Filisteos, Toponimia e Inmigracion, 2010

7/27/2019 Filisteos, Toponimia e Inmigracion, 2010

1/14

15

introduction

substantial body of research focuses on the

origins of the Philistines, the scale of their

migration, and their status among the autoch-

thonic Canaanite population. Nowadays, most schol-

ars dealing with these subjects agree that the initial

phase of the Philistine culture has close affinities with

various regions in the Aegean and eastern Mediter-

ranean, and that the first Philistine settlers spoke an

Indo-European language (Yasur-Landau 2002: 243;

Finkelberg 2006: 11112). However, limited atten-

tion has been paid to the fact that at least four of the

five primary Philistine citiesAshkelon, Ashdod,Gath, and Ekronhave Semitic names.1 The name of

the fifth primary Philistine city, Gaza, is known from

historic records prior to the Philistine arrival, though

its meaning is unclear. Four of these toponyms areknown from Bronze Age historical sources, including

documents from Ugarit, as well as the Amarna letters

and other Egyptian records. One of the five cities,

Ekron, is mentioned in Iron Age documents. This pa-

per examines the influence of factors including migra-

tion, conquest, exile, and colonial and imperial rule

on the naming of sites settled by migrant populations

from diverse periods and cultures. The results of this

examination are applied to existing theories regarding

the Philistine settlement in the southern Levant in or-

der to gain understanding of their city location choice

and the reason for adopting certain toponyms. This

provides insight into Philistine migration and Philis-

tine interaction with the native Canaanite population.

philistine city names

Gaza

Neither the meaning of the name Gaza, nor its

root and form, are clear. This toponym first appears

in the Annals of Thutmose III from the Late Bronze

1 The only exception I noticed is Yasur-Landau (2002: 206,

243), who mentioned this phenomenon, using it as another indi-

cation that a substantial part of the Canaanite population remained

in the region after the Philistine settlement.

Understanding Philistine Migration: CityNames and Their Implications

Itzhaq Shai

Institute of Archaeology

Martin [Szusz] Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology

Bar-Ilan University

Ramat Gan 52900, Israel

[email protected]

The origin of the Philistines, their quantity, quality, and status among the native Ca-

naanite population, have all been the focus of a substantial volume of research. However,

limited attention has been paid to the fact that at least four of the five primary Philistine

citiesAshkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekronhave Semitic names. Four of these five topo-nyms are known from the Bronze Age historical sources (such as the documents from

Ugarit and the Amarna tablets and other Egyptian records), while the fifth (Ekron) is

mentioned in Iron Age documents. This paper examines the influence of various factors

(e.g., migration, conquest, exile, colonial and imperial rule) on the naming of sites settled

by immigrants from other periods and cultures. The results of this examination are then

applied to the existing theories regarding the settlement of the Philistines, in order to

investigate the choice of location of their cities and the reason for adoption of existing

toponyms by the immigrants.

A


2/14

16 ITZHAQ SHAI BASOR 354

Age I, and again in documents dating to the 19th

and 20th Egyptian dynasties (Katzenstein 1992:

912). Deut 2:23 relates that Gaza was originally in-

habited by the Avvim, who were driven out by the

Caphtorim.2

Ashkelon

Ashkelon is a Semitic name, based on the root tql,

meaning to weigh (lq) (Cross and Freedman1964: 4849). The city name first appears in the Ex-

ecration Texts from the Middle Bronze Age (Esse

1992: 488).3 It later appears in the Amarna letters

(EA 320326, 370) and other Late Bronze Age Egyp-

tian documents. Like Ashdod (see below), the city

was probably named during the Middle Bronze Age

by Canaanites (although there are large Early Bronze

Age sites around Tell Ashkelon).

Ashdod

The first appearance of the town Ashdod is in

texts from Ugarit dating to the 13th century b.c.e.

(Cross and Freedman 1964: 49; M. Dothan 1992a:

477; Vidal 2006: 27273). These texts refer to mer-

chants from Ashdod4 who usually bear West Semitic

names (M. Dothan 1992a: 477). Cross and Freedman

(1964: 48) emphasized that the name Ashdod is Ca-

naanite, suggesting that it derives from the root tdd,

relating to the Old Akkadian sadadu, meaning to

measure. Recently, Gitler and Tal (2006) pointedout that the name appears as sdd(dd) on coins fromthe Persian period, without the alep at the beginning.This indicates that even as late as the Persian period,

the people of Ashdod were aware of the root of the

citys name. It seems that the original city name was

given by the Canaanites who established the site.

Naaman (1997: 61115) argued that the Ashdod

in the Ugaritic texts is not the Ashdod of southern

Israel. He identified the former with Enkomi, in Cy-

prus, arguing that Ashdod is not mentioned in any

Egyptian record of the Middle and Late Bronze

Ages.5 Naaman also highlighted that Tyre was the

most dominant eastern Mediterranean coast-harbor

mentioned in the Ugaritic texts, and it therefore seems

unreasonable that the people of Ashdod (in southern

Israel) would have appeared in Ugarit so often.6

Ac-cording to this reconstruction, the immigrants who

arrived in Ashdod in the 12th century b.c.e. came

from Enkomi and named their new city after their

place of origin (Naaman 1997: 612).

Naamans proposal is difficult to accept for a

number of reasons. First, if his hypothesis is true,

Ashdod would be the only city renamed by the Phi-

listines. Second, the word Ashdod is in the aqtal

grammatical form, which appears in several east

Mediterranean coastal city toponyms, such as Arwad

and Achshaph (Naaman 1997: 611). Third, and most

important, Ashdod is a West Semitic name, and the

people of Ashdod who were mentioned in the Ugarittexts are mostly of West Semitic origin (Naaman

1997: 61011). It is therefore unlikely that a Cypriot

site would have a West Semitic name, and that such

a site would be the source of the name Ashdod,

brought by a non-Semitic people in the Iron Age I.

Gath

The meaning of the term gt (tg) in West Semiticlanguages is winepress, and it is a relatively com-

mon place-name in the Bronze and Iron Ages in the

southern Levant (Schniedewind 1998: 7172). Thereis wide consensus in identifying Gath with Tell es-Safi

(Rainey 1975; Schniedewind 1998; Goren, Finkel-

stein, and Naaman 2004: 27980; Maeir 2004: 320

21). Based on the Amarna documents, Naaman (1997:

603, n. 2) believes that the name Gath was used for

this site already in the Late Bronze Age.

2 For identification of the Caphtorim and the Philistines in the

Bible, see T. Dothan 1982: 13, 2122; Shai in press a.3 Recently Ben-Tor (2006: for Ashkelon specifically, see p. 67

table 1) argued that the texts reflect the Early Bronze Age.4 Vidal (2006: 273, 27576) argued that the prominent role of

Ashdod in the Ugaritic texts reflects the importance of the city in

the trade between Ugarit and the southern Levantine coast.

5 For a different opinion, see M. Dothan 1992b, who explained

that because the site was part of Egypts territory, it was not men-

tioned in Egyptian documents.6 According to Goren, Finkelstein, and Naaman (2004: 292

94), two of the Amarna tablets (EA 294, EA 296) were sent fromthe site of Tel Ashdod. But since the city name is not mentioned

in these letters, Naaman suggested that the site was called Tianna

during the Late Bronze Age. Rainey (2003: 193*94*) refutes this

by pointing out that the place-name Tianna is absent from the

Amarna corpus, meaning that this could not have been the name

of the city, and therefore it is logical to assume that Tel Ashdod

was in fact named Ashdod during the Late Bronze Age.


