The Ancient Near East

in the 12th–10

th Centuries BCE

Culture and History

Proceedings of the International Conference

held at the University of Haifa,

2–5 May, 2010

Edited by

Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa,

Aren M. Maeir, and Dan’el Kahn

Alter Orient und Altes Testament Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients

und des Alten Testaments

Band 392

Herausgeber

Manfried Dietrich • Oswald Loretz • Hans Neumann

Lektor

Kai A. Metzler

Beratergremium

Rainer Albertz • Joachim Bretschneider

Stefan Maul • Udo Rüterswörden • Walther Sallaberger

Gebhard Selz • Michael P. Streck • Wolfgang Zwickel

2012

Ugarit-Verlag

Münster

The Ancient Near East

in the 12th–10

th Centuries BCE

Culture and History

Proceedings of the International Conference

held at the University of Haifa,

2–5 May, 2010

Edited by

Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa,

Aren M. Maeir, and Dan’el Kahn

2012

Ugarit-Verlag

Münster

The Ancient Near East in the 12th–10

th Centuries BCE: Culture and History.

Proceedings of the International Conference held at the University of Haifa,

2–5 May, 2010

Edited by Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa, Aren M. Maeir, and Dan’el Kahn

Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 392

© 2012 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster

www.ugarit-verlag.de

Alle Rechte vorbehalten

All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior permission of the publisher.

Herstellung: Hubert & Co, Göttingen

Printed in Germany

ISBN 978-3-86835-066-1

Printed on acid-free paper

CONTENTS

Preface ....................................................................................................................... ix Abbreviations ............................................................................................................ xi

Reinhard Achenbach Divine Warfare and Yhwh’s Wars: Religious Ideologies of War in the Ancient Near East and in the Old Testament ................................................... 1

Michal Artzy Continuation and Change in the 13th–10th Centuries BCE Eastern Mediterranean: Bronze-Working Koiné? .......................................................................................... 27

Michael Avioz The Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7: Conditional or Unconditional? .................... 43

Yigal Bloch Assyro-Babylonian Conflicts in the Reign of Aššur-rēša-iši I: The Contribution of Administrative Documents to History-Writing ....................... 53

Walter Dietrich David and the Philistines: Literature and History .................................................... 79

Frederick Mario Fales “Ḫanigalbat” in the Early Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: A Retrospective View ............................................................................................... 99

Avraham Faust Between Israel and Philistia: Ethnic Negotiations in the South during the Iron Age I .............................................................................................. 121

Gershon Galil Solomon’s Temple: Fiction or Reality? .................................................................. 137

Yosef Garfinkel, Saar Ganor and Michael G. Hasel The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa after Four Seasons of Excavations ............. 149

Moshe Garsiel Ideological Discordance between the Prophets Nathan and Samuel as reflecting the Divergence between the Book of Samuel’s Authors .................... 175

vi CONTENTS

Moti Haiman Geopolitical Aspects of the Negev Desert in the 11th–10th Centuries BCE ........................................................................................................ 199

Larry G. Herr Jordan in the Iron I and IIA Periods ....................................................................... 207

Richard S. Hess The Distinctive Value of Human Life in Israel’s Earliest Legal Traditions ........... 221

Victor Avigdor Hurowitz Yhwh’s Exalted House Revisited: New Comparative Light on the Biblical Image of Solomon’s Temple ..................................................................... 229

Sandra Jacobs A Life for A Life” and napšāte umalla ............................................. 241“ נפש תחת נפש

Danʼel Kahn A Geo-Political and Historical Perspective of Merneptah’s Policy in Canaan ....... 255

Aaron Koller The Kos in the Levant: Thoughts on its Distribution, Function, and Spread from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age II ................................................................. 269

André Lemaire West Semitic Epigraphy and the History of the Levant during the 12th–10th Centuries BCE ......................................................................................... 291

Yigal Levin Ideology and Reality in the Book of Judges ........................................................... 309

Mario Liverani Melid in the Early and Middle Iron Age: Archaeology and History ...................... 327

Aren M. Maeir Insights on the Philistine Culture and Related Issues: An Overview of 15 Years of Work at Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath ............................................................... 345

Alan Millard Scripts and their Uses in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE ........................................... 405

John P. Nielsen Nebuchadnezzar I’s Eastern Front .......................................................................... 413

Troy Leiland Sagrillo Šîšaq’s Army: 2 Chronicles 12:2–3 from an Egyptological Perspective ................ 425

Itamar Singer The Philistines in the North and the Kingdom of Taita .......................................... 451

CONTENTS vii

Ephraim Stern Archaeological Remains of the Northern Sea Peoples along the Sharon and Carmel Coasts and the ‘Akko and Jezreel Valleys ................................................. 473

Christoffer Theis and Peter van der Veen Some ‘Provenanced’ Egyptian Inscriptions from Jerusalem: A Preliminary Study of Old and New Evidence ............................................................................ 509

Koert van Bekkum Coexistence as Guilt: Iron I Memories in Judges 1 ................................................ 525

Assaf Yasur-Landau Chariots, Spears and Wagons: Anatolian and Aegean Elements in the Medinet Habu Land Battle Relief ........................................................................... 549

Ran Zadok

The Aramean Infiltration and Diffusion in the Upper Jazira, 1150–930 BCE........ 569

Wolfgang Zwickel Cult in the Iron Age I–IIA in the Land of Israel ..................................................... 581

Wolfgang Zwickel The Change from Egyptian to Philistine Hegemony in South-Western Palestine during the Time of Ramesses III or IV ................................................... 595

Index of Authors .................................................................................................... 603 Index of Biblical Sources ....................................................................................... 619 Index of Subjects .................................................................................................... 629

