Re: Philistine arrival & settlement?
- If I may explain, I should not have mentioned Prof. Killebrew without explaining further.
In 2005 Prof. Killebrew wrote a synthesis of Philistine origins where four principal theories are debated.
If I may quote what is written under the fourth theory.
"A fourth theory, specifying southeast Anatolia (especially Cilicia) and/or Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean, has not been clearly distinguished in past literature from the eastern Aegean theory. This theory was embraced by Gerald A. Wainwright .... who located Caphtor in Asia Minor. Based on linguistic and textual evidence and a comparative analysis of the material culture remains, 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. This is not to detract from the obvious fact that the ultimate inspiration of Aegean-style material culture in the east and Philistia lie in the Aegean, albiet removed by several generations."
Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, Killebrew, 2005, p.231.
The important issue is that the material culture is evidently drawn from local regions, with Aegean influence certainly, but not immediate and not direct.
Ayelet Gilboa commenting on excavations at Dor makes a somewhat supportive observation.
"..The finds at Dor, however, have not lived up to expectations, and the 'western association' of the Sikila has turned out to be elusive. Though a few artifacts do find corollaries in Philistia, like a lion-headed cup, incised scapulae and bimetallic knives, the broader picture is different.
At Dor, in the earliest Iron Age phases, there are no 'western' architectural traits. The two 'domestic' units excavated are ordinary courtyard buildings of Canaanite type. There are no western figurines, and the pottery is mostly of Canaanite derivation. The Myc. IIIC and Philistine Bichrome phenomena, or anything remotely similar, do not exist there".
Fragmenting the Sea Peoples Phenomenon, Gilboa, pp.209-244, in Scripta Mediterranea Vol XXVII 2006 and XXVIII 2007.
Indications of local origins, in some cases displaying Aegean influences, but not Aegean origins.
Best Wishes, Jon Smyth
--- In ANEfirstname.lastname@example.org, "Jon Smyth" <driver40386@...> wrote:
> 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
> Kitchener, On.
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...