The Biblical Archaeologist - Vol.29, N.3

36 Pages·1966·4.27 MB·English

by  American Schools of Oriental Research

The
BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST
Published by
THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS OF ORIENTAL RESEARCH
Jerusalem and Bagdad
Room 102, 6 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Mass.
VOL. XXIX September,1 966 No. 3
--qu
Trr
meo
Fig. 1. Tell Shari'ah (Gath?) from the south. The view is partially blocked by the embankment
of an old Turkish railroad which ran to Beersheba. Its bridge has been washed away
down the Wadi Shari'ah. Photo by James L. Swauger (from a Kodacolor print, Carnegie
Museum 5718).
Contents
Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story, by G. Ernest Wright .......................... 70
Philistia under Assyrian Rule, by Hayim Tadmor ............... ...................... 86
Announcement and Recent Books Received ....................................... 103
70 THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXIX
The Biblical Archaeologist is published quarterly (February, May, September, December)
by the American Schools of Oriental Research. Its purpose is to meet the need for a readable,
non-technical, yet thoroughly reliable account of archaeological discoveries as they relate to the
Bible.
Editor: Edward F. Campbell, Jr., with the assistance of Floyd V. Filson in New Testament
matters. Editorial correspondence should be sent to the editor at 800 West Belden Avenue, Chica-
go, Illinois, 60614.
Editorial Board: W. F. Albright, Johns Hopkins University; G. Ernest Wright, Harvard
University; Frank M. Cross, Jr., Harvard University.
Subscriptions: $2.00 per year, payable to Stechert-Hafner Service Agency, 31 East 10th
Street, New York, New York, 10003. Associate members of the American Schools of Oriental
Research receive the journal automatically. Ten or more subscriptions for group use mailed and
billed to the same address, $1.50 per year for each. Subscriptions run for the calendar year. In
England: seventeen shillings per year, payable to B. H. Blackwell, Ltd., Broad Street, Oxford.
Back Numbers: Available at 600 each, or $2.25 per volume, from the Stechert-Hafner Service
Agency. No orders under $1.00 accepted. When ordering one issue only, please remit with order.
The journal is indexed in Art Index, Index to Religious Periodical Literature, and at the end
of every fifth volume of the journal itself.
Second-class postage PAID at Cambridge, Massachusetts and additional offices.
Copyright by American Schools of Oriental Research, 1966.
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, BY TRANSCRIPT PRINTING COMPANY
PETERBOROUGH, N. H.
Fresh Evidence For The Philistine Story
G.
ERNEST WRIGHT
Harvard University
In the BA for 1959 the writer reviewed some of the archaeological
evidence which has brought the Philistines into clearer historical focus.1
The article, entitled "Philistine Coffins and Mercenaries,"d rew especially
upon recent work by Dr. Trude Dothan, whose forthcoming book on these
intriguing people of antiquity represents the first attempt to bring together
all of the archaeologicale vidence in a critical study.2 The story now may be
reconstructed somewhat as follows.
During the course of the vast disruptions and movements of peoples
toward the end of the 13th century and during the 12th century B.C., the
whole ancient world was in turmoil. The great empires of the Hittites in
Anatolia and the Myceneans in Greece, for example, were brought to an
end by forces unknown. Out of the wreckage of that world there suddenly
appeared along the southeast Mediterranean littoral, a people whom the
Egyptians called the "Sea Peoples." On the walls of the temple of Rameses
III (ca. 1175-1144 B.C.) at Medinet Habu in Upper Egypt the Pharaoh
shows them attempting to storm his realm by land and by sea. He claims
their defeat, but says nothing of what disposal he made of them.
It is clear that these strange people were seeking a new homeland and
could not go back whence they came. Biblical tradition recalls them as set-
tled along the southern coastal plain during the 12th and 11th centuries
1. BA, XXII (1959), 54-66, reprinted in the Biblical Archaeologist Reader, 2, ed. by E. F. Camp-
bell, Jr. and D. N. Freedman (1964), pp. 59-68.
