Re: Philistine arrival & settlement?
- Finkelstein has provided a paper entitled, The Philistine Settlement: When, Where and How Many, in The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment, 2000.
In this paper Finkelstein offers a demographic study of the Coastal Plain and the Shephelah. Apparently there was a population drop in Iron I, not an increase, when compared with the previous Late Bronze.
In the Late Bronze there had been 102 sites with a built-up area of 173 hectares. In the subsequent Iron I period the number of sites dropped from 102 to 49, and the occupied area also reduced from 175 to 155 hectares.
Finkelstein explaines that there had been a population shift from the country to the cities, apparently the Shephelah and outlying regions were annihilated.
This is consistent with the claims of Ramesses III that he dispersed the rebellious asiatics and he destroyed numerous towns & settlements across Djahy.
The devastation layers across the many Levantine sites should be more accurately ascribed to the actions of Ramesses III than any still undeterminable aggresive force from the Aegean, or at least from outside the southern Levant (tell Ta'Yinat?).
The identification of the Sea Peoples always overshadows the perhaps more important objective of Ramesses III, who's intent was to move against the southward advance of the Hittites (ruled from Carchemish?).
Once the Hittite alliance is acknowledged the 'Sea Peoples' (described as Asiatic rebels) can be seen to be followers of that same alliance.
Best Wishes, Jon Smyth
Kitchener, On. Can.
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "frankclancy" <clancyfrank@...> wrote:
> I still see claims that the major Bronze Age states were swept aside by the Sea Peoples. Has anyone given a rough estimate of the entire Sea People population? As a very rough guess, I tend to believe a number near 8,000 is possible - but half would be children and only one quarter would be men. I see the Sea Peoples as opportunists taking advantage of the failure of the Hittite, Ugarit and other empires and kingdoms. Just curious.
> Frank Clancy
> Kitchener Ontario
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...