‘Hyksos’ Peoples
by
Damien F. Mackey
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky put
forward the novel thesis in his Ages in
Chaos I (1952) that the Hyksos people who invaded Egypt were - in a chronologically
revised scenario - the biblical Amalekites with whom the Moses-led Israelites
had had to contend.
This identification of the
Hyksos as the Amalekites has been a popular one amongst revisionists, despite
their disagreements over other aspects of Velikovsky’s revision.
Introduction
Early in
the peace I had tended to fall in line with Dr. Velikovsky’s identification of
the Hyksos with the Amalekites. It seemed to be one area of his Ages in Chaos about which revisionists
of varying persuasions had seemed to concur. However I, in the course of
writing my thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
had begun
to wonder if the Amalekites, a desert tribe, could actually suffice to
represent, by themselves, the mighty Hyksos power.
I simply
give here my musings on the subject, taken from Volume One, Chapter 2 of my
thesis (without references), beginning on p. 43:
[David] Rohl
has proposed an alliance between these ‘Indo-Europeans’ and the Hurrians: ….
These foreign
settlers were Indo-Europeans – in other words speakers of an Indo-European
language rather than Semites. They came from the north, landing near the city
of Ugarit before setting off on their march south towards Egypt, their fleet moving
down the coast in support of the land army. During the first stage of this military
migration, the largest tribal group of the Caphtorim confederacy – the Pelasts
(known in the later Greek literature as Pelasgoi from an original Pelastoi) –
had allied themselves with another group of migrants from the Zagros mountains
known as the Hurrians.
In later years
the Egyptians would refer to Syria as Hurri-land (or Kharu) after the new
settlers in the region, whereas the Bible calls the allies of the Philistines
‘Horites’. In
the Classical period, the Greeks knew them as the Kares (Carians).
Velikovsky too
had, in a detailed discussion, argued for an identification of the enigmatic Hurrians
with the Carians. ….
Rohl
continues:
Together the
two allies from the north virtually took over the territories which the Israelites
(who were still contained within the hill country) had failed to occupy. They
massacred the indigenous ethnic population known in the biblical text as the Avvim
and even came to rule over the Aamu/Amalekites of the Egyptian delta. These
élite Indo-European rulers founded both the ‘Greater Hyksos’ Dynasty at Avaris
and the kingdom of Mitanni beyond the Euphrates river. The latter would be a
powerful political and military force in the region during the Late Bronze I period
when they at first became the principal enemy and then subsequently (during LB
II-A) the main political ally of the Egyptian 18th-Dynasty
pharaohs.
[End
of quote]
Rohl has
raised here a series of thought-provoking points. His view that the Hurrians
were the ‘founders
of the kingdom of Mitanni’ seems to concur with the testimony of
both Grimal
and van de Mieroop, who refer to Mitanni as a “Hurrian” entity.
….
According to
Grimal, for instance: … “Mitanni is the name of the Hurrian civilization
which was
contemporary with the Kassites in Babylonia”. Van de Mieroop tells that the “rulers
of Mittani, the Hurrian state in northern Syria, bore Indo-European names and their
charioteers were designated with the word mariyannu, a
term that might include the Vedic word for “young man”.” …. Van de Mieroop has
also attempted to explain here the connection between the Hurrians and the ‘Indo-Europeans’:
These
[Hurrian] immigrants probably brought some cultural elements we usually associate
with Indo-Europeans, even if Hurrian itself is not an Indo-European language.
Later Hurrians honored the Indian gods Mitra, Varuna, and the divine pair
Nasatya [and Indra]. There has been much speculation as to whether the Hurrians
themselves were subjected to an Indo-European military upper-class: later
rulers of Mittani, the Hurrian state in northern Syria bore Indo-European names
…. The evidence is inconclusive as to the character of the military class, however,
and it seems best to regard its members as men with a special training for
warfare.
