Philistine Influence on Israelite Ethnic Identity

Paper presented at the annual ASOR meeting, Chicago, Ill., 2012

Pekka Pitknen, 15/11/2012
Abstract
This essay, concentrating on the Iron Age I period, sees the early Israelite and
Philistine societies as two settler-colonial societies vying for dominance. It then
examines characteristics of ethnicity in each society, looking at features that were
distinctive and those that could have been shared, and influences that could have
flowed from one society to the other, with a focus on the possible flow of influences
from Philistia to Israel.
Introductory Remarks
The history of both the Israelite and Philistine societies is a much studied and disputed
area of study. Practically every aspect of the history of ancient Israel has been
subjected to rigorous study and debate, including as it relates to the origin of the
Israelites.1 As for the Philistines, a main bone of contention is the question of their
origins and mode of settlement in the southern Levantine coast.2 In this essay, I will
not attempt to make conclusive arguments for a particular position due to space
limitations and as the central focus here is ethnic interaction between the two societies
However, I will present some related comments from a particular point of view, and
these comments should also help set the context for the discussion of ethnic
interaction.
In my view, it is best to understand both Israel and Philistia as settler-colonial
societies,3 in line with new studies on settler-colonialism that have appeared in the last
10 years or so. In my view this could solve a number of related problems, as such
studies understand settler-colonialism as involving multifaceted historical processes
that have recurred throughout human history.4 These include a combination of
peaceful settlement, displacement, subjugation, war and even genocide.5 More
specifically, such processes may take various lengths of time, varying according to the
case, and also for example involve lengthy periods of peaceful settlement with
episodic bursts of violent expansion through war that may involve dispossession and
genocide. 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 Iron
Age, see Pitknen 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 their
labor with it (emphasis mine). By way of comparison, Wolfe refers to past British colonial activity in
India as franchise colonialism (ibid.). Wolfe further points out that differing colonial modes usually
coexist within a given colonial society, e.g. Native Americans as people to be dispossesed versus
Africans as slaves for economic purposes (ibid.). The operations of settler-colonialism are not
dependent 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 modern
examples 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 is
forced, and can thus be genocidal, cf. e.g. Wolfe 2008, pp. 105, 115-119)

North America indigenous peoples were almost completely displaced, in South Africa
indigenous peoples were left largely intact in a proportional sense (even though there
was a lot of conquest and also genocide involved), and in South America there was a
mixing of conquerors and the indigenes, and with a new resulting Latin American
identity.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 a
programmatic 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 have
differing outcomes. Coming back to ancient Israel and Philistia, what the exact
processes were with each of the Philistines and the Israelites is a topic for further
study, and the settlement mode may even exhibit local variations depending on
migratory and colonial penetration, itself dependent on various factors, of which
relative power between immigrants and each of the local entities may be of
importance.8
A general model of settler-colonialism is naturally in general agreement with those
who see the Philistine settlement as involving violence based on their interpretation of
archaeological evidence.9 However, based on the above, it is in my view natural to
think that aspects, even episodes of peaceful settlement are also included.10 The same
goes for Israel, and, while we cannot go into details here, it would seem feasible to
suggest that such an idea could quite comfortably be conceived to at least broadly fit
with both archaeological and textual evidence on ancient Israel, appropriately
interpreted.11 One important reason to think that violence is included is the change of
the name of the region to Philistia during Iron Age I. Such a change would not be
likely if only peaceful immigration were involved.12
If it is correct to think of both societies as settler-colonial societies, both of them
would also be likely to have had a settler colonial vision of a territory. We have no
idea thus far as to the thinking of the Philistines, but we have the territorial
descriptions in the book of Joshua and in Genesis-Numbers, and much of these could
also be considered as programmatic as with for example the Nazis and the early
Americans.13 Interestingly, and as already noted above, in the former case the vision
6

See e.g. Stannard 1992, Day 2008.

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 differing
processes 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 Pitknen 2010 for a combined
interpretation 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 where
immigration has not fundamentally changed the nation or its name (admittedly thus since the creation
of 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 necessarily
rename the area they settle into, however, when they do rename, this should in my view be seen as
indicative, especially when combined with other lines of evidence. This said, it is true, too, that some
modern 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 was
already established even if not used to designate the country in international parlance).
13
See esp. Kakel 2011.
7

