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

RE: [ANE-2] Philistine areas

Expand Messages
  • Yigal Levin
    Dear David, You recall correctly about Ashkelon. The site is part of an Israeli national park, and most of it is open to the public, with admission fees. The
    Message 1 of 20 , Sep 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear David,



      You recall correctly about Ashkelon. The site is part of an Israeli national
      park, and most of it is open to the public, with admission fees. The MB
      ramparts and gate (similar in construction to the "triple-arch" gate at Tel
      Dan, but the roofing, arched or not, has not been preserved) are worth
      seeing, but the Iron Age Philistine areas are still being excavated and are
      not generally open to the public. If you intend to visit during the
      excavation season, you might try contacting Daniel Master and asking for a
      tour. Their website is
      http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/ashkelon_dig.html.



      Tell es-Safi/Gath has also been declared a nation park, and a nice trail, an
      observation point and some signs were set up a couple of years ago. So far,
      the site is open with no admission fees charged. However excavations there
      are also ongoing, and no reconstruction has been undertaken yet. In this
      case, if you arrive during the July excavations, I'm sure that Aren Maeir
      will be more than happy to give you the grand tour. His blog is at
      http://gath.wordpress.com/.



      Tel Ashdod is just outside the "Ad Halom" industrial area and is easily
      accessible, but there's really nothing to see. Tel Miqne/Ekron is very
      difficult to get to, but if you where you're going and have an off-road
      vehicle there is no physical barrier. But very little has been done an the
      site since the excavations ended 15 years ago, the whole site is overgrown,
      and there's very little to see.




      Yigal Levin





      _____

      From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
      David Hall
      Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:23 PM
      To: ANE-2
      Subject: [ANE-2] Philistine areas





      I wondered if any of the excavations of the Philistine pentapolis are open
      to the public? I recall the archaeology park at Ashkelon included a MB
      rampart near the beach, Graeco-Roman type columns, and a Byzantine church
      near a sycomore fig grove. Am not sure about Ashdod. I know there have
      been excavations at Ekron and Gath. Gaza is not a place I could go to, nor
      would I expect to find restored ruins there.

      David Q. Hall
    • Yigal Levin
      Oh, one more thing: the most visitable Philistine site at the moment is Tell Qasile, which is on the campus of the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv
      Message 2 of 20 , Sep 30, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Oh, one more thing: the most "visitable" Philistine site at the moment is
        Tell Qasile, which is on the campus of the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv
        (http://www.eretzmuseum.org.il/main/site/index.php3?mod=firstPage
        <http://www.eretzmuseum.org.il/main/site/index.php3?mod=firstPage&langId=1>
        &langId=1). Of course, it's a small site and well outside the "Pentopolis",
        but the finds there were really central to our learning about Philistine
        material culture. Unfortunately, although the site is on the campus of a
        well-maintained museum, the tell is not well preserved and the finds are not
        exhibited in a single exhibition (the Tell Qasile exhibition advertised on
        the museum website no longer exists).



        Yigal Levin



        _____

        From: Yigal Levin [mailto:leviny1@...]
        Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 8:26 AM
        To: 'ANE-2@yahoogroups.com'
        Subject: RE: [ANE-2] Philistine areas



        Dear David,



        You recall correctly about Ashkelon. The site is part of an Israeli national
        park, and most of it is open to the public, with admission fees. The MB
        ramparts and gate (similar in construction to the "triple-arch" gate at Tel
        Dan, but the roofing, arched or not, has not been preserved) are worth
        seeing, but the Iron Age Philistine areas are still being excavated and are
        not generally open to the public. If you intend to visit during the
        excavation season, you might try contacting Daniel Master and asking for a
        tour. Their website is
        http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~semitic/ashkelon_dig.html.



        Tell es-Safi/Gath has also been declared a nation park, and a nice trail, an
        observation point and some signs were set up a couple of years ago. So far,
        the site is open with no admission fees charged. However excavations there
        are also ongoing, and no reconstruction has been undertaken yet. In this
        case, if you arrive during the July excavations, I'm sure that Aren Maeir
        will be more than happy to give you the grand tour. His blog is at
        http://gath.wordpress.com/.