3/14

2009 UNDERSTANDING PHILISTINE MIGRATION 17

Ekron

In the Neo-Assyrian texts, this city name appears

as am-qa-(ar)ru-(na) (e.g., Millard 1965: 16; Frahm1997: 54; Rainey and Notley 2006: 242). In docu-

ments from the Hellenistic period, and in the Ono-masticon of Eusebius, it is named Accaron (Dothan

and Gitin 1992: 415; Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh 1997:

16). The root of this toponym is qr (rq[), meaning

to uproot. Although this city name does not appear

in documents predating the Iron Age II, it is clear

that this toponym is Semitic.

other philistine towns

In addition to the five major cities discussed above,

three secondary Philistine settlements are mentioned

in the Bible: Ziklag and Timnah are mentioned in texts

relating to the Iron Age I, and Yavneh is mentioned ina narrative dating to the Iron Age II.

Ziklag

Ziklag was listed as one of the 29 towns in the

Negev and was assigned to the tribe of Simeon (Josh

15:31; 19:5). During the reign of Saul, it was under

Philistine control, and Achish, the king of Gath, gave

it to David as a place of residence (1 Sam 27:6). The

origin of the name is uncertain and probably has no

meaning in any Semitic language (Ray 1986: 355

56). Ray argued that the etymology of the place-

name derived from t3 kl, meaning the man of Tskiel,one of the Sea People (Ray 1986: 35758). Most

scholars identify the town with Tel Sera (Oren 1993:

1329; Rainey and Notley 2006: 14849; Blakely

2007). According to Oren (1993: 1331), the site was

probably under Egyptian control during the first half

of the 12th century b.c.e., as attested by Egyptian

hieratic inscriptions and other Egyptian finds.

No traces of the first phase of Philistine pottery

assemblage (i.e., Mycenaean IIIC) were found at Tel

Sera. Nevertheless, Oren (1993: 1331) concluded

that Philistines inhabited the site during the entire

Iron Age. The location of the site, the finds datingto the Iron Age, and the biblical narrative all suggest

that Ziklag was a Philistine settlement, at least dur-

ing the Iron Age I. If one accepts Rays interpre-

tation, it could be that during the latter part of the

Iron Age I, when the Philistines settled new sites

such as Tel Sera, they might have given them non-

Semitic names, probably derived from their original

region and language. However, lacking any further

evidence regarding other Philistine sites (e.g., Tell

Qasile) and their names, this argument cannot be

supported or denied.

Timnah

Timnah is mentioned for the first time in extra-

biblical sources by Sennacherib in 701 b.c.e. (Luck-

enbill 1924: 3136). The site is identified with Tel

Batash (A. Mazar 1997b: 56). Based on Samsons

stories (Judg 1316) and on archaeological finds

from the site, it seems that the site was under Philis-

tine control during the Iron Age I (A. Mazar 1997b:

6, 254; 2006: 32829). The meaning of the name is

allotted or portion, and derives from the West

Semitic root hnm.

YavnehYavneh7 is mentioned as a Philistine city in the time

of Uzziah in the mid-eighth century b.c.e. (2 Chron

26:6). Due to its location, scholars identify the site

with Jabneel, a city on the western border of Judah

according to Josh 15:11 (but note that Ekron is also

mentioned in this verse as a Judahite site). Therefore,

the identification of the town as Philistine is not

entirely certain. The site is identified with the ruins

of an Arab village bearing the same name (Yebna).

The name is derived from the root hnb , meaning

to build or to create. It might be that during the

Bronze Age, this site (together with Yavneh-Yam)

was called Makhoz, which is mentioned in the Am-

arna letters, and by Thutmose III (14791425 b.c.e.).

From the Hellenistic period until the Crusader pe-

riod, it was known as Makhoz Yavneh (Mazar, Tur-

Sinai, and Yeivin 1958: 454).

summary of philistine toponyms

The etymology of the Philistine toponyms can be

summarized as follows. Except for Ekron, the other

four main Philistine cities were mentioned in textsdating to the Bronze Age, before Philistine settle-

ment. Except for Gaza, the names of the other four

7 For recent discoveries from a Philistine temple favissa at

Yavneh dating to the Iron Age II, see Kletter, Ziffer, and Zwickel

2006; Ziffer and Kletter 2007.


4/14


main Philistine cities are of Semitic origin. Archae-

ological excavations show that Ashkelon and Gath

were established during the Early Bronze Age (Stager

2001; Uziel and Maeir 2005), and Ekron and Ashdod

were founded during the Middle Bronze Age (M. Do-

than 1971: 24; Bierling 1998). Hence, it seems thatthese cities were named long before the Philistines

arrival in the region, and that the Philistines used the

old Semitic names.8 As for the secondary towns, it

seems that the names Timnah and Yavneh are of

Semitic origin; the name Ziklag may have traces of

the Philistines original language.

philistine cities

in historical sources

Unfortunately, there are no Philistine written docu-

ments dating to the Iron Age I to testify by what

names the Philistines called their cities. However,

there are a few Egyptian records dating to this period

that mention Philistia and the Philistines. In the On-

omasticon of Amenemope,9 for example, three Phil-istine cities were mentioned by their pre-Philistine

names: Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza. According to

Assyrian and Babylonian sources from the eighth to

sixth centuries b.c.e. (Tadmor 1966; Shai 2006: 356

58), the cities Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Ekron

were known by their Semitic names. The dedication

inscription from Ekron (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh

1997) confirms this conclusion.

continuity and change

in place-names

The renaming of cities is well documented in

the Bible, usually occurring when place ownership

changed (for example, the renaming of Kiriath-Arba

to Hebron in Gen 23:2; the renaming of Laish to Dan

in Judg 18:29; see also Eissfeldt 1968: 7071). This

is unlikely to have occurred with the five major Phil-

istine cities, since we do not have any sources that

testify to such renaming. Moreover, since the first

generation of Philistines did not speak a Semitic lan-

guage, one would expect that if they had changed the

names of their cities, they would have chosen non-

Semitic names.

A place-name has cultural value (Kadmon 1992:

377) and reflects a places linguistic, political, andcultural history (Rainey and Notley 2006: 14). To-

ponymy embraces geography, linguistics, and history,

and helps to reconstruct the ethnic, political, cultural,

and religious changes in a specific region over a long

period of time (Astour 1988: 545). Place-names can

also provide data regarding the environment and

human activity in the past (Taylor 2002; Wardini

2002: 87). For example, Gath, which means wine-

press, was likely a place where wine was pressed;

Ashdod and Ashkelon, which mean to measure

and to weigh, were probably involved in trade and

commerce.

Sometimes the name of a place is not given byits inhabitants, but by the people around it (Wardini

2002: 87). The origin of a place-name is not neces-

sarily a reflection of the language of its inhabitants,

since the name may be inherited from former inhabi-

tants who spoke a different language, or given by

neighboring populations (Wardini 2002: 88). Hence,

though a place-name may have continued through

ages and cultures, it does not necessarily indicate

that the origin of the residents remained constant,

nor does a place-name necessarily indicate the ori-

gin of the inhabitants.

