by
Damien F. Mackey
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The
conventional chronology has the Philistines all mixed up.
They
do not emerge in history until the time of pharaoh Ramses III, in the early
C12th BC, we are told.
But,
apart from the fact that Ramses III has been dated several centuries too early,
archaeology tells us quite a different story about the Philistines.
So
Dr. Courville tells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was
heavily reliant upon the research of Dr. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971,
I and II) for my discussion of the Philistines in my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
in
Volume One, Chapter Two: “The Philistines and their Allies”.
Beginning
on p. 46, I wrote:
The
Earlier Philistine History
It
remains to be determined whether or not the Philistines can be traced all the
way back to Crete in accordance with the biblical data; though obviously, from
what has been said, to well before the time of the ‘Sea Peoples’, whose
immediate origins were Aegean, not Cretan.
Courville
has looked to trace just such an archaeological trail, back through the era of
the late Judges/Saul; to Alalakh (modern Atchana) at the time of Iarim-Lim (Yarim-Lim) of Iamkhad (Yamkhad) and Hammurabi of
Babylon; and finally to Crete in early dynastic times. I shall be basically
reproducing Courville here, though with one significant chronological
divergence, in regard to his dating of the Alalakh sequences. Courville has,
according to my own chronological estimation for Hammurabi and Iarim-Lim, based on Hickman …
dated the Hammurabic era about four centuries too early (as opposed to the
conventional system’s seven centuries too early) on the time scale. Courville
had wonderfully described Hammurabi as “floating about in a liquid chronology
of Chaldea”, just after his having also correctly stated that: … “Few problems
of ancient chronology have been the topic of more extensive debate among
scholars than the dates to be ascribed to the Babylonian king Hammurabi and his
dynasty …”. And so he set out to establish Hammurabi in a more secure
historical setting. This, I do not think he managed successfully to achieve
however.
Courville’s
re-location of Hammurabi to the approximate time of Joshua and the Conquest is
still fairly “liquid” chronologically, as it seems to me, without his having
been able to establish any plausible syncretisms beyond those already known for
Hammurabi (e.g. with Shamsi-Adad I and Zimri-Lim). Revisionist Hickman on the
other hand, despite his radical lowering of the Hammurabic era even beyond the
standard [Velikovskian] scale, by about seven centuries to the time of kings
David and Solomon (c. C10th BC), has been able to propose and develop what are
to my way of thinking some promising syncretisms, e.g. between David’s Syrian
foe, Hadadezer, and Shamsi-Adad I (c. 1809-1776 BC, conventional dates), with
the latter’s father Ilu-kabkabu being the biblical Rekhob, father of Hadadezer
(2 Samuel 8:3);127 and between Iarim-Lim and the biblical
Joram (var. Hadoram), son of To’i, and prince of Hamath (cf. 2 Samuel 8:10
& 1 Chronicles 18:10).
I
shall have cause to re-visit some of these kings in the following chapter.
Comment: I
have since written articles such as the following developing this necessary
chronological revision of the Hammurabic era:
Davidic Influence on King
Hammurabi
and:
Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim
as Contemporaries of Solomon
Continuing with my
thesis (now on p. 47):
So
now, with Hammurabi and his era somewhat more securely located, as I think,
than according to Courville’s proposed re-location - and hence with the
potential for a more accurate archaeological matrix - we can continue on with
Courville’s excellent discussion of the archaeology of the early Philistines:
….
VIII. The Culture of the Sea Peoples in the Era of the Late
Judges
The
new pottery found at Askelon [Ashkelon] at the opening of Iron I, and
correlated with the invasion of the Sea Peoples, was identified as of Aegean
origin. A similar, but not identical, pottery has been found in the territory
north of Palestine belonging to the much earlier era of late Middle Bronze. By
popular views, this is prior to the Israelite occupation of Palestine. By the
altered chronology, this is the period of the late judges and the era of Saul.