failed, but in the latter it succeeded.14 It appears that both societies were spreading
from their initial bases, i.e. Israelites from the highlands and Philistines from the
southwestern seacoast,15 and then the societies met, with conflict resulting as notably
described in the bible. Interestingly, Faust suggests that there was a Canaanite buffer
zone 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 In
IA I the Philistines appear to have largely had an upper hand,18 but apparently there
was no full colonisation (of the settler-colonial type) and subjugation of the Israelites.
Then in IA IIA the Philistines in a number of respects19 adopted the Semitic material
culture 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 (and
subjugated) 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 the
societies, and the focus here is on IA I, also considering that the biblical documents
and archaeology indicate that a new entity was being born in the highlands at the
time.22 Comparative colonial studies indicate that there may be peaceful interaction
between individuals even when societies are on the whole in conflict and one may be
subjugating the other.23 While the biblical description about the Philistines
concentrates on conflict, aspects of the story of Samson and David also indicate
peaceful coexistence.24
If there was peaceful coexistence included, except for demarcating differences, such
as pork, pottery and circumcision,25 there may have been mutual flows of influence in
issues 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 Kakel
2011, pp. 130-131, versus two visions of the Israelite territory in Pentateuch-Joshua.
15
Cf. Faust 2012, p. 124
16
See Faust 2012, Fig 1 on p. 121, and passim, incl. p. 135. Note also that Khirbet Qeiyafa was
basically in this buffer zone but nevertheless seemingly with Judah in late IA I (see Garfinkel, Ganor
and Hasel 2012), so apparently the Canaanite buffer area was diminishing little by little and perhaps
becoming more like enclaves; perhaps David was active around this buffer zone when in Ziklag, even
when the exact location of Ziklag is not known? (cf. Dietrich 2012). Note that Davids conquests in 2
Sam 8:1-14 can be considered as colonial, even if not necessarily settler-colonial activities, and perhaps
we should consider 1 Kings 4:21 in this sense, too, i.e. as colonial, but not settler-colonial control in
areas 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 Faust
2006) 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. the
situation 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 to
expand 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 catalyst
for 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; see
e.g. Day 2008, in passim; Stannard 1992, in passim).
25
See e.g. Faust 2012, pp. 128-131.

Philistine immigrants were of Aegean, and probably partially Anatolian origin, or

would at least had Anatolian influences,26 the Israelites would seem to have been
influenced by Greek/Anatolian cultural features, conversely, the Philistines would
have been influenced by Semitic cultural features. Later in IA II as the Philistines
were 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 Philistines
became Semiticised.
The field of studies of ethnicity is now quite extensive.27 Without going into details
here, the definition of ethnicity by Hutchinson and Smith captures the related issues
very well in a succinct manner.28 According to Hutchinson and Smith, ethnic
communities or ethnies habitually exhibit, albeit in varying degrees, six main
features:
1. a common proper name, to identify and express the essence of the
community;
2. a myth of common ancestry, a myth rather than a fact, a myth that includes the
idea of a common origin in time and place, and that gives an ethnie a sense of
fictive kinship, what Horowitz terms a super-family;
3. shared historical memories, or better, shared memories of a common past or
pasts, including heroes, events and their commemoration;
4. one or more elements of common culture, which need not be specified but
normally 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 ethnies
population29
We may also note here the differentiation between primordial vs. instrumental
approaches. According to the primordial approach, ethnic ties are based on birth and
other givens and are seen as static and immutable.30 Relatively conversely,
according to the instrumental approach, ethnic ties are socially constructed and a
function of circumstances and expediency, including material gains.31 In practice,
scholarly approaches are generally neither purely primordial or instrumental, but the
matter is rather about emphasis.32 For our purposes here, the likely malleability of
ethnicity 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 regards
the first feature, both communities seem to have a unique name, i.e. Philistia34 and

26

See Yasur-Landau 2010, Yasur-Landau 2012.

See e.g. Kletter 2006, pp. 573-575.
28
Cf. Pitknen 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 Pitknen 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 of
Taita of Palastin/Palistin in the north (see Singer 2012, incl. p. 462).
27

Israel, certainly these names would serve to distinguish these two communities from
each 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 in
terms of genealogies that described their descent in relation to the known surrounding
world. The Israelites expressed this through the genealogies and stories in Genesis. As
for the Philistines, they may have had similar concepts. Finkelberg suggests that
relationships with surrounding countries were built into genealogy in Greek
tradition.36 Finkelberg further suggests that the extant Greek genealogies, even though
dating from a late period, include reflections from the Bronze (Heroic) Age.37 Israelite
genealogies seem to work in a similar way. So, we may have influence from one
system to the other. As one option, the Israelites might have constructed their
genealogy based on the Aegean Philistine model, or both may be based on an already
common tradition.38
In addition, in line with discussion above, in terms of descent, the Philistines would
clearly appear to have traced their origins to the Aegean, but also there may be links
to Anatolia to some extent. We cannot however construct a possible genealogy for
them due to lack of textual evidence As for the Israelites, after a demarcation of
various surrounding nations as having descended from Noah (who of course traces
back to Adam) in Genesis 9-10, the Israelites consider the Patriarchs as the significant
ancestors39 from which the nation proper descended (Genesis 12 ff.).
As for the third feature, shared historical memories, both would have a foundation
story that attests migration. Again, it seems fair to claim that the Philistines trace their
origins to Aegean, and possibly partly to Anatolia.40 The Israelites have Mesopotamia
and then a sojourn in and liberation from slavery in Egypt as important components of
their foundation story.41 One may also note that, in (later) Greek foundation stories
there was often an initial wave of settlement or exploration and then only later more
extensive settlement (see Weinfeld 1993, pp. 6-9), and this may have some similarity
with the Patriarchal stories. Also, as with migrants in general, the Philistines are likely
to have felt that they were looking for a better life when they migrated,42 and this
would 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 in
broad 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.