2. For her preliminary articles see p. 60, n. 9 of the above mentioned BA article. The first attempt
at a historical treatment from archaeological evidence is that of R. A. S. Macalister, The Philistines
(1913), recently (1965) reprinted by Argonaut Incorporated of Chicago.
1966, 3) THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST 71
B.C. Dr. Dothan's studies have demonstratedc olonies of them living during
the same period in the Nile Delta and on Egypt's southern frontier in Nubia
(Sudan). Furthermoret hese far away groups kept in touch with their rela-
tives in Palestine, because even in Nubia Palestinian vessels were included
in their tombs.
61~
474&-
LWjjkK77
i ;AI T 7/
V V
Fig. 2. The clash of the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians depicted on the temple walls at Medinet
Habu; note the characteristic headdress and armor of the invaders. Courtesy the Oriental
Institute, University of Chicago.
Several different groups were present among the Sea Peoples accord-
ing to the records of Rameses II. Biblical tradition remembers them largely
by the name of one group, the Palishtu or Philistines, who may have been
the dominant element along the southern coast." The Egyptian Tale of
Wenamon, dating from shortly after 1100 B.C., places still another group,
the Tsikal (Sicilians ?), at Dor, a port city along the coast immediately
south of the tip of Mt. Carmel. This city was within the tribal claim of
Manasseh, though it was not actually possessed by Israel until after the
conquests of David (Judg. 1:27; I Kings 4:11).
There can be only one hypothesis which interprets the data mentioned
3. Another group who later served in David's personal bodyguard are called "Cherethites" or
Cretans (II Sam. 15:18), though the Philistines were also thought by Israel to have come from
Crete (e.g. Amos 9:7). Genesis 10:14 also distinguishes the two groups but derives them from
Egypt; however, as elsewhere in the Table of Nations the reference is to political rather than
ethnic derivation.
72 THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXIX
above. Instead of destroying the Sea Peoples after his defeat of them, Ram-
eses III hired them as his mercenaries, or vassals, whom he placed strateg-
ically where he hoped they would preserve his imperial interests. This would
explain the situation at Beth-shan in the northern Jordan Valley, a city
which the Philistines soon controlled. There they carefully preserved impor-
tant Egyptian objects installed by an Egyptian garrison in the temples, a
garrison which had held the city from the time of Seti I (ca. 1303-1290
B.C.) to that of Rameses III, during whose reign the Sea Peoples presum-
ably replaced the native Egyptian troops, if such they were.4
Recently an increasing number of hints have come to attention sug-
gesting that the groups of Sea Peoples which appear in the time of Rameses
III were not the first wave to attack the Svro-Palestinian coast. Scholars
have usually assumed that the fall and abandonment of such great Syrian
cities as Ugarit and Alalakh must have been caused by the ravages of Sea
Peoples who disrupted the sea trade and turned normal life along the Medi-
terranean coast into chaos. Since the last war the major effort of the French
expedition at Ugarit, headed by C. F. A. Schaeffer, has been the excava-
tion of the royal palace which was destroyed in the city's final days. Large
numbers of clay documents have turned up in the ruins, including several
in a furnace which were being baked for preservation in the royal archives,
though the end came before they could be taken from the furnace. These
tablets deal with nearly every phase of life in that north Syrian city of the
13th century B.C.5 Most dramatic of all are those which speak of the ap-
proach of the enemy, and of an initial devastationw hile the fleet and army
are with the Hittite army in south-central Anatolia. Other letters from the
oven find both armies much nearer to home, east of Tarsus and then in
Mukish to the north of Ugarit. The king of Ugarit wrote back to his mother:
"And thou, my mother, be not afraid and do not put worries into thy
heart." Still another letter, found elsewhere than in the oven, may refer
to the final battle; it says that "our food in the threshing floors is sacked
(or burned?) and also the vineyards are destroyed. Our city is destroyed,
and mayst thou know it."
