philistine influence on israelite ethnic

8/16/2019 Philistine Influence on Israelite Ethnic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/philistine-influence-on-israelite-ethnic 1/10

1

Philistine Influence on Israelite Ethnic IdentityPaper presented at the annual ASOR meeting, Chicago, Ill., 2012

Pekka Pitkänen, 15/11/2012

Abstract

This essay, concentrating on the Iron Age I period, sees the early Israelite andPhilistine societies as two settler-colonial societies vying for dominance. It thenexamines characteristics of ethnicity in each society, looking at features that weredistinctive and those that could have been shared, and influences that could haveflowed from one society to the other, with a focus on the possible flow of influencesfrom Philistia to Israel.

Introductory Remarks

The history of both the Israelite and Philistine societies is a much studied and disputedarea of study. Practically every aspect of the history of ancient Israel has beensubjected to rigorous study and debate, including as it relates to the origin of theIsraelites. 1 As for the Philistines, a main bone of contention is the question of theirorigins and mode of settlement in the southern Levantine coast. 2 In this essay, I willnot attempt to make conclusive arguments for a particular position due to spacelimitations and as the central focus here is ethnic interaction between the two societiesHowever, I will present some related comments from a particular point of view, andthese comments should also help set the context for the discussion of ethnicinteraction.

In my view, it is best to understand both Israel and Philistia as settler-colonialsocieties, 3 in line with new studies on settler-colonialism that have appeared in the last10 years or so. In my view this could solve a number of related problems, as suchstudies understand settler-colonialism as involving multifaceted historical processesthat have recurred throughout human history. 4 These include a combination ofpeaceful settlement, displacement, subjugation, war and even genocide. 5 Morespecifically, such processes may take various lengths of time, varying according to thecase, and also for example involve lengthy periods of peaceful settlement withepisodic bursts of violent expansion through war that may involve dispossession andgenocide. The resulting modes of settlement can also be different. For example, in

1

The literature is too large to even begin to be included here, for a number of comments on Early IronAge, see Pitkänen 2010. One question already is how to define Israel at this period.2 See e.g. Dothan and Dothan 1992 and Yasur-Landau 2012.3 According to Wolfe 2008, “settler-colonialism is first and foremost a territorial project, whose

priority is replacing natives on their land rather than extracting an economic surplus from mixing theirlabor with it” (emphasis mine). By way of comparison, Wolfe refers to past British colonial activity inIndia as “franchise colonialism” ( ibid .). Wolfe further points out that differing colonial modes usuallycoexist within a given colonial society, e.g. Native Americans as people to be dispossesed versusAfricans as slaves for economic purposes ( ibid .). The operations of settler-colonialism “are notdependent on the presence or absence of formal state institutions or functionaries” (Wolfe 2008, p.108). In general, I do not think these processes are confined to modernity, even though modernexamples appear to be the ones that have been most studied (cf. Kiernan 2007, esp. pp. 1-71).4 See e.g. Day 2008. Note also that the emergence of these two societies broadly fits the time of the

collapse of the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean “world” system.5 See e.g. Day 2008; Kakel 2011. Note that assimilation may amount to destruction, especially if it isforced, and can thus be genocidal, cf. e.g. Wolfe 2008, pp. 105, 115-119)



2

North America indigenous peoples were almost completely displaced, in South Africaindigenous peoples were left largely intact in a proportional sense (even though therewas a lot of conquest and also genocide involved), and in South America there was amixing of conquerors and the indigenes, and with a new resulting Latin Americanidentity. 6 In the case of early America, the process took some 300 years and the vision

of the conquerors was largely realised, in the case of the Nazi eastern colonial project,events took place in less than 10 years, and the vision of the conquerors remained aprogrammatic ideal, beaten back by the victorious Russian and Allied war effort. 7 Thus, we can expect that settler-colonial processes may take various forms and havediffering outcomes. Coming back to ancient Israel and Philistia, what the exactprocesses were with each of the Philistines and the Israelites is a topic for furtherstudy, and the settlement “mode” may even exhibit local variations depending onmigratory and colonial penetration, itself dependent on various factors, of whichrelative power between immigrants and each of the local entities may be ofimportance. 8