        Tel Ashdod is just outside the "Ad Halom" industrial area and is easily
        accessible, but there's really nothing to see. Tel Miqne/Ekron is very
        difficult to get to, but if you where you're going and have an off-road
        vehicle there is no physical barrier. But very little has been done an the
        site since the excavations ended 15 years ago, the whole site is overgrown,
        and there's very little to see.



        As for Gaza..





        Yigal Levin





        _____

        From: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ANE-2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
        David Hall
        Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:23 PM
        To: ANE-2
        Subject: [ANE-2] Philistine areas





        I wondered if any of the excavations of the Philistine pentapolis are open
        to the public? I recall the archaeology park at Ashkelon included a MB
        rampart near the beach, Graeco-Roman type columns, and a Byzantine church
        near a sycomore fig grove. Am not sure about Ashdod. I know there have
        been excavations at Ekron and Gath. Gaza is not a place I could go to, nor
        would I expect to find restored ruins there.

        David Q. Hall

        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.115/2405 - Release Date: 09/30/09
        10:35:00




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • aren
        Ashkelon is a National Park (which requires an entrance fee). The MB gate is particularly well-developed for visitors, but they have signs and paths leading to
        Message 3 of 20 , Oct 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Ashkelon is a National Park (which requires an entrance fee). The MB gate is particularly well-developed for visitors, but they have signs and paths leading to the other parts of the site as well.
          Gath (Tell es-Safi) is a national park as well, but does not require paying an entrance fee. There are paths and signs that lead to the various parts of the site. To see the Iron Age siege system you have to go on your own - no official paths or signs there.
          Ashdod is a hill NE of Ashdod, near the railway tracks. You can walk up to the hill, and if you have a plan of the excavations, more or less make out the various areas. Do note that there is a very cute museum in the city of Ashdod that has some finds from various Philistine sites and some create life size recreations of Philistines, etc.
          Ekron: There are dirt paths that lead up to the site, which at times are very muddy and hard to access with a car/bus. On the site, most of the finds are covered over, save for part of the gate area.
          Gaza: You'll have to speak to the Hamas about that, but there might be some interesting finds in the tunnels...


          Aren Maeir
          gath.wordpress.com
        • JEFFREY A BLAKELY
          Turn down a dirt road, make more turns, hop a fence or two, and Tel Sera (Ziklag to many) can be found easily. There is little Philistine architecture to be
          Message 4 of 20 , Oct 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Turn down a dirt road, make more turns, hop a fence or two, and Tel Sera (Ziklag to many) can be found easily. There is little Philistine architecture to be seen today, but there is a nice view and a nice sense of place.

            Jeff Blakely
            Madison, WI
          • driver40386
            Perhaps I could ask for some clarification. In using the term Philistine architecture (across Pentapolis cites in general), are we to understand the
            Message 5 of 20 , Oct 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Perhaps I could ask for some clarification.
              In using the term 'Philistine architecture' (across Pentapolis cites in general), are we to understand the intention of this term is;

              - Specific architecture alien to the Levant?

              - Any type of architecture found at a 'Philistine' site?

              - Examples of identical styles already found elsewhere in the Aegean?


              Thankyou, Jon Smyth
              Toronto, CAN.


              --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, JEFFREY A BLAKELY <jblakely@...> wrote:
              >
              >There is little Philistine architecture to be seen today,....
            • aren
              Jon, I would say that a bit of each of the three points that you raised are true. E.g.: 1) Foreign to Levant (and possibly Aegean and/or Cypriote-oriented):
              Message 6 of 20 , Oct 2, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                Jon,
                I would say that a bit of each of the three points that you raised are true.
                E.g.:
                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.

                Best,
                Aren Maeir
                gath.wordpress.com
              • driver40386
                Aren, very much appreciated, thankyou for your reply. My questions were brief, perhaps too brief. From what I understand, the identification of architecture
                Message 7 of 20 , Oct 2, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  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
                  Toronto, CAN.

                  --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "aren" <maeira@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Jon,
                  > I would say that a bit of each of the three points that you raised are true.
                  > E.g.:
                  > 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.
                  >
                  > Best,
                  > Aren Maeir
                  > gath.wordpress.com
                  >
                • Francesco Brighenti
                  ... On Philistine architecture and its possible Aegean and Cypriot connections, see: Trude Dothan, The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Connotations, in W.G.
                  Message 8 of 20 , Oct 3, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, "driver40386" <driver40386@...> wrote:

                    > If I recall, Bunimovitz and others, believe there is absolutely no
                    > relationship between Levantine & Aegean temple architecture... 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?

