The Cambridge Prehistory of the Bronze and Iron Age Mediterranean

14 Migration, Hybridization, and Resistance: Identity Dynamics in the Early Iron Age Southern Levant

Abstract

The early Iron Age (twelfth–eleventh centuries BC) in the southern Levant (Israel/Palestine) saw the disintegration of Egyptian imperial control and of the Canaanite city-state system that had characterized the region in the Late Bronze Age. New social and cultural groups – Philistines and Israelites – appeared on the historical stage. Recent archaeological research has added much new data about both groups, yet has also questioned (rightly or wrongly) traditional paradigms concerning their emergence in the land. When critically examined, it becomes clear that Philistine and Israelite identities are dialectically related. A variety of processes visible in the archaeological record – migration, interaction, border encounters, and separation – led to ethnic negotiation and demarcation. Moreover the Canaanite population, the substratum upon which the new group identities were built, played a neglected yet highly important role in the processes of ethnogenesis that took place in the region during the early Iron Age.

Introduction

The twelfth and eleventh centuries BC in the eastern Mediterranean mark the dramatic transition from the Late Bronze Age to the early Iron Age. While the earlier period was characterized by an interconnected network of states, city-states, and powerful palatial societies, the beginning of the Iron Age saw its violent disintegration and transformation into a mosaic of regional cultural and ethnic entities. These entities, however, formed the foundations of new local powers such as the Neo-Hittite kingdoms, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, Amon, Moab and Edom, the Philistine Pentapolis, the Cypriot city-kingdoms, and more (for the great variety of problems and scholarly opinions concerning related issues, see, e.g., Ward and Joukowsky 1992; Drews 1993; Gitin et al. 1998; Oren 2000; Killebrew and Lehmann 2013, all with previous literature).

In the southern Levant (ancient Canaan), the early Iron Age witnessed the end of Egyptian imperial control and the breakdown of the Canaanite city-state system that characterized the region in the Late Bronze Age. New social and cultural groups – Philistines and Israelites – appeared on the historical stage. Since both groups are known from the Bible, their emergence in Canaan has long been the focus of research by ‘biblical archaeology’ (Killebrew 2005 with bibliography). This branch of archaeology, unique to Palestine, was conceived by its practitioners as the handmaiden of the biblical texts (and for that matter, of other ancient Near Eastern written sources), authenticating and illustrating them (Moorey 1991; Davis 2004). Under such a research paradigm, coupled with a normative cultural-historical approach, the appearance of new material culture assemblages associated with the Philistines and Israelites could have been interpreted only as the result of migratory movements (for classic early statements, see Macalister 1914; Alt 1925; Albright 1949: 112–20).

During the 1970s and 1980s, the archaeology of the southern Levant began to break free from the tyranny of texts by embracing an anthropological-environmental approach, partially inspired by the ‘New Archaeology’, and a longue durée perspective in the spirit of the Annales School. Together with intensive fieldwork (both excavations and surveys) conducted in the highlands, the new paradigm opened the door for innovative explanations concerning the emergence of ancient Israel (Bunimovitz 1995a: 65–67; Bunimovitz and Faust 2010: 47). This emergence was then considered as the outcome of socio-economic processes within Canaan rather than entry of people from elsewhere. The new explanations, however, were mainly functional and showed little interest in cultural processes of ethnogenesis, despite the fact that they aroused a lively debate about Israelite ethnicity (Finkelstein 1988; 1994; 1996a; Bunimovitz 1994a; Dever 1993; 1995). Notably, research concerning the Philistines was eclipsed in those years by an encompassing interest in the Iron Age I Israelite settlement phenomenon.

In recent years, new archaeological data, revised chronological schemes, critique of time-worn conventions and paradigms, and a growing interest in the symbolic aspects of culture (undoubtedly an impact of the current postprocessual era) have all blown fresh wind into the sails of Iron Age I archaeology in the southern Levant. A major portion of recent fieldwork and research is concerned with the heartland of Philistia and its periphery – regions where Egyptians, Philistines, Canaanites, and Israelites met and interacted politically and socially. New information stemming from both regions has brought into relief issues related to the chronology and character of this interaction as well as its cultural implications (domination and resistance, ethnic negotiation and demarcation, ethnogenesis, and more). The present study reviews developments in the archaeological investigation of early Iron Age Canaan, developments that have broadened our understanding of cultural processes during this formative period in the history of the region.

