Coexistence and Impermeability: Egyptians and Philistines IN Southern Canaan During the Twelfth Century BCE

Tristan J. Barako

I. Introduction1

In the absence of chronological anchors for the twelfth century BCE in southern Canaan, scholars have often relied on two interrelated, geopolitical events that affected the region at this time: first, the migration and settlement of the Philistines; and, second, the withdrawal of the Egyptian hegemonic presence. According to the traditional paradigm, the Philistines wrested control of southern coastal Canaan from Egypt ca. 1175 BCE. Recent revisionist theories, however, hold that the Philistines arrived after the Egyptian withdrawal from the region at about 1130 BCE. At the heart of the matter lie the following questions: Did the Philistines and Egyptians coexist and, if they did, were their material culture boundaries impermeable? An examination of sites that possess either Philistine or Egyptianized material culture may provide an answer. An analysis of the excavations at Tel Mor, a small Egyptian outpost located close to the Philistine city of Ashdod, is an especially important case study in this regard.

The date of the Philistine settlement is determined largely by Egyptian texts. According to the notice at Medinet Habu, Ramesses iii repelled the sea Peoples (including the Philistines) in the eighth year of his reign, which corresponds to 1174 BCE following the Low Egyptian Chronology (Wente and VAN Siclen 1977).649 Papyrus Harris I reports that they were then settled in strongholds (76.7-8), generally assumed to be in southern coastal Canaan, which was the location of the Philistine Pentapolis according to the Hebrew Bible (e. g., Josh 13:3; I Sam 6:3-4, 17). Excavations in this region produced an intrusive material culture with affinities to the Philistines’ presumed area of origin - namely, the Mycenaean cultural ambit. More importantly, this material culture appeared suddenly in strata dated to the early twelfth century BCE. Thus, the traditional paradigm for the chronology of the Philistine settlement was formed.

In recent years, Israel Finkelstein and David Ussishkin have argued that the date of the Philistine settlement should be lowered by roughly fifty years - that is, to about 1130 BCE.650 Briefly described, their argument is as follows: Because certain sites located near the Philistine Pentapolis contain strata that are clearly datable to the reign of R amesses iii, but have not yielded Philistine pottery, this type of pottery found at sites elsewhere must have been produced for the first time after the destruction of these strata. The two key sites mentioned in this regard are Lachish stratum Vi and Tel serac stratum ix. in both these strata, Egyptian inscriptions dating to Ramesses iii were found (Gilula 1976; Goldwasser 1982; 1984) and Philistine pottery was absent. on the other hand, neighboring sites thought to be contemporaneous, particularly Tel Haror Strata B3-2, did produce both Philistine Monochrome and Bichrome pottery (Oren 1993:582-583).

The underlying assumption of this argument is that cultural boundaries must be permeable for all types of material culture. A corollary holds that two neighboring sites that do not possess the same full range of material culture cannot be contemporaneous. Amihai Mazar, however, has adduced examples from the archaeology of syria-Palestine to demonstrate that different material cultures have coexisted side by side with little or no interaction (1997:158; see also Ben-Tor and Ben-Ami 1998:31). Furthermore, as pointed out by S. Bunimovitz and A. Faust (2001), even intensive interaction between cultures

* History Department, Salem State College, 352 Lafayette Street, Room 105B, Salem, MA 01970, email: tristanbarako @hotmail. com

1 I would like to thank Manfred Bietak for inviting me to participate in the second EuroConference of SCIEM 2000 and Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy for organizing the Mycenaean and Sea Peoples section.

Does not necessarily lead to material culture exchange. Indeed, in order to maintain group identity and strengthen solidarity during times of conflict with a neighboring group, people tend not to acquire items emblematic of their rivals. A comparison of the material culture assemblages belonging to the Philistine city at Ashdod and the nearby Egyptian garrison at Tel Mor during the twelfth century BCE further undermines the proposed Low Chronology for the Philistine settlement. 651

Fig. 1 Map of the southern Levantine coastal region (adapted from T. Dothan 2000:fig. 7.1)

Residence” or palace (Dothan and Porath 1993:10, 39-49, plan 7). With this “Residence” the excavators associated an inscribed stone fragment, possibly from a doorjamb, which was found in a later fill context (= Stratum XIIB) from the same area.4 The inscription reads “Fanbearer on the Kings’ Right Hand” (tAi hw [hr] wnmy n nsw), an honorific accorded only to high officials in the pharaonic court (Kitchen 1993). Egyptianized bowls (Dothan and Porath 1993:45, figs. 10.1, 11.1-6, 8-12), a beer jar (fig. 11.24), and an alabaster vessel (fig. 12.15) were also found in Area G, Stratum XIV.5 Mycenaean and Cypriote imports still arrived at Ashdod before the Stratum XIV Canaan-ite city was largely destroyed at the end of the thirteenth century BCE (e. g., Dothan and Porath 1993:48-49, fig. 12.2-4).

More than anything else, the initial appearance of locally-produced, Mycenaean IIIC:1b (or Philistine Monochrome) in large quantity characterizes the rebuilt settlement in Stratum XIII (e. g., Dothan and Porath 1993:fig. 14). In this same stratum, Mycenaean and Cypriote imports and Egyptianized pottery are absent. Dothan correlated Stratum XIII and Philistine Monochrome pottery with an early wave of Philistines prior to Year 8 of Ramesses Ill’s reign. He associated Philistine Bichrome pottery, which first appears in abundance in Stratum XII, with a second wave after Year 8. The gradual shift from Monochrome to Bichrome pottery in tight stratigraphic sequence at two other Philistine Pen-tapolis sites, Tel Miqne-Ekron and Ashkelon, however, indicates otherwise - namely, stylistic change over time within a single population group (Mazar 1985:102-107; Singer 1985:112; Stager 1985:62). Therefore, the appearance of Monochrome marks the arrival of the Philistines during the reign of Ramesses III, and Bichrome corresponds to the second generation of Philistine ceramic production. To sum up, the stratigraphy and associated material culture changes at Ashdod may be broadly tabulated as follows.

Table 1

Note also that a surface survey in the area between Ashdod and Tel Mor produced a fragment of a monumental statue of a queen of Ramesses II (Schulman 1993).

At Late Bronze Age Ashdod, Egyptianized bowls were found also in Areas A (M. Dothan 1971:fig. 1.1), B (Dothan and Freedman 1967:fig. 22.1-4), and H (M. Dothan 1971:fig. 81.3). Another beer jar was found in Area H (fig. 81.14).

Fig. 2 Topographic plan of Tel Mor (drawing by I. Dunayevsky)