A general model of settler-colonialism is naturally in general agreement with thosewho see the Philistine settlement as involving violence based on their interpretation ofarchaeological evidence. 9 However, based on the above, it is in my view natural tothink that aspects, even episodes of peaceful settlement are also included. 10 The samegoes for Israel, and, while we cannot go into details here, it would seem feasible tosuggest that such an idea could quite comfortably be conceived to at least broadly fitwith both archaeological and textual evidence on ancient Israel, appropriatelyinterpreted. 11 One important reason to think that violence is included is the change ofthe name of the region to Philistia during Iron Age I. Such a change would not belikely if only peaceful immigration were involved. 12

If it is correct to think of both societies as settler-colonial societies, both of themwould also be likely to have had a settler colonial vision of a territory. We have noidea thus far as to the thinking of the Philistines, but we have the territorialdescriptions in the book of Joshua and in Genesis-Numbers, and much of these couldalso be considered as programmatic as with for example the Nazis and the earlyAmericans. 13 Interestingly, and as already noted above, in the former case the vision

6 See e.g. Stannard 1992, Day 2008.7 See Kakel 2011.8 Cf. Day 2008, Kakel 2011 in a general sense, and e.g. Maeir 2012, pp. 350-351; cf. Stern 2012 as

regards variety in the northern Philistine penetration. Cf. also Preston 2009, pp. 1-22 for differingprocesses on the Iroquise frontier in early America.9 See e.g. Maeir 2012, pp. 349-350.10 See e.g. Yasur-Landau 2010 which argues for a peaceful process.11 See Faust 2006 for some of the archaeological evidence; see also Pitkänen 2010 for a combinedinterpretation of both textual and archeological evidence.12 See Day 2008, pp. 49-68 for naming as typical for settler-colonial societies. Cf. also e.g. USA whereimmigration has not fundamentally changed the nation or its name (admittedly thus since the creationof the independent nation in 1776), even when there are also clear changes in its demographics etc., cf.Day 2008, pp.223-237. In addition, I agree with Singer 2012, p. 467 that new groups do not necessarilyrename the area they settle into, however, when they do rename, this should in my view be seen asindicative, especially when combined with other lines of evidence. This said, it is true, too, that somemodern nation states have changed their name, apparently without a significant new population group

having immigrated into the country (e.g. Burma to Myanmar, but in this case the word Myanmar wasalready established even if not used to designate the country in international parlance).13 See esp. Kakel 2011.



3

failed, but in the latter it succeeded. 14 It appears that both societies were spreadingfrom their initial bases, i.e. Israelites from the highlands and Philistines from thesouthwestern seacoast, 15 and then the societies met, with conflict resulting as notablydescribed in the bible. Interestingly, Faust suggests that there was a Canaanite bufferzone between the two in the Iron Age, which then was later conquered by the

Israelites.16

The power relations were apparently waxing and waning over time.17

InIA I the Philistines appear to have largely had an upper hand, 18 but apparently therewas no full colonisation (of the settler-colonial type) and subjugation of the Israelites.Then in IA IIA the Philistines in a number of respects 19 adopted the Semitic materialculture even though they also kept their distinctive identity throughout Iron Age II, 20 which is broadly in line with the description in the bible that David conquered (andsubjugated) the Philistines. 21

Ethnic Interaction between the Philistines and the Isrelites

The above then brings us to the question of the nature of interaction between thesocieties, and the focus here is on IA I, also considering that the biblical documentsand archaeology indicate that a new entity was being born in the highlands at thetime. 22 Comparative colonial studies indicate that there may be peaceful interactionbetween individuals even when societies are on the whole in conflict and one may besubjugating the other. 23 While the biblical description about the Philistinesconcentrates on conflict, aspects of the story of Samson and David also indicatepeaceful coexistence. 24

If there was peaceful coexistence included, except for demarcating differences, suchas pork, pottery and circumcision, 25 there may have been mutual flows of influence inissues that were not considered as “problematic”. Considering the likelihood that the