Setting the Stage: Canaan at the End of the Late Bronze Age

During the Late Bronze Age, Canaan was governed by one of the major powers of the eastern Mediterranean – the Egyptian New Kingdom. As evident from a variety of Egyptian texts, especially the Amarna Letters, the politico-territorial landscape of the region in the heyday of the Eighteenth Dynasty (fifteenth–fourteenth centuries BC) comprised a few Egyptian garrison cities along the coast and inland, as well as an array of petty Canaanite kingdoms or city-states (Moran 1992; Bunimovitz 1995b: 326–27; Goren et al. 2004: 320–25). Although enjoying a certain amount of autonomous rule, the Canaanite city-states suffered from sharp demographic decline, coupled with compulsory obligations to their Egyptian overlords. This double burden and the need of local elites to maintain their status and rule had a heavy, negative impact on Canaanite economic and social systems (Bunimovitz 1994b). As archaeological excavations and surveys made us aware, Late Bronze Age Canaan exhibited a general poverty in both its urban culture and its countryside (Gonen 1984; London 1992; Herzog 2003). Moreover, the weakness of the Canaanite city-states enabled the rise of a substantial body of non-sedentary elements outside the established social systems, mainly the ^cApiru (social outcasts, refugees, or runaways) and the Sutu (pastoral nomads) (Na’aman 1986; Rainey 1995; Bunimovitz 1994a: 193–202; see further below).

The growing insecurity in Canaan that resulted from such unruly elements roaming the countryside without interference led to changes in both the nature and extent of Egyptian involvement in the land during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Dynasties (thirteenth to first half of the twelfth centuries BC). Egyptian sources and archaeological data alike suggest that the pharaohs of these dynasties took vigorous measures to pacify Canaan: punitive expeditions against the non-sedentary groups; annexation and direct rule; erection of a network of ‘Governor’s Residencies’ in the main city-states, especially in the southern coastal plain and the adjacent Shephelah (low hills); economic exploitation of the country, and more (see, e.g., Weinstein 1981: 17–23; Singer 1988; for a different interpretation, see Higginbotham 2000).

Two famous Egyptian sources put their finger on the pulse of these days: Merneptah’s Hymn of Victory (or ‘Israel’) Stela from his fifth year of reign (ca. 1207 BC), with corresponding reliefs at the Karnak temple, and Ramesses’s III inscriptions and reliefs on the walls of his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu, recounting the sea and land battles against a coalition of invading ‘Sea Peoples’ during his eighth year (ca. 1175 BC). These sources bring into sharp relief (no pun intended) the main menace that threatened the Egyptian pharaohs at the turn of the thirteenth century BC: unsettled groups of people, either of local descent or immigrants from afar. It is rather telling that while Mernaptah boasts that Israel ‘is laid waste, his seed is not’, and Ramesses III claims to have been victorious over the Philistines and other Sea Peoples, both allegedly subjugated groups shaped the history of the country long after the Egyptians left Canaan.

Based on the latest Egyptian objects found in Canaan, Egypt must have retreated from the land late in the twelfth century BC, presumably during the reign of Ramesses VI (ca. 1143–1136 BC) (Weinstein 1992; Finkelstein 2000: 161–62). Without Egyptian hegemonic control, Canaan was left to its own destiny for 200 years, until the next Egyptian intervention in the affairs of the land during the Twenty-Second Dynasty (Shoshenk’s I campaign in late tenth century BC). This left ample ground and time for local and newly arrived entities to establish themselves in Canaan and negotiate their identities through a variety of social and cultural processes.