The Philistines were not of Semitic origin, and

they probably conquered the Late Bronze Age cities

in which they settled as they migrated to the southern

Levant (Barako 2000: 52021). It is quite remark-

able, therefore, that they would have kept using the

original Semitic place-names.

To understand the Philistine paradigm, it may be

useful to compare other historical migrations of eth-

nic groups to new regions, and examine their renam-

ing of cities. An analysis of examples of stability and

change in place-names in Israel throughout history

points to three patterns. In Pattern 1, places keep

their names despite changes in the ruling class (for

example, Jaffa10

). In Pattern 2, places have short-term8 Lacking any Philistine documents from the Iron Age I, we do

not know what the Philistines called their cities. However, the

dedication inscription from Ekron indicates that during the sev-

enth century b.c.e., the Philistines called the city by its original

Semitic name, Ekron (Gitin, Dothan, and Naveh 1997).9 This document is usually dated to the Iron Age I (late 20th

dynasty); see Gardiner 1947: 25; T. Dothan 1982: 3; Yasur-Landau

2002: 212; Rainey and Notley 2006: 110.

10 Its name first appears in documents from the days of Pha-

raoh Thutmose III and then several times in the Amarna tablets.

Although the form of the name is not clear, it seems to be derived

from the root hpy, meaning beautiful and nice (Broshi 1958:

738). The city continues to bear this name throughout the Iron

Age, the Persian period, and onward.


5/14


name changes (for example, Beth Shean11). In Pat-

tern 3, place-names are changed permanently, and

the original name is lost (for example, Aphek to An-

tipatris and later to Auja,12 Shechem to Neapolis,13

and Migdal Starton to Caesarea14). It is interesting to

note that often, when foreign, non-Semitic nameswere given to ancient places, these names did not

survive for a long time, and when the foreign power

left the area, the places reverted to their previous

Semitic name (Pattern 2). One might have expected

that the Philistines would rename their sites in their

language (Pattern 3) because they were newcomers

and non-Semitic. Since the Philistine cities were

called by their Semitic names, they actually belong

to Pattern 1 or 2.

naming patterns

of migrant groups

The Phoenician Colonies

Several finds and inscriptions indicate relations

between Cyprus and Phoenicia in the 11th and 10th

centuries b.c.e. (Aubet 2001: 5152). From the end

of the ninth century b.c.e., there is evidence of

Phoenician settlement in the southeastern part of Cy-

prus, especially with the foundation of Kition, the

first Phoenician colony, and one founded in an al-

ready existing town (Aubet 2001: 52).15 The Phoeni-

cian colonial cities were connected to a mother city

that could supply a significant source of outside prof-its. In addition, the colony provided the Phoeni-

cians with an open line of trade (Markoe 2000: 97).

In a dedication inscription dating to the middle of

the eighth century b.c.e., a Phoenician governor in

Cyprus mentioned the city Qart-hadasht (Carthage),

meaning new city. While Lipinski claimed (2004:

46) this refers to a new unidentified Phoenician city,

others (e.g., Tsirkin 1991: 122, n. 27; Markoe 2000:

17071; Aubet 2001: 52) identify the new city with

Kition.

Kition was the main Phoenician city in Cyprus

during the eighth and seventh centuries b.c.e. Its

biblical name is Citium, and it was mentioned inIsaiah 23. The last mention of Kition as Carthage is

by Ashurbanipal in 667 b.c.e. From the fifth century

b.c.e. onward, the city is called again by its old

name, Kition (Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1987: 33233).

According to Michaelidou-Nicolaou (1987: 333), the

change of place-name occurred at the end of the

seventh century b.c.e. when the city was no longer

dependent on Tyre (the mother city of Kition) and

became involved in inter-Cypriot politics. In the fifth

and fourth centuries b.c.e. a Phoenician dynasty

ruled in Kition (Michaelidou-Nicolaou 1987: 334).

This case represents a change in place-name by

newcomers (the Phoenicians). However, it seems

11 Stieglitz (1990: 87) suggested that Shean derived from

Suen, which is identified with Sin the moon god. The first mention

of the city may have been in the Execration Texts of the Middle

Bronze Age (but see also Ben-Tor 2006, which dated it earlier, tothe Early Bronze Age), and several times in other Egyptian texts

dating to the Late Bronze Age (A. Mazar 1997a: 305). At the end

of the tenth century b.c.e., Beth-Shean was captured by Pharaoh

Shishaq (number 16 in Shishaqs list; see, e.g., Rainey and Notley

2006: 186). During the Hellenistic period, Nysa Scythopolis be-

came its official name, although it was still called by its original

name (A. Mazar 1997a: 305). During the Early Arab period, the

city reverted to its original Semitic name, but according to its Ara-

bic form, Beisan (A. Mazar 1997a: 306).12 Aphek appeared for the first time in the Middle Bronze Age

in the Execration Texts (according Ben-Tor 2006, the texts should

be dated earlier, to the Old Kingdom) and is mentioned as one of

the cities conquered by the Pharaohs Thutmose III and Amenhotep

II (Shai in press b). In the Hellenistic period, the settlement on the

mound was called Pegae. When Herod the Great became king, he

rebuilt Aphek and named the city Antipatris in honor of his father,

Antipater. In the Early Arab period, the site was called Abu

Butrus; later in the period it was called Auja, after the Arabic

name of the Yarkon. The Ottoman Turks erected a fort here in

1572 c.e. as a cavalry base to guard an important road that passed

nearby. In keeping with the sites long-standing association with

water, they named the fort Binar Bashi, meaning head of the

spring (Beck and Kochavi 1993: 62).13 The ancient city of Shechem dates to the Middle Bronze

Age and is documented in the Execration Texts and other Egyp-

tians documents dating to the Middle (but see also Ben-Tor 2006

for an earlier dating for these texts) and Late Bronze Ages

(Toombs 1992: 1174 75). In 72 c.e., Titus established the city of

Flavia Neapolis, meaning new city of the emperor Flavius, a few

kilometers west of the ancient city of Shechem. The Madaba Mo-

saic Map followed the tradition that distinguished between Neap-olis and Shechem (Avi-Yonah 1954: 45). During the Arab period,

the city name was changed to Nablus, the Arabic pronunciation of

Neapolis. The Crusaders called the city Naples. It should be noted

that the ancient Bronze and Iron Age city is located a short dis-

tance from the city of Neapolis.14 Herod established two cities in honor of Augustus: Sebastia

and Caesarea. Caesarea was established in a Phoenician town

named Migdal Starton (Levin 1984: 49).

15 The beginning of the Phoenician settlements on Cyprus is

dated by some scholars to the second half of the tenth century

b.c.e. (Lipinski 2004: 42) or the mid-ninth century b.c.e. (Markoe

2000: 170).