…
That the similar pottery of late Middle Bronze, occurring both in the north and
in the south, is related to the culture found only in the south at the later
date is apparent from the descriptions of the two cultures. Of this earlier
culture, which should be dated to the time of Saul, Miss Kenyon commented:
The
pottery does in fact provide very useful evidence about culture. The first
interesting point is the wealth of a particular class of painted pottery …. The
decoration is bichrome, nearly always red
and black, and the most typical vessels have a combination of metopes enclosing a
bird or a fish with geometric
decoration such as a “Union Jack” pattern or
a Catherine wheel. At Megiddo the first bichrome pottery is attributed to
Stratum X, but all the published material comes from tombs intrusive into this
level. It is in fact characteristic of Stratum IX. Similar
pottery is found in great profusion in southern Palestine … Very similar vessels are also
found on the east coast of Cyprus and on the coastal Syrian sites as far north
as Ras Shamra. [Emphasis Courville’s]
Drawings
of typical examples of this pottery show the same stylized bird with
back-turned head that characterized the pottery centuries later at Askelon.
…
The anachronisms and anomalies in the current views on the interpretation of
this invasion and its effects on Palestine are replaced by a consistent
picture, and one that is in agreement with the background provided by Scripture
for the later era in the very late [sic] 8th
century B.C.
[End of quotes]
Courville
now turns to the archaeology at the site of Alalakh on the shore of the
Mediterranean at its most northeast protrusion, in order “to trace this culture
one step
farther
back in time” (though in actual fact, by my chronology, it will bring him to
approximately the same time – though a different place). ….
IX. The Culture of Level VI at
Alalakh Is Related to That of the Philistines
He
commences by recalling Sir Leonard Woolley’s investigations at this site in the
1930’s, during which Woolley discovered “seventeen archaeological levels of
occupation”:
A
solid synchronism is at hand to correlate Level VII at Alalakh with the era of
Hammurabi of the First Dynasty at Babylon …. The basis for this synchronism is
found in the Mari Letters where it is stated that
“…
there are ten or fifteen kings who follow Hammurabi of Babylon and ten or
fifteen who follow Rim-sin of Larsa but twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim of
Yamkhad”.
Investigations
at Alalakh revealed numerous tablets inscribed in cuneiform, most of which are
by the third of the three kings of the dynasty, Yarim-Lim by name. He was the
son of the first king of the dynasty, who had the name Hammurabi, and who is
believed to have been the brother of Hammurabi in Babylon. Since the First
Dynasty at Babylon was of Amorite origin, then so also was the Yarim-Lim
dynasty of Amorite origin.
In
the reports by Woolley, he indicates the find at Alalakh of two characteristic
pottery types which were designated as “White-Slip milk bowls” and “Base-Ring
Ware”. As the digging proceeded downward, he found that such types of pottery were plentiful in Level VI, all but
disappeared in Level VII, and then reappeared in all levels from VIII to XVI.
Level VII, which did not contain the pottery, was the level containing the
inscribed tablets of the Yarim-Lim dynasty. The obvious conclusion was that the
people of Yarim-Lim (Amorites) had conquered this city and probably also the
surrounding territory, ruling it for a period estimated to have been about 50
years. At the end of this time, the original inhabitants were able to reconquer
the site and reoccupy it.
Courville
now turns his attention to seeking an identity for the people from whom the
city of Alalakh was taken for about half a century, but who then reoccupied it:
….
What
then was this culture like …? We let Woolley tell us about the culture:
…
We do indeed know extremely little about the Level VI buildings. It is to the
pottery that we must look for information about Level VI, and the pottery can
tell us a good deal. On the one hand we have what I have called the
“nationalist revival” of the traditional painted
ware which had been suppressed under the late
regime, and some examples of this are perfect
replicas of the old both in form and in
decoration, but as time goes on, there appear modifications of the
long-established types – instead of the isolated
and static figures of birds or animals these
become active and are combined in running scenes surrounding the whole pot
without the interruption of the
triglyph-like partitions which were once the
rule … For the first time we get a polychrome
decoration in red and black paint on a buff
surface, and the design includes not only birds but the “Union Jack” motive
which is specially characteristic of contemporary
Palestine …[Emphasis Courville’s]
As
one examines this pottery description, he will be struck with the notable
similarities of decoration found on the pottery at Megiddo for the era of
Philistine occupation in the time of Saul. There is the same use of red and
black paint, the similar use of birds as a decoration motif, and the same use
of the “Union Jack”.
