Thoughts on the Collapse: The Perspective of a Philistine

Abstract

As I’ve been actively researching the Philistines—and excavating a major Philistine site—for more than 25 years (e.g., Maeir 2012; 2017–2018; Maeir and Uziel 2020), I think I can qualify, at least metaphorically, as a Philistine. And needless to say, this gives me a unique perspective to join in on the fascinating discussion in the current issue of JEMAHS,1 revolving around Eric Cline’s views on the Late Bronze Age collapse.I would like to start by expressing my admiration and gratitude to Eric for the excellent manner in which he has presented to the public an up-to-date and highly accessible discussion of the background and events relating to the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages in the eastern Mediterranean (his book in its two editions: Cline 2014, 2021). As in other books that he has authored, Eric displays a rare ability to successfully bridge between cutting-edge research and the interested public, making the results of current research not only comprehensible but even relevant for today. Eric’s volume in my opinion is the best summary of this topic that currently exists. More so, it can serve as a starting point for research and reference, for a broad range of readers, from lay readers to experts.Overall, I agree with most of what Eric has written in the volume—and in his contribution to this discussion. That said, I would like to stress a few points that I thought of while reading his contribution here. This will include some things on which I agree with him or disagree, along with comments on other topics.The mounting evidence from various sources for the adverse climate changes that occurred during the Late Bronze / Iron Age transition are compelling, and there is no doubt that they played a major role in the underlying mechanisms of the processes of societal collapse and transition that occurred during this time frame. That said, as Eric himself states, I believe one should be very cautious in putting too much focus on one explanatory framework for explaining this complex transition. While climate was (and is . . .) a crucial aspect, other factors were undoubtedly at play as well.2Viewing complex historical and cultural processes in a linear manner—and not as multi-faceted “arboreal” mechanisms—is something that I believe we should avoid. Even if “black and white” explanations are easier to digest, and simple to explain, time and again we can see that such simplistic explanatory frameworks skip over important—and the damning details. Several examples from recent research can be brought.While more and more evidence points to the complex origins, makeup, related processes, and developmental trajectories of the Philistines (and other “Sea Peoples”; see Yasur-Landau 2010; Killebrew 2016; Maeir and Hitchcock 2017a, 2017b; Maeir 2019a, 2019b, forthcoming d; Maeir et al. 2019), when one surveys the relevant scholarly literature, one still sees preferences of linear processes, such as relating to the origins of the Philistines (Niesiołowski-Spanò 2016; Pitkänen 2019; Master 2021: 204–5; Master and Aja 2020: 855–56), the processes which caused the transition (Kahn 2018; Luria 2019; Wylie and Master 2020), and the subsequent development of their culture (Niesiołowski-Spanò 2016; Faust 2018). Time and again, views based on decades-old research are still espoused, ignoring, or minimizing up-to-date research. The idea that the Philistines were of a monolithic origin can still be found (Wylie and Master 2020); that the Philistines were a straightforward invading group, whether by land (most recently: Ben-Dor Evian 2017; Fantalkin 2017; Kahn 2018) or by sea (Wachsmann 2000; Yasur-Landau 2010); or that there was no invasion at all but only internal societal developments in the Levant (Knapp 2021). Similarly, simplistic interpretations of the group identities in early Iron Philistia and other regions abound (e.g., Faust 2018), despite clear evidence of much more complex patterns (Maeir 2019b, 2021; Maeir and Hitchcock 2016).The dating of the first appearance of the Philistine culture, while now based more and more on 14 C dates, seems to be highly influenced by the historical dating (ca. 1180 BCE) of the Ramses III Medinet Habu reliefs in which the Egyptians are depicted fighting the “Sea Peoples” and the Philistines. As I and others have argued (Yasur-Landau 2003; Maeir and Hitchcock 2017a), it is hard to believe that major historical processes, whether migrations or other types, can be limited to a clear one-time event. Rather, complex processes played out over a long period. Thus, the appearance of the Philistine culture in the Levant might have taken place over several decades, commencing with a trickle and then followed by more substantial events. Historically, even clear-cut migrations are almost always preceded by initial visits to the new region by spearhead groups. Thus, arguments that the Philistine culture began to appear already in the late thirteenth century BCE (Asscher et al. 2015; Boaretto et al. 2019), cannot be denied simply because they do not agree with the datings from certain sites and do not fit into the “accepted” historical sequence (Finkelstein 2016, 2018; Master and Aja 2020: 857–58; Asscher et al. 2021).Similarly, recently published aDNA on the Philistines (Feldman et al. 2019; Feldman 2020(is being used in what I believe are overly simplistic interpretations (Master and Aja 2020: 855). To start with, it is critical to stress that