6/14


that although the formal name during the eighth

and first half of the seventh centuries b.c.e. was the

Phoenician name, the old name was still well known,

as evidenced by Isa 23:12, Jer 2:10, and the Arad

inscriptions (e.g., Aharoni 1975: 12, 14) where the

Kitim were mentioned. It was also the city name inthe fifth century b.c.e., and ongoing, probably by

the locals. Through the end of the eighth century

b.c.e., there was significant separate development in

Cyprus. On the one hand, there were Phoenicians,

as shown by the large number of Phoenician inscrip-

tions. On the other hand, there were locals, and they

used the syllabic writing system (from left to right),

contrary to the Phoenicians and their own Late

Bronze tradition (Sherratt 2003: 23536). Moreover,

the syllabic script in Cyprus was used only for

Greek, and only Semitic people used the Phoenician

script (Sherratt 2003: 234). It is thus clear that in the

particular case of the Phoenician colony in Cyprus,there was a distinct separation between the two eth-

nic groups.

Several sites in Crete had names that include the

prefix Phoinik.16 Since these places are located

along the coast, it seems reasonable to correlate the

toponyms with the Phoenician maritime trade and

colonial policy (Markoe 1998: 233, n. 3). Two other

sites in Crete may have been called by Semitic names,

Itanos and Korobios (Astour 1965: 14041; Markoe

1998: 236).

The earliest Phoenician colonies in the western

Mediterranean date to the beginning of the eighth

century b.c.e. (van Dommelen 2005: 118; Aubet

2006: 9596). In most cases, the settlements were

founded in previously unoccupied, isolated locations

on offshore islands and peninsulas (Boardman 2001:

38). The locations were selected according to topo-

graphic advantages. The new colonies continued

contact with their mother cities (Boardman 2001: 39;

van Dommelen 2005: 119), but usually the names of

the new cities were unknown.

The Greek Colonies

The Greek colonies in Sicily and southern Italyduring the eighth century b.c.e. were the result of

overpopulation on the Greek mainland and the out-

come of a joint venture with the Phoenicians (Tandy

1997: 29, 75, 22930). As opposed to the Phoenician

colonies (which were a by-product of Phoenician trade

activity), the Greeks established new sites in order to

begin new lives away from home (van Dommelen

2005: 121) or to create an aristocratic warrior ethos

(Crielaard 1995). These new settlements were notnecessarily in contact with their homeland. The word

the Greeks used to describe these settlements was

apoikia, meaning home away from home (Board-

man 2001: 34). The Greeks in the settlements made

a great effort to control sea routes, which means they

also had a trade interest (Tandy 1997: 7778).

A good example of the quest for land in ancient

Greece can be seen in the Cyrene settlement. This

site was on a plateau, and the surrounding towns were

located in the fertile coastal plain, indicating that the

sites location was chosen for its land, and not its

trading prospects (Boardman 1994: 143).

Although the background of Greek colonies dif-fers significantly from place to place (Boardman

1994: 147), various colonies share common causes,

such as the search for land. Although colonies may

have been founded in order to extend Greek culture,

this goal seems to have been quickly forgotten, and

the colonies soon began founding new cultures (Snod-

grass 1994: 910).

The Frankish Settlements

During the Frankish Kingdom in the Levant in the

12th and 13th centuries c.e., the majority of the

population in the region was Muslim (Kedar 2006:

129). There was a hierarchic settlement structure in

Frankish society (Ellenblum 1995). The Franks usu-

ally inhabited existing cities, such as Antioch, Tripoli,

Acre, and Jerusalem (Ellenblum 1999: 35).

Prawer (1987: 2829) suggested that Crusader

city plans were based on two separate traditions: the

ancient local tradition, and the Crusaders European

tradition. He argued that these populations did not

assimilate or acculturate, but rather lived side by

side. While it was once assumed that the Franks lived

only in cities, archaeological evidence shows that

there were also rural Frankish settlements (Ellen-blum 1999: 3536, fig. 2). The Franks preferred to

settle in regions inhabited by local Christians, and

in some cases, the two communities lived together in

the same place. The Franks avoided settling in rural

regions inhabited by Muslims (Ellenblum 1999: 38

39; Kedar 2006: 13738).16 For the list of these sites, see Markoe 1998: 23334.


7/14


Names of cities in which the Crusaders lived that

had been previously inhabited usually stayed the

same after the arrival of the Crusaders (e.g., Acre).17

This situation is similar to the Philistine paradigm,

since both the Philistines and the Franks settled in

places that had already been urban centers.Similarly, the Franks established very few new

cities (Prawer 1987: 1213). Although it seems that

the Franks were the elite, they did integrate with local

Christian communities (Ellenblum 1999: 40; Talmon-

Heller 1999: 45), and the local Christians held the

majority of bureaucratic positions (Talmon-Heller

1999: 44). While the Franks needed the help and

knowledge of the locals, the locals saw the Franks as

a defense against potential threats (Ellenblum 1999:

39). In this aspect, therefore, Frankish settlements

differed from the Philistine paradigm, since the Franks

encountered a population with whom they shared a

religion.Contrary to their relationship with the local Chris-

tians, contact between the Crusaders and the local

Muslim population was very limited (Ellenblum 1999:

40; Talmon-Heller 1999: 4547; Kedar 2006: 138).

The New England Colonies

The commercial enterprise efforts to settle New

England failed, and in 1617, the Pilgrim Society of

Leyden decided to establish a Puritan state in Amer-

ica (Fiske 1892: 79). Colonial New England lacked

ethnic variety, and during the first wave of emigra-

tion, about 1,000 English men, women, and children

arrived in New England, America (McManis 1975:

24, 36).

The immigrants wanted to preserve their En-

glish culture while practicing a religion that could

not be worshiped in England (McManis 1975: 25

26). Throughout the 17th century, new settlements

were established in New England. Most of these

were named after places in old England (e.g.,

New Hampshire, New Haven, and New London),

or given names with English meaning (e.g., Cam-bridge, Charlestown, Dorchester, and Norwich).

Urbanism was a vital part of New Englands char-

acter from the beginning of its settlement (McManis

1975: 72). In the economic stage of traditional society,

the settlers adopted select Native American foods

and methods of cultivation and began utilizing unfa-

miliar raw materials (McManis 1975: 8687).

The New England paradigm, then, was similar to

the Philistine paradigm, in that it included one eth-

nic group composed of men, women, and children

who lived in urban centers. Unlike the Philistines,

however, these immigrants arrived in an unurban-

ized region and established new places and cities.They named the new places after places from their

homeland and maintained contact with their place

of origin.

discussion

The examples described above provide a basis

for examining and defining the nature of the migra-

tion and cultural changes, looking at the following

factors:

arriving in settled vs. unsettled land the number of new settlers

the degree of contact between new settlers and

the local population

the strength of links between the mother city/

homeland and colonies

the causes of migration, i.e., search for land to

settle, trade, exploitation of natural resources,

or religious reasons

It seems that place-names can serve as a criterion

for identifying the migration paradigm. Settlement in

inhabited sites and the use of original place-namesindicates a high level of interaction between new-

comers and the local population. In the case of the

Philistine migration, this pattern may be explained

by the limited number of immigrants (who became

the elite) and the large number of locals, who con-

tinued using the old Semitic place-name. Although

17 It might be suggested that the Crusader castle called La

Fve is based on the Arabic name al-Fula, meaning the bean

(Kedar and Pringle 1985: 166). The name might be related to a

city mentioned by Thutmose III as Apr (or Apl), i.e., Afula

(Kedar and Pringle 1985: 166). It has also been suggested that the

name Afula stems from early Semitic opel, meaning citadel

(Dever 1992: 87). Thus, this site name may reflect an ancient tra-dition that refers to this place. In contrast, we may point to other

sites (e.g., Monfort, Chateau Plerin [= Atlit]) that the Crusaders

named without any allusion to local tradition, although these

might have been settled in earlier periods.