The last letter may, of course, refer to an earlier raid when the enemy
got as far as the citadel and no further. Clearly, however, the fate of Ugarit
was sealed with the fall of the Hittite empire. There were houses in the
excavated city which were not burned. The inhabitants evidently fled the
enemy, and never returned. Like Biblical Ai the enemy made Ugarit "a
4. This argument is based upon the Egyptian objects found by the expedition directed by Alan
Rowe and sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania and the ASOR; they include a statue of
Rameses III and an inscribed lintel of his time. It is known, further, that the policies of Rameses
III with regard to the Sea Peoples were simply a continuation of those of his predecessors in the
13th century, who also hired them as mercenaries.
5. Note, for example, Anson F. Rainey, BA, XXVIII (1965), 102-125, and references there cited.
1966, 3) THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST 73
tell forever" (Josh. 8:28).6 From chronological indicators in the clay archives
Dr. Albright has concluded that Ugarit must have fallen to an early wave
of Sea Peoples not far from ca. 1230 B.C.
Another hint comes from Tell Deir 'Alla in the Jordan Valley where
a Dutch expedition headed by H. J. Franken has been working. One
stratum contained Philistine pottery, suggesting that rapidly advancing ten-
tacles of Philistine power were reaching down the Jordan Valley as far as
the Jabbok River directly east of Shechem in the hills to the west (see be-
low). If the tell is to be identified with the Biblical Succoth, as has been
generally assumed for almost a century,' then the Philistine occupation of
the city probably falls later than Gideon's defeat of the Midianites wherein
Succoth plays a role and is clearly within the control of Israelite elders
(Judges 8:4 ff.). Judging from the evidence unearthed at Shechem for the
Abimelech destruction (Judges 9), especially in 1964 and 1966, the Gideon
conflict must be dated early, some time during the 12th century B.C.
'C'~ri.l.t' r IC * ~?? q -. ~ s F C;~L-?:: .?. c -r':'~ ?~I? ?L r. r
i?~
1(? ? :(
J ?',, .. C c C I
r'. I _~?JD~r .?RS
?BZIEpC.~a ~?s~,i~s~ipg~'~.~31~?
:I--
.r.
n 1-? ..
5,e -
I ~~ ~~~L~I rl;d~LI "-- (
II - ??
Fig. 3. One of the tablets from Deir 'Alla, now thought to represent the Philistine language. The
inscription runs for three more signs on the edge of the tablet. From Vetus Testamentum,
XIV (1964), Plate I, reproduced by permission.
Under the stratum with Philistine pottery there was another with Late
Bronze pottery, a sanctuary and some tablets with strange writing on them.
Father Roland de Vaux, William F. Albright, and Frank M. Cross, Jr. in-
dependently have suggested that these tablets must have been written by
the "Sea Peoples." This hypothesis is based on a process of elimination. We
have a good knowledge of Asiatic scripts of this era. Who else could have
been responsible for the Deir 'Alla tablets - especially when the script
belongs in the general family of the Cypro-Mycenean style of writing? If
these scholars are right, then there were predecessorso f the Philistines, or
6. Michael C. Astour, American Journal of Archaeology, LXIX (1965), 253-258.
7. Cf. most recently Nelson Glueck, The River Jordan (1946), pp. 150-155.
74 THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXIX
there were Philistines themselves, at Deir 'Alla (Succoth) before about the
third quarter of the 12th century at the latest, and probably much earlier.8
A third hint to be considered is the bench-tomb, a type of burial cave,
made by human agency, which is roughly square or rectangular with a
bench on each side and sometimes in the back. This type of tomb was
certainly introduced into Palestine by the Sea Peoples and was to have a
major influence on subsequent tomb-practicei n the coun:ry. Furthermore,
it has been shown that the type in question was derived from Mycenean
practice in the Aegean.9 Two tombs of this type appear at Tell el-Far'ah
(Sharuhen) in southern Palestine, not in the Philistine cemetery with its
coffin burials dating ca. 1150-1050 B.C., but in the Late Bronze Age "900-
Cemetery," dating mainly from the 13th century B.C.'o One also recalls
coffin-tomb 570 at Lachish with its pottery of 13th century type."