                    On 'Philistine' architecture and its possible Aegean and Cypriot connections, see:

                    Trude Dothan, "The Aegean and the Orient: Cultic Connotations," in W.G. Dever and S. Gitin (eds.), _Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina_, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2003, pp. 189-213, available online at

                    http://tinyurl.com/ye9guxq

                    From Dothan's conclusions:

                    "[T]his is [...] a case of [...] the traditions and know-how that the 'Sea Peoples' brought with them and implanted in their new environment in Canaan. [...] The architectural features and finds with cultic connotations from Philistia can be isolated and integrated to expand our understanding of influences transmitted from the Aegean to Cyprus and to the Levant. Thus, we can further develop our picture of the flourishing new urban centers in Philistia, showing the emergence of a new entity, the substratum of which was rooted in the Aegean tradition, that adapted to the new environment in Canaan and adopted facets of Canaanite culture. A variety of features with cultic connotations illustrate this phenomenon: ***the architecture of public buildings*** [emphasis added; some nice architectural drawings are included in the paper -- FB] with relatively large communal halls and incorporated megaron plans, and the configurations of features such as hearths, _bamot_, bathtubs, pillars, and benches and their associated pottery and special finds, including terra-cotta figurines, zoomorphic vessels, bronze and iron objects, incised scapulae, ivory artifacts, and luxury objects, among others" (pp. 209-210).

                    An earlier paper by the same archaeologist, focusing on the excavations at Ekron:

                    Trude Dothan, "The Arrival of the Sea Peoples: Cultural Diversity in Early Iron Age Canaan," in S. Gitin and W.G. Dever (eds.), _Recent Excavations in Israel: Studies in Iron Age Archaeology_, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1989, pp. 1-14, available online at

                    http://tinyurl.com/yapav4f

                    On the excavations at Ashdod see also, from the last cited volume:

                    Moshe Dothan, "Archaeological Evidence for Movements of the Early 'Sea Peoples' in Canaan" (Ibid., pp 59-70), available online at

                    http://tinyurl.com/y8u9ypm

                    Moreover, coming to funerary architecture, Jane C. Waldbaum ("Philistine Tombs at Tell Fara and their Aegean Prototypes," _American Journal of Archaeology_ 70 [1966], pp. 331-340] has compared the rectangular Philistine chamber tombs from Tell el-Farah with similar types of rock-cut tombs in Egypt, Cyrus and Canaan and has concluded that the only tombs comparable in shape (a distinct rectangular one) to those at Tell el-Farah are ones found at sites in Mycenaean Greece and the Aegean (which also contain the distinctive benches found at Tell el-Farah). The identification of a Mycenaean-Aegean prototype for these Philistine tombs has, however, stirred controversies among the scholars -- see the discussion included in the Ph.D. thesis at

                    http://tinyurl.com/yb4skjd (pp. 73-76)

                    Again on Philistine architectural elements and their possible Aegean-Cypriot origin, check out Louise A. Hitchcock's paper at

                    http://tinyurl.com/yeyw538

                    on altars with 'horns of consecration' at Ekron, which, according to this scholar (an to her mentor S. Gitin), would be suggestive of some earlier Aegean and Cypriot prototypes that were possibly "imported" into the Levant through the Philistines.

                    Best wishes,
                    Francesco Brighenti
                  • David Hall
                    Could 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
                    Message 9 of 20 , Oct 3, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Could 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)
                      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                      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
                      Toronto, CAN.

                      --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups. com, "aren" <maeira@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Jon,
                      > I would say that a bit of each of the three points that you raised are true.
                      > E.g.:
                      > 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.
                      >
                      > Best,
                      > Aren Maeir
                      > gath.wordpress. com
                      >



















                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • dp@exegesisinternational.org
                      Dear David (and, in turn, Jon), Could the 11th century Egyptian story of Wenamum visiting the Sikils (sea people) at Dor be used as evidence for the sea
                      Message 10 of 20 , Oct 3, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear David (and, in turn, Jon),

                        "Could 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."