In addition, several Frankish villages were established during

the 12th century c.e., most of which were called by non-Semitic

names.


8/14


place-names do not necessarily signify the nature of

the link with the homeland, it is possible that the

Philistines did not name their cities in their original

languages or dialects (with the possible exclusion

of Ziklag) because they eventually abandoned their

mother tongues and did not have regular interactionwith their homeland.

Colonies established in the 19th and 20th centu-

ries c.e. in Africa and Asia did so with the mission

of civilizing local populations (van Dommelen

2005: 110). The ancient Greeks and Phoenicians,

however, did not colonize with this incentive, nor did

the Philistines in the southern Levant.

Colonies foster interaction between newcomers

and locals. These relationships can create new com-

munities, described by postcolonial theorists as hy-

brid cultures (van Dommelen 2005: 116), which lead

to the development of unique and new traditions.

Hybridization is the practice of mixed origins (vanDommelen 2005: 11618; 2006: 13940) and high-

lights the social meeting (van Dommelen 2006: 137).

This view emphasizes that material culture is affected

by the traditions of both the local population and the

colonizers.

Colonialism is defined by an uneven economic,

political, or military relationship between communi-

ties (van Dommelen 2005: 138). While the Phoeni-

cian colonies kept in touch with their mother cities

and lived far from local populations (Boardman 2001:

3940; van Dommelen 2005: 137), it seems that the

Philistines had no relations with their homeland.

Moreover, the Philistines, like the Greeks a few cen-

turies later, moved into existing settlements (Board-

man 2001: 38, 40; van Dommelen 2005: 120). It seems

most fitting, therefore, to compare the Philistine ar-

rival in the southern Levant to the phenomenon of

the Greek colonies. The latter established their colo-

nies with the aim of setting up a new life (van Dom-

melen 2005: 121), and they were interested in land

(Boardman 2001: 40).

Yasur-Landau reached the same conclusion when

looking for an explanation for the change in settlement

pattern in Philistia from the Late Bronze Age to the

Iron Age I (Yasur-Landau 2002: 2056, 21620).Moreover, the Greek model includes defining a formal

territory of the colony and urban planning, which again

can be identified in the city plans of the Philistines cit-

ies (in those that were excavated, i.e., Ashkelon, Ek-

ron, and Ashdod; and see Barako 2000: 521).

At the end of the Bronze Age, people of the Ae-

gean settled in Cyprus and along the Levantine coast

(T. Dothan 1982; Barako 2000; Boardman 2001: 34).

They also occupied the western coast of Anatolia,

Sardinia, Sicily, and south Italy (Boardman 2001: 34).

It seems that in the west, they looked for resources

such as metals and minerals rather than land (Markoe

1998: 234). However, since there are almost no suchresources along the southern Levantine coast, it is

reasonable to assume that the Sea People who estab-

lished new cities here were searching for land. This

explains the similarity between the Philistines and the

later Greeks, in contrast to other settlers, and could

explain the issue of place-naming. The Philistines

who came to the southern Levant were looking for

land on which to live. Since they settled in an already

occupied region, they had to cooperate with the local

population and could not just exploit its resources

(unlike, for example, the Phoenicians who settled in

the western Mediterranean).

In the Bible, there are several examples of placesthat have two or more names, each one of which is

used by a different population in a different lan-

guage.18 Although it may be suggested that the Phi-

listines renamed their cities in a similar manner, the

limited historical evidence does not support this. It

also should be noted that even if the Philistines used

different names for their towns, these names only

survived for a short period of time. For example, the

dedication inscription from Ekron (Gitin, Dothan,

and Naveh 1997) indicates that its ruler, Achish,

called the city by the original Semitic name (despite

using a non-Semitic personal name!).

It may be that the names of the five Philistine

cities were the names that the surrounding people

(or even the Canaanites who lived in these cities

together with Philistines) called the cities. In this

context, one should remember that according to the

biblical account (Josh 11:22; Jer 47:5), among the

Philistines lived the Anakim, meaning giants, who

occupied Canaan before the Israelites (Num 13:29;

Deut 2:10, 21; 9:12).19 In Num 13:33, the Anakim

are mentioned as the descendants of the Nefilim

18 For example, when Mount Hermon is mentioned in Deut

3:9, it states that the Phoenicians call [it] Hermon Sirion, and theAmorites call it Senir. See also Wimmer and Maier (2007), who

suggested that Tell es-Safi may have had two place-names, Zefat

and Gath, based on a hieratic inscription from the site.19 Albright (1950: 328, n. 2) suggested that the Iyaneq men-

tioned in the Egyptian Execration Texts should be attributed to

a tribal name related to the biblical Anakim. Yet, there are no other

extra-biblical sources that show continuity from the Anakim of the

Middle Bronze Age to those of the Iron Age.


9/14


(Gen 5:4). After the Israelite conquest, the only sur-

vivors of the Anakim remained in the Philistine cities

of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (Josh 11:22).20 Hence,

according to the biblical narrative, there seems to

be a link between the new group of Philistines and

a local pre-Israelite and pre-Philistine grouptheAnakim (Gordon 2004: 3233).21

Furthermore, as Finkelstein (2000: 168) has shown,

almost 80 percent of the Iron Age I sites in Philistia

were already inhabited in the Late Bronze Age. The

Medinet Habu reliefs show that there were Canaanite

women and children among the Philistines in the early

stages of their arrival (Sweeney and Yasur-Landau

1999: 138). This evidence is integrated with the pres-

ence of Canaanite cooking pots and loom weights

alongside Aegean ones (e.g., Bunimovitz and Yasur-

Landau 1996). Thus, while stability in settlement

pattern from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I

(Finkelstein 1996; 2000) could point to similar in-habitants, the presence of new immigrants in the

region is also well attested.

Comparing the Philistine migration to the south-

ern coastal plain of Israel with other historical mass

migrations highlights its uniqueness. Even in the Early

Iron Age I, the Philistines underwent assimilation

(e.g., Bunimovitz 1990), acculturation (e.g., Stone

1995), or creolization (Ben-Shlomo, Shai, and Maeir

2004) with the local Canaanite culture. This could

indicate that the Canaanites were not only in com-

mercial contact with the Philistines, but that the two

populations actually lived together. Since such con-

tact is a bilateral cultural process, it is much more

similar to creolization or cultural fusion (Uziel 2007),

and unlike acculturation, which suggests outside in-

fluence only.

It seems that as early as the first stage of their settle-

ment in the southern Levant, the Philistine newcomers

were involved with the autochthonic Canaanite in-

habitants. This is well supported by the fact that the

Philistines did not establish new settlements, but in-

stead reoccupied and replanned existing Canaanite

sites, which had been settled prior to the Philistines

arrival. Canaanite city names were in use throughout

the Iron Age, as indicated by Egyptian, Assyrian, and

Babylonian documents, biblical references, as well asthe dedication inscription from Ekron (Gitin, Dothan,

and Naveh 1997). This may indicate that although

these cities became Philistine as political entities, the

old Canaanite inhabitants did not disappear.