Aegean Migration and Colonization: The Philistines in Canaan

The migration of the Philistines to the southern coast of Canaan as part of the Sea Peoples phenomenon has been the subject of intense historical, philological, and archaeological research for more than a century. Until recently, this was the only group of Sea Peoples that had been satisfactorily located and comprehensively investigated. Now, tantalizing archaeological and textual evidence seems to attest to the settlement of yet another group of Philistines in the Amuq Plain and the emergence there during the eleventh century BC of a powerful Philistine kingdom (‘Land of Palistin’) (Harrison 2009; Hawkins 2009: 166–72; cf. Singer 2012: 466–68).

In this respect, one must recall the sophisticated attempts to deconstruct the claim for Sea Peoples settlement along the Levantine littoral by promoting an alternative mercantile model for the arrival of Aegean-derived pottery there (Sherratt 1998; see also Bauer 1998). Admittedly, recent archaeological research, mainly at Tel Dor, has questioned the familiar picture based on Egyptian records (mainly the Onomasticon of Amenope and the Wenamun report), according to which two groups of Sea Peoples – the Šikila/Tjekker (SKL) and Sherden (ŠRDN) – settled along the Canaanite coast north of Philistia (Gilboa 2005; 2006–2007; cf. Mazar 1990: 305–306; Dothan and Dothan 1992: 213–14; Stager 1995: fig. 2). Notably, however, a thorough study of the Carmel coast, the ^cAkko Plain and the Lebanese coast in the early Iron Age maintains that the mercantile model as an explanation for the occurrence of ‘Sea Peoples’ pottery (locally produced Mycenaean IIIC1 ware) is applicable (in part) only to the northern coast of Canaan but not to Philistia (Gilboa 2005; see also Barako 2000).

Indeed, current excavations in three towns of the Philistine Pentapolis – Ashkelon (Stager 2008), Ekron-Tel Miqne (Dothan and Gitin 2008), and Gath-Tell es-Safi (Maeir 2008a) – endorse the prevailing consensus about Philistine immigration into southern Canaan (see map, Figure 14.1). While the (in)famous equation of ‘pots and people’ has been the target of much scholarly criticism, it should be recognized that, in the Philistine case, it seems to work: not only pottery but a rich assemblage of material culture traits completely foreign to Canaanite cultural traditions suddenly appear in a restricted geographical area known from written sources to have been occupied by a certain group of people – the Philistines (for trait lists, see, e.g., Barako 2000: 522–24; Killebrew 2006–2007: 252–55; Maeir 2008b; and see Figure 14.2 – the Aegean-affiliated cylindrical loomweights from Philistine Ashkelon). The only viable explanation for such a distinct culture change is migration (Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996; Killebrew 2006–2007: 255–57; Yasur-Landau 2010; Faust and Lev-Tov 2011; Maeir et al. 2013).

Figure 14.1. Map of southern Canaan: the Philistine heartland and its periphery.

Figure 14.2. Aegean-affiliated cylindrical loomweights from Iron Age I Philistine Ashkelon. Courtesy of L.E. Stager and D. Master, The Leon Levy Expedition to Ashkelon.

Since the Philistines were considered to be foreigners in Canaan, it is no wonder that the investigation of their sites and material culture focused first and foremost on the intriguing question of their origins. It is only in recent decades that archaeologists began to question the full array of the complex cultural aspects related to Philistine migration and settlement in the new land, its political and cultural impact on the indigenous population, the symbolic meaning of their self-identification, and post-migration development processes as seen in Philistine material culture.

Before addressing these issues in more detail, it should be noted that two basic aspects of Philistine settlement in Canaan – its character and chronology – have recently been reassessed and challenged. Since these aspects are crucial for understanding and interpreting early Philistine cultural interaction, we review them first.