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 to
include 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 present
purposes.
40
Cf. also Weinfeld 1993, pp. 2-9 which suggests comparable founder/migration traditions (note also
grave 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 the
territory 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. 97-121
43
Cf. e.g. Exodus 3:7-8. Cf. this also e.g. with the American foundation myth (incl. Puritans and
religious persecution).
36

sense, be based on reality,44 and may even have affected any stories the Philistines
may have held,45 even when the Israelite story was in all likelihood reworked into a
stylised foundation story. I have elsewhere recently argued that this foundation story
was based on a concept of a Hexateuch.46 Over the centuries, the Israelite foundation
story 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 here
that 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 5
and 6 will not require much consideration here and can be quickly covered below. As
regards the fifth feature, as already indicated, the Philistines would probably have had
a link with a homeland in the Aegean (possibly also Anatolia). The Israelites do not
seem to think of Mesopotamia or Egypt as their homelands all that much, even though
there is some indication in the bible that the former is considered thus in some
respects (Deuteronomy 26:5-8; Joshua 24:2-4 here). Thus, the conceptions of the
Israelites 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 Israelite
diaspora history.
In terms of the sixth feature, a sense of solidarity, we may surmise that both societies
attested it. With the Philistines, there were several differing groups that migrated from
Aegean/Anatolia, such as Sherden, Tjeker/Sikel and a group called as Philistines
proper.48 Certainly the Philistines themselves would seem to have exhibited
solidarity in Iron Age I at least,49 even though we do not at present seem to be able to
tell what such solidarity might have entailed in detail in Southern Philistia, or across
to northern Philistia for example. As for the Israelites, the biblical documents attest
solidarity across twelve tribes that are all seen to descend from the patriarchs. Some
of 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 from
outside
45
Again, nothing here can be demonstrated due to lack of written material from Philistia.
46
See Pitknen 2012; see also e.g. Pitknen 2010 for some of the concepts that relate to Joshua as part
of the Hexateuch. I would also argue that the Hexateuch attests a programmatic ideology of a settlercolonial 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 the
process by making a claim of effective or de facto proprietorship over the territory that it wants to have
as its own (ibid, p. 8). Such a claim is commonly established by exploring the territorys furthest
reaches, naming its geographic and other features, fortifying its borders, tilling its soil, developing its
resources, and, most importantly, peopling the invaded lands (ibid). Lastly, the last and most elusive
step of the processinvolves establishing a claim of moral proprietorship over the territory (ibid). For
this to succeed, such a claim must outweigh the claim that any other society, including the previous
inhabitants, has the potential to assert (ibid). In broad sweep, for the Israelite society, the patriarchal
promises reflect the first point (note also our comments above, fn 41 about the patriarchs erecting
altars), the conquest and settlement the second (cf. also the territorial descriptions in Joshua, and the
Pentateuch as a whole), and recourse to Yahwism as an exclusive ideology (together with the
constitution of the new society as in e.g. Deuteronomy) the moral claim (cf. also e.g. Dt 7 in terms of
contrasting 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.

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 even
though problems with other peoples that are described in Judges, and already the
possible idea of patriarchal promises and the settlement process in the early Iron Age
in itself could already have reinforced such solidarity.
Looking now at the fourth feature, elements of common culture, we have already
noted 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 two
cultures. For example, if the Philistines migrated through Anatolia, they may have
brough Kizzuwatnean ritual influences with them, as these are similar to the ones in
Leviticus, 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 Aegean
and Hittite realms, and some of this influence may have been brought in by the
Philistines. If so, this would also reinforce the idea that the Philistines originate from
both Aegean and Anatolia, some circular argumentation may be involved, too. Some
of the narratives in Judges-Samuel, for example the David and Goliath story in 1 Sam
17, clearly seem to attest Aegean style features.54 Or, the the Zalpa legend attested in
the Hittite realm can be compared with Judges 10:3-4 and 12:8-9.55 The description of
Samson as grinding as a punishment in Judges 16:21 is similar to a custom attested in
Anatolia,56 even when such cultural influence could at least potentially already have
flowed in earlier, or, at least in theory, from some other source otherwise unattested to
us. Even some of the style of e.g. Pentateuchal narration could have been influenced
by proto-Greek type of narrative (or ways of oral storytelling), even when we have no
written attestation of such narrative until the Homeric Epic.57 In a methodological
sense, a major difficulty here is of course that we do not have texts available from the
Philistines, nor texts from ancient Greece from ca. 1200-700 BC. Much has to do then
with estimating how far and in which way later Greek traditions and cultural features
may go back to this time. Some continuity may exist, even when it seems that there
are also many discontinuities.58 The other obvious methodological difficulty relates to
the question of the origin and dating of the Israelite documents preserved in the
Hebrew bible, a much disputed topic.