                        Absolutely. Moreover, there is much information that has come from Dor, especially in the area of ceramic evidence. The work to consult is that of Ayelet Gilboa. Please consult the following articles:

                        "Sea Peoples and Phoenicians along the Southern Phoenician Coast--A Reconciliation: And Interpretation of Sikila (SKL) Material Culture" (2005). BASOR 337: 47-78.

                        "Fragmenting the Sea Peoples, With an Emphasis on Cyprus, Syria and Egypt: A Tel Dor Perspective" (2008). Scripta Mediterranea 27-28: 209-244.

                        In my own words, what Gilboa seems to have found is a clear distinction between the ethnicity of the Philistines and the Sea People that conquered/occupied Dor. And contra Jon Smyth, this is not just smoke and mirrors. There is hard evidence in the form of material cultural remains.

                        As for Smyth's suggestion that we hardly know anything about these people, ergo we cannot confidently suggest that the Philistines are a distinct ethnic group, I would reply that Mr. Smyth most likely has not read all of the literature on the subject, including pertinent journal articles, from Stager's 1995 chapter/article until the present.

                        Given Smyth's proximity to the U. of Toronto library, he has all of the tools in his own backyard. Moreover, the U. of T.'s ANE archaeology prof, Timothy Harrison, has found clear evidence of intrusive foreign influence (interpreted to be Philistine) at Tell Tayinat, which was the center of an Iron-I kingdom called Palastin.

                        Tayinat is in the Amuq Plain of ancient Syria, and it became predominant in the area at the expense of Alalakh (nearby Tell Atchana), probably due to a shift in the flow of the Orontes River. In his chapter in Exploring the Longue Duree: Essays in Honor of Lawrence E. Stager (Eisenbrauns, 2009), Harrison discusses an important inscription found at Aleppo.

                        A fragmentary Luwian inscription was found in a wall of an Aleppo mosque. Though the inscription remains unpublished, J. D. Hawkins has undertaken its translation and publication. Hawkins dated the inscription to the 11th c. BC(E) based on paleography and associated iconography.

                        As a part of the inscription, Hawkins has identified Taitas, "Hero and King of the land of Palastin" (Hawkins, 2004), undoubtedly Tayinat's king. Other similar inscriptions were found at sites in the Amuq, including Tayinat. In conjunction with this epigraphical evidence, much data exists in the form of material cultural evidence: pottery, loomweights, and major shifts in dietary habits.

                        Much of this material evidence is presented by Brian Janeway, a PhD student of Harrison, in his 2008 essay, "The Nature and Extent of Aegean Contact at Tell Ta'yinat and Vicinity in the Early Iron Age: Evidence of the Sea Peoples?", also in Scripta Mediterranea 27-28: 123-146.

                        So, not only is there a plethora of evidence of the Philistines' presence in the Pentapolis and on the Philistine coast of Israel, there is much to be found up into the northern Levant, even to Tarsus. We should be careful, though, about putting our heads in the sand rather than studying carefully the evidence.

                        Blanket statements of disagreement and doubt are fine, at least until there is hard evidence in front of us that cannot be dismissed. And now, thanks to the hard work of many, there is such evidence out there. As strong as the argument is from the Medinet Haba reliefs, this has been complimented by clear archaeological data.

                        Sincerely,

                        Doug Petrovich
                        Toronto


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Francesco Brighenti
                        ... http://ethnomycology.com/Ekron/Berlant_JANES311.pdf [T]he [seventh century BCE] inscription, written from right to left in a style reminiscent of tenth
                        Message 11 of 20 , Oct 3, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, David Hall <dqhall59@...> wrote:

                          > There was a Phoenician (Semitic?) inscription found at Ekron with
                          > the name of a Philistine king mentioned in the Assyrian archives. 

                          http://ethnomycology.com/Ekron/Berlant_JANES311.pdf
                          "[T]he [seventh century BCE] inscription, written from right to left in a style reminiscent of tenth century BCE Phoenician inscriptions from Byblos, records the temple's dedication by Ekron's ruler [...] in a West Semitic dialect resembling Phoenician and Old Byblian, apparently spoken at Ekron and perhaps other Levantine Philistine city states. [It is] comprised of some seemingly Hebrew letters, some seemingly Phoenician letters, and some letters that seem to have been unique to Ekron, [...]."

                          The Ekron dedicatory inscription records the name of the governor/king of the city, as well as of four of his ancestors:

                          "The temple (which) he built, 'kyš, son of Pdy (= Padi), son of Ysd (= Yasod ?), son of 'd' (= Ada), son of Ya`ir, ruler of Ekron..."