PREFACE

The history of the ancient Near East in the 12th–10th centuries BCE is still an un-solved riddle. At times the veil is lifted and tiny components of this elaborate puzzle glow in a new light. But many questions are as yet unanswered, and most details are still vague. Nevertheless, the broad outlines of this age are fairly well agreed by most scholars: the three superpowers Egypt, Hatti and Assyria gradually lost their hold and their influence in the area: first the Hittites, just after 1200 BCE, and a few dozens of years later, Egypt and Assyria. Historians generally concur that after the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243–1208 BCE), Assyria plunged into a prolonged de-cline, gradually losing its western territories to the Aramaean invaders. This process is clearly demonstrated by the ‘Chronicle of Tiglath-pileser Iʼ and by the ‘Broken Obeliskʼ (see Zadokʼs and Falesʼs articles). The rare complete silence of the Assyr-ian annals between 1055 and 934 BCE is the best indication that the Assyrians, un-der immense pressure from the Aramaeans, retreated to their homeland and fought a protracted and bitter war of survival. Concurrently, there are good indications that the Egyptians forfeited their influence in Canaan (the Wenamun report; see Kahnʼs and Sternʼs articles). Most Canaanite city states gradually disappeared, and by the end of the 10th century BCE only few survived as independent city states, mainly on the Phoenician coast. The ‘newcomersʼ (the Aramaeans, the Sea Peoples, the Israel-ites and the Transjordanian peoples) became the masters of the land from the Sinai Peninsula to the sources of the Tigris, and from the Amuq Plain to Assyria. The studies presented in this book touch on diverse aspects of human activities (political, social, economic, and cultural), and refer to different parts of the ancient Near East: from Melid and Hanigalbat in the north to Egypt and Kush in the south and from Assyria and Babylonia in the East to the Kingdom of Taita and (southern) Philistia in the west. They do though center mainly on the Bible and the history of ancient Israel and its western and eastern neighbors, as compared with other ancient Near Eastern cultures. The papers present an extensive vista of views—from biblical and archaeological perspectives and indeed most of them were written from an inter-disciplinary standpoint. The Syro-Mesopotamian and Anatolian spheres are the subjects of papers by Liv-erani (on Melid), Fales (on Ḫanigalbat), Zadok (on the Aramean diffusion into the Upper Jazira), Bloch (on the Assyrian-Babylonians conflicts during the reign of Aššur-rēša-iši I), and Nielsen (on Nebuchadnezzar Iʼs wars to the east). Outlooks on Egypt and her imperial holdings are presented by Theis and van der Veen (New Kingdom epigraphic finds in the Jerusalem area), Kahn (on the 19th and 20th Dynasties in Canaan), Zwickel (second paper on Egyptians and Philistines) and Sagrillo (Šîšaqʼs army). The history of ancient Israel and its eastern neighbors is the focus of several pa-pers. Galil and Hurowitz deal with various aspects of the Solomonic Temple. Haiman studied the phenomenon of the ‘Negev Fortressesʼ; and Jordan in Iron Age I and IIA is discussed by Herr. The papers by Dietrich, Garsiel, Avioz, Levin and van Bekkum analyze the composition, ideology and historicity of the books of

PREFACEx

Judges and Samuel, inter alia in light of historical/archaeological testimony. Gar-finkel, Ganor and Hasel summarize the excavation results of Kh. Qeiyafa, and Zwickel (first paper) offers a synthesis of early Israelite cult. The ‘Sea Peoplesʼ phenomenon is the topics of several papers. Various aspects of the Philistines are discussed by Dietrich (literary evidence for relations with David), Faust (identity vs. the Israelites), Maeir (excavations at Philistine Tell eṣ-Ṣafi/Gath), Yasur-Landau (iconographic aspects of Philistines at Medinet Habu), and the second paper by Zwickel (Philistines vs. Egyptians). Old and new evidence on this issue in the Syro-Cilician sphere is the topic of Singerʼs paper, and Stern discusses ‘Sea Peoplesʼ other than the Philistines in Canaan/Israel. Artzyʼs paper rather emphasizes elements of continuity over the Bronze/Iron Age transition both in Canaan/Israel and in Cyprus. Several ideological and legal aspects of biblical vis-à-vis ancient Near Eastern texts are the focus of papers by Achenbach (holy wars), Hess (value of human life), Koller (the term kos), and Jacobs (“a life for a life”). Scripts and literacy in this time span are overviewed by Lemaire (the west Semitic sphere) and Millard. We wish to express our deep thanks to all the scholars who have contributed to this volume, most of whom participated in the conference held at the University of Haifa. Others who were unable to attend that meeting—Reinhard Achenbach, Mario Fales, Richard Hess, Mario Liverani, John Nielsen, Itamar Singer, Christoffer Theis, Koert van Bekkum and Peter van der Veen—kindly accepted our invitation to pub-lish their important studies in this volume. We also thank Dr. Kai A. Metzler for his editorial comments. Dr. Ruth Fidler and Mr. Murray Rosovsky improved the Eng-lish style; Ms. Galit Rozov and Ms. Maya Mokady took care of the indices.

Gershon Galil, Ayelet Gilboa, Aren Maeir, and Dan’el Kahn

Anwender

Schreibmaschinentext

BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PHILISTIA ETHNIC NEGOTIATIONS IN THE SOUTH DURING IRON AGE I

AVRAHAM FAUST Bar-Ilan University

The Iron Age I was a formative period, which shaped the political landscape of the region for more than half a millennium, and left an impact which influences our world even today. This is the period in which the Canaanites were weakened and the Israelites and Philistines came to the fore. In the present article I wish to discuss the changing ethnic relations in southern part of the country (Fig. 1) after Egyptian hegemony waned (i.e., during the second half of the 12th and the 11th centuries BCE).

Fig. 1: Map showing the main sites discussed in the text

122 A. FAUST

I. Background

1. Ethnicity in ArchaeologyIdentifying ethnic groups in the archaeological record has long been an important theme of archaeological research, but it is clear today that such identifications are notoriously difficult.1 In the past, scholars tended to equate archaeological cultures with ethnic groups, or peoples, and this is epitomized in the following oft-quoted paragraph by Childe: “We find certain types of remains—pots, implements, ornaments, burial rites and house forms—constantly recurring together. Such a complex of associated traits we shall term ‘cultural group’ or just a ‘culture’. We assume that such a complex is the material expression of what today would be called a ‘people’”.2 Various advances in archaeology, however, changed the approach to the study of ethnicity. The development of the New/Processual Archaeology and its critique of the culture history school, along with the new paradigm’s search for ‘laws of human behavior’, relegated the study of ‘unique’ phenomena like ethnic or tribal identity to the fringes of archaeological inquiry.3 It is further likely that the disinterest in the study of ethnicity also resulted from the horrifying outcomes of the racial archaeo-logy so prevalent in Europe until the Second World War.4 At the same time as the New Archaeology was emerging, changes in the percep-tion of ethnicity were taking place in the anthropological literature. Following the work of Barth,5 it became apparent that ethnic groups are not “culture-bearing units”,6 i.e., groups sharing core values that find representation in cultural forms.7 Barth defines ethnic groups as, in essence, a form of social organization; its critical criterion is an ability to be identified and distinguished among others, or in his words, allowing “self-ascription and ascription by others”.8 Ethnic identity is not determined by biological or genetic factors but is subject to perception and is adapt-able. Clearly, ethnicity is too complex to be merely identified with a material or an archaeological culture; it is fluid, it is only one of several attributes of an individ-ual’s complete identity, and it is subjective.9 This has led some scholars to question

* The analysis of the material from Tel ‘Eton and Southern Trough Valley within the larger settlement context is supported by a research grant from the Israel Science Foundation (grant no. 884/08).