50

Exodus-Joshua of course presents the Israelites as unified, with unity of Israel being one of the
hallmarks 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 Philistines
suddenly lost some of these boundary markers at the beginning of Iron Age II, very possibly much due
to 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. 147-148
56
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 of
administrative nature) and the Ahhiyawa letters (diplomatic correspondence) are the most notable
extant textual attestations from Late Bronze Age Aegean; for the Ahhiyawa texts, see Beckman, Bryce
and 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 the
ancient Near East, traditions and concepts could demonstrably be passed on within a society (and
language area) through many centuries.

Summary and Conclusions

We can see that there were broad similarities in the nature of the Philistine and
Israelite societies. Both (arguably) were settler-colonial societies tracing their origins
to 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 societies
vied for dominance in the area, with the Philistines initially having the upper hand and
the Israelites apparently largely conquering them later on. The two societies are likely
to have demarcated themselves from each other, at the same time, they also appear to
have had broad commonalities. Some of the commonalities may have been result of
direct interaction, with the possibility of direct flow of influence from the Philistines
to the Israelites in such respects as in ways of seeing the world and in myths, rituals
and storytelling. And, of course, there may be more commonalities and flows of
influence 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, Israels Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and
Resistance. London: Equinox.
Faust, A., 2012, Between Israel and Philistia: Ethnic Negotiations in the South
During 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: Ethnic
Dynamics in Twelfth to Tenth Century Philistia. OJA 30(1), pp.1331.
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 Heroic
Tradition. Cambridge: CUP.
Galil, G., A. Gilboa, A.M. Maeir, and D. Kahn, eds., 2012, The Ancient Near East in
the 12th10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History. AOAT 392. Mnster: UgaritVerlag.
Garfinkel, Y., S. Ganor and M.G. Hasel, 2012, The Iron Age City of Khirbet Qeiyafa
after 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.

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 Iron
Age 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 12th10th 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 of
Genocide. 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, and
Kahn, eds., 2012, pp. 345-404.
Maeir, A.M., and P. de Miroschedji, ed., 2006, I Will Speak the Riddle of Ancient
Times: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the
Occasion 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.
Pitknen, P.M.A., 2004, Ethnicity, Assimilation and the Israelite Settlement.
Tyndale Bulletin 55.2, pp. 161-182.
Pitknen, P.M.A., 2010, Joshua. Apollos Old Testament Commentary 6, Leicester:
IVP.
Pitknen, P.M.A., 2012, Provenance of Leviticus and the Composition of the
Pentateuch,
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 Settler
Communities on the Frontiers of Iroquia, 1667-1783. Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Shai, I., The Political Organisation of the Philistines, in Maeir and de Miroschedji,
ed., 2006, pp. 347-359.

Singer, I., 2012, The Philistines in the North and the Kingdom of Taita, in Galil,
Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn, eds., 2012, pp. 451-471.
Stager, L.E., 2006, Biblical Philistines: A Hellenistic Literary Creation?, in Maeir
and de Miroschedji, ed., 2006, pp. 375-384.
Stannard, D.E., 1992, American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New
World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stern, E., Archaeological Remains of the Northern Sea peoples along the Sharon and
Carmel Coasts and Akko and Jezreel Valleys, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn,
eds., 2012, pp. 473-507.
Weinfeld, M., 1993, The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance of the Land of Canaan
by the Israelites. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wolfe, P., Structure and Event: Settler Colonialism, Time and the Question of
Genocide, in A.D. Moses, ed., 2008, Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest,
Occupation and Subaltern Resistance in World History. Oxford/New York: Bergahn
Books, pp. 102-132.
Yasur-Landau, A., 2010, The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late
Bronze Age. Cambridge: CUP.
Yasur-Landau, A., Chariots, Spears and Wagons : Anatolian and Aegean Elements in
the Medinet Habu Land Battle Relief, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn, eds., 2012,
pp. 549-567.
Zwickel, W., The Change from Egyptian to Philistine Hegemony in South-Western
Palestine during the Time of Ramesses III or IV, in Galil, Gilboa, Maeir, and Kahn,
eds., 2012, pp. 595-601.

10