11419Re: [ANE-2] Re: Philistine Architecture? (was: Philistine areas)
- Oct 3, 2009Could the 11th century Egyptian story of Wenamum visiting the Sikils (sea people) at Dor be used as evidence for the sea peoples paradigm? Dor is about 60 kms north of the Tel Qasille/Tel Aviv area. Inscriptions at Medinet Habu and Ugarit have been used as evidence of the existence of Sea People movements during the LBA-IA transition for years.
Lawrence Stager (Harvard University) excavated at Ashkelon and reported unearthing a 150 acre/60 hectare Philistine seaport. Ashekelon Discovered, by Lawrence E. Stager, 1991, BAS. There were Canaanite layers below the Philistine layer.
There was a Phoenician (Semitic?) inscription found at Ekron with the name of a Philistine king mentioned in the Assyrian archives.
David Q. Hall
--- On Fri, 10/2/09, driver40386 <driver40386@...> wrote:
From: driver40386 <driver40386@...>
Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Philistine Architecture? (was: Philistine areas)
Date: Friday, October 2, 2009, 10:05 PM
Aren, very much appreciated, thankyou for your reply.
My questions were brief, perhaps too brief.
From what I understand, the identification of architecture and architectural features as 'Philistine' , implying foreign, is a long debated subject.
If I recall, Bunimovitz and others, believe there is absolutely no relationship between Levantine & Aegean temple architecture. Whereas Negbi is equally adamant that any Aegean examples, Mycenae?, Tiryns? were initially inspired by pre-existing Levantine examples of the 2nd millennium.
Mazar held that he sees possible influences but cannot determine from which direction those influences originated. Was it a case of 'Go west young man' or, 'Come east young man'?
As a specific example then, the so-called 'Philistine' temples unearthed at Tell Qasile may be nothing more than the product of good old home cooking. They may have evolved from Levantine originals.
To call such architecture 'Philistine' , implying foreign, may be misrepresenting what is known.
So what I was leading towards was the intent of the term 'Philistine architecture' . How sure can we be that such architecture is not actually Canaanite, Levantine, Syrian or at least generally just Asiatic?
To use the term in the ethnic sense is to suggest the identification is resolved, whereas the truth is otherwise. The general reader tends to believe the term is used in the ethnic sense much the same as calling 12th century bi-chrome wares 'Philistine pottery'.
Any connections between the 12th century bi-chrome and the ethnic Philistines grows more tenuous as the decades pass.
However, Aegean influence in the Levant should be expected. Afterall the existence of Mycenaean (style) pottery with Cypriote wares throughout Late Bronze strata at Levantine sites should be highly indicative of long standing interactions between both peoples.
After several hundred years of contact why wouldn't there be traces of Canaanite influence in Cyprus and Cypriote influence in Canaan? And that is precisely what we do find. Hardly evidence of sudden invasions, more indicative of commercial enterprise.
So much modern interpretation is sadly influenced by the old 'Sea Peoples invasion' paradigm. A paradigm which has yet to be satisfactorily demonstrated in all its facets.
All the best, Jon Smyth
--- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, "aren" <maeira@...> wrote:
> I would say that a bit of each of the three points that you raised are true.
> 1) Foreign to Levant (and possibly Aegean and/or Cypriote-oriented) : "Megaron-like" structures; architectural elements, such as hearths and baths.
> 2) Typical of Philistine sites: plenty of that.
> 3) Aegean in character: see above. Note also possible Aegean connections (though debated) of Qasile temple.
> Aren Maeir
> gath.wordpress. com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>