1 C. Renfrew, The Roots of Ethnicity, Archaeology, Genetics and the Origins of Europe, (Rome, 1993), p. 20; see also S. Jones, The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present (London, 1997); G. Emberling, “Ethnicity in Complex Societies, Archaeological Perspectives”, JAR 5 (1997), pp. 295–344; A. Faust, Israel’s Ethno-genesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance (London, 2006). 2 G. V. Childe, The Danube in Prehistory (Oxford, 1929), pp. v–vi. 3 E.g., Jones, op. cit. (note 1); B. Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought (Cambridge, 20062). 4 J. M. Hall, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 1–2. 5 F. Barth, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (Boston, 1969), pp. 9–38. 6 Idem, ibid., pp. 10–13. 7 Idem, ibid., pp. 10–11. 8 Idem, ibid., pp. 11, 13. 9 E.g., J. S. Shennan, “Introduction: Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity”, in J. S. Shennan (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to Cultural Identity (London, 1989), pp. 1–32;

BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PHILISTIA 123

the ability of archaeologists to identify ethnic groups in the material record of ex-tinct societies.10 Yet in most cases, clear relationships between material culture and ethnicity can be identified, however complicated they may be.11 It is accepted today that groups define themselves in relation to, and in contrast with, other groups.12 The ethnic boundaries of a group are not defined by the sum of cultural traits but by the idiosyncratic use of specific material and behavioral sym-bols as compared with other groups.13 As a consequence, emphasis shifted from the shared elements or characteristics of a group to the features that distinguish it from others. It is the contact between groups that is seen as essential for the formation of the self-identity of a group, which is thus clearly manifested in its material culture. Ethnic identity can be identified in certain artifacts that came to carry a symbolic meaning,14 or by identifying ‘ethnically specific behavior’, or more accurately, the material correlates of such behavior.15

2. Historical BackgroundBefore addressing some Iron Age I material traits, a few words on the settlement in the south in this era are in order.

J. S. Shennan, “Some Current Issues in the Archaeological Identification of Past Peoples”, Archaeologia Polona 29 (1991), pp. 29–37; Emberling, op. cit. (note 1); E. M. Schortman, P. A. Urban, and M. Ausec, “Politics with Style: Identity Formation in Prehispanic Southern Mesoamerica”, American Anthropologist 103 (2001), pp. 312–330; Jones, op. cit. (note 1); Faust, op. cit. (note 1). 10 Z. Herzog, “Phoenician Occupation at Tel Michal: the Problem of Identifying Ethnic-Na-tional Groups from Archaeological Assemblages”, Michmanim 11 (1997), pp. 31–44 (He-brew). 11 R. H. McGuire, “The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology”, JAA 1 (1982), pp. 159–178; K. Kamp and N. Yoffee, “Ethnicity in Western Asia during the Early Second Mil-lennium B.C.: Archaeological Assemblages and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives”, BASOR 237 (1980), pp. 85–104; Emberling, op. cit. (note 1); Faust, op. cit. (note 1) and others; see also M. C. Howard, Contemporary Cultural Anthropology (New York, 1996), pp. 239–240. 12 Barth, op. cit. (note 5); see also R. Cohen, “Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropol-ogy”, ARA 7 (1978), p. 389; A. P. Cohen, The Symbolic Construction of Community (Chich-ester – London, 1985), p. 558. 13 McGuire, op. cit. (note 11), p. 160; see also Kamp and Yoffe, op. cit. (note 11), p. 96; Emberling, op. cit. (note 1), p. 299; Barth, op. cit. (note 5), pp. 14–15; Hall, op. cit. (note 4), p. 13514 McGuire, op. cit. (note 11), p. 163; I. Hodder, Reading the Past (Cambridge, 1991), p. 3. 15 McGuire, op. cit. (note 11), p. 163; Faust, op. cit. (note 1); cf., J. Deetz, In Small Things Forgotten, An Archaeology of Early American Life (New York, 1996), pp. 187–211. We should also note that boundary maintenance varies greatly in time and space. An object sym-bolizing ethnicity of a certain group in one context might be of less importance in another contemporaneous one, and something of importance at one time may become unimportant later, see I. Hodder, Symbols in Action, Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture (Cambridge, 1982). Some boundaries might, therefore, be represented with sharp falloffs in distribution patterns of certain traits, while others may be more blurred, see W. R. De Boer, “Interaction, Imitation, and Communication as Expressed in Style: the Ucayali Experience”, in M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf (eds.), The Uses of Style in Archaeology (Cambridge, 1990), p. 102. Moreover, in some cases, differences can exist between different areas of interaction of the same groups, Hodder, ibid., pp. 27–31.

124 A. FAUST

As far as the highlands are concerned, following a settlement nadir in the Late Bronze Age, the Judean highlands experienced a relative surge in settlement during the Iron I. Although not as dense as in Samaria, many settlements were established in the region, from the late 13th century, and onwards.16 In the coastal plain, this is the period of the Philistine settlement.17 Politically, the Philistines were the dominant and complex group, especially in the south, during the Iron I.18 They occupied large cities and exhibit a high level of urbanism, social com-plexity and socioeconomic hierarchy.19 While their initial phase of settlement was limited to a small part of the southern coastal plain, it appears that after some time they began to expand to the east and north.20 Although settling in large cities, the number of small settlement in the southern coastal plain of Philistia shrunk signifi-cantly, and one can speak about the abandonment of the countryside,21 leading scholars to suggest that the Philistines enacted a policy of forced urbanization, and concentrated the local population in central urban settlements.22 As far as the buffer area of the Shephelah is concerned, the area was almost devoid of settlements, and the few settlements that existed were mainly located in its east-ern part, in the trough valley.23

16 A. Ofer, The Highlands of Judah during the Biblical Period (Ph.D. dissertation; Tel-Aviv University, 1993; Hebrew); A. Ofer, “The Judean Hills in the Biblical Period”, Qadmoniot

31/115 (1998), pp. 40–52 (Hebrew); I. Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Period of Settle-

ment and Judges (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 47–53. 17 T. Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture (New Haven, 1982); L. E. Stager, “The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 BCE)”, in T. E. Levy (ed.), The Ar-

chaeology of Society in the Holy Land (London, 1995), pp. 332–348. 18 E.g. C. Hauer, “From Alt to Anthropology: The Rise of the Israelite Monarchy”, JSOT 36 (1986), p. 9; I. Finkelstein, “The Philistine Countryside”, IEJ 46 (1996), p. 236; L. E. Stager,

“Forging an Identity: the Emergence of Ancient Israel”, in M. D. Coogan (ed.), The Oxford

History of the Biblical World (New York, 1998), p. 168; I. Singer, “Egyptians, Canaanites,

and Philistines in the Period of the Emergence of Israel”, in I. Finkelstein and N. Na’aman

(eds.), From Nomadism to Monarchy (Jerusalem, 1994), p. 299. 19 E.g., S. Bunimovitz, “Problems in the ‘Ethnic’ Identification of the Philistine Material Culture”, TA 17 (1990), pp. 210–222; L. E. Stager, “The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan

(1185–1050 BCE)”, in Levy, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 332–348; Stager, op. cit. (note 18), pp.