Evidence for the Twelfth Century Expansion of Philistine Power
In settling the Philistines on the southern coast, Rameses III evidently
put into their charge as their base of operations the three seacoast city-state
centers, Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod. Only during the course of their ex-
pansionist activity did the Philistines add two other cities, Ekron and Gath,
to their original three centers for the control of the plain (see below; cf. I
Sam. 6:17-18; cf. Josh. 13:3).12
During the winter of 1964-65 the writer with his students at the He-
brew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem, Israel,
spent considerable time in attempting to understand the topography and
territorial history of the Philistine Plain. During the course of this investi-
gation we were surprised to see with what clarity the evidence for Philistine
occupation and expansionism began to emerge. Before the end of the 12th
century they had moved into the Judean lowlands until the border with
Judah was pushed back to the slopes of the high hill-lands where the border
between Israel and Jordan runs today. Major pieces of evidence for this are
the following:
1. The city of Beth-shemeshi n the Sorek valley quickly came under the
domination of the Philistines (Stratum III of the excavations). This is not
8. See H. J. Franken, Vetus Testamentum, XIV (1964), 377-379 and 417-422; and Palestine
Exploration Quarterly, XCVI (1964), 73-78.
9. See a forthcoming paper by Jane Waldbaum in the American Journal of Archaeology. This
paper is a revision of a seminar project completed in an archaeological course under the writer's
direction at Harvard University.
10. Sir Flinders Petrie, et al., Beth-pelet II, P1. LIX, Tombs 934 and 935. I owe this reference
to Mrs. Waldbaum (see n. 9). The tombs were robbed in antiquity. The latest named scarabs in
them were of Rameses II; Tomb 935 had fragments of a pottery coffin. Such pottery as is illus-
trated from these tombs is definitely Late Bronze II.
11. See the writer, BA, XXII (1959), 59-60 and Figs. 6-8. The original publication in Olga Tuf-
nell, Lachish IV, pp. 248-49 does not make the type of tomb clear.
12. So also B. Mazar, The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Proceedings, I No. 7
(1964), especially pp. 4 and 10.
1966, 3) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 75
* Sidon
Tyre
*Accho
Dor
?Shan
Shiloh
Joppa phek
Gezer
Ashdod Jerusalem
Ashkelon
Gaza
*Beersheba
?-
Fig. 4. The twelfth century penetration of the Philistines is represented by shading on this
sketch map of the land of Palestine.
only evident from the amounto f Philistinep otteryd iscoveredt here,13b ut
seems to be the implicationo f the Samsons toriesi n Judges 13-16 as well.
These stories envisage a situationw herein the inner Sorek valley (Beth-
shemesh and Zorah, Samson'sh ome) are under Philistine domination,s o
that Israelitesl ike Samsonh ave easy access to Philistine towns (e.g. Tim-
13. The arguments below are based in no small measure on the hypothesis that to follow the
traces of Philistine pottery is also to follow the advance of Philistine military and political power.
A few years ago this argument seemed very tenuous. The excavations at Shechem in Jordan, how-
ever, furnish powerful support. In the vast amount of pottery sorted from Iron I Shechem only
a very rare sherd could be suggested as Philistine. The 12th century occupation at Israelite She-
chem and that at Philistine Gezer appear worlds apart, judging from current excavations.
76 THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXIX
nah, the home of Delilah between four and five miles to the west, a small,
low mound, Tell Batashi, evidently founded by the Philistines).
2. What is true of Beth-shemeshi s also true of Debir (Tell Beit Mirsim,
Stratum B,) at the southern extremity of the lowlands.
3. Tell es-Safi on the western, or plain end of the Elah valley, became
a very large Philistine city, as is known from surface exploration and illicit
digging.
4. For two seasons of excavation during 1964-65 the Israeli Depart-
ment of Antiquities, under the direction of Dr. A. Biran, excavated a small,
unfortified mound, named today Tell Sippor. This was a small town of the
14th-13th centuries which the Philistines occupied but did not fortify.