It is clear that the elite and upper-class culture in

these cities was Philistine, but the local populations,

at least part of them, remained in those cities. It has

been suggested that economic demands forced the

Philistines to communicate with the local Canaanites

(Sasson 1997: 63031, n. 15); based on the above

archaeological, historical, and onomastical evidence,

it seems much more likely that, from the first stage

of Philistine settlement in the southern Levant, sig-nificant Canaanite elements were present and there-

fore influenced Philistine material culture.

In conclusion, it is well accepted that the Philis-

tines arrived in the southern Levant in order to find

land, and settled in an occupied region.22 From the

first stage, they interacted with local populations in

and around these cities, as indicated by unchanged

city names. The best parallel to this migration mode

is Greek colonial policy, which was also fueled by

a search for land, and in which the newcomers also

came in contact with the native people of the region.

In other historical cases, ones in which newcomers

had fewer interactions with the local populations and

greater links to the homeland (for example, the Phoe-

nician and New England colonies), names were usu-

ally changed.

acknowledgments

I would like to thank Prof. A. Maeir, Dr. Joe Uziel, and

Mr. Alex Zukerman, who read earlier drafts of this paper

and offered various comments. In addition, I would like to

thank Mrs. S. Brickman for English editing and comments.

Needless to say, all opinions expressed here, and any mis-

takes, are the sole responsibility of the author.

20 This led scholars (e.g., Mattingly 1992: 222) to argue that

Goliath was one of the descendants of the Anakim in Philistia. But

others showed that the name Goliath derived from the Anatolian

region. See, for example, Ehrlich 1992.

21 In addition to the Anakim, Zalcman (2003: 48485) sug-gested that another subgroup of Philistines is mentioned in the

Bible, the Sippites (myps). Based on 1 Chr 20:4, it seems that the

Sippites are the descendants of the Rephaim, a nation of giants or

warriors according to the meaning of their name in Ugarit (Smith

1992: 675). It seems likely that the Rephaim were a local Semitic

group, and if we accept Zalcmans correlation of the Rephaim and

the Sippites, it is another indication that the Philistines were con-

sidered a native group in the Bible.

22 Sherratt (1998) and Bauer (1998: 15961) claimed that the

Philistines should be defined as a socioeconomic class that wanted

to maintain the trade network of the Late Bronze Age. In contrast,

others (e.g., Barako 2000; Sharon 2001; Dothan and Zukerman

2004; Yasur-Landau 2002) showed that historical documents and

archaeological finds suggest that the Philistines should be defined

as a foreign ethnic group.


10/14


Aharoni, Y.1975 Arad Inscriptions . Jerusalem: Israel Explora-

tion Society (Hebrew).Albright, W. F.

1950 The Execration of Asiatic Princes. Pp. 32829in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to theOld Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. Princeton:Princeton University.

Astour, M. C.1965 Hellenosemitica: An Ethnic and Cultural Study

in West Semitic Impact on Mycenaean Greece.Leiden: Brill.

1988 Toponymy of Ebla and Ethnohistory of North-ern Syria: A Preliminary Survey.Journal of the

American Oriental Society 108: 54555.Aubet, M. E.

2001The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colo-

nies and Trade. Trans. M. Turton, from Spanish.2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

2006 On the Organization of the Phoenician Colo-nial System in Iberia. Pp. 94109 inDebatingOrientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches

to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean,eds. C. Riva and N. C. Vella. Monographsin Mediterranean Archaeology 10. London:Equinox.

Avi-Yonah, M.1954 The Madaba Mosaic Map. Jerusalem: Israel

Exploration Society.Barako, T. J.

2000 The Philistine Settlement as Mercantile Phe-nomenon? American Journal of Archaeology104: 51330.

Bauer, A. A.1998 Cities of the Sea: Maritime Trade and the Origin

of Philistine Settlement in the Early Iron AgeSouthern Levant. Oxford Journal of Archaeol-ogy 17: 14968.

Beck, P., and Kochavi, M.1993 Aphek (in Sharon). Pp. 6272 in The New En-

cyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in

the Holy Land, Vol. 1, ed. E. Stern. New York:Simon & Schuster.

Ben-Shlomo, D.; Shai, I.; and Maeir, A. M.

2004 Late Philistine Decorated Ware (AshdodWare): Typology, Chronology, and ProductionCenters. Bulletin of the American Schools ofOriental Research 335: 135.

Ben-Tor, A.2006 Do the Execration Texts Reflect an Accurate

Picture of the Contemporary Settlement Map ofPalestine? Pp. 6387 in Essays on Ancient Is-rael in Its Near Eastern Context: A Tribute to

Nadav Naaman, eds. Y. Amit, E. Ben Zvi, I.Finkelstein, and O. Lipschits. Winona Lake, IN:Eisenbrauns.

Bierling, N.1998 Tel Miqne-Ekron: Report on the 19951996

Excavations in Field XNW. Tel Miqne-EkronLimited Edition Series 7. Jerusalem: Tel Miqne-Ekron Project Office.

Blakely, J. A.2007 The Location of Medieval/Pre-Modern and

Biblical Ziklag. Palestine Exploration Quar-terly 139: 2126.

Boardman, J.1994 Settlement for Trade and Land in North Af-

rica: Problems of Identity. Pp. 13749 in TheArchaeology of Greek Colonisation: Essays

Dedicated to Sir John Boardman, eds. G. R.Tsetskhladze and F. De Angelis. Monograph

40. Oxford: Oxford University Committee forArchaeology.

2001 Aspects of Colonization.Bulletin of the Ameri-can Schools of Oriental Research 322: 3342.

Broshi, M.1958 Jaffa. Pp. 73843 inEncyclopedia Biblica, eds.

B. Mazar, N. H. Tur-Sinai, and S. Yevin. Jeru-salem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew).

Bunimovitz, S.1990 Problems in the Ethnic Identification of the

Philistine Culture. Tel Aviv 17: 21022.Bunimovitz, S., and Yasur-Landau, A.

1996 Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A ComparativeApproach to the Question of Pots and People.Tel Aviv 23: 88101.

Crielaard, J. P.1995 How the West Won. Pp. 12527 in Trade and

Production in Premonetary Greece: Aspects of

Trade. Proceedings of the Third International

Workshop, Athens 1993, eds. C. Gillis, C. Ris-berg, and B. Sjberg. Studies in MediterraneanArchaeology and Literature, Pocket-Book 134.Jonsered: strm.

Cross, F. M., Jr., and Freedman, D. N.1964 The Name of Ashdod.Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 175: 4850.

Dever, W. G.1992 Affula, El-. Pp. 8788 in The Anchor BibleDictionary, Vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. NewYork: Doubleday.

Dothan, M.1971 Ashdod IIIII: The Second and Third Seasons of

Excavations, 1963, 1965, Soundings. 2 vols.Atiqot 910. Jerusalem: Department of Antiq-uities and Museums.

references


11/14


1992a Ashdod. Pp. 47782 in The Anchor Bible Dic-

tionary, Vol. 1, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York:

Doubleday.

