Migration as a complex process

Anthropological and sociological studies (e. g. Anthony 1990, 1997, 2000; Burmeister 2000) demonstrate that migration is not a sudden event of migrants pouring from their home countries to the new land. it is a prolonged process, in which information is gathered, sometimes using the services of scouts, guides or informants. Then, the initial migrants arrive, usually young men (LEONARD 1992, 23), who prepare the ground for the arrival of the rest of the family or for a larger kinship group (BOYD 1989). These events may ignite different processes such as chain migration (Lee 1966, 55), in which groups follow each other, leapfrogging-migrants who move from one destination to the other (ANTHONY 1990, 902-903) as well as return migration (ANTHONY 1990, 904) of people that chose not to stay in their new country. seeing migration as a complex process comprised of different phases, each with its own temporal aspects opens the questions of the exact definition of the beginning point of migration, crucial to the question of Philistine chronology. Would it be the time when the first scout reaches his destination, or the arrival of the first small pioneer group, or the settlement of large family groups of migrants, following the pio-

Ussishkin for providing valuable notes and critique on earlier versions of this paper.

Fig. 1 Schematic pattern of migration for a single group

Neer settlers? This question has serious bearing on our ability to identify the beginning of the Philistine migration: Are all these phases in migration processes archaeologically visible, or can we detect only the phase in which the settlers are already established and producing a conspicuous amount of their material culture? (Fig. 1).

Furthermore, it is implicitly assumed in the study of the Philistines that the three major excavated sites of Philistia, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Tel Miqne/Ekron, were simultaneously settled by the same groups of people. This is of course the easiest solution, but is hardly the rule. Frequently, groups of similar or different origins that settle in one geographical area, do not colonize simultaneously, but each settlement is founded on a different date. Can we, using only archaeological data, correctly solve the complex equation of migration processes that include more than one group, in more than one site?

(Fig. 2).

Thus, for example, the early 17th century English settlement on the northeastern coast of America between New Haven and Portsmouth included eight settlements. The earliest in this group, Plymouth, was founded in 1620, and the latest, Newport, in 1639 (Gilbert 2003, 10; Fig. 3).

Fig. 2 Schematic pattern of several groups migrating into a single target country

Fig. 3 British colonization in the Northeastern coast of America in the first half of the 17th century (data: Gilbert 1993, 10)

Fig. 4 Greek Colonization in South Italy and Sicily in the second half of the 8th century B. C. (data: Graham 1982, 160-162)

A most illuminating example of the problem of temporal variation in migration is the complex migration events known as the Greek colonization to southern Italy and Sicily (Fig. 4). We know from literary sources that each of the foundations at the last third of the 8th century B. C. was conducted by colonists originating at different city states, and that each settlement was established on a different date:766 from Naxos, settled according to tradition by the Chalkidians in 734 (Graham 1982: 161; Malkin 1987, 175), to Taras, settled by Spartans in 706 B. C. (Graham 1982: 162). Would it be possible to determine such accurate data on the chronology and the origin of the migrants based on archaeological evidence? The answer is probably negative. Even in the cases when the literary date agrees with the date of the earliest Greek pottery at the site,767 it may prove impossible to differentiate between pottery made in Greece in 734 B. C., the date for the foundation of Naxos, and that made in 716 B. C., the date of the foundation of Mylai. Furthermore, the correct identification of origin of the settlers within Greece according to pottery found at the earliest levels of the sites is also an incredibly unsafe affair. Would it be fair to assume that without the literary evidence, some scholars would interpret all foundations of the late 8th century as contemporary, mass migration, similar to that of the Philistines?