Egyptians and Philistines: Interaction and Ethnic Demarcation

Influenced by Ramesses III’s victorious claims over the invading Sea Peoples, early scholars argued that the Egyptians themselves settled the defeated Philistines in their strongholds within southern Canaan. This idea was criticized on archaeological grounds by Bietak (1993) and Stager (1995: 340–44). Relying on the absence of Twentieth Dynasty monuments, buildings, and artifacts from heartland Philistia, on the one hand, and, on the other, the restricted distribution – only in this very region – of locally produced Mycenaean IIIC1 pottery (which supposedly represents the initial settlement of the Philistines: Mazar 1985; Singer 1985; Stager 1985), Bietak and Stager envisioned a different scenario. According to their reconstruction, the Philistines succeeded in carving out a territory for themselves in southern Canaan at the expanse of the Egyptians and their Canaanites vassals. Ramesses III retreated inland to his already established strongholds, and contained the Philistines within a cordon sanitaire. His boasted victory over the Sea Peoples was, therefore, no more than a Pyrrhic one, and he was unable to reassert Egyptian hegemony over all of southern Canaan (for the consensus about the violent circumstances of Philistine settlement, see also Weinstein 1992; Bunimovitz 1998; Barako 2007).

This compelling view of events in southern Canaan during the first half of the twelfth century BC was harshly criticized. Anticipating a bidirectional movement of Mycenaean IIIC1 and Egyptian(ized) pottery between contemporaneous Twentieth Dynasty Egyptian strongholds and Philistine sites, new critiques interpret the lack of evidence for such movement between the supposedly co-existing communities as decisive for their chronological separation. They argue, therefore, that Philistine settlement in southern Canaan began only after the reign of Ramesses VI, ca. 1130 BC (Finkelstein 1995; 2000; for an early statement, see Ussishkin 1985: 223).

Lurking within both the ‘cultural segregation’ and the ‘chronological separation’ views is the implicit premise, embedded within the tenets of both cultural-historical and processual paradigms, that there is a straightforward correlation between the extent of interaction between human groups and the degree of similarity in their material culture (Binford 1972a: 83; 1972b: 197–99; Hodder 1982: 8, with refs.). Relying on ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological evidence, Bunimovitz and Faust (2001) showed that this premise is flawed and that restricted distribution of artifacts does not contradict interaction. Material culture differences are not necessarily the result of a lack of between-group contact. Rather it is interaction that may increase the need for group self-identification (see, e.g., Barth 1969; Cohen 1974; Hodder 1982; Cohen 1985).

The material consequences of ethnic demarcation would be that some diacritical features chosen by the groups involved to mark their identity would have a restricted distribution over the social landscape. These observations are enough to cast doubt on the foundation of the low chronology suggested for the Philistine settlement. Furthermore, since symbolic delineation of group identity and boundaries is accentuated at times of competition (Cohen 1974: 92–95; Hodder 1982: 25–31; 1986: 2), items symbolizing cultural identity may be held back in spite of interaction. Since Philistine relations with the Egyptians during Iron Age I most probably were characterized by animosity and strong competition over settlements, population, and resources, it is likely that the social meaning of the locally produced Mycenaean IIIC pottery as well as its Egyptian counterpart prevented their movement and adoption outside the restricted zones in which they communicated group identity and cohesion (similarly Stone 1995: 23; Barako 2007; on the locally produced Mycenaean IIIC as encapsulating Aegean/Philistine behavioral patterns, see Bunimovitz and Faust 2001: 7; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2010: 66).

Philistine and Canaanites: Settlement, Interaction, and Hybridization

While interaction between Philistines and Egyptians in southern Canaan took place between two hostile polities and resulted in a containment policy and identity demarcation, interaction between Philistines and Canaanites was more complex and carried significant consequences for both sides. First, it should be remembered that the Philistine–Egyptian encounter lasted only a few decades, from the days of Ramesses III to the final withdrawal of Egypt from Canaan ca. 1130 BC. In contrast, Philistine interaction with the indigenous population of southern Canaan continued for hundreds of years, until the Babylonian conquest of Philistia in 604 BC. Second, unlike the Egyptian government apparatus that retreated to the border of the Philistine entity and eventually left the region altogether, Canaanites interacting with Philistines either shared with them the same settlements or lived next to them in neighboring sites. These important issues need further elaboration, since they are the key to understanding the variety of identity processes stemming from the different contexts of Philistine–Canaanite interaction.