14 Cf. also two programmatic Nazi visions of German territory by Darre and Himmler, quoted in Kakel2011, pp. 130-131, versus two visions of the Israelite territory in Pentateuch-Joshua.15 Cf. Faust 2012, p. 12416 See Faust 2012, Fig 1 on p. 121, and passim, incl. p. 135. Note also that Khirbet Qeiyafa wasbasically in this buffer zone but nevertheless seemingly with Judah in late IA I (see Garfinkel, Ganorand Hasel 2012), so apparently the Canaanite buffer area was diminishing little by little and perhapsbecoming more like enclaves; perhaps David was active around this buffer zone when in Ziklag, evenwhen the exact location of Ziklag is not known? (cf. Dietrich 2012). Note that David’s conquests in 2Sam 8:1-14 can be considered as colonial, even if not necessarily settler-colonial activities, and perhapswe should consider 1 Kings 4:21 in this sense, too, i.e. as colonial, but not settler-colonial control inareas peripheral to the “core” Israelite area (the “core” area itself can be seen as having expanded

outwards from the northern hill country (and apparently also from the eastern hill country; see Faust2006) during Iron Age I and into Iron Age IIA as also confirmed by archaeological evidence).17 Cf. Dietrich 2012.18 Cf. also 1 Samuel 13:19-22 in comparison with the Nuclear Proliferation treaty today, incl. thesituation with USA and Iran)19 This took place rather suddenly according to Faust and Lev-Tov 2011.20 See Faust and Lev-Tov 2011; Maeir 2012, pp. 380-385.21 It would appear that at some point there may have been no major occasion for either society toexpand any more, setting some limits to settler-colonialism (cf. comments above in fn. 16).22 Cf. also the Merneptah stele, and cf. Faust 2006 which suggests that the Philistines acted as a catalystfor the emergence of Israelite ethnic identity.23 See e.g. Preston 2009; Lamana 2008; cf. also anecdotally e.g. current Rhodesia and Zimbabwe.24 Otherwise, note the use of alliances in the story of David (cf. Dietrich 2012), which also fits with

colonial and other history (e.g. Spanish conquest of Mexico and British conquest of North America; seee.g. Day 2008, in passim ; Stannard 1992, in passim ).25 See e.g. Faust 2012, pp. 128-131.



4

Philistine immigrants were of Aegean, and probably partially Anatolian origin, orwould at least had Anatolian influences, 26 the Israelites would seem to have beeninfluenced by Greek/Anatolian cultural features, conversely, the Philistines wouldhave been influenced by Semitic cultural features. Later in IA II as the Philistineswere conquered by the Israelites, the situation would still have been the same, at least

partially, even though at least parts of the the material culture of the Philistinesbecame “Semiticised”.

The field of studies of ethnicity is now quite extensive. 27 Without going into detailshere, the definition of ethnicity by Hutchinson and Smith captures the related issuesvery well in a succinct manner. 28 According to Hutchinson and Smith, ethniccommunities or ethnies “habitually exhibit, albeit in varying degrees, six mainfeatures:

1. a common proper name, to identify and express the ‘essence’ of thecommunity;2. a myth of common ancestry, a myth rather than a fact, a myth that includes theidea of a common origin in time and place, and that gives an ethnie a sense offictive kinship, what Horowitz terms a ‘super-family’;3. shared historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common past orpasts, including heroes, events and their commemoration;4. one or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified butnormally include religion, customs, or language;5. a link with a homeland, not necessarily its physical occupation by the ethnie,only its symbolic attachment to the ancestral land, as with diaspora peoples;6. a sense of solidarity on the part of at least some sections of the ethnie’spopulation” 29

We may also note here the differentiation between primordial vs. instrumentalapproaches. According to the primordial approach, ethnic ties are based on birth andother ‘givens’ and are seen as static and immutable. 30 Relatively conversely,according to the instrumental approach, ethnic ties are socially constructed and afunction of circumstances and expediency, including material gains. 31 In practice,scholarly approaches are generally neither purely primordial or instrumental, but thematter is rather about emphasis. 32 For our purposes here, the likely malleability ofethnicity is a particularly pertinent feature to keep in mind.

We will now examine potential interaction and influence based on these six features.

