Philistine arrival & settlement?
- Interestingly Ahlstrom (1994) notes the disconnect between the arrival of the Philistines/Peleset c.1179 BCE, and the eventual appearance of 'Philistine' wares in the southern Levant.
This appears to support Aharoni's conclusion (1982) when he wrote:
"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".
This view is reinforced by Finkelstein when he claims that no 'Philistine' wares have yet been found in a 20th dynasty context.
This being the case, if the Peleset/Philistines had an Aegean origin (either direct or indirect), and assuming they settled in the Levant c.1179 BCE, what did they bring with them?
Why is there no 'Aegean' pottery in the strata immediately above the destruction layers across any number of these Levantine sites?
Alternately, if they came from 'outside', why is there no pottery alien to the southern Levant in this superior strata?
Further, to pose a question which puzzled Trude Dothan, why are some 'Philistine' sites covered by "windblown sand" immediately above the destruction layers?
Kitchener, On, Can.
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "MarcC" <marc.cooper@...> wrote:
> Ahlstrøm's History of Palestine is available to Internet viewers here:
> Marc Cooper
> Missouri State University
Once again, I'm rather hesitant to get into this, since the ongoing back and forth is most often done on the basis of "party lines" and self-perceived "truths" and often without reference to the latest research in various areas.
I was not, in any way stating who has the truth or not, at this or that university. For that matter, I felt that both sides of what appeared to be a completely aimless argument were not arguing about details of the most updated discussions and recent evidence of the LB destructions and/or the Sea Peoples, but rather going over their "party lines" - of which each side was totally convinced that his/her "truth" had "won" long ago (and nothing scares me more [in research, religion and politics] than those who know for sure that they are absolutely right).
Simplistic conceptions of the various ideological divisions and scholarly camps are really only useful if you are interested in the debate - and not the content (or the history and sociology of research). Current research, with an overflow of wide ranging data, has shown, in my humble opinion, if anything, that the various ideological "camps" of the historical reconstruction of the beginning of the Iron Age are all wrong (or if you want, they are all partially right)! Things were much more complicated than previously assumed.
For example, the simplistic explanation of the Philistines as monolithic conquerors does not hold - but neither does the often repeated mantra that there is no evidence of the influx of Aegean (or rather "western") oriented cultural elements. Au contraire - there is plenty of evidence of this, and that it can most probably be connected to the actual arrival of bona fide "bodies" who carried these cultural influences to the Levant.
And to make things ever more multi-faceted, this is true to varying degrees in different areas, such as if we compare the situation in Philistia, Phoenicia and the Amuq. To try and explain away all these things in simplistic terms may sound good in a debating society - but not for those of us who are intimately involved in the nitty-gritty details of the relevant archaeological finds.
Knowing Hebrew is not a sine qua non for studying the archaeology of this region, just like you can study the archaeology of Denmark, or Finland, without knowing the local languages. But, it can be very helpful (to say the least, as you well know).
AND, when dealing with a topic such as the destruction of Hazor (which much of the recent discussion on this list was not demonstrating an awareness of much of the most updated research), if the most recent discussion is in Hebrew, it is worthwhile to relate to it.
But hey - I've long ago had the feeling that this list is all too often more about the sociology of research and the psychology of the researchers, than research itself.
But that is my opinion - and what do I know...