                          The reading of the name 'kyš as Akish/Akayus is based on its occurrence, in the form 'a:kîš (= Achish), in the Hebrew Bible (where it is the name of the king of the Philistine city of Gath in the time of Saul and Solomon) and, contextually, in Neo-Assyrian annals dating from 701 to 667 BCE wherein I-ka-u-su (= Ikausu) and Padi are mentioned as two successive rulers of 'amqar(r)u:na, that is, the city of Ekron. The equation Ikausu = 'a:kîš indicates that the vocalization of the name 'kyš found in the Ekron Inscription should rather be Ikayus, which eventually leads to Akayus, i.e. Akhaios or `Achaean'. It could either have been a typically Philistine name or have acted as a title for a Semitized Philistine ruler of the seventh century BCE (S. Gitin, T. Dothan, and J. Naveh, "A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron," IEJ 47 [1997], pp. 1-16).

                          In contrast with this interpretation, A. Demsky ("On the Inscription of Ekron, " _Quadmoniot_ 31 (1998), pp. 64-65 [in Hebrew]) has unconvincingly proposed a "Homeric" interpretation of the names appearing in the Ekron Inscription:

                          'kyš = Anchises
                          Pdy = Pandion
                          Ysd = Hesiod
                          'd' = Idaios

                          Kind regards,
                          Francesco Brighenti
                        • driver40386
                          Thankyou for your input Doug. If I may quote from your post.. ... Doug, may I suggest to you that while Philistine architecture may be viewed by some as
                          Message 12 of 20 , Oct 3, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Thankyou for your input Doug.
                            If I may quote from your post..
                            >As for Smyth's suggestion that we hardly know anything about these people, ergo we
                            >cannot confidently suggest that the Philistines are a distinct ethnic group,...

                            Doug, may I suggest to you that while 'Philistine architecture' may be viewed by some as foreign to local architectural examples, this does not necessarily imply it is foreign to the Levant as a whole.
                            If you recall one point I made was:
                            "How sure can we be that such architecture is not actually Canaanite, Levantine, Syrian or at least generally just Asiatic?"

                            Two points you made in your response only serve to compliment my argument.
                            The first is Harrison's work at Tell Tayinat in northern Syria and secondly, Hawkins identification of Taitas, King of Wadasatini/Padasatin (the Patina/Hatina of Assyrian sources?), aka Palestin?
                            Such evidence only adds to the likelyhood that the Peleset were a Semitic people, confirming the only identified relief of a Peleset from Medinet-Habu:
                            http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/drifter_03/Philistinecaptive.jpg

                            Likewise we see the same Semitic features for a Sherdan..
                            http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/drifter_03/Shardana_Prisoner.jpg

                            (not to be confused with the clean shaven manequin figures used in the battle reliefs).

                            The Medinet-Habu inscriptions refer to the Peleset, Sheklesh, Sikel, etc, as St-tyw – Asiatics.

                            Tell Tayinat, as you point out is part of ancient Syria. The tunics shown in relief at Medinet-Habu worn by the Peleset, Sherden, Sheklesh, Denyen, etc, is distinctly of Syrian design. The chevron patterned knee-length tunic with a tripple-tassle hanging at four equally spaced points around the hem is known from tomb reliefs in Egypt as far back as the Amarna period. It is of Syrian design, consistently shown adorning the figure of a Semite/Asiatic/St-tyw.
                            The horned helmet of the Sherdan is typically of Mesopotamian origin, only appearing in the Aegean & Europe much later.

                            The long tapered sword, at one time termed the Shardana Sword, has been argued by Nancy Sanders to have evolved from the Canaanite short sword, not related to any Aegean type.

                            North Syrian architecture contained more Aegean influences than did south Levantine architecture. It is north Syrian architecture with its Cypriot & Cilician influences that we find traces of in the southern Levant.

                            The enemies of Ramesses III (given the ultra dramatic misnomer of 'Sea Peoples') were indigenous to the eastern Aegean. From Cilicia we had the Tersha (Tarsus), Adana (Denyen), and Weshesh (Issus). We find the Sherden, Sikel & Peleset in north Syria, all Asiatics, all dressed in Syrian garb.
                            Philistine architecture although alien to the Philistine Pentapolis is quite at home in northern Syria.
                            Does this make the Philistines a different ethnic group?, I think not.
                            Given all the evidence as it stands the Philistines appear to have been nothing more than Aegeanized Canaanites.