Some of the features and related aspects of them may be archaeologically attestable,others less so, so it is necessary to go beyond archaeology “proper” here. 33 As regardsthe first feature, both communities seem to have a unique name, i.e. Philistia 34 and

26 See Yasur-Landau 2010, Yasur-Landau 2012.27 See e.g. Kletter 2006, pp. 573-575.28 Cf. Pitkänen 2004; similarly Kletter 2006, p. 574.29 Hutchinson and Smith 1996, pp. 4-7.30 Hutchinson and Smith 1996, p. 9.31 Hutchinson and Smith 1996, p. 9.32 Hutchinson and Smith 1996, p. 9.33

Cf. comments in Pitkänen 2004; Kletter 2006, pp. 573-580.34 Even if the name Philistia may not have been entirely unique in a wider context, cf. the kingdom ofTaita of Palastin/Palistin in the north (see Singer 2012, incl. p. 462).



5

Israel, certainly these names would serve to distinguish these two communities fromeach other in their local context, at least according to the biblical materials. 35

As regards the second feature, ancestry, it is possible that both saw themselves interms of genealogies that described their descent in relation to the known surrounding

world. The Israelites expressed this through the genealogies and stories in Genesis. Asfor the Philistines, they may have had similar concepts. Finkelberg suggests thatrelationships with surrounding countries were built into genealogy in Greektradition. 36 Finkelberg further suggests that the extant Greek genealogies, even thoughdating from a late period, include reflections from the Bronze (Heroic) Age. 37 Israelitegenealogies seem to work in a similar way. So, we may have influence from onesystem to the other. As one option, the Israelites might have constructed theirgenealogy based on the Aegean Philistine model, or both may be based on an alreadycommon tradition. 38

In addition, in line with discussion above, in terms of descent, the Philistines wouldclearly appear to have traced their origins to the Aegean, but also there may be linksto Anatolia to some extent. We cannot however construct a possible genealogy forthem due to lack of textual evidence As for the Israelites, after a demarcation ofvarious surrounding nations as having descended from Noah (who of course tracesback to Adam) in Genesis 9-10, the Israelites consider the Patriarchs as the significantancestors 39 from which the nation proper descended (Genesis 12 ff.).

As for the third feature, shared historical memories, both would have a foundationstory that attests migration. Again, it seems fair to claim that the Philistines trace theirorigins to Aegean, and possibly partly to Anatolia. 40 The Israelites have Mesopotamiaand then a sojourn in and liberation from slavery in Egypt as important components oftheir foundation story. 41 One may also note that, in (later) Greek foundation storiesthere was often an initial wave of settlement or exploration and then only later moreextensive settlement (see Weinfeld 1993, pp. 6-9), and this may have some similaritywith the Patriarchal stories. Also, as with migrants in general, the Philistines are likelyto have felt that they were looking for a better life when they migrated, 42 and thiswould also have been the case with the Israelites according to the biblical tradition. 43 A postulated Philistine story about migration may have affected the Israelite story inbroad terms, even though, equally, the Israelite story may also, at least in a conceptual

35 Again, cf. e.g. Singer 2012 on Palastin/Palistin in the north.36 See Finkelberg 2005, pp. 24-41.37 Finkelberg 2005, pp. 24-41.38 It would seem unlikely that the Israelites influenced the Philistines, as the Greek genealogy seems toinclude reflections of a time before the emergence of the Israelites.39 I know this term can be considered as vague, but I trust it is sufficiently clear for the presentpurposes.40 Cf. also Weinfeld 1993, pp. 2-9 which suggests comparable founder/migration traditions (note alsograve traditions in Weinfeld 1993, pp. 14-15 in (later) Greek and Roman realm.41 Note that colonial conquests involve symbolical ceremonies that stake a “legal” claim over theterritory in question, this may involve e.g. raising flags or erecting pillars (see Day 2008, pp. 11-27),similarly altars with Abraham (e.g. Gen 12; cf. Altar on Ebal in Dtr 27 and Joshua 8).42

Cf. Yasur-Landau 2010, pp. 97-12143 Cf. e.g. Exodus 3:7-8. Cf. this also e.g. with the American foundation myth (incl. Puritans andreligious persecution).