[End of quotes]
Comment: The
biblical scribes were not so much interested in the glorious progress of
empires and nations as with the people of Israel. Hence it gives us a very
limited notion of the extent of the territory of the Philistines, for example.
Simply from a reading of the Bible we might draw the conclusion that the
Philistines were largely confined to the Shephelah region of Palestine.
Previously I have written on this phenomenon of localisation:
Now, the
reason why the Bible does not mention any of these extraordinary matters is
because the biblical scribes were just not interested in empires. Hiram is
simply designated “King Hiram of Tyre” in the Bible (e.g. 1 Kings 5:1), even
though Tyre may not have been the greatest city over which he ruled; just the
major one in closest proximity to Israel. The Bible gives no real details of
the great extent of Hiram’s power and influence.
....
And,
while there is plenty in the Bible to indicate the greatness of king Solomon himself,
the sacred scribes seem to have completely lost interest in him at that point
in his reign when he apostatised from his worshipping of the one God and became
an international entrepreneur. And it is at this very point when king Solomon
really starts to get going internationally as a trader and businessman, with a
fleet of Phoenician built ships at is disposal and the cruel corvée, now
established even in Israel. {I have argued in “House of David” that Solomon, as
Senenmut, was also in charge of the corvée in Hatshepsut’s Egypt}. ....
Now, projecting
back well beyond the time of Yarim-Lim, whom I have identified with the
biblical King Hiram of Tyre in “King Hiram the Historical” (thesis, p. 49):
Finally,
Courville traces this distinctive archaeological path all the way back to
Crete. I am giving only the barest outlines of his discussion here: ….
X. The Sea Peoples of Crete
With
the evidences thus far noted before us, we are now in a position to examine the
archaeological reports from Crete for evidences of the early occupation of this
site by the Caphtorim (who are either identical to the Philistines of later
Scripture or are closely related to them culturally). We now have at least an
approximate idea of the nature of the culture for which we are looking ….
…
we can hardly be wrong in recognizing the earliest
occupants of Crete as the people who represented the
beginnings of the people later known in Scripture as the Philistines, by virtue
of the stated origin of the Philistines in Crete. This concept holds regardless
of the name that may be applied to this early era by scholars.
The
only site at which Cretan archaeology has been examined for its earliest
occupants is at the site of the palace at Knossos. At this site deep test pits
were dug into the earlier occupation levels. If there is any archaeological
evidence available from Crete for its earliest period, it should then be found
from the archaeology of these test pits. The pottery found there is described
by Dr. Furness, who is cited by Hutchinson.
“Dr.
Furness divides the early Neolithic I fabrics into (a) coarse unburnished ware
and (b) fine burnished ware, only differing from the former in that the pot
walls are thinner, the clay better mixed, and the burnish more carefully
executed. The surface colour is usually black, but examples also occur of red,
buff or yellow, sometimes brilliant red or orange, and sometimes highly
variegated sherds”.
A
relation was observed between the decoration of some of this pottery from early
Neolithic I in Crete with that at the site of Alalakh ….
Continuing
to cite Dr. Furness, Hutchinson commented:
Dr.
Furness justly observes that “as the pottery of the late Neolithic phases seems
to have developed at Knossos without a break, it is to the earliest that one
must look for evidence of origin of foreign connections”, and she therefore
stresses the importance of a small group with plastic decoration that seems
mainly confined to the Early Neolithic I
levels, consisting of rows of pellets immediately
under the rim (paralleled on burnished pottery
of Chalcolithic [predynastic] date from Gullucek in the Alaca [Alalakh]
district of Asia Minor). [Emphasis Courville’s]
While
the Archaeological Ages of early Crete cannot with certainty be correlated with
the corresponding eras on the mainland, it would seem that Chalcolithic on the
mainland is later than Early Neolithic in Crete; hence any influence of one
culture on the other is more probably an influence of early Cretan culture on
that of the mainland. This is in agreement with Scripture to the effect that
the Philistines migrated from Crete to what is now the mainland at some point
prior to the time of Abraham. ….
[End of quotes]
No comments:
Post a Comment