Finkelstein, I. 2007. Is the Philistine Paradigm Still Viable? In: Bietak, M. and Czerny, E. (eds.), The Synchronization of Civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. III, Vienna: 517-523.
- ️https://telaviv.academia.edu/IsraelFinkelstein
Related papers
Philistines and Egyptians in Southern Canaan during the Early Iron Age
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 BCE, which corresponds to the eighth year of Ramesses III’s reign. 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.
Egypt and the Levant , 2016
Here I deal with two recent attempts to radiocarbon-date the transition from the Late Bronze to the Iron I and the arrival of the Philistines based on samples from Tell es-Safi/Gath and Qubur el-Walaydah. I first detail five conditions for constructing a proper radiocarbon model aimed at resolving a historical question, especially in the case of a dispute involving no more than a few decades. I then demonstrate that the situation in the relevant areas at Tell es-Safi/Gath and Qubur el-Walaydah-stratigraphy, contexts and control over ceramic typology-do not adhere to these conditions. Finally, I assemble and compare all available radiocarbon data for the Late Bronze IIB/III and the Late Bronze III/Iron I transitions and comment on two issues related to the traditional Philistine paradigm.
Scarabs, Chronology, and Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the Second Intermediate Period
The present study deals with relations between Egypt and the Levant during the Second Intermediate Period, based primarily on contemporary scarabs from both regions. The potential contribution of scarabs for the historical reconstruction of the Second Intermediate Period, especially with regard to Egyptian/Levantine relations, has long been recognized. Yet the controversy over scarab typologies ruled out scarabs as a reliable historical source. This study proposes a new typology of scarabs of the first half of the second millennium BCE, which is now feasible owing to recent studies of ceramic assemblages from Egypt and the Levant. Based on these studies one can determine the relative and absolute dates of deposits in which scarabs and scarab impressions have been found in both regions, and substantiate the corrrespondence of the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt with the Middle Bronze Age IIB in the Levant. The principal methodological difference between the present study and previous scarab studies is its treatment of the Egyptian and Palestinian series as two separate groups. The geographical classification of the large corpus of scarabs, which previously had been dealt with as one entity, allowed for a systematic differentiation between Egyptian and Canaanite scarabs of this period and the establishment of separate stylistic and chronological typologies for each group. The historical conclusions presented in this study confirm the significance of scarabs as a primary source of information for reconstructing the history of the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and the Levant.
Age (e.g., Sass 1983; 2010; Golani and Sass 1998; Finkelstein et al. 2008; Finkelstein and Sass 2013). As we have spent the last 20-odd years studying the Philistine culture, it is with much pleasure that we present in Benny's honor this study of the definitions and relations between the Philistines and their neighbors in the region of the Shephelah during the early Iron Age. In a few recent discussions on the early Iron Age in southern Canaan and the cultural and ethnic entities existing at the time, particularly in Philistia and the Shephelah, the suggestion was raised that a distinct Canaanite entity (or enclave) can be identified in the Shephelah, e.g., Bunimovitz and Lederman 2009, 2011; Na'aman 2010; Faust and Katz 2011, 2015; Faust 2013, 2015d; Lederman and Bunimovitz 2014. This enclave was supposedly situated between the Philistines located to the west on the Coastal Plain and the Israelites located to the east in the Central Hills. In this brief paper, we would like to examine some of the suppositions, and relevant data, regarding the existence of this putative Canaanite enclave. The study of the Philistines and their culture has seen a floruit in the last few decades. Excavations at major urban and smaller rural sites, along with many topical studies, have produced much new data and many new interpretations. Among other issues, the question of how to identify a site as being of the Philistine culture, and even more basically, how the various levels of "Philistine identity" can be archaeologically defined, has been avidly discussed. Unfortunately, some of the attempts to differentiate between the "Philistines" and other ethnicities in the Iron Age Levant on the basis of a small set of material correlates have led to simplistic or simply mistaken differentiations. Thus, suggestions to characterize what we might call the "Philistinicity" of a site based on a small group of traits (often related to as Philistine type fossils) such as the presence/ absence of decorated Philistine pottery (particularly in drinking sets), consumption of pig and dog meat, "Aegean-style" pinched loom weights ("spools"), hearths, "Cypriot-style" notched scapulae, rectangular halls with worked column or pillar bases, are problematic at best. As already noted in the past, many of these specific cultural attributes can appear on "both sides" of the supposed Philistine/ Israelite ethnic boundaries-and even beyond (Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; Maeir et al. 2013; Maeir and Hitchcock in press). 1 Clearly, when viewed as a whole, the material assemblages at major sites in Iron Age Philistia are different from those of sites in regions associated with other groups (Israelite, Judahite, Phoenician, etc.). But time and again, specific types of objects can be seen in many areas and are used by many groups (such as pottery types appearing in different cultural areas; see, e.g., Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008). The appearance of supposedly Philistine objects should not be seen as necessarily indicating the expansion of the Philistine culture into other zones, and similarly, for the appearance of Israelite/Judahite facets among the Philistines. Rather, artifact assemblages should be examined in their contexts in order to draw out different cultural encounters, functions and entanglements as well as to elucidate new ones (e.g., Ross 2012).
In the absence of chronological anchors for the twelfth century BCE in southern Canaan, scholars have often relied on two interrelated, geopolitical events that affected the region at this time: first, the migration and settlement of the Philistines; and, second, the withdrawal of the Egyptian hegemonic presence. According to the traditional paradigm, the Philistines wrested control of southern coastal Canaan from Egypt ca. 1175 BCE. Recent revisionist theories, however, hold that the Philistines arrived after the Egyptian withdrawal from the region at about 1130 BCE. At the heart of the matter lie the following questions: Did the Philistines and Egyptians coexist and, if they did, were their material culture boundaries impermeable? An examination of sites that possess either Philistine or Egyptianized material culture may provide an answer. An analysis of the excavations at Tel Mor, a small Egyptian outpost located close to the Philistine city of Ashdod, is an especially important case study in this regard.