At the end of the Late Bronze Age, the southern coastal plain of Canaan and the adjacent Shephelah (lowland) were spotted with dozens of sites, undoubtedly the most densely populated area in the entire country at that time. In the Iron Age I, however, the number of sites dropped drastically (Finkelstein 1996b; 2000). Further inquiry reveals a two-fold change in the settlement pattern of the southern part of the region, between Lachish and Tell es-Safi-Gath: on the one hand, an almost complete abandonment of the countryside, and, on the other, a great expansion of urban life. In sheer contrast, settlement in the northern Shephelah, from the Sorek Valley to the region of Gezer, continued almost unchanged (Shavit 2000: 215–17; Singer 1985:116–18). This pattern was interpreted by Bunimovitz (1998: 107–108; cf. Shavit 2008: 154–60; Faust 2013) as reflecting Philistine forced syneocism – a purposeful displacement of the Canaanite rural population from their own territory, relocating them in the main Philistine centers. Canaanite settlements at the periphery of heartland Philistia escaped this hostile takeover, at least for the initial stage of Philistine settlement.

It should be emphasized that the major urban centers of the Philistines in southern Canaan (the famous Pentapolis – Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath-Tell es-Safi, and Ekron-Tel Miqne) were all long-established Canaanite cities inhabited by the indigenous population (Shai 2009). The coexistence of Philistines and Canaanites in the urban environment of heartland Philistia inevitably led to changes in the original cultural identity of both peoples (Yasur-Landau 2012).

It is clear today that many of the unique, Aegean-affiliated attributes of Philistine culture (e.g., pottery forms and decorations [Figure 14.3], special vessel types, hearths, loomweights, dietary habits, script, and more) were either abandoned or changed by the end of Iron Age I (Stone 1995; Uziel 2007; Faust and Lev-Tov 2011; for a different view, see Maeir et al. 2013). However, as conspicuously exemplified by the seventh-century BC royal dedicatory inscription established by King Achish/Ikausu (the Achaean?) of Ekron in a monumental temple he built for his Mycenaean patron goddess Ptgyh, other cultural attributes (e.g., religious perceptions) seem to have survived much longer (Gitin et al. 1997; Demsky 1997; Schäfer-Lichtenberger 2000; Maeir et al. 2013). Furthermore, after hundreds of years of cultural interaction, Philistines were still referred to in Neo-Assyrian texts as a distinct group with its own land and towns, in other words as a definable political and ethnic unit (Stone 1995: 19–20; Eph‘al 1997: 32–33; Gitin 2004: 61).

Figure 14.3. Aegean-affiliated Bichrome Philistine pottery. While already showing signs of hybridization, its cultural message still symbolized ‘Philistine’ roots. (Collection of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Collection of The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Photo © The Israel Museum, Jerusalem.)

Scholars have variously interpreted the process of Philistine culture change as assimilation (e.g., Dothan 1982; 1998; Bunimovitz 1990), acculturation (e.g., Stager 1995: 335; Stone 1995; Gitin 1998; 2004), creolization (Ben-Shlomo et al. 2004; Killebrew 2005: 233; Maeir 2008b), transculturalism (Hitchcock 2011), entanglement (Hitchcock and Maeir 2013), or cultural fusion (for which the name ‘Canaano-Philistine’ or even ‘Neo-Philistine’ has been suggested; Gadot 2003: 255; Uziel 2007; Ben-Shlomo 2010: 176). These terms define different levels of interaction between an immigrant culture and the host culture, and the nature of the end product of this interaction: in ‘assimilation’, the original immigrant culture completely concedes to the host culture; in ‘acculturation’, there are certain elements left; while in ‘creolization’, ‘entanglement,’ and ‘fusion’ the new culture combines both elements and creates a new cultural entity.