6

sense, be based on reality, 44 and may even have affected any stories the Philistinesmay have held, 45 even when the Israelite story was in all likelihood reworked into astylised foundation story. I have elsewhere recently argued that this foundation storywas based on a concept of a Hexateuch. 46 Over the centuries, the Israelite foundationstory would then have been expanded with e.g. the stories about king David, and king

Solomon, and so on. As already indicated above, we may of course keep in mind herethat human history is full of migrations and settler-colonial episodes. 47

We will leave the fourth feature, common culture, till later in this paper as features 5and 6 will not require much consideration here and can be quickly covered below. Asregards the fifth feature, as already indicated, the Philistines would probably have hada link with a homeland in the Aegean (possibly also Anatolia). The Israelites do notseem to think of Mesopotamia or Egypt as their homelands all that much, even thoughthere is some indication in the bible that the former is considered thus in somerespects (Deuteronomy 26:5-8; Joshua 24:2-4 here). Thus, the conceptions of theIsraelites and the Philistines seem broadly similar, and yet attest some differences.Some conceptual influence from one society to the other is possible in a broad sense.A link with Canaan as a homeland of course becomes important in later Israelitediaspora history.

In terms of the sixth feature, a sense of solidarity, we may surmise that both societiesattested it. With the Philistines, there were several differing groups that migrated fromAegean/Anatolia, such as Sherden, Tjeker/Sikel and a group called as Philistines“proper”. 48 Certainly the Philistines themselves would seem to have exhibitedsolidarity in Iron Age I at least, 49 even though we do not at present seem to be able totell what such solidarity might have entailed in detail in Southern Philistia, or acrossto northern Philistia for example. As for the Israelites, the biblical documents attestsolidarity across twelve tribes that are all seen to descend from the patriarchs. Someof this solidarity may be programmatic in the biblical documents, but it would appear

44 Note that e.g. Faust 2006 argues based on archaeological evidence that the Israelites originated fromoutside45 Again, nothing here can be demonstrated due to lack of written material from Philistia.46 See Pitkänen 2012; see also e.g. Pitkänen 2010 for some of the concepts that relate to Joshua as partof the Hexateuch. I would also argue that the Hexateuch attests a programmatic ideology of a settler-colonial society. As Day suggests, with reference to numerous examples from world history, that a“process of supplanting” by a society involves three stages: “Firstly, it must establish a legal or de jure

claim to the land” (Day 2008, p. 7). Then, “a supplanting society must proceed to the next stage of theprocess by making a claim of effective or de facto proprietorship over the territory that it wants to haveas its own” (ibid, p. 8). Such a claim “is commonly established by exploring the territory’s furthestreaches, naming its geographic and other features, fortifying its borders, tilling its soil, developing itsresources, and, most importantly, peopling the invaded lands” (ibid). Lastly, “the last and most elusivestep of the process…involves establishing a claim of moral proprietorship over the territory” (ibid). Forthis to succeed, “such a claim must outweigh the claim that any other society, including the previousinhabitants, has the potential to assert” (ibid). In broad sweep, for the Israelite society, the patriarchalpromises reflect the first point (note also our comments above, fn 41 about the patriarchs erectingaltars), the conquest and settlement the second (cf. also the territorial descriptions in Joshua, and thePentateuch as a whole), and recourse to Yahwism as an exclusive ideology (together with theconstitution of the new society as in e.g. Deuteronomy) the moral claim (cf. also e.g. Dt 7 in terms ofcontrasting this new Yahwistic society with the previous inhabitants, etc.).47

See Day 2008.48 See e.g. Yasur-Landau 2012, p. 329.49 See Shai 2012.



7

that at least some of the tribes may have in actuality felt this way (e.g. Judges 5). 50 The Philistine threat could have reinforced any existing solidarity further, 51 eventhough problems with other peoples that are described in Judges, and already thepossible idea of patriarchal promises and the settlement process in the early Iron Agein itself could already have reinforced such solidarity.