Though east of territorial claims of the Israelites at Eglon (Tell el-Hesi)
the village could be inhabited without fortification, suggesting that the new
Egyptian vassals felt safe enough on their eastern border.
Turning northward, one next encounters the site of Khirbet el-Muqen-
na' in the center of the plain in the Sorek valley drainage. This is a huge
site, some forty acres in extent, near the modern Israeli kibbutz Revadim.
The outline of some of the fortifications and one city-gate of the city are
still visible. Israeli scholars have proposed persuasively that this must be
Philistine Ekron.14I f so, then one must affirm that it was founded by the
Philistines, because neither we nor the Israelis could find anything on it
earlier than the 12th century. Its final period of glory ended, evidently,
with the Babylonian campaigns against Judah and Philistia (ca. 601-587
B.C.), to judge from the pottery remaining on the surface of the site. Ekron,
then, whether here or elsewhere in this area, was founded by the Philistines
as their fourth city, to control the plain as it begins to narrow in the Sorek
drainage area northeast of Ashdod.
Just to the northeast and northwest are the small, low Tell Melat (Gib-
bethon) and Tell esh-Shelaf (Eltekeh?).15 Both were Late Bronze Age
villages which were promptly taken over by the Philistines.
Directly east of Tell Melat is the large Tell Gezer, on the last spur of
the lowlands as one goes northward. It is a large tell, some twenty-seven to
twenty-eight acres in extent on its summit; its hill is completely isolated
and well placed to control both the international highway from Egypt to
Asia which passed to the west, and the road from Jerusalem down the
valley of Aijalon past modern Latrun, in Jordan. This site controlled the
14. See J. Naveh, Israel Exploration Journal, VIII (1958), 87-100, 165-170. In the Westminster
Atlas of the Bible the writer, following Albright, identified the site with Eltekeh, while Ekron is
placed at Qatra. The huge size and obvious importance of Muqenna', however, lends strength to
the Israeli arguments, though Dr. Albright still feels that the defense of such a low site would
be a considerable problem for so important a city as Ekron. In any case the Roman-Byzantine town
was not at Muqenna', but must still be located in the area.
15. On the identification of the first with Gibbethon, see G. von Rad, Paldstinajahrbuch 1933,
pp. 30-42. On Tell esh-Shelaf, see B. Mazar, Israel Exploration Quarterly, X (1960), 65-77, esp.
73-77.
1966, 3) THE BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST 77
largestB ronzeA ge city-stateb etweenL achisha nd Ashdodt o the south and
Jett (Ginti-Carmeol r Gath-Carmel),M egiddo and Shechem to the north
and northeast.N ew excavationsa t Gezer in 1964-65, begun under the
writer'sd irectionb y the HebrewU nion College Biblicala nd Archaeological
School,16 confirmedt he impressiono ne gets from the reportso f R. A. S.
Macalister'ws ork at the site between 1902 and 1909 concerningt he extent
of Philistineo ccupationo f the site. Our Field I is a trencho ver the forti-
ficationso n the southerne dge of the tell. Here the Solomonicw all was
robbedo ut and subsequents trataw ere eroded,e xceptf or the early Roman
period. Strata 3 and 4 here were 11th and 12 centuriesr espectivelya nd
clearlyu nder Philistined ominationS. tratum5 , on the otherh and,i s mainly
13th centuryw ith Cypriotea nd Myceneani mportationsst ill present.G ezer
surely became a Philistine city during the 12th century B.C.17
On the river Yarkonb y modernT el-Aviv,f urthermoret,h e Philistines
foundedT ell Qasile in the 12th century'"a nd continuedt o controlt his area
from Qasile and Aphek at the head waterso f the Yarkond uringt he 11th
century (cf. I Sam. 4:1 ff.). Philistine presencei n 12th centuryM egiddo
and Beth-shanh as alreadyb een affirmedin the articleo n "PhilistineC of-
fins and Mercenaries."T'1h9e ir presences hortlyt hereafterd own the Jordan
valley as far as Tell Deir 'Alla suggestst he directiono f their movement
and purpose.