166–168; Singer; op. cit. (note 18), p. 299. 20 E.g., I. Finkelstein, “The Emergence of the Monarchy in Israel: The Environmental and Socio-Economic Aspects”, JSOT 44 (1989), pp. 43–74; Singer; op. cit. (note 18); Stager, op.

cit. (note 18), pp. 153–154. 21 Cf. I. Finkelstein, “The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan”, TA 23 (1995), pp. 170–184; I. Finkelstein, “The Philistine Settlements: When, Where and How Many?”, in

E. D. Oren (ed.), The Sea People and Their World: A Reassessment (Philadelphia, 2000), pp.

159–180; see also A. Shavit, “Settlement Patterns of Philistine City-States”, in A. Fantalkin

and A. Yasur-Landau (eds.), Bene Israel: Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Levant

during the Bronze and Iron Ages in Honour of Israel Finkelstein (Leiden, 2008), pp. 135–

164, 266–278. 22 S. Bunimovitz, “Sea Peoples in Cyprus and Israel: A Comparative Study of Immigration Process”, in S. Gitin, A. Mazar, and E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition:

Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries B.C.E. (Jerusalem, 1998), pp. 103–113. 23 Y. Dagan, The Settlement in the Judean Shephelah in the Second and First Millennium B.C.: A Test-Case of Settlement Processes in a Geographic Region (Ph.D. dissertation; Tel

Aviv University, 2000), fig. 16 (Hebrew); see also A. Faust and H. Katz, “Philistines, Israel-

ites and Canaanites in the Southern Trough Valley during the Iron Age I”, Egypt and the Levant (in print).

BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PHILISTIA 125

3. Ethnic Traits in the Iron Age IA few traits or types of behaviors appear to be ethnically sensitive, at least in some contexts, during this formative era.24

3.1 Philistine Pottery. A long time ago, in the spirit of the notorious pots equal people equation of the culture history school, it had been assumed that the presence of Philistine pottery indicates the presence of Philistines.25 This simplistic equation fell into disfavor on both theoretical and empirical grounds. Theoretically, it is clear that there are many elements that influence the way the archaeological record is created, and which items are used where, when and why, and the adoption or avoid-ance of some artifacts might result from its cost, its place of production, the occupa-tion of the owner, the ecology of the region, and many others factors.26 Since ethnic-ity is only one factor in a very complex web of choices that influence the distribu-tion and use of material items, equating pottery with people is very risky, and cannot be attempted before other factors are studied and being accounted for. Only a com-prehensive study of the society (or societies) involved, allows us to reach conclu-sions regarding the ethnic identity of the population (or some of it), which is perhaps the most difficult to identify. Empirically, scholars noted that Philistine pottery is found in many instances in faraway places, e.g., in the northern valleys,27 and it is difficult to simply label the strata in which those vessels were found as ‘Philistines’.28 Clearly, Philistine pottery could arrive at sites through trade and exchange, and it is impossible to attribute its presence only to the arrival of Philistines. Despite the above cautionary notes, however, it became quite clear that the Philis-tine pottery was not distributed randomly across the landscape, with its percentage gradually decreasing with distance from its production centers. While there is no doubt that its center is in the Philistine heartland of the southern coastal plain, Phil-istine bichrome pottery is found in the faraway northern valleys,29 but is absent from

24 For extensive discussion, see Faust, op. cit. (note 1; much of the following section is based on insights from this work); Faust and Katz, op. cit. (note 23); A. Faust and J. Lev-Tov, “The Constitution of Philistine Identity: Ethnic Dynamics in 12th-10th Centuries Philistia”, OJA 30 (2011), pp. 13–31. 25 E.g., A. Raban, “The Philistines in the Western Jezreel Valley”, BASOR 284 (1991), pp. 17–27. 26 McGuire, op. cit. (note 11), p. 164; see also Kamp and Yoffe, op. cit. (note 11), p. 97; G. London, “A Comparison of Two Contemporaneous Lifestyles of the Late Second Millen-nium B.C.”, BASOR 273 (1989), pp. 37–55; M. Skjeggestand, “Ethnic Groups in Early Iron Age Palestine, Some Remarks on the Use of the Term ‘Israelite’ in Recent Literature”, SJOT 6 (1992), pp. 179–180; C. E. Orser and B. M. Fagan, Historical Archaeology (New York, 1995), pp. 215–216; Emberling, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 305–306, 310–311; see also I. Finkel-stein, “Ethnicity and the Origin of the Iron I Settlers in the Highlands of Canaan: Can the Real Israel Stand Up?”, BA 59/4 (1996), p. 204. 27 E.g., Dothan, op. cit. (note 17); Raban, op. cit. (note 25); A. Mazar, “Megiddo in the Thir-teenth–Eleventh Centuries BCE: A Review of Some Recent Studies”, in E. Oren and S. Ahi-tuv (eds.), Aharon Kempinski Memorial Volume, Studies in Archaeology and Related Disci-plines (Beer Sheva XV; Beer Sheva, 2002), pp. 264–282; Faust, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 207–209. 28 See now also A. Gilboa, “Stratum VI at Megiddo and the ‘Northern Sea People Phenome-non’”, EI 29 (2009), pp. 82–91 (Hebrew). 29 Dothan, op. cit. (note 17); Raban, op. cit. (note 25); Mazar, op. cit. (note 27).

126 A. FAUST

the relatively close Hebron hill country30 and even parts of the coastal plain.31 While its percentage in the northern valleys is indeed very small, and seems to represent a reasonable fall-off with the distance from its place of manufacture, its almost total absence in the highlands cannot be explained along similar lines (see more below). Clearly, Philistine pottery was seen as meaningful in ethnic communication and boundary maintenance during the Iron I, and was consequently avoided by some people, e.g., in the highlands, while at the same time it was used by people, even non-Philistines, who did not find its usage problematic.32

3.2 Collared Rim Jars. Just like the Philistine pottery, collared rim jars were identi-fied in the past with a group—the Israelites,33 but this equation also came into disfa-vor.34 In addition to the theoretical reasons mentioned briefly above many scholars pointed out that collared rim jars were found in non-Israelite sites, e.g., in the north-ern valleys and Transjordan.35 While not the place for an intensive discussion, it must be stressed that many of the sites that were mentioned in this context in Transjordan were actually Israelite,36 hence reducing the number of the ‘excep-tions’.37 The cultural significance of collared rim jars is most clearly visible in Philistia, where such jars are practically absent,38 hence showing that its distribution