DNA studies first and foremost provide us information on biological relatedness—and do not by default reflect straightforward cultural processes. With the recent “explosion” of aDNA studies from many ancient contexts, world over, time and again we see misuse of these studies to argue for simplistic interpretations of the archaeological remains, many times returning to outdated—and discredited—approaches to the study of antiquity (Brubaker 2018; Crellin and Harris 2020; Frieman and Hofmann 2020; Hakenbeck 2020; Källén et al. 2021; Maran, forthcoming).Thus, when relating to genomic studies of the Philistines, one should be aware of several issues: The sample currently available is very limited. More so, most of the published samples are from later phases of the Iron I or even early Iron II, therefore are not directly relevant for the study of the actual origins of the Philistines.Additional studies are in progress (e.g., Stockhammer et al. 2021), along with other studies, such as isotopic (Eshel et al. 2020; Moffat et al. 2020), which indicate a much more complex population makeup.Care should be taken in how these published results are used. While some have argued that the results show clear-cut evidence of the Aegean origin of the Philistines, conforming with traditional interpretation of the Philistines, in fact, even the already published data hints to a more complex genomic pattern, with possible multiple origins of even the limited individuals that were sampled (Stockhammer et al. 2021).An additional point to note when discussing the collapse is the change in patterns of connectivity between the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. While in the past the complete cessation of trade was seen as one of the central characteristics of this transition, recent studies have shown that while there was a distinct change in the character of interregional connectivity between these two periods, there definitely was not a cessation. Throughout the Iron Age I, even from its very beginning (Master, Mountjoy, and Mommsen 2015; Mountjoy 2018, 2020), there is evidence of trade and connectivity between Philistia and other regions in the ancient Near East and beyond (Master 2009; 2021: 205; Scott et al. 2021; Maeir, forthcoming a, forthcoming b, forthcoming c). Thus, the character of the transition—which was substantial for sure—may in some ways be less of a complete transformation than what is pictured at times. Big changes did occur, but continuity, in crucial aspects of population, ideology, settlement, and economy, should be recognized as well.Finally, I would like to mention a topic that has been quite popular in recent years, the supposed “northern Philistines.” Recently, much has been written on a supposed additional Philistine group—located in the northern Levant, in the Amuq Valley, and in particular at Tell Tayinat. According to this view, there was a group of Aegean origin, with Aegean-influenced material culture (pottery, loomweights, and other aspects) that arrived in this region in a process similar to that of the Philistines in the south. In addition, the appearance of a group called Walistin or Palistin, in tenth-century BCE inscriptions from this same region, led to the suggestion that this was the later name of the original Aegean-originating migrants—and could thus be seen as “northern Philistines,” a phenomenon similar to the better-known “southern Philistines” (Harrison 2009; Welton et al. 2019). This interpretation was accepted by many, and in fact it was even suggested that the land route that the Philistines took on their way to southern Canaan went through the Amuq Valley (Ben-Dor Evian 2017; Fantalkin 2017; Kahn 2018). This proposal though is hard to accept, despite its popularity (Galil 2014, 2021; Cohen 2021). The reading of the name as W/Palistin is questionable, and even if accepted, is hard to equate with the “Plishtim” (פלישתים; Hebrew “Philistines”) of the Bible and other sources (Younger 2016: 127–35). More importantly, the material culture of the early Iron Age and the Aegean-style pottery found at Tell Tayinat is of a later character than the Philistine 1 (Myc. IIIC), early Iron Age pottery in Philistia (Maeir 2018; 2020: 18 n. 7).3 Thus, while the finds in the Amuq valley may represent processes that are reminiscent of those that occurred in the southern Levant in the early twelfth century BCE, they are of a later date and not directly related. If at all, they imply that the mechanisms and processes that occurred during the Late Bronze / Iron Age transition, commenced in the late thirteenth / early twelfth century BCE but may have continued well into the late twelfth / early eleventh century BCE.Let me be clear. I fully agree with Eric on the deep change that occurred in the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, changes that had a long-term effect on the cultures in the eastern Mediterranean, and beyond. That said, I believe this was an extended process, with complex and multifaceted underlying mechanisms, events and results, hardly something that can be collapsed into a single date or an overarching singular cause. By and large, I believe Eric—and other discussants here—agree with me on the complexity of this transition, even if this or that detail may be debated. A composite view on transitions in the past may make understanding them more tenable. The same applies to the transitions we are currently going through and might actually be able to do something about (e.g., Burke et al. 2021).