Assimilation does not concur with the new archaeological data from Philistia, while the concept of acculturation also seems to fall short of the intricate process of Philistine cultural transformation. First, as an interpretive framework for studying cultural contacts, acculturation has been widely criticized, mainly for its outdated theoretical basis and one-sided approach, ignoring the complex, multidirectional cultural influences involved in colonial encounters (see Knapp 2008: 53–57). Indeed, acculturation has normally been used to explain the major influence of the local Canaanite population over the incoming Philistines. Only recently has the issue of Philistine influence over their Canaanite subordinates and neighbors begun to be addressed (see, e.g., Yasur-Landau 2005; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008; Maeir 2008b; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011). It seems, however, that as an explanatory model for the effects of Philistine–Canaanite interaction in Philistia and even beyond, hybridization better suits the data at hand than creolization or cultural fusion (van Dommelen 2006: 136–40; for critiques of the loose usage of the concept of creolization, see Stewart 2007; Eriksen 2007).

Emerging as a key concept in postcolonial and cultural studies, hybridization describes the mixture of people and material objects created by colonial encounters that reflects ambivalence toward either a dominant colonial identity or a subservient indigenous one. Neither colonial norms nor indigenous traditions survive intact in such situations, and both give way to new, more ambiguous social and material practices, to new perceptions concerning the meanings and memories of peoples and things. For archaeologists, the concept of hybridization practices – as a social, material, or cultural mixture – has the potential to refine the understanding of any contact situation involving colonization, migration, or ‘acculturation’ (Papastergiadis 1997; van Dommelen 1997; Knapp 2008: 57–61, with further refs.).

Since space does not allow exposition of all insights gained by applying the concept of hybridization to the Philistine case, a few examples must suffice. Following the Philistine introduction to Canaan of an Aegean-inspired material culture, hybridized forms of artifacts began to appear in Philistia and Philistine-affiliated sites. Some of these innovative items, related to the domestic sphere, may have resulted from intercultural marriage; they either disappeared soon thereafter (e.g., perforated cylinder-shaped loomweights; Yasur-Landau 2009; see Figure 14.4), or survived into Iron Age II, leading to changes in local behavioral patterns (e.g., cooking jugs; Yasur-Landau 2005; Ben-Shlomo et al. 2008). Hybridization practices may also be detected in Philistine iconography, which turned into a regional phenomenon combining elements from both Aegean and Canaanite/Levantine traditions (Ben-Shlomo 2010).

Figure 14.4. A product of Philistine hybridization: perforated cylinder-shaped loomweights from Tel Qasile, combining Aegean and Canaanite traditions. (Courtesy of A. Mazar, Tel Qasile Expedition.)

It should be emphasized, however, that while the material culture of Philisita might be interpreted as attesting to cultural merging and the emergence of a ‘Canaano-Philistine’ culture, it seems that identities did not follow suit. As apparent from the Ekron royal dedicatory inscription, after many generations of hiding behind West Semitic names (e.g., Ya^cir, Ada, Ysd, and Padi), the rulers of Ekron still carried with them an Aegean identity (and, eventually, origin memories) as epitomized by King Ikausu, son of Padi. This raises again an old and as yet unresolved issue about the status and number of Philistine immigrants to Canaan: did they comprise only a small elite or a multitude of commoners (e.g., Finkelstein 2000: 172, contra Stager 1995: 344–45)? One may assume that their numbers and their social fabric influenced the character of hybridization practices carried out in Philistia.

While much effort has been invested in studying culture change in heartland Philistia, research on Philistine–Canaanite interaction and its cultural impact on the Philistine periphery has been rather modest (see, e.g., Mazar 1994; 2006: 327–28; Panitz-Cohen and Mazar 2006: 134–37; Faust and Katz 2011; Faust 2012). This important issue has now been thoroughly addressed by the renewed excavations at Tel Beth-Shemesh in the Sorek Valley, at the northern outskirts of Philistia (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008; 2009; 2011).

In a sequence of four successive Iron Age I levels exposed at Beth-Shemesh by the present expedition, Canaanite cultural traditions appear to be dominant (in architecture, pottery [Figure 14.5], bronze production, and more). Locally produced Mycenaean IIIC1 pottery related to the initial phase of Philistine settlement (above) is completely missing. Moreover, contrary to intuitive suppositions by the early excavators of the site, current quantitative analysis of the pottery retrieved clearly indicates that only a meager amount of Aegean-style pottery (decorated and undecorated) of the Bichrome phase (about 5% of the total recovered) reached the site (Figure 14.6). Other items of Philistine type or affiliation are also missing. Furthermore, pork consumption was completely avoided at Beth-Shemesh in contrast to its heavy usage in the cuisine of adjacent Philistine sites (Figure 14.7; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011; cf. Faust 2006: 35–48). It is also worth noting that the Late Bronze Age Canaanite diet included a small yet recognizable amount of pig meat.

