Re: Philistine arrival & settlement?
I can see that attempting to keep a post brief can often have negative repercussions.
However, to your point about a site in Syria, would you be referring to Tell Kazel? I was not aware of a number of inland sites in Syria with such wares, none except a couple of coastal sites. So yes, I should have also listed coastal Syria.
With respect to the suggestion of a 'borrowed' cultural link I was meaning the homelands of these 'Sea Peoples', not the settled sites in Philistia.
Example, The aegeanization of Cyprus is not the picture it once was with regard to an assumed Aegean invasion bringing West Aegean culture.
Cultural exchanges through trade between Cyprus and the Aegean, or between Hilakku (Cilicia), or between Coastal Syria, or Phoenicia, and Aegean sources can easily explain the minimal Aegean influences evident in Philistia at the dawn of Iron I.
We often hear of hearths from the east & west Aegean being found in Philistia, but hearths were known on Cyprus.
Bathtubs, which are apparently not bathtubs at all but used for fulling wool, are known from both Cyprus & Cilicia.
Incised Scapula, found at Philistine sites, although alien to the Levant are found on Cyprus, and are apparently unknown in the Mycenaean world.
Just a handful of examples to demonstrate that the people who did eventually settle in the Levant can be traced to local regions like Cyprus, Cilicia and perhaps the Amuq Plain (Tell Ta'Yinat).
These regions had trade connections with Greece & the Mycenaean world so their Aegean cultural influences, I suggested, were 'borrowed' because there is no need to see an imposed culture through 'invasions' whenever we see evidence of contact.
As for sources, the last publication I obtained was Scripta Mediterranea, 2006-7, but use several earlier publications of 'Sea Peoples' monographs.
If my memory serves, I was reflecting a similar view on Sea Peoples origins as espoused by Anne Killebrew.
Best Wishes, Jon Smyth
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...