1992b Why Was Ashdod Not Mentioned in New

Kingdom Sources? Eretz-Israel 23 (Avraham

Biran Volume): 5154 (Hebrew), 147*48*

(English summary).

Dothan, T.

1982 The Philistines and Their Material Culture.

New Haven: Yale University.

Dothan, T., and Gitin, S.

1992 Ekron. Pp. 41522 in The Anchor Bible Dictio-

nary, Vol. 2, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York:

Doubleday.

Dothan, T., and Zukerman, A.

2004 A Preliminary Study of the Myceanaen IIIC:1

Pottery Assemblages from Tel Miqne-Ekron

and Ashdod.Bulletin of the American Schools

of Oriental Research 333: 154.

Ehrlich, C. S.

1992 Goliath.Pp. 107374 in The Anchor Bible Dic-tionary, Vol. 2, ed. D. N. Freedman. New York:

Doubleday.

Eissfeldt, O.

1968 Renaming in the Old Testament. Pp. 6979

in Words and Meanings. Essays Presented to

D. Winton Thomas, eds. P. R. Ackroyd and

B. Lindars. London: Cambridge University.

Ellenblum, R.

1995 Settlement and Society Formation in Crusader

Palestine. Pp. 50211 in The Archaeology of

Society in the Holy Land, ed. T. E. Levy. New

York: Facts on File.

1999 Settlement and Society in Crusader Palestine.Pp. 3541 in Knights of the Holy Land: The

Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, ed. S. Rozen-

berg. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

Esse, D.

1992 Ashkelon. Pp. 47790 in The Anchor Bible Dic-


Doubleday.

Finkelberg, M.

2006 Ino-Leukothea between East and West.Journal

of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 6: 10521.

Finkelstein, I.

1996 The Philistine Countryside. Israel Exploration

Journal 46: 22542.

2000 The Philistine Settlements: When, Where andHow Many. Pp. 15980 in The Sea Peoples and

Their World: A Reassessment, ed. E. D. Oren.

University Museum Monograph 108; University

Museum Symposium Series 11. Philadelphia:

University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Fiske, J.

1892 The Beginnings of New England; or, The Puri-

tan Theocracy in Its Relations to Civil and

Religious Liberty. 6th ed. Boston: Houghton,

Mifflin.

Frahm, E.

1997 Einleitug in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Archiv

fr Orientforschung Beiheft 26. Vienna: Institut

fr Orientalistik der Universitt Wien.

Gardiner, A. H.

1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, Vol. 1. London:

Oxford University.

Gitin, S.; Dothan, T.; and Naveh, J.

1997 A Royal Dedicatory Inscription from Ekron.

Israel Exploration Journal 47: 116.

Gitler, H., and Tal, O.

2006 The Coinage of Philistia of the Fifth and the

Fourth Centuries bce: A Study of the Earliest

Coins of Palestine. Collezioni Munismatiche 6.

Milan: Ennerre.

Gordon, R. P.

2004 The Ideological Foe: The Philistines in the Old

Testament. Pp. 2236 in Biblical and Near

Eastern Essays. Studies in Honour of Kevin J.

Cathcart, eds. C. McCarthy and J. F. Healey.

London: Clark International.

Goren, Y.; Finkelstein, I.; and Naaman, N.

2004 Inscribed in Clay: Provenance Study of the Am-

arna Tablets and Other Ancient Near Eastern

Texts. Monograph Series 23. Tel Aviv: Yass

Publications in Archaeology, Institute of Ar-

chaeology, Tel Aviv University.

Kadmon, N.

1992 ToponomasticsConferring and Standardizing

Geographical Names at National and International

Level.Eretz-Israel 23 (Avraham Biran Volume):

37782 (Hebrew), 159* (English summary).Katzenstein, H. J.

1992 Gaza. Pp. 91215 in Anchor Bible Dictio-


Doubleday.

Kedar, B. Z.

2006 Some New Sources on Palestinian Muslims

Before and During the Crusades. Pp. 12940 in

Franks, Muslims and Oriental Christians in Latin

Levant: Studies in Frontier Accul turation, ed.

B. Z. Kedar. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Variorum.

Kedar, B. Z., and Pringle, D.

1985 La Fve: A Crusader Castle in the Jezreel Val-

ley.Israel Exploration Journal 35: 16479.

Kletter, R.; Ziffer, I.; and Zwickel, W.2006 Cult Stands of the Philistines: A Genizah from

Yavneh.Near Eastern Archaeology 69: 14659.

Levin, I. L.

1984 From the Beginning of the Roman Government

to the End of the Second Temple (63 bce74

ad). Pp. 9280 in The History of the Land of

Israel, Vol. 4, ed. M. Stern. Jerusalem: Yad

Itzhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew).


12/14


Lipinski, E.

2004 Itineraria Phoenicia. Studia Phoenicia 18; Orien-

talia Lovaneniesia Analecta 127. Leuven: Peeters.

Luckenbill, D. D.

1924 The Annals of Sennacherib. Oriental Institute

Publications 2. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Maeir, A. M.

2004 The Historical Background and Dating of Amos

VI 2: An Archaeological Perspective from Tell

e-fi/Gath. Vetus Testamentum 54: 31934.

Markoe, G. E.

1998 The Phoenicians on Crete: Transit Trade and

Search for Ores. Pp. 23341 in Eastern Medi-

terranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete 16th6th

Cent. b.c.: Proceedings of the International

Symposium, 1316 May 1997, Rethymnon, eds.

V. Karageorghis, and N. C. Stampolidis. Athens:

University of Crete.

2000 Phoenicians. London: British Museum.

Mattingly, G. L.

1992 Anak. P. 222 in The Anchor Bible Dictio-


Doubleday.

Mazar, A.

1997a Beth-Shean. Pp. 3059 in The Oxford Encyclo-

pedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Vol. I, ed.

E. M. Meyers. New York: Oxford University.

1997b Timnah (Tel Batash) I. Text. Qedem 37. Jerusa-

lem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew Univer-

sity of Jerusalem.

2006 Concluding Remarks. Pp. 32330 in Timnah

(Tel Batash) III: The Finds from the Second

Millennium bce, eds. N. Panitz-Cohen and A.

Mazar. Qedem 45. Jerusalem: Institute of Ar-chaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Mazar, B.; Tur-Sinai, N. H.; and Yeivin, S.

1958 Yavneel. P. 454 inEncyclopedia Biblica, eds.

B. Mazar, N. H. Tur-Sinai, and S. Yevin. Jeru-

salem: Bialik Institute (Hebrew).

McManis, D. R.

1975 Colonial New England: A Historical Geogra-

phy. New York: Oxford University.

Millard, A. R.

1965 The Assyrian Royal Seal Type Again.Iraq 27:

1216.

Naaman, N.

1997 The Network of Canaanite Late Bronze Age

Kingdoms and the City of Ashdod. Ugarit-Forschungen 29: 599626.

Michaelidou-Nicolaou, M.

1987 Repercussions of the Phoenician Presence in

Cyprus. Pp. 33138 in Phoenicia and the East

Mediterranean in the First Millennium b.c.:

Proceedings of the Conference Held in Leuven

from the 14th to the 16th of November, 1985,

ed. E. Lipinski. Orientalia Loveniensia Ana-

lecta 22; Studia Phoenicia 5. Leuven: Peeters.

