首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     


The Amman Citadel Inscription Again
Authors:William H. Shea
Affiliation:1. The Department of General History, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israelavraham.faust@biu.ac.il
Abstract:Iron I sites in the northwestern Negev were identified as Philistine on the basis of the references to Philistines in this region in the book of Genesis, its proximity to Gaza, and the occurrence of Philistine pottery. Triggered by emerging discrepancies between the finds at these sites and the presumed Philistine attributes (e.g. the rarity of pork, hearths), this article aims to reevaluate the finds in the periphery of Philistia, mainly in the northwestern Negev, but also in the Shephelah and the Yarkon basin. A systematic examination of the data reveals a clear pattern in which the population of peripheral sites gradually adopted certain Philistine attributes (Philistine pottery and cooking jugs, which were avoided during the first phase of Philistine settlement), but continued to systematically avoid others (Aegean-type hearths and significant amounts of pork), and maintained clear and sharp boundaries with the Philistine centers. A thorough examination of the data suggests that most of the inhabitants in the periphery of Philistia were the descendants of the local Canaanite population of the Late Bronze Age, who were in the process of renegotiating their identity with the emerging ethnicities of the Philistines in the urban centers of the southern coastal plain and the Israelites farther west. While not forming a unified group, and probably being politically dominated by Philistia, the inhabitants of the settlements in the periphery of Philistia did not adopt a Philistine identity, maintained clear boundaries with the Philistines, and should not be treated as Philistines.
Keywords:Philistines  Canaanites  ethnicity  identity  boundary maintenance  Iron Age  Israel  Philistia
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号