                            All the best, Jon Smyth
                            Toronto, CAN.
                          • driver40386
                            Dear David. Contrary to a previous response I feel it necessary to point out that the tales of Wenamun are too far removed from the event we call the Sea
                            Message 13 of 20 , Oct 4, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear David.
                              Contrary to a previous response I feel it necessary to point out that the tales of Wenamun are too far removed from the 'event' we call the Sea Peoples invasion hypothesis to be regarded as evidence for an invasion of foreigners.

                              Traditionally we have been led to believe that 'Philistine' architecture and 'Philistine' pottery followed close on the presumed 'Philistine' destructions duly noted as widespread across the region. Yet, for decades it has been pointed out, but not as enthusiastically debated, that there is a significant hiatus between the destruction levels and the first appearance of 'Philistine' habitation.

                              As long ago as the 1970's Aharoni pointed out this dilemma, "The simple conclusion that a certain period of time separates the battles with Ramesses III and their settlement in Philistia is never, for some reason, given consideration".
                              Archaeology of the Land of Israel, Aharoni, 1978, p.184.

                              Neither is this an isolated observation, many sites enumerated by Dever in 1992 betray the same condition. Trude Dothan commented (1998) about the apparent hiatus at Oren's excavation at Tell esh-Shari'a, that "These are very, very problematic issues".

                              Finkelstein in the same publication (Mediterranean Peoples in Transition,1998) drove the point home by pointing out that Monochrome wares only appear in the Levant in the latter days of Ramesses VI.
                              Therefore, he suggests, 'Philistine' bichrome should be downdated to the 11th century. This would bring 'Philistine' bichrome more contemporary with Phoenician bichrome, which should come as no surprise.
                              Bikai in 1994 pondered why Cypriot, Phoenician & Palestinian pottery wares were so similar yet are not studied as a whole in that context. Of course, opinions on such parallels were hindered by a period of almost a century between Phoenician & Palestinian bichrome wares. A time period now considerably eroded.

                              If, we cling to the concept that this relatively new 'Philistine' bichrome, and, 'Philistine' architecture belongs to some invading Philistines then this well defined hiatus between strata containing such evidence and the destruction levels must be accounted for.

                              There can be no doubt that peoples from northern Syria ventured south to take up residence following the departure of Egypt from the coastal Levant, circa 1130 BCE.
                              Whether this movement of peoples was related to the wars of Ramesses III is an entirely different matter, something in the order of 30-50 years may separate the two events.

                              Who caused those widespread destructions?
                              Given the fact that Ramesses III provides approx. 124 Asiatic conquest sites. Also given the fact that many Levantine destruction levels consist of 1 to 2 meters of burned debris and ash, we should perhaps consider the words of Ram. III more carefully.
                              "Destruction to their towns, devastated at one time; their trees and all their people are become ashes" and elsewhere we read, "...the Sikel and the Peleset were made ashes..", indeed they were!

                              Twice we read of the "towns of the Peleset", several times the Sikel & Peleset are referred to as "sebiu' = "rebels" and "amu" = "Asiatics". He writes, "no land stood firm at the sound of my name, but they leave their settlements, moving away from their place, scattered..." these phrases are all indications that Ramesses III forcibly dispersed an already resident foe in the Levant.

                              Ramesses assembled his troops in Tjaru to disperse the "rebellious Asiatics" across the hill-countries. The fact he calls them "amu" means they are not foreigners from the Aegean. That he also refers to them as "sebiu" means these Asiatics were considered by him as his subjects. Foreign armies do not rebel, only subject peoples rebel.

                              That this confrontation was not the result of a sudden invasion is hinted at by the line: "The Gods made me to be king in Egypt to strengthen her to repel for her the plains and hill-countries". This is consistent with a longtime ongoing problem between Egypt and her neighbours to the east.
                              And indeed this is what we already know from the reign of Merneptah through to Setnakht, Egypt had problems with their Asiatic neighbours.
                              Ramesses had been commissioned by the gods to disperse her troublesome subjects in the hill-countries. This is what we see in the commonly termed 'Oxcart' relief. The scene is a dispersal, not a battle, contrary to popular opinion.