Looking now at the fourth feature, elements of common culture, we have alreadynoted above the pork taboo and pottery and circumcision differences in Iron Age I. 52 Otherwise, there may have been some influences that actually flowed between the twocultures. For example, if the Philistines migrated through Anatolia, they may havebrough Kizzuwatnean ritual influences with them, as these are similar to the ones inLeviticus, however, this influence may have already been transmitted by other means,too. 53 There are also other features that can be traced back culturally to the Aegeanand Hittite realms, and some of this influence may have been brought in by thePhilistines. If so, this would also reinforce the idea that the Philistines originate fromboth Aegean and Anatolia, some circular argumentation may be involved, too. Someof the narratives in Judges-Samuel, for example the David and Goliath story in 1 Sam17, clearly seem to attest Aegean style features. 54 Or, the the Zalpa legend attested inthe Hittite realm can be compared with Judges 10:3-4 and 12:8-9. 55 The description ofSamson as grinding as a punishment in Judges 16:21 is similar to a custom attested inAnatolia, 56 even when such cultural influence could at least potentially already haveflowed in earlier, or, at least in theory, from some other source otherwise unattested tous. Even some of the style of e.g. Pentateuchal narration could have been influencedby proto-Greek type of narrative (or ways of oral storytelling), even when we have nowritten attestation of such narrative until the Homeric Epic. 57 In a methodologicalsense, a major difficulty here is of course that we do not have texts available from thePhilistines, nor texts from ancient Greece from ca. 1200-700 BC. Much has to do thenwith estimating how far and in which way later Greek traditions and cultural featuresmay go back to this time. Some continuity may exist, even when it seems that thereare also many discontinuities. 58 The other obvious methodological difficulty relates tothe question of the origin and dating of the Israelite documents preserved in theHebrew bible, a much disputed topic.

50 Exodus-Joshua of course presents the Israelites as unified, with unity of Israel being one of thehallmarks of Deuteronomy and Joshua in particular.51

Cf. Faust 2006.52 Referring to Faust 2012, pp. 128-131 for a summary. It should be kept in mind that the Philistinessuddenly lost some of these boundary markers at the beginning of Iron Age II, very possibly much dueto being subjugated by the Israelites, see Faust and Lev-Tov 2011, pp. 23-26.53 Cf. Feder 2011.54 See e.g. Stager 2006, p. 381; Yasur-Landau 2012, p. 557n31.55 As pointed out by Collins 2007, pp. 147-14856 See Collins 2007, p. 123.57 Cf. also comments in Gordon 1965.58 See Finkelberg 2005, incl. pp. 161-176. Note that the Linear B texts (even though only texts ofadministrative nature) and the Ahhiyawa letters (diplomatic correspondence) are the most notableextant textual attestations from Late Bronze Age Aegean; for the Ahhiyawa texts, see Beckman, Bryceand Cline 2011; cf. also e.g. Kelder 2009 for further considerations of the area in the Late Bronze Age.

Note also that the Late Bronze language of the Linear B texts was a form of Greek, and that in theancient Near East, traditions and concepts could demonstrably be passed on within a society (andlanguage area) through many centuries.



8

Summary and Conclusions

We can see that there were broad similarities in the nature of the Philistine andIsraelite societies. Both (arguably) were settler-colonial societies tracing their originsto outside the land they were occupying, and their emergence also fits in the time

around and after the collapse of the Late Bronze “world” of the area. The societiesvied for dominance in the area, with the Philistines initially having the upper hand andthe Israelites apparently largely conquering them later on. The two societies are likelyto have demarcated themselves from each other, at the same time, they also appear tohave had broad commonalities. Some of the commonalities may have been result ofdirect interaction, with the possibility of direct flow of influence from the Philistinesto the Israelites in such respects as in ways of seeing the world and in myths, ritualsand storytelling. And, of course, there may be more commonalities and flows ofinfluence yet to be discovered. 59

Bibliography

Beckman, G, T. Bryce and E. Cline, 2011, The Ahhiyawa Texts . WAW 28, Atlanta:Society of Biblical Literature.

Collins, B.J., 2007, The Hittites and Their World . Archaeology and Biblical Studies 7,Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Day, D., 2008, Conquest, How Societies Overwhelm Others , Oxford: OUP.