30 Faust, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 209–211, and references. 31 A. Gilboa, A. Cohen-Weinberg and Y. Goren, “Philistine Bichrome Pottery: The View from the Northern Canaanite Coast”, in A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji (eds.), “I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday (Winona Lake, IN 2006), pp. 303–334. 32 E.g., S. Bunimovitz and A. Faust, “Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology”, BASOR 322 (2001), pp. 1–10, and see more below. 33 W. F. Albright, “Further Light on the History of Israel from Lachish and Megiddo”, BASOR 68 (1937), pp. 22–26; Y. Aharoni, “New Aspects of Israelite Occupation in the North”, in J. Sanders (ed.), Near Eastern Archaeology in the Twentieth Century: Essays in Honor of Nelson Glueck (Garden City, NY 1970), pp. 254–267; see also D. L. Esse, “The Collared Store Jar: Scholarly Ideology and Ceramic Typology”, SJOT 2 (1991), pp. 99–116; D. L. Esse, “The Collared Pithos at Megiddo: Ceramic Distribution and Ethnicity”, JNES 51 (1992), pp. 81–103. 34 E.g., London, op. cit. (note 26); M. M. Ibrahim, “The Collared-Rim Jar of the Early Iron Age”, in R. Moorey and P. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Ken-yon (Warminster, 1978), pp. 116–126; I. Finkelstein, op. cit. (note 26), p. 204; see also Esse, op. cit. (note 33), pp. 103–104. 35 E.g., Esse, op. cit. (note 33), p. 93; see also T. Harrison, Megiddo 3: Final Report on the Stratum VI Excavations (Chicago, 2004), pp. 31–32; Ibrahim, op. cit. (note 34). 36 C. C. Ji, “The Iron I in Central and Northern Transjordan: An Interim Summary of Archae-ological Data”, PEQ 127 (1995), pp. 122–140; L. G. Herr, “The Settlement and Fortification of Tell al-‘Umayri in Jordan during the LB/Iron I Transition”, in L. E. Stager, J. A. Greene and M. D. Coogan (eds.), The Archaeology of Jordan and Beyond, Essays in Honor of James A. Sauer (Winona Lake, IN 2000), pp. 167–179; L. G. Herr, and D. R. Clark, “Excavating the Tribe of Reuben: A Four-Room House Provides a Clue to Where the Oldest Israelite Tribe Settled”, BAR 27/2, (2001), pp. 36–47, 64–66; R. W. Younker, “Review of Archaeological Research in Ammon, in B. Macdonald and R.W. Younker (eds.), Ancient Ammon (Leiden, 1999), p. 16. 37 See extensive discussion in Faust, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 221–226. 38 Esse, op.cit, (note 33), p. 107; Faust, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 195–196.

BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PHILISTIA 127

is non-random. The above presents us with an interesting phenomenon, in which, collared rim jars are found in the north, but not in Philistia. The combined pattern of the distribution of collared rim jars and Philistine pottery is even more revealing—both are found together in the faraway northern valleys, e.g., at Megiddo, but none is crossing the Shephelah/trough valley borderline.

3.3 The Ceramic Assemblage. As noted by many, one of the main characteristics of the highlands’ material culture is the limited and poor ceramic assemblage.39 At Giloh, for example, storage vessels and cooking pots account for some 80% of the assemblage,40 and various scholars have noted the cultural and even ethnic signi-ficance of this for the study of Iron Age I societies in the region.41

3.4 Pork Consumption. Ever since the early studies of Hesse42 it is well known that Philistines consumed large amounts of pork, while the Israelites did not. This cannot be attributed to ecology of course, as in other periods the highland population con-sumed pork,43 while the population in the coastal plain sometimes consumed much smaller quantities of pigs.44 Although not only Israelites avoided pork it is clear that Israelites did not consume this type of meat, and whenever pigs are significant part of the faunal assemblage one may deduce that the site was not Israelite. Notably, the significance of pork is accepted even by skeptical scholars, and Finkelstein, for example, notes that “…pig taboos, are emerging as the main, if not only avenue that can shed light on ethnic boundaries in the Iron I. Specifically, this may be the most valuable tool for the study of ethnicity of a given, single Iron I site”.45 Interestingly, while the Israelites of the highlands avoided pork, the Philistines even enlarged its percentage in their diet during the Iron Age I (see below). It is quite clear, in this light, that despite the possible reservations, pork consumption was ethnically sensi-tive during the Iron Age I.

39 E.g., Finkelstein, op. cit. (note 16); S. Bunimovitz and A. Yasur-Landau, “Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A Comparative Approach to the Question of Pots and People”, TA 23 (1996), pp. 88–101; W. G. Dever, Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids, 2003); Faust, op. cit. (note 1); see already W. F. Albright, “The Kyle Memo-rial Excavations at Bethel”, BASOR 56 (1934), p. 12. 40 A. Mazar, “Giloh: An Early Israelite Settlement Site Near Jerusalem”, IEJ 31, (1981), p. 31. 41 E.g., W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth, 1961), p. 119; Buni-movitz and Yasur Landau, op. cit. (note 39), p. 96; Faust, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 66–69, and references. 42 B. Hesse, “Animal Use at Tel Miqne-Ekron in the Bronze Age and Iron Age”, BASOR 264 (1986), pp. 17–28; B. Hesse, “Pig Lovers and Pig Haters: Patterns of Palestinian Pork Pro-duction”, Journal of Ethnobiology 10 (1990), pp. 195–225. 43 E.g. L. K. Horwitz, “Diachronic Changes in Rural Husbandry Practices in Bronze Age Settlements from the Refaim Valley, Israel”, PEQ 121 (1989), p. 46. 44 E.g. S. Hellwing and N. Feig, “Animal Bones”, in Z. Herzog, G. Rapp and O. Negbi (eds.), Excavations at Tel Michal, Israel (Tel Aviv, 1989), p. 246. 45 Finkelstein, op. cit. (note 26), p. 206.

128 A. FAUST

II. Philistines and Israelites46

When the settlement process in the highlands started, the population there—the Israelites—defined itself against the Egypto-Canaanite system. I do not wish here to refer to this early phase, but rather to the ethnic negotiations which took place after the arrival of the Philistines, from the time the new inhabitants of the coast met the highland settlers. Since groups define themselves in relations to other groups, and often utilize mate-rial items to transmit messages of difference, it is not surprising that the interaction between the dominant Philistines and the highland settlers left behind clear archae-ological footprints. Indeed, the influence of the Philistines on the development and formation of Israelite ethnic identity has often been written about. The most notable example of this influence is the Israelites’ avoidance of pork (above). Many scholars believe that the mere fact that the Philistines consumed pork as a dietary staple led the Israelite population to avoid consuming this type of meat, as part of their self-definition vis-à-vis the Philistines.47 It is most likely, of course, that the same population did not consume large quantities of this meat even earlier, and that per-haps there was even a taboo on its consumption—a taboo that was prevalent among many societies in the ancient Near East.48 However, the Israelites’ interaction with the Philistines—their archenemies who consumed this meat as a regular practice—made this avoidance important. Philistine influence on Israelite identity seems to have had additional forms, e.g., the latter’s tradition of not decorating pottery and the avoidance of imported pot-tery.49 In fact, both might have partially resulted from the avoidance of the Philistine decorated pottery of the Iron I (above). The significance of circumcision also seems to have resulted from the Israelites’ interaction with the un-circumcised Philistines.50

1. Israelite Influence on the PhilistinesA topic that received much less attention, if any at all, is the influence of the Israel-ites on the Philistines’ self-definition. By this I am not referring to the acculturation the Philistines went through during the Iron Age II,51 rather we refer mainly to the impact the interaction with the Israelites had on the Philistines’ ethnic self-definition during the Iron I.52

46 Regarding the Israelites, see extended discussion in Faust op. cit. (note 1); Regarding the Philistines, see also Faust and Lev-Tov, op. cit. (note 24). The following section is based to a large extent on these works. 47 E.g. Stager, op. cit. (note 19), p. 344; Faust op. cit. (note1), pp. 35–40 and additional discussion. 48 B. Hesse and P. Wapnish, “Can Pig Remains be Used for Ethnic Diagnosis in the Ancient Near East?”, in N. A. Silberman and D. Small (eds.), The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present (JSOTS 237; Sheffield, 1997), pp. 238–270. 49 Faust, op. cit. (note 1), and references. 50 Faust, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 85–91, and references. 51 E.g. B. J. Stone, “The Philistine and Acculturation: Culture Change and Ethnic Continuity in the Iron Age”, BASOR 298 (1995), pp. 7–32. 52 The following is a summary of some of the main points of Faust and Lev-Tov, op. cit. (note 24).

BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PHILISTIA 129

2. Pork Consumption and Philistine IdentityIt appears that when we attempt to decipher the material aspect of Philistine identity, food habits are the most obvious and sensitive index. It is clear from archaeozoological studies that the Philistines were regular con-sumers of pork during the Iron Age I. Interestingly an examination of the animal bones unearthed at Ekron clearly shows that pigs appear quite suddenly in Stratum VII, dated to the early Iron Age I. The percentage of pork in this stratum was about 14%, and it roses to 17% in Stratum VI, and to 26% in Stratum V—the last Iron Age I stratum.53 Notably, not only does the increase cease with the transition to the Iron Age II, but during this time there is even a drastic decrease in the importance of pigs in the Philistine diet—a drop to some 7% in Stratum IV at Ekron, and even less later.54 It is quite clear that the Philistines consumed significant quantities of pork starting from the first phase of their settlement. This can clearly be seen in the finds at Ekron VII, as well as at Ashkelon and at other sites.55 The Philistines, who migrated from the Aegean world, brought this habit with them,56 even if it did not originally serve as an ethnic marker.57 But why did the Philistines increase their pork consumption over time during the two centuries of the Iron Age I? None of the other groups that inhabited the greater expanse of the entire Near East at the time consumed such large quantities of pork. If cultural influences from another group were the deciding factor in this dietary shift, then we should see a decrease in the significance of pork in the Philistine diet after their settlement, and not an increase. Ethnic self-identity, however, is a very complex process, and interaction between different groups does not necessarily lead to similarities in their material culture, or at least not in all material traits. Interaction may lead to similarities in many traits, but not in those traits that a group uses for demarcating itself in relation to the other.58 It seems that pork avoidance was a key trait for demarcating identity for the Isra-elites, and they defined themselves as not eating pork in order to differentiate them-selves from the Philistines. We argue, however, that the Philistines, too, did not consume pork only as what one might call a ‘passive’ habit—brought with them from the Aegean world. Even if this was the case during the first phase of their set-tlement in Canaan, they subsequently used this habit actively in their ethnic negotia-tions with their neighbors. As the interaction between Philistines and Israelites in-tensified—reaching a peak toward the end of the Iron Age I—each became the ulti-mate ‘other’ for the rival group, the different, the stranger, and the enemy. Each group chose elements from its own culture—elements that were the diametric oppo-

53 J. Lev-Tov, “The Faunal Remains: Animal Economy in the Iron Age I”, in M. W. Meehl, T. Dothan and S. Gitin (eds), Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995–1996: Field INE East Slope – Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), (Jerusalem, 2006), p. 211.54 J. Lev-Tov, “Zooarchaeology and Relations of Power during the Neo-Assyrian Empire: An Example from Tel Miqne-Ekron”, unpublished paper presented at the ASOR Annual Meeting (Boston, November 17–19, 1999). 55 Faust and Lev-Tov, op. cit. (note 24), and references. 56 Stager, op. cit. (note 19), p. 344. 57 Lev-Tov, op. cit. (note 53) p. 212; Faust and Lev-Tov, op. cit. (note 24). 58 McGuire, op. cit. (note 11); Hodder, op. cit. (note 15); Faust op. cit. (note 1), pp. 13–19, and references.

130 A. FAUST

site of those of the other group—and used them to mark and symbolize the differ-ences between the groups. The Philistine habit of consuming pork and the simulta-neous near absence of this meat from the Israelite diet, even if it was simply a result of regional food habits that initially had nothing to do with ethnicity, made pork an ideal component in this process of ethnic negotiation and boundary creation. As the interaction between the groups intensified, they needed to stress and demarcate the differences between them, and as the process of boundary maintenance intensified, each group stressed the habits that were different from those of the other group.

3. Philistine PotteryBut are faunal remains the only means by which we can analyze the process the Philistine society went through? A closer examination of the archaeological record shows that other ethnically sensitive elements in the Philistine material culture went through similar processes during the Iron Age I. We have already seen that Philistine pottery was ethnically sensitive, and was used in the process of self-definition and strategy of boundary maintenance.59 This can also be seen in the absence of Philistine monochrome pottery not only in Lachish,60 but also in Tel Batash,61 Tel Beth-Shemesh62 and Gezer,63 as well as by the almost total avoidance of the bichrome pottery in the highlands,64 and by its rarity in one area at Tell Qasile (area A)65 and its abundance in another one (area C).66 We can understand the pottery’s ethnical significance also by examining its per-centage within Philistia. We will begin the discussion with the detailed information published from areas H and K at Ashdod. Ben-Shlomo67 recently published a quantitative analysis of the rims unearthed in the various levels of these areas. In Stratum XIII, which he dated to the early-12th century, some 73% of the vessels were in Canaanite tradition, and only 24% were of Philistine style—monochrome

59 E.g., Bunimovitz and Faust, op. cit. (note 32); Faust and Lev-Tov, op. cit. (note 24); Faust, op. cit. (note 1), and many references. 60 E.g., D. Ussishkin, “Levels VII and VI at Tel Lachish and the End of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan”, in J. N. Tubb (ed.), Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell (London, 1985), pp. 213–228; D. Ussishkin, “Lachish”, ABD, IV, pp. 118–119; Finkelstein, op. cit. (note 21); but see Bunimovitz and Faust, op. cit. (note 32). 61 A. Mazar, “Jerusalem and its Vicinity in Iron Age I”, in Finkelstein and Na’aman (eds.), op. cit. (note 18), pp. 70–91. 62 Idem, ibid.; S. Bunimovitz and Z. Lederman, “A Border Case: Beth-Shemesh and Rise of Ancient Israel”, in L. L. Grabbe (ed.), Israel in Transition: From the Late Bronze II to the Iron Age IIa (c. 1250-850 B.C.E.), (New York, 2008), p. 24. 63 W. G. Dever, “Archaeology, Ideology, and the Quest for an ‘Ancient’, or ‘Biblical’ Israel”, NEA 61/1 (1998), pp. 47–49 ; N. Na’aman, “The Contribution of the Trojan Grey Ware from Lachish and Tel Miqne-Ekron to the Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery”, BASOR 317 (2000), pp. 2–3. 64 Faust, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 205–213, and references. 65 B. Maisler (Mazar), “The Excavations at Tell Qasile: Preliminary Report”, IEJ 1 (1950–1951), pp. 61–76. 66 A. Mazar, Excavations at Tell Qasille, Part One, The Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects (Qedem 12; Jerusalem, 1980); A. Mazar, Excavations at Tell Qasile, Part Two, The Philistine Sanctuary, Various Finds, The Pottery, Conclusions, Appendixes (Qedem 20; Jerusalem, 1985). 67 D. Ben-Shlomo, “Material Culture”, in M. Dothan and D. Ben-Shlomo (eds.), Ashdod VI: The Excavations at Areas H and K (1968–1969), (Jerusalem, 2005), pp. 63–246.

BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PHILISTIA 131

and bichrome alike.68 In Stratum XII, which is dated to the 12th century BCE, 52% of the pottery was in the local tradition, while 47% percent was Philistine.69 In Stra-tum XI, dated to the 11th century BCE, the percentage of local pottery in the assem-blage decreased to 41%, while Philistine pottery increased significantly, reaching 58%.70 Philistine pottery disappeared almost completely in Stratum X, dated to the 10th century BCE.71 This picture seems to be supported by the available evidence from Ekron, which although only partial, presents a similar pattern,72 and at Ashkelon (the data is not published yet, but D. Master kindly informed me that the percentage of Philistine pottery in Ashkelon also increases during the Iron Age I, until disappearing in the beginning of the Iron Age II). While it is important to await the publication of more data, it seems that we can already discuss the general patterns which seem quite clear. Similar to the evidence regarding the percentage of pork in Philistia, decorated Philistine pottery became more significant as the Iron Age I progressed, reaching a peak at the final stage of this era, before practically disappearing in the beginning of the Iron Age II. Indeed, various lines of evidence indicate that the Philistines gradually saw the Israelites, or what became Israel at this time, as their main ‘other’. As the interaction between those groups intensified, and the struggle between them deepened, both groups raised the boundaries between them, and the cultural traits which had previ-ously distinguished them became more pronounced.73 In sum, the complex relations between Israelites and Philistines are exemplified in Fig. 2.74 We can identify a high level of boundary maintenance between themselves, and more open relations with other groups; some playing with the Israelite and Philistine symbols for their own benefit. This is best exemplified, on the local scale, in Megiddo Stratum VI and perhaps also at Tell Qasile Stratum X.75

68 Ben-Shlomo, op. cit. (note 66), pp. 70, 78. 69 Idem, ibid., p. 120. 70 Idem, ibid., pp. 132, 161. 71 Idem, ibid., p. 185. 72 T. Dothan, S. Gitin, and A. Zuckerman, “The Pottery: Canaanite and Philistine Traditions and Cypriote and Aegean Imports”, in M. W. Meehl, T. Dothan and S. Gitin (eds.), Tel Miqne-Ekron Excavations 1995-1996: Field INE East Slope – Iron Age I (Early Philistine Period), (Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 92–93. 73 Faust, op. cit. (note 1); Faust and Lev-Tov, op. cit. (note 24). 74 See extensive discussion in Faust, op. cit. (note 1). 75 Unless some of the settlers in those sites were Israelites of course. See Faust, op. cit. (note

1), pp. 213–218.

132 A. FAUST

Fig. 2: Ethnic interaction in the Land of Israel during Iron Age I (Schematic map)

III. The Canaanites

It is clear, however, that ethnic negotiations did not involve only Israelites and Phil-istines, but also Canaanites. We know that Canaanite population continued to exist in the Land of Israel in the Iron Age, and it probably even prospered in the northern valleys.76 But what about the southern part of the country?77

76 E.g., A. Mazar, “The Iron Age I”, in A. Ben-Tor (ed.), The Archaeology of Israel (New Haven, 1992), pp. 296–297; see also I. Finkelstein, “New Canaan”, EI 27 (2003), pp. 189–

BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PHILISTIA 133

We have seen above that while the population of the coastal plain concentrated in large settlements, and the number of settlements in the highlands grew dramatically in the Iron Age I, the Shephelah was practically devoid of settlement at the time. The few settlements that existed were concentrated in the trough valley. It appears that the reason behind this settlement emptiness is the above mentioned Philistine policy of urban imposition or forced urbanization, but why were the few settlements —Tell Beit Mirsim, Tel ‘Eton, Tel Yarmuth and Tell Beth-Shemesh—concentrated in the trough valley of the eastern Shephelah? Who were the settlers? Were the settlements Philistines strongholds, erected to keep the hostile highland population in checks?78 Or were they part of the highland settlement system?79 It seems that it is worth examining the ‘ethnically sensitive’ items found in those sites. As far as Philistine pottery is concerned, it is striking that such pottery is found in practically all of the sites in the trough valley i.e., Tell Beit Mirsim,80 Tel ‘Eton,81 and also at Tel Yarmuth82 and Tel Beth-Shemesh farther north.83 As far as collared rim jars are concerned, it is therefore striking to note that hardly any collared rim jars were found in Beth-Shemesh.84 At Tell Beit Mirsim only one such jar was reported85 making it an extremely rare find, and practically non-existent for statistical purposes. Although only a limited Iron Age I assemblage was un-earthed so far at Tel ‘Eton, collared rim jars are absent so far from the local reper-toire.86 As far as the entire ceramic assemblage is concerned, it is quite clear that the as-semblage in the discussed sites in the trough valley is very different from that of the highlands87 and shows close affinities to the Late Bronze Age traditions,88 as well as to contemporaneous sites in the coastal plain, like Tell Qasile.89

195 (Hebrew); A. Bentor, “Old Canaan: New Israel”, EI 27 (2003), p. 52 (Hebrew). 77 For a more detailed discussion of the Canaanites in the south (in the Iron I), see Faust and Katz, op. cit. (note 23; the following section is to a large extent based on this article). 78 Cf., W. F. Albright, The Excavation of Tell Beit Mirsim, III: The Iron Age (AASOR, 21–22; New Haven, 1943), p. 36, regarding phase B2 at Tell Beit Mirsim. 79 Cf., Albright, op. cit. (note 78), p. 36; regarding phase B3 at Tell Beit Mirsim. 80 W. F. Albright, The Excavations of Tell Beit Mirsim I: The Pottery of the First Three Cam-paigns (AASOR 12; New Haven, 1931), pp. 61–64; Albright, op. cit. (note 39), pp. 1, 4, 9–10, 25, 36; R. Greenberg, “New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim”, BASOR 265 (1987), p. 76. 81 E.g., A. Faust, “Tel ‘Eton 2006–2007 (Notes and News)”, IEJ 59 (2009), p. 118; G. Edel-stein and S. Aurant, “The ‘Philistine’ Tomb at Tell ‘Eitun”, Atiqot 21 (1992), pp. 23–41. 82 P. De Miroschedji, “Yarmuth: The dawn of city States in Southern Canaan”, NEA 62 (1999), p. 17; see also Dagan, op. cit. (note 23), p. 180. 83 Bunimovitz and Lederman, op. cit. (note 62), p. 24; S. Bunimovitz, and Z. Ledermn, “The Archaeology of Border Communities: Renewed Excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh (Part I, The Iron Age)”, NEA 72 (2009), p. 123. 84 Bunimovitz and Lederman, op. cit. (note 83), p. 123. 85 Greenberg, op. cit. (note 80), pp. 64, 71. 86 One example of a collared rim jar was unearthed in the late-11th century or early-10th cen-tury level, but none were found yet in the main 12th–11th centuries occupation, see Faust and Katz, op. cit. (note 23), forthcoming. 87 E.g., Greenberg, op. cit. (note 80), p. 76; Bunimovitz and Lederman, op. cit. (note 83), p. 123.88 E.g., at Lachish. 89 Greenberg, op. cit. (note 80), p. 76; De Miroschedji, op. cit. (note 82), p. 17; Bunimovitz