                              The textual evidence is consistent with the Peleset being already resident before year 8 of Ramesses III. Hence, any evidence of actual Peleset occupation should be found 'beneath' the destruction layers, not on top of it.
                              Finkelstein's demographic survey (2000) of the southern coastal plain and the Shephelah over the period of the end of the Late Bronze through to Iron I is entirely consistent with the above scenario.
                              We see as many as 102 settlements at the end of the LBA, which dropped drastically to only 49 within the Iron I period. Finkelstein describes a twofold process, an annihilation of the countryside followed by an impressive expansion of urban life, along with 'new' architecture & pottery wares.

                              This is what the archaeological record provides. Widespread annihilation, followed by an occupational hiatus while Egypt dominates this coastal region south of the Yarkon. Contact between the Levant and the Aegean (Cyprus & Cilicia?) is curtailed for several generations. Perhaps the term 'Fortress Canaan' would be applicable?

                              Egypt eventually departs the Levant, circa 1130 BCE? Replaced by Asiatics who filter in from the north and bring with them their Monochrome pottery knowhow, producing their 'Philistine' wares and 'Philistine' architecture.

                              I don't know David, I do not see evolving archaeological findings being at all consistent with the Victorian Aegean invasion paradigm.
                              The surviving hieroglyphic record describes a local rebellion of Asiatic subjects against Egypt.

                              All the best, Jon Smyth
                              Toronto, CAN.

                              --- In ANE-2@yahoogroups.com, David Hall <dqhall59@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Could the 11th century Egyptian story of Wenamum visiting the >Sikils (sea people) at Dor be used as evidence for the sea peoples >paradigm?...
                            • David Hall
                              Dear Jon:   If you will remember the Merneptah Stele discovered by British archaeologist Sir William Flinders Petrie during the Victorian era; Merneptah
                              Message 14 of 20 , Oct 4, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Jon:
                                 
                                If you will remember the Merneptah Stele discovered by British archaeologist Sir William Flinders Petrie during the Victorian era; Merneptah claimed to have destroyed Ashkelon.  The fact that there was a destruction layer and then Philistine pottery found above a floor on top of the destruction layer at Ashkelon does not mean the Philistines destroyed the place, but that their pottery was found above the destruction layer.  There are archaeologists capable of distinguishing early Philistine ware and there are numerous pieces in museum collections labeled as Philistine ware.  This may seem problematic for people's theories differ and one can seldom find complete agreement amongst scholars. 
                                 
                                At Medinet Habu there were records of other peoples who had moved down from the north to attack Egypt along with the Peleset/Pelishtu/Philistines during the time of Ramesses III.  Some of this coalition was thought to have been from Asia Minor, not the Greek isles.  This was stated by the Geman Egyptologist Adolf Erman in the late 19th century Victorian era publication of his book, Life in Ancient Egypt (public domain).  One may conclude that an attempted invasion of Egypt by men in ships does not constitute valid evidence for an invasion by Sea Peoples, but some people merely like to argue.  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.  Others have published recent findings expanding
                                her earlier theory. These studies might be difficult to obtain, yet they exist.
                                 
                                David Q. Hall   
                                 
                                 
                                Before the Victorian era began Isaac Newton had measured the acceleration of gravity.  During the Victorian era SIr William Flinders Petrie was defining archaeological stratigraphis analysis and classes of pottery chronological dating techniques. 
                                 
                              • Niels Peter Lemche
                                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
                                Message 15 of 20 , Oct 4, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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
                                • driver40386
                                  Hello David. Thankyou, yes very absorbing reading. Taking one publication specifically, The Philistines and their Material Culture, 1982. What is noticable is
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Oct 5, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Hello David.
                                    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
                                    Toronto, CAN.

                                    --- 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.
                                  • David Hall
                                    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 advanced
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Oct 6, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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 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)
                                      To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Monday, October 5, 2009, 8:59 PM


                                       





                                      Hello David.
                                      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
                                      Toronto, CAN.

                                      --- 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]
                                    • driver40386
                                      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
                                      Message 18 of 20 , 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
                                        >
                                      • aren
                                        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 early
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Oct 7, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          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 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. :-)

                                          Aren Maeir
                                          gath.wordpress.com
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.