Dietrich, W., ‘David and the Philistines: Literature and History’, in Galil, Gilboa,Maeir, and Kahn, eds., 2012, pp. 79-98.

Dothan, T., and M. Dothan, 1992, People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines .New York: Macmillan.

Faust, A., 2006, Israel’s Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance . London: Equinox.

Faust, A., 2012, ‘Between Israel and Philistia: Ethnic Negotiations in the SouthDuring Iron Age I’, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn, eds., 2012, pp. 121-135.

Faust, A., and J. Lev-Tov, 2011, ‘The Constitution of Philistine Identity: EthnicDynamics in Twelfth to Tenth Century Philistia’. OJA 30(1), pp.13–31.

Feder, Y., 2011, Blood Expiation in Hittite and Biblical Ritual: Origins, Context and Meaning . WAW Supplement Series 2, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Finkelberg, M., 2005, Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek HeroicTradition . Cambridge: CUP.

Galil, G., A. Gilboa, A.M. Maeir, and D. Kahn, eds., 2012, The Ancient Near East inthe 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History . AOAT 392. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

Garfinkel, Y., S. Ganor and M.G. Hasel, 2012, ‚The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafaafter Four Seasons of Excavations, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn, eds., 2012, pp.149-174.

59 I am currently working to expand this research further.



9

Gordon, C.H., 1965, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilizations .2nd edn, New York: W.W. Norton.

Hutchinson, J. and A.D., Smith, ed. (1996) Ethnicity. Oxford Readers. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Kakel, C.P., 2011, The American West and the Nazi East: A Comparative and Interpretive Perspective . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kelder, J.M., 2009, The Kingdom of Mycenae: A Great Kingdom in the Late Bronze Age Aegean , PhD dissertation, VU University Amsterdam.

Kiernan, B., 2007, Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Killebrew, A.E., 2005, Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israelites, 1300-1100 B.C.E. Archaeology and Biblical Studies 9, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.

Kletter, R., 2006, ‘Can a Proto-Israelite Please Stand Up? Notes on Ethnicity of IronAge Israel and Judah’, in Maeir and de Miroschedji, ed., 2006, pp. 573-586.

Lamana, G., 2008, Domination without Dominance: Inca-Spanish Encounters in Early Colonial Peru . Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Lemaire, A., ‘West Semitic Epigraphy and the History of the levant during the 12 th-10 th Centuries BCE’, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn, eds., 2012, pp. 291-307.

Levene, M., 2005, Genocide in the Age of the Nation State, Volume I: The Meaning ofGenocide . London: I.B. Tauris.

Maeir, A.M., 2012, ‘Insights on the Philistine Culture and Related Issues: An

Overview of 15 years of Work at Tell es-Safi/Gath’, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, andKahn, eds., 2012, pp. 345-404.

Maeir, A.M., and P. de Miroschedji, ed., 2006, “I Will Speak the Riddle of AncientTimes”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on theOccasion of His Sixtieth Birthday . Winona Lake, In.: Eisenbrauns.

Millard, A., ‚Scripts and their Uses in the 12th-10th Centuries BCE’, in Galil, Gilboa,Maeir, and Kahn, eds., 2012, pp. 405-412.

Pitkänen, P.M.A., 2004, ‘Ethnicity, Assimilation and the Israelite Settlement’.Tyndale Bulletin 55.2, pp. 161-182.

Pitkänen, P.M.A., 2010, Joshua . Apollos Old Testament Commentary 6, Leicester:IVP.

Pitkänen, P.M.A., 2012, ’Provenance of Leviticus and the Composition of thePentateuch’,http://www.academia.edu/1974719/Provenance_of_Leviticus_and_the_Composition_of_the_Pentateuch, accessed 10/11/2012. Also under consideration by a journal.

Preston, D.L., 2009, The Texture of Contact: European and Indian SettlerCommunities on the Frontiers of Iroquia, 1667-1783 . Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress.

Shai, I., ‘The Political Organisation of the Philistines’, in Maeir and de Miroschedji,ed., 2006, pp. 347-359.

philistine influence on israelite ethnic

Documents