There are also elements of EB oil lamps that are similar to IA oil lamps in as much as there is a basic saucer form in each. I would suggest more advancedMessage 1 of 20 , Oct 6, 2009View SourceThere are also elements of EB oil lamps that are similar to IA oil lamps in as much as there is a basic saucer form in each. I would suggest more advanced ceramic studies.
David Q. Hall
--- On Mon, 10/5/09, driver40386 <driver40386@...> wrote:
From: driver40386 <driver40386@...>
Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Philistine Architecture? (was: Philistine areas)
Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 8:59 PM
Thankyou, yes very absorbing reading.
Taking one publication specifically, The Philistines and their Material Culture, 1982. What is noticable is that much emphasis was made, and is still made, on the suggestion that 'Philistine Wares' consisting of the Krater, Stirrup Jar, Pyxis, Strainer Spout, and a few others, show distinct Mycenaean inspiration.
Grist for the mill when hypothesizing a direct Aegean origin for those illusive invaders.
However, Ruth Amiran in her Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land, 1970, had already pointed out that the Krater, Stirrup Jar, Pyxis & Strainer Spout Jug were not newely arrived 12th century forms but had actually been well known and used in the Levant in Late Bronze IIA & IIB.
So although we can readily accept a degree of Mycenaean inspiration, such inspiration was not newely arrived but had actually preceded the 12th century by several hundred years.
Mycenaean styles unearthed in the Levant do not support the Sea Peoples hypothesis, the styles were already there..
All the best, Jon smyth
--- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, David Hall <dqhall59@.. .> wrote:
>Trude Dothan has published much about the material culture of
>the Sea Peoples including pottery analysis of pottery forms from
>Israel, Crete, Cyprus, Aegean sites etc. I would recommend
>her research publication as she was trained in pottery
>identification and produced evidence for her theories.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I was particularly drawn to Ann Killebrew s Synthesis (pp.230-231) where she expands on the Fourth Theory (of Philistine Origins). After describing the FirstMessage 1 of 20 , Oct 6, 2009View SourceI was particularly drawn to Ann Killebrew's Synthesis (pp.230-231) where she expands on the 'Fourth Theory' (of Philistine Origins).
After describing the First three predominant theories,  From Illyria via the Balkans,  the Western Aegean region (most popular), &  East Aegean including Western Anatolia. Killebrew shows preference for the theory first espoused by Wainwright that the Philistines may have originated from southeast Anatolia (especially Cilicia) and/or Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean.
Killebrew writes: ..." I propose a variation on this theory and contend that Cyprus and possibly the surrounding regions are most likely the original point of departure of the Philistines".
As may be deduced from the above Killebrew does not support the 'sudden invasion' hypothesis. Rather she sees the well defined Mycenaean influences as a product of gradual diffusion over the centuries.
"The biblical Philistines can best be defined as the descendents and inheritors of the highly sophisticated and cosmopolitan culture of the Late Bronze Age Aegean world. Rather than a diffusion of Aegean-style culture over a large geographical region, as proposed by simplistic hyperdiffusionist theories of invading conquerors or refugees, the spread of this culture is more likely the result of gradual stimulus diffusion that occurred over the course of more than a century of interaction between west and east." (p.234).
Killebrew's analysis of 'Philistine' wares leads her to conclude the Low Chronology espoused by Finkelstein provides a more reasonable parallel with Mycenaean IIIC Middle at other sites in the eastern Mediterranean. That 'Philistine' bichrome should be dated to the 11th century BCE and the first appearance of monochrome wares do not preceed circa 1140 BCE.
Interestingly Killebrew does not tackle the "very, very problematic issue" of the perceived hiatus observed at many sites between the destruction levels and the first appearances of Mycenaean IIIC:1b.
Source: Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, Killebrew, 2006.
All the best, Jon Smyth
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "Niels Peter Lemche" <npl@...> wrote:
> AS you may have perceived, this subject is another can of worms. There
> has recently been a rather intensive debate about the issue of
> Philistine identity, and the origins of the pottery referred to as
> "Philistine." Although I handled her part about Canaanites quite
> roughly, I had not the same problem with her discussion of Philistine
> identity: see Ann Killebrew: Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An
> Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early
> Israel (CA. 1300-1100 B.C.E.), SBL 2006.
> Niels Peter Lemche
Without getting into a debate in this forum, since it would appear rather circular, it should be noted by listers that ALL of those working on the earlyMessage 1 of 20 , Oct 7, 2009View SourceWithout getting into a debate in this forum, since it would appear rather circular, it should be noted by listers that ALL of those working on the early Philistine remains in Philistia, having a close, up-to-date and broad knowledge of the wide variety of finds typical of the early Philistine levels at the various Philistine sites (e.g., Ekron, Ashdod, Gath and Ashkelon) strongly believe that a major (but not sole) component of the early Philistine culture is in fact non-local and most likely derives from, inter alia, the Aegean, Anatolia and/or Cyprus. This does mean that there are not local elements in this culture, but rather, in the initial stage, foreign elements are very dominant. Also, it should be stressed that the character of the Aegean connections with the Levant in the LB are COMPLETELY different from that seen in the early Iron Age Philistine sites. This does not only include pottery and architecture, but is seen in cult, diet (as seen thru botanical and zoological remains), cooking methods, etc.
Just writing this so that those who are not intimately familiar with the relevant discussions won't think that the other view, repeatedly espoused on the list recently, is the accepted view. :-)