Moving rapidlyf rom their coastalb ase, the Philistinesh ad Israelv irtu-
ally surroundedT. heirs was a plannedd rive for the conquesto f the whole
country.T he next move would obviouslyb e a thrustd irectlyi nto the center
of Israelitep ower itself. Accordingt o the Biblical record, this took the
form of a direct attackf rom Aphek at the head of the Yarkona bout the
middle of the 11th century. Israel'st ribal army was defeated, the central
16. The second (summer, 1966) and succeeding campaigns will be carried on by the same insti-
tution, under the overall supervision of President Nelson Glueck and the writer. The Director and
Associate Director of the field operations are the writer's students, Dr. William G. Dever, Senior
Archaeological Fellow of the Jerusalem School of Hebrew Union College, and Professor H. Darrell
Lance of Colgate-Rochester Divinity School. A report of this excavation will appear in the BA soon.
17. The nature of the shift between Strata 5 and 4 is not yet clear enough to indicate whether
the Philistines gained Gezer by a major conquest and destruction of the site. Granted their legal
position as vassals and mercenaries of Egypt, they could properly claim control over the city, but
whether they had to conquer it would depend on local resistance. At Ashdod the excavations
have revealed a major destruction between 13th century and 12th century strata. The same seems
to have been true at Tell Deir 'Alla in the central Jordan Valley, though the excavator ascribes
the destruction to an earthquake.
18. For the preliminary report see B. Mazar (Maisler), Israel Exploration Journal, I (1950-51),
61-76, 125-140, 194-218. Strata XII-XI at Tell Qasile have been our best stratified evidence for
Philistine pottery. Future excavations at Ashdod and Gezer, as well as those concluded at Tell
Sippor, will provide welcome additional evidence in quantity.
19. The pottery found at Beth-shan has never been completely published. Hence we do not know
whether Philistine ware has been found there or not - except for one or two pieces noted by the
writer in the collections of the University Museum in Philadelphia. It is Mrs. Dothan's convincing
connection of the coffins (evidently found in bench tombs) with the Philistines that has brought
the site into the forefront of the Philistine picture. The fine Philistine pottery found in Megiddo
VII A, unpublished but present in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, has been
noted by a number of people, including the writer, BA, XXII. For the presence of the provincial
Mycenean IIIC:lb pottery at Beth-shan, thus far unobserved in Palestine though it is the
external model for Philistine pottery, see Vronvy Hankey in American Jousnal of Archaeology,
LXX (1966), 169-171.
78 THE BIBLICALA RCHAEOLOGIST (Vol. XXIX
sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed, the Ark as the chief religious symbol of
the tribal league was captured, and the hill country was garrisoned. Only
the installation of a monarchy and the reigns of Saul and David frustrated
the permanent success of the Philistine achievement. This story is the main
subject of the books of I and II Samuel.
4**w
.~'p; sg~iy~~~C 4 ~14'4
r)? ? Ak
~r?:4~u~rra~:~r~.~~~b5F syS ~:C~P~i Il;~: ~~?-~C ~^2.
Fig. 5. The tell of Beth-shan, from which coffins attributable to the Philistines have come. Photo
courtesy of James B. Pritchard and the University Museum of the University of Pennsyl-
vania.
The Location of Gath
Where is the fifth of the main Philistine centers of which the Bible
speaks? If our analysis so far is correct, then it should have been a site
added to the original three along the coast at a strategicallyi mportant point.
If Ekron was founded by the Philistines squarely in the center of the
northern plain to control it, as the backstop, so to speak, for Tell Qasile
(whatever its ancient name) and Aphek on the Yarkon, then Gath logically
should be a site further south to control the inner part of the plain. That
would seem to be the implication of such a passage as I Samuel 7:14 about
a victory of Samuel which restored Israelite territory "from Ekron even
unto Gath." Yet where would that be?
With impeccable logic Dr. Albright in the 1920's identified Philistine
Gath with a tell called by the Arabs Tell Sheikh Ahmed el-'Areini. It is
located on the edge of the plain at the opening of the valley which leads