Figure 14.5. Iron Age I pottery from Tel Beth-Shemesh reflects strong Canaanite traditions prevalent in the Shephelah and coastal plain alongside Philistine colonization. (Tel Beth-Shemesh Excavations, Bunimovitz and Lederman.)

Figure 14.6. Comparative distribution of Aegean-style pottery (decorated and undecorated) of the Bichrome phase indicating a cultural border at the periphery of Philistia (see Figure 14.1 for site locations; sources: Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011: n. 10).

Figure 14.7. Pork consumption in contemporaneous Iron Age I sites, indicating pig taboo beyond the Philistine sphere of settlement and cultural influence (sources: Bunimovitz and Lederman 2011: n. 12).

This conspicuous distinction between closely neighboring sites cannot be related to economic and ecological factors and must be interpreted within a cultural perspective. We therefore have suggested that the arrival of the Philistines in southern Canaan and their further expansion out of their heartland created competition over land and resources, and led to the formation of social and cultural boundaries in the region (see Figure 14.1; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008; 2009: 120–24; cf. Cohen 1974: 92–95; Hodder 1982: 31). As indicated above, Canaanites living in the territories occupied by the Philistines became part of the Philistine cultural sphere and were themselves implicated in the process of hybridization. Others, living at the periphery of Philistine rule – such as the people of Beth-Shemesh – took advantage of their location and resisted Philistine hegemony. By avoiding foodways and concomitant social habits that characterized their new neighbors (e.g., feasting and banqueting; Bunimovitz 1999; Bunimovitz and Faust 2001: 7; Maeir 2008b with refs.), these Canaanites identified themselves as ‘non-Philistine’. This process led to changes in their way of life and identity. Increased consumption of pork and Aegean-style pottery by the Philistines indicate that, in a mirror-like behavior, they also sharpened their self-definition vis-à-vis the Other at the border (Faust and Lev-Tov 2011). Intriguingly, the social and cultural processes at the boundary of Philistine territory had important repercussions beyond this region, as they are related to the Israelite ethnogenesis.

Cultural Counteraction: Canaanite Resistance and Israelite Ethnogenesis

The Iron Age I period in the southern Levant is characterized by a dramatic change in settlement patterns, marked by the sudden appearance of scores of small villages in the hilly zones, especially in the central highlands. Since this phenomenon has long been related to the emergence of ancient Israel, it was only natural that the mountainous region between Hebron and Shechem became the main focus of archaeological and historical research concerning Israelite origins and identity building. The inhabitants of these small, remote, and sometimes isolated sites were called ‘proto-Israelites’, and the investigation of their lifestyle, economy, and social framework became the study of ancient Israel in its formative period (for comprehensive summaries and bibliography, see, e.g., Finkelstein 1988; Finkelstein and Na’aman 1994; Stager 1998; Dever 2003).

While the question of Israelite origins in the sense of descent is interesting, it is irrelevant to the understanding of the nature and formation of Israelite ethnicity. Whether the ancestors of the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, semi-nomads in Transjordan or in the central highlands, Canaanite peasants, or a combination of some or all of the above is of lesser importance to the question of Israelite ethnogenesis – the moment the Israelites began to see themselves as distinct (Faust 2006). Moreover, the idea that the process of Israelite identity formation and self-definition took place in the central hills and therefore can best be traced in this area raises a few problems. These are related to the location of the process, the archaeological conditions needed for its investigation, and the adequacy of the data at hand.

