At the apparent absence of conclusive chronological data from Philistia itself,771 most scholars made a clear connection between dates available from the Egyptian strongholds in Canaan to the process of settlement. All scholars maintained that the mass settlement of the Philistines could not have gone unnoticed by the Egyptians. As a result, two schools have formed: one, arguing that the Philistine settlement followed the end of Egyptian administration; the second arguing for a peaceful or tense coexistence at least for some time.
Would the connection between the migration of the Aegeans/ Philistines and the end of the Egyptian administration hold water if we gave up the pre-conception of mass, simultaneous migration, for more complex processes, involving different groups settling over an extended period of time? For those who favor the low chronology, the immediate uncomfortable outcome is that without a fast, well coordinated attack by the migrants, there is no possibility to reconstruct a swift end for the Egyptian administration, which can be used, via evidence in Egyptian centers in Canaan, for the absolute dating of the Philistine settlement. For those who argue for coexistence, or at least temporal overlap, between the beginning of the Philistine settlement and the end of Egyptian administration, the result is an inability to fix a clear date for the beginning of the Philistine settlement. However, as it will be demonstrated below, even if the reconstruction of a gradual, continuous migration is not accepted, it is possible to point out that the chronological evidence from the Egyptian centers in Palestine does not give any direct indication for the chronology of the Philistine settlement:
Beth Shean and Megiddo. Ussishkin argued, relating to the land movements of the “Sea Peoples”, that “such hordes must have come from the north by using a cardinal land route, and therefore had to pass Megiddo and the Nahal cIron gorge before heading south (Ussishkin 1998, 216). If so, Megiddo could have held back the “Sea Peoples” to the days of Ramses VI, whose statue base, (found in a less than reliable context; Breasted 1948, 135 note 1; Weinstein 1992, 147), is presumed to date the end of stratum VII, and to give a terminus post quem for the Philistine incursion (Finkelstein 1996b; USSISHKIN 1998; see however Mazar 1997; Yasur-Landau 2003). However, small and even large groups of migrants could also bypass Megiddo altogether by using two major alternative roads that avoid the center of the Jazreel Valley, and later cross the Carmel Ridge: a northern one ending by Yoknecam, and a southern one, ending by Jenin, and then going west through Emek Dothan and Nahal Hedera (Dorsey 1991, 79 map 3; Ussishkin 1998, 215-216). A third possible route, less convenient for travel, yet entirely unguarded, was along the coast.
Beth Shean, although strategically located, is not a necessary pass for travelers coming into Palestine from the north, and therefore its role in holding back land movements of the “Sea Peoples” is minimal. Consequently, the vast body of datable Egyptiaca and accompanying LHIIIC (or rather Cypriot-made “Mycenaean IIIC:1b”) pottery (JAMES 1966, fig. 94: 4; Hankey 1966; Hankey 1967, 127-128; Warren and hankey 1989, 164-165; Mazar 1993, 216; Leonard 1994, 72 no. 979; Yasur-Landau 2003) are of no direct chronological value for the settlement of the Philistines.
Lachish. The lack of locally made, “monochrome” LHIIIC pottery in Lachish, which yielded good Egyptian datable material is another cornerstone in the chronology of the beginning of the Philistine settlement presented by Ussishkin (1998, 217) and Finkelstein (1995, 230-231). The lack of such pottery is shown as positive evidence that the Philistine settlement did not occur in nearby Philistia before the reign of Ramses III or even Ramses IV, whose scarab (Krauss 1994) was found in the lower city of Lachish (and indeed not before Ramses VI, according to the Megiddo evidence). However, not every
Lower chronology that all 20th-dynasty scarabs found in Philistia in contexts containing Aegean-style “monochrome” and “bichrome” pottery originated in fact in earlier strata.
Absence of imported pottery has a chronological implication:
A. Both Lachish and Beth Shean have evidence for both Ramses III and Ramses IV names. The absence of imported LHIIIC pottery from Lachish (Leonard 1994, 207), which is found in Beth Shean, does not mean, of course, that Lachish was destroyed earlier than Beth Shean. This absence is only connected to the fact that LHIIIC imported pottery is found only as south as the northern valleys, probably due to trade routes. Thus, imported LHIIIC pottery cannot give a direct date for the beginning of the Aegean settlement in Philistia. Trade routes are not the only explanation for the absence of imported pottery types. Imported LHIIIC is found in Tel Keisan and in Beth Shean, yet not in Megiddo (Yasur-Landau 2003), which is on the route between them. Still, Finkelstein (1996b) sets the date of the destruction of Beth Shean stratum VI according to the statue base of Ramses VI found at Megiddo.
B. Bunimovitz and Faust (2001) argued that the small Aegean-style serving vessels and cooking wares, produced in Philistia, often of unattractive appearance and poor firing, were of no interest to the Egyptian garrisons who maintained their own foodways and cultural preferences. Their argument may be a very convincing theory for two additional reasons:
- Locally made (“monochrome”) LHIIIC pottery was also not found at Beth Shemesh, less than half the distance between Tel Miqne/Ekron and Lachish. Since there seems to be a continuation of habitation at the site from the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age, the reason for the absence is not temporal in nature.
- Throughout the 13th century B. C., Canaanite taste for Aegean imported ware was mainly for containers such as stirrup jars and piriform jars, which contained perfumed oils, rather than to Aegean serving wares (Leonard 1981, 94-96; Steel 2002, 31; Kille-BREW 1998b, 160). After the fall of the Mycenaean palatial system the demand for Aegean-style containers continued in Egyptian garrisons, as manifested in the find of imported LHIIIC stirrup jars in Beth Shean, and the local imitations of stirrup jars in cemetery 900 at Tel el-Farcah (Braunstein 1998, 262).
World History