134 A. FAUST

As far as pork consumption is concerned, it is striking that no pig bones were found in the only trough valley site whose faunal assemblage was thoroughly ana-lyzed, i.e., Tel Beth-Shemesh, where a large assemblage of more than 13,000 Iron Age I bones was examined and it contained practically no pig bones.90 Although the Iron Age I bone assemblage at Tel ‘Eton is limited,91 the pattern is similar. Pigs constitute 0% in the second half of the 12th century and most of the 11th century assemblage.92

1. The Identity of the Settlers in the Trough ValleyWhile each of the above traits seems quite straightforward, presumably hinting at the cultural identity of the inhabitants of the trough valley sites, the complete picture seems confusing. As far as pottery is concerned, the pattern is more similar to Philistia, or if to be more precise, it is completely different from that of the highlands. This is indicated not only by the presence of Philistine bichrome pottery and the almost complete absence of collared rim jars, but also by the overall appearance of the assemblages at these sites. This was noted by Greenberg93 regarding Tell Beir Mirsim, and by Buni-movitz and Lederman94 regarding Tel Beth-Shemesh. At Tel ‘Eton, too, the overall assemblage seems Canaanite, and does not resemble the poor repertoire of the high-lands As far as food habits (the avoidance of pork) were concerned, however, the local population completely marked itself as different from that of Philistia, and was very similar to that of the highlands. One should remember, however, that low percentage of pig consumption is also typical of many Canaanite sites of the Late Bronze Age,95 although it was not always as low as in Iron I Israelite sites. So who were the settlers of the trough valley: Israelites, as the avoidance of pork suggests96 or Philistines, as is perhaps hinted by the pottery?97 It seems to us that the apparently contradicting picture is exactly what the local inhabitants wanted to convey. The population of the trough valley wanted to show that they were neither.

and Lederman, ibid., p. 123. 90 Bunimovitz and Lederman, ibid., p. 123. 91 Only some 521 bones were examined, of which 327 were identified, all from one square, dated to the period from the late-13th century – mid/late-11th century. 92 This refers to 141 bones, out of which 82 were identified. Note that pigs constitute about 1.6% of the 13th century – first half of the 12th century (i.e., the very end of the Late Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age – Iron Age I transition) assemblage, i.e., 4 out of 245 identified bones (based on a report by R. Bouchnic). 93 Greenberg, op. cit. (note 80), p. 76. 94 Bunimovitz and Lederman, op. cit. (note 83), p. 123. 95 E.g., Lev-Tov, op. cit. (note 35), p. 212, see also p. 210, chart 6.1; P. Croft, “Archaeozoological Studies”, in D. Ussishkin (ed.), The Renewed Archaeological Excava-tions at Lachish (1973–1994), (Tel Aviv, 2004), p. 2259, table 33.3; M. A. Zeder, “Pigs and the Emergence of Complexity in the Ancient Near East”, in S. M. Nelson (ed.), Ancestors for the Pigs: Pigs in Prehistory (Philadelphia, 1998), p. 12, table 2; Hesse op. cit. (note 42), p. 215–216, table 3.96 See also Bunimovitz and Lederman, op. cit. (note 62); idem, op. cit. (note 83). 97 Cf., Albright, op. cit. (note 78), p. 36; see also Mazar, op. cit. (note 76), pp. 273, 286; Finkelstein, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 54–55.

BETWEEN ISRAEL AND PHILISTIA 135

The population that settled in the trough valley sites was Canaanite, descendent of the population of the Shephelah during the Late Bronze Age. Some of them perhaps lived in the very same sites before they were destroyed during the end of the Late Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron I, while others perhaps migrated from nearby sites when they were destroyed and abandoned, like Lachish. As Greenberg98 suggested, regarding Tell Beit Mirsim, there was ‘continued Canaanite presence’ there. Identity, however, is not simply ‘inherited’. It is fluid and in an endless process of negotiation and renegotiation. As time progressed, the way the Canaanite population defined itself changed, just like the groups in relation to whom it defined itself changed. The ‘others’, in relation to whom those settlers in the eastern Shephelah defined themselves, were different from those their forefathers interacted with. The Iron Age I settlers in the trough valley negotiated their identity with both the newcomers to the coastal plain (i.e., the Philistines) and the settlers in the highlands (i.e., the Isra-elites). The local population attempted to use the new material symbols that dominated the non-verbal symbolic language of the Iron Age I, in order to show its uniqueness and difference from both groups. Most of the local pottery was of the traditional Canaanite style of course, but Philistine pottery was not avoided, unlike the situation in the highland sites. Moreover, collared rim jars were avoided, just like in Philistia. Pottery, therefore, while not identical to that of Philistia, was used to show that the population was different from that of the nearby highlands. Pork, on the other hand, was avoided. This trait, which drew on earlier, Late Bronze Age habits of consum-ing small amount of pork, was similar to that of the Israelites, and was a response to the Philistines habit of consuming large amounts of pork. Thus, the material symbols which seems to confuse modern scholars who try to label the settlers as either Israelites or Philistines, were probably very clear to the population at the time—the inhabitants of the trough valley sites were neither. The region was another enclave in which Canaanite culture survived during the Iron Age I, similar to the situation in the northern valleys.

IV. Summary

In summary, the above survey showed how the Iron I population in the south ‘played’ with material traits in their ethnic negotiations and boundary maintenance. The Israelites interacted with the dominant Philistines, and defined themselves in contrast to them. The Philistines, too, viewed the Israelites as their ‘other’, and prior to their rapid acculturation in the Iron II, continuously raised the boundaries between the Israelites and themselves. Finally, in-between those two large and dominant groups, the Canaanites found refuge in the fertile trough valley, and maintained a distinct identity, until assimilating into the Israelites in the Iron Age II.

98 Greenberg, op. cit. (note 80), p. 76.