First, ethnicity is not just the sum of pre-existing cultural differences but rather the result of a process of inclusion and exclusion that sets apart neighboring groups and differentiates one from the ‘other’ (e.g., Barth 1969; Cohen 1985; Jones 1997; Emberling 1997). This process and the unpredictable ethnic markers that a group chooses to stress are related to interaction with the Other and, as such, typically emerge in a contact zone, i.e., the group’s territorial boundaries, rather than at its heartland. Second, if identity building is a process, then a time perspective is required to trace changes in a group’s behavior. In archaeological terms, this means a long stratigraphic sequence is needed in order to study such changes. Since most of the hill country, ‘proto-Israelite’ sites are only of a single period, they provide mere snapshots of a complicated story they cannot fully tell. Third, while the discourse about the emergence of Israel has become more sophisticated theoretically, no new archaeological information has been added to the discussion since the 1980s, when the foundations of our current knowledge about Iron Age I settlement in the highlands were laid by excavations at a number of sites in this region, as well as by intensive archaeological surveys (e.g., Finkelstein 1988).

In light of these difficulties, the importance of archaeological investigations at multi-period sites such as Tel Beth-Shemesh at the geographical and cultural border between the Canaanite/Philistine Shephelah and the ‘proto-Israelite’ central highlands cannot be exaggerated. As shown above, it yielded intriguing insights about Iron Age I identity politics on the border, a factor that brings us to suggest that a significant (if not crucial) part of the process in which ‘Israel’ became a separate entity was a response to Philistine settlement and expansionist policy; as such, it became ‘diffused’ from the lowlands up to the highlands (Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008; for a similar idea, see Faust 2006).

The biblical texts portray the Philistines as the Israelites’ main antagonist or principal Other. Of more than 900 biblical references to Israel’s foes, 46% refer to the Philistines, 30% to Egypt, 18% to the Transjordanian peoples of Amon, Moab, and Edom, along with Amalek, and 6% to the Phoenician cities of Tyre and Sidon. Most interestingly, 76% of the references to Philistines, Philistia, and its cities are related to the time period in Israel’s history considered as Iron Age I, while only 24% are related to Iron Age II, mainly to the Neo-Assyrian period (Gitin 1998: 163; see also Dothan and Cohn 1994; Machinist 2000: 67–69).

Previous research has emphasized security problems posed by the Philistines as a major factor in the formation of the Israelite state, which signaled the crystallization of Israelite ethnicity (e.g., Finkelstein 1989, and refs.). However, major traits that served as Israelite ethnic markers had appeared already in Iron Age I, and could have developed only as part of interactions with the Philistines and in opposition to their ethnic markers (Faust 2006). As we have seen, in Iron Age I, Philistine pressure and expansionist efforts led to strong resistance at the periphery of heartland Philistia. Many scholars today agree that ethnogenesis – the birth of new cultural identities – is defensive, a response to outside threat, competition, or aggression. In other words, it is a form of resistance. Identities provide ontological security (‘we-ness’ vs. ‘other’-ness) in cases of social conflict (Voss 2008: 1; Faust 2006: 136, 138; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008: 26–27, with refs.). Within this context, it is illuminating that the origins of some conspicuous Israelite ethnic markers, e.g., avoidance of pork consumption and decorated pottery, and even the famous Israelite dwelling – the four-room house (Faust and Bunimovitz 2003), are rooted in the Shephelah, in the Philistine-Canaanite border zone (see above; Bunimovitz and Lederman 2008: 24).

It is therefore reasonable to suggest that from the emerging cultural boundary between Canaanites and Philistines, a variety of taboos and local cultural traits could have spread eastward into the hill country, where they would have become shared cultural values of the various groups settled there. Eventually, we would argue, they became ethnic markers. This reconstruction has far-reaching implications for understanding the Israelite ethnogenesis. Instead of regarding the process as one taking place in the central hill country and later encompassing the peripheries of that region, we would reverse the direction of at least part of it: from the western frontier with the Philistines, where the indigenous population was forced to redefine its identity as a result of daily existential competition with the Philistines, inland into the relatively sheltered mountain area that slowly succumbed to Philistine pressure. According to this interpretation, the emergence of a social and symbolic boundary at the western periphery of the hill country had a profound impact on its core. Israelite identity seems to have been forged to some extent under the Philistine hammer.