Oren, E. D.

1993 Sera, Tel. Pp. 132935 in The New Encyclope-

dia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy

Land, Vol. 4, ed. E. Stern. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Prawer, J.

1987 Crusaders Cities. Pp. 729 in The Crusaders in

Their Kingdom 10991291, ed. B. Z. Kedar.

Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi (Hebrew).

Rainey, A. F.

1975 The Identification of Philistine Gath: A Prob-

lem in Source Analysis for Historical Geogra-

phy. Eretz-Israel 12 (Nelson Glueck Memorial

Volume): 63*76*.

2003 Some Amarna Collations.Eretz-Israel 27 (Mir-

iam and Hayim Tadmor Volume): 192*202*.

Rainey, A. F., and Notley, R. S.

2006 The Sacred Bridge: Cartas Atlas of the Bibli-

cal World. Jerusalem: Carta.

Ray, J. D.

1986 Two Etymologies: Ziklag and Phicol. Vetus

Testamentum 36: 35561.

Sasson, V.

1997 The Inscription of Achish, Governor of Eqron,

and Philistine Dialect, Cult and Culture. Ugarit-

Forschungen 29: 62739.

Schniedewind, W. M.

1998 The Geopolitical History of Philistine Gath.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research 309: 6977.

Shai, I.

2006 The Political Organization of the Philistines.

Pp. 34759 in I Will Speak the Riddles of An-

cient Times (Ps 78:2b): Archaeological andHistorical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar

on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday, eds.

A. M. Maeir and P. de Miroschedji. Winona

Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

In press a Caphtor. In The New Interpreters Dictionary

of the Bible, ed. K. D. Sakenfeld. Abingdon.

In press b Aphek. In The New Interpreters Dictionary of

the Bible, ed. K. D. Sakenfeld. Abingdon.

Sharon, I.

2001 Philistine Bichrome Painted Pottery: Scholarly

Ideology and Ceramic Typology. Pp. 555609

in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and

Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L.

Esse, ed. S. R. Wolff. Studies in Ancient Ori-ental Civilization 59; ASOR Books 5. Chi-

cago: Oriental Institute of the University of

Chicago.

Sherratt, S.

1998 Sea Peoples and the Economic Structure of

the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern

Mediterranean. Pp. 292313 in Mediterra-

nean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early

Twelfth Centuries bce: In Honour of Professor


13/14


Trude Dothan, eds. S. Gitin, E. Stern, and A.

Mazar. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

2003 Visible Writing: Questions of Script and Iden-

tity in Early Iron Age Greece and Cyprus. Ox-

ford Journal of Archaeology 22: 22542.

Smith, M. S.

1992 Rephaim. Pp. 67476 in The Anchor Bible Dic-


Doubleday.

Snodgrass, A. M.

1994 The Nature and Standing of the Early Western

Colonies. Pp. 110 in The Archaeology of

Greek Colonisation: Essays Dedicated to Sir

John Boardman, eds. G. R. Tsetskhladze and

F. De Angelis. Monograph 40. Oxford: Oxford

University Committee for Archaeology.

Stager, L. E.

2001 Port Power in the Early and Middle Bronze

Age: The Organization of Maritime Trade and

Hinterland Production. Pp. 62538 in Studies

in the Archaeology of Israel and Neighboring

Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse, ed. S. R.

Wolff. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization

59; ASOR Books 5. Chicago: Oriental Institute

of the University of Chicago.

Stieglitz, R. R.

1990 Ebla and the Gods of Canaan. Pp. 7989 inEblai-

tica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite

Language, Vol. 2, eds. C. H. Gordon and G. A.

Rendsburg. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.

Sweeney, D., and Yasur-Landau, A.

1999 Following the Path of the Sea Persons: The

Women in the Medinet Habu Reliefs. Tel Aviv

26: 11645.Tadmor, H.

1966 Philistia under Assyrian Rule.Biblical Archae-

ologist29: 86102

Talmon-Heller, D.

1999 Muslims and Eastern Christians under Frankish

Rule in the Land of Israel. Pp. 4347 in Knights of

the Holy Land: The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusa-

lem, ed. S. Rozenberg. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.

Tandy, D. W.

1997 Warriors into Traders: The Power of the Market

in Early Greece. Classics and Contemporary

Thought 5. Berkeley: University of California.

Taylor, S.

2002 Place-Name Survey of the Parishes of Kilmo-rack, Kiltarlity & Convinth, and Kirkhill, In-

verness-Shire. http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/

~beauly/SURVY1.doc.

Toombs, L. E.

1992 Shechem. Pp. 117486 in The Anchor Bible

Dictionary, Vol. 5, ed. D. N. Freedman. New

York: Doubleday.

Tsirkin, Y. B.

1991 Japheths Progeny and the Phoenicians. Pp.

11734 in Phoenicia and the Bible: Proceed-

ings of the Conference Held at the University of

Leuven on the 15th and 16th of March 1990, ed.

E. Lipinski. Orientalia Loveniensia Analecta

44; Studia Phoenicia 11. Leuven: Peeters.

Uziel, J.

2007 The Development Process of Philistine Mate-

rial Culture: Assimilation, Acculturation and

Everything in Between.Levant39: 16573.

Uziel, J., and Maeir, A. M.

2005 Scratching the Surface at Gath: Implications of

the Tell e-afi/Gath Surface Survey. Tel Aviv

32: 5075.

Van Dommelen, P.

2005 Colonial Interactions and Hybrid Practices:

Phoenician and Carthaginian Settlement in the

Ancient Mediterranean. Pp. 10941 in The Ar-

chaeology of Colonial Encounters: Compara-

tive Perspectives, ed. G. J. Stein. Santa Fe:

School of American Research.

2006 The Orientalizing Phenomenon: Hybridity and

Material Culture in the Western Mediterranean.

Pp. 13352 inDebating Orientalization: Multi-

disciplinary Approaches to Change in the An-

cient Mediterranean, eds. C. Riva and N. C.

Vella. Monographs in Mediterranean Archaeol-

ogy 10. London: Equinox.

Vidal, J.

2006 Ugarit and the Southern Levantine Sea-Ports.

Journal of the Economic and Social History of

the Orient49: 26979.

Wardini, E.2002 Lebanese Place-Names: Mount Lebanon and

North Lebanon: A Typology of Regional Varia-

tion and Continuity. Orientalia Lovaniensia

Analecta 120. Leuven: Peeters.

Wimmer, S. J., and Maeir, A. M.

2007 The Prince of Safit? A Late Bronze Age

Hieratic Inscription from Tell e-afi/Gath.

Zeitschrift des deutschen Palstina-Vereins

123: 3748.

Yasur-Landau, A.

2002 Social Aspects of Aegean Settlement in the

Southern Levant in the End of the 2nd Mil-

lennium bce. Ph.D. dissertation, Tel Aviv

University.Zalcman, L.

2003 Philistines on the Threshold at Amos 9:1?

Revue Biblique 110: 48186.

Ziffer, I., and Kletter, R.

2007 In the Field of the Philistines: Cult Furnishings

from the Favissaof Yavneh Temple. Tel Aviv:

Eretz Israel Museum (Hebrew and English).


14/14

Documents

Filisteos, Toponimia e Inmigracion, 2010