dominated the tiny summit (ca. one dunam)
of Tel Mor during the thirteenth century b.c.e. (= Strata VIIIVII; M. Dothan
1993b, 1073; Barako 2007a, 2026). Egyptianized pottery, mostly bowls and beer
jars, comprised approximately 9 percent of the Stratum VII ceramic assemblage
(Martin and Barako 2007, Table 4.12). Cypriot and, to a lesser extent, Mycenaean
imports appear in small amounts. As with Ashdod, Tel Mor was destroyed at the
end of the thirteenth century b.c.e. Above the thick destruction level that covered
Stratum VII was a thin layer of wind-blown sand; thus indicating a brief period of
abandonment. A smaller fort (Building F) was constructed in Stratum VI above
and partially over the large fortress of Stratum VII (fig. 3).
In terms of pottery types, there are no major differences between the assemblages of Strata VII and VI. The amount of Egyptianized pottery, however, nearly
doubled from 9 to 15 percent of the total registered sherds in Stratum VI. A small
amount of Cypriot pottery was also found in this stratum, such as an intact late
White Slip II bowl (Barako 2007a, fig. 5.5:8) and a Base Ring II juglet (Barako
2007a, fig. 5.3:20), the latter is probably a local imitation.
Stratum VI ended in destruction. Numerous whole or almost whole vessels
lay smashed on the floors of the fort, particularly in Room 71. On top of these vessels were fallen mud bricks and then more broken pots, which, taken altogether,
indicates a second-story collapse. In the following Stratum V, the fort was rebuilt,
and a smaller building (H) was constructed to the north of it (fig. 3). Egyptianized
pottery still comprised about an eighth of the total assemblage in this stratum. In
Room 34 of Building H, an intact Egyptian-style globular cooking jar was found
(fig. 4). It is probably a Nile B Egyptian import that dates to the period of the
Twentieth Dynasty (David Aston, personal communication). Mycenaean and
Cypriot imports, on the other hand, were not found in Stratum V, nor, significantly, was Myc IIIC:1b pottery.
Because there is no mention in the field notes of Stratum V having ended in
destruction, it is best to assume that its buildings, particularly the fort, simply fell
out of use. In the succeeding strata, the character of the site changed considerably.
A single massive building no longer dominated the tell. Instead, the settlement
became more open with relatively little architecture. Stratum IV, for example,
consists only of a poorly preserved building, the walls of which roughly follow
the outline of Building H from the preceding stratum. Virtually no Egyptianized
pottery was found in Stratum IV or in any subsequent strata. For the first time,
however, small amounts of Philistine Bichrome pottery appeared in Stratum IV.
The succeeding Stratum III, which is comprised mostly of pits, contained even
more Bichrome.

46

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

Fig. 4: Egyptian globular cooking jar from Tel Mor, Stratum V

(photograph courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority).

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

7. For a comprehensive analysis of Ashdod Ware and a convincing proposal to rename it

Late Philistine Decorated Ware, see Ben-Shlomo, Shai, and Maeir 2004.

