Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11437SV: [ANE-2] Re: Philistine Architecture? (was: Philistine areas)

Expand Messages
  • driver40386
    Oct 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      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 First three predominant theories, [1] From Illyria via the Balkans, [2] the Western Aegean region (most popular), & [3] 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.
      Quote:
      "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
      Toronto, CAN


      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "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
      >
    • Show all 20 messages in this topic