BARAKO: PHILISTINES AND EGYPTIANS

47

Again, there is no locally made Myc IIIC:1b. Only the more notable Philistine
sherds/vessels are described here.8
A decorated body sherd from a krater may be the earliest piece of Philistine
Bichrome at Tel Mor (fig. 5.1). It preserves the tail of a water bird, the quintessential Philistine motif. To the right of the tail are four vertical lines belonging
to the triglyph. The now-faded red and black paint was applied on a white slip.
According to Trude Dothan, the bird motif is characteristic of the first two phases
of Philistine pottery, which correspond to the twelfth and the first half of the eleventh centuries b.c.e. (1982, 198; see, more recently, T. Dothan and Zukerman
2004, 3940). The water bird motif has been found, for example, on Bichrome
kraters at Ashdod in Strata XIII (M. Dothan and Porath 1993, fig. 22) and XII (M.
Dothan and Porath 1993, fig. 27:12).
The best-preserved example of Philistine Bichrome is from a krater that bears
the typical spiral motif on a white wash (fig. 5.2; see also M. Dothan 1960b, pl.
III:2). The following features characterize its form: A T-shaped rim that slopes
inward; two horizontal loop handles attached to the upper body at an angle; a
deep bell-shaped body; and a ring base (not preserved here). Its decoration consists of a red band on the rim and handles, and horizontal red bands that frame
the main register located in the upper body. The metopes contain dark-painted
spirals facing the same direction with red filling, and the triglyphs are comprised
of alternating dark and red, wavy, vertical lines. The closest parallels, in terms of
both the vessels shape and decoration, derive from mid- to late twelfth-centuryb.c.e. strata such as Ashdod XI (M. Dothan 1971, figs. 2:6; 86:7), Tel Miqne-Ekron
VI (Killebrew 1998a, fig. 12:9), and Tell Qasile XII (A. Mazar 1985b, fig. 13:23
[= Type KR 2b]).
A couple restorable Aegean-style cooking jugs were found in a Stratum
III pit (fig. 5.34). They possess the following morphological attributes: An
everted rim; one, or occasionally, two handles that extend from rim to shoulder;
a globular-shaped body; and a flat or low ring base. The surface of both is blackened, which is undoubtedly on account of their use as cooking vessels (fig. 6). In
Canaan, these jugs frequently appear in strata containing Philistine pottery, both
Myc IIIC:1b and Bichrome. They are found at sites on Cyprus during the Late
Cypriot IIC and IIIA periods, and in the Aegean region primarily during the Late
Helladic IIIC period (for references, see Killebrew 1998a, 397; 1999b). Cooking
pots in the Late Bronze Age Canaanite traditionthat is, with everted, triangularprofiled rimscontinue to appear in Stratum III as well. Unfortunately, the small

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

48

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

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

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

BARAKO: PHILISTINES AND EGYPTIANS

49

Table 1: Stratigraphy of Tel Mor and Ashdod compared.

Tel Mor

Ashdod

Philistine

Stratum

Egyptianized

Philistine

Stratum

Egyptianized

absent

VII

present
(9%)

absent

XIV

present
(small amount)

absent

VI

present
(15%)

absent

XIV

present
(small amount)

absent

present
(12%)

present
(Myc IIIC:1b)

XIII

absent

present
(Bichrome)

IV

absent

present
(Bichrome)

XII

absent

present
(Bichrome)

III

absent

present
(Bichrome)

XI

absent

reveal information about the composition, especially in regard to gender, of the

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

50

PHILISTINES AND OTHER SEA PEOPLES

Fig. 6: Aegean-style cooking jug from Tel Mor, Stratum III

(photograph taken by D. D. Barako).

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

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

BARAKO: PHILISTINES AND EGYPTIANS

51

strata are Ashdod XIII and Tel Mor V, both dated by Moshe Dothan to the first
half of the twelfth century b.c.e. Ashdod XIII produced significant amounts of
Myc IIIC:1b but no Egyptianized pottery; whereas ca. 12 percent of the ceramic
assemblage of Tel Mor V was Egyptianized pottery. Myc IIIC:1b does not appear
in any stratum at Tel Mor, which appears to have been inhabited continuously
throughout the twelfth century b.c.e.
Finkelstein and Ussishkin explain this marked patterning of Egyptianized
and Philistine material culture by chronological revision. The evidence from Tel
Mor and Ashdod suggests, however, that two nearby sites can be both contemporaneous and possess different material culture assemblages. A more convincing
explanation holds that Egypt adopted a policy of containment in response to
the Philistines carving out their homeland from the southern coastal plain. Or,
as Manfred Bietak (1993) and Lawrence Stager (1995, 34244) have argued, a
cordon sanitaire was established, whereby Egypt maintained outposts (e.g., Tel
Mor) at sites directly opposed to Philistine capital cities (e.g., Ashdod).
In support of this view is the dearth of Egyptian and Egyptianized material
culture at Pentapolis sites during the time of the Philistine settlement. Under
Ramesses III, Egypt attempted to regain control of southern Canaan, an effort
reflected in the numerous Egyptian finds that date to the Twentieth Dynasty
found at sites in Canaan, but largely outside of Philistia. This apparent lack of
Egyptian activity during the Twentieth Dynasty in Philistia is no mere coincidence: The Egyptians were not in Philistia during this period because the
Philistines were there instead; and not as garrisoned prisoners-of-war but, rather,
as an intrusive population hostile to Egypt. The weight of the evidence from Philistine Pentapolis sites is considerable, and the pattern that emerges cannot be
dismissed due to the vagaries of archaeological discovery. It reflects a historical
development that offers a more reasonable explanation of the archaeological data
than does chronological revision.