Perhaps it may
be time to reconsider an earlier view that the new bichrome ware pottery that
we have been discussing was Hurrian in origin. …. The
Philistines would then be a part of the Hurrian polity. I should also like to
see reconsidered the equation between the Hurrians and the Habiru
(or Hapiru), referred to
e.g. in the EA letters, given that I shall be arguing, in Chapter
4 (pp. 109-111), that Philistines were among the Habiru
(Egyptian `PR.W) ‘rebels’ of EA. The Tikunani Prism,
conventionally dated to c. 1550 BC, lists the names of 438 Habiru
soldiers or servants of king Tunip-Teššub of Tikunani, a small
citystate in central Mesopotamia. The majority of these names are typically
Hurrian…..
Rohl has also,
above, made the fascinating suggestion that these foreigners were the founders
of the ‘Greater Hyksos’ Dynasty, though apparently continuing to preserve the Velikovskian
connection between (at least the broader) Hyksos/Amu and the Amalekites. But,
given the view of Courville and Bimson, that the incursion of the ‘Indo-Europeans’
coincided approximately with the Exodus/Conquest - rather than Rohl’s
estimation of its coincidence with a later biblical period - is it not now
logical to consider the entire Hyksos invasion of Egypt, from its very
beginning, as being the overflow of this new people into Palestine and Egypt?
According to Keller: … “ “… rulers of
foreign lands”. That is the meaning of the name Hyksos”. What better
description for this new people? Moreover, Keller quotes Manetho in regard to
the Hyksos as follows: “Unexpectedly from the regions of the East, came men of
unknown race. Confident of victory they marched against our land. By force they
took it, easily, without a single battle”. Likewise, Ramses III will later
refer to the confident attitude of the ‘Sea Peoples’:
…. “Their hearts were high and their confidence in themselves was
supreme: ‘Our plans will succeed’.” According to Keller: …. “The reliefs at
Medinet Habu indicate … the faces of the Biblical Philistines. … The tall slim
figures are about a head higher than the Egyptians”. (See Figure
2, p. 50).
In the case of
this second wave of ‘Indo-Europeans’ though, at the time of Ramses III, the attempted
invasion was not successful; even though this people too had come fully confident
of victory.
Manetho would
not likely perhaps have referred to the indigenous Amalekites as “men of unknown
race”; but he might well have said this of the first wave of ‘Indo-Europeans’.
It is quite possible, however, that the Amalekites had allied themselves to
this formidable host of invaders and had thereby become partners in the
conquest of Egypt; just as indigenous Philistines would no doubt later have
been caught up in the relentless southward movement of the ‘Sea Peoples’.
Indeed one finds, late in the reign of Saul, Philistines and Amalekites
apparently acting as allies against Israel (1 Samuel 30 and 31; 2 Samuel
1:1-16).
Rohl has
provided archaeological evidence - for approximately the same era of MB
(towards the
end of MB II B) in which Bimson had dated the beginning of Hyksos rule
(MB II C) -
for the appearance of the new pottery type at ancient Avaris in Egypt. It makes
sense, then, to connect the Hyksos – at least in part – with the first wave of ‘Indo-European’
invaders. …. Bimson has grappled with trying to distinguish between what might
have been archaeological evidence for the Philistines and evidence for the
Hyksos, though in actual fact it may be fruitless to try to discern a clear
distinction in this case. Thus he writes: ….
Finds at Tell
el-Ajjul, in the Philistine plain, about 5 miles SW of Gaza, present a particularly
interesting situation. As I have shown elsewhere, the “Palace I” city (City
III) at Tell el-Ajjul was destroyed at the end of the MBA, the following
phase of
occupation (City II) belonging to LB I …. There is some uncertainty as
to exactly
when bichrome ware first appeared at Tell el-Ajjul. Fragments have been found
in the courtyard area of Palace I, but some writers suggest that this
area remained
in use into the period of Palace II, and that the bichrome ware should
therefore be regarded as intrusive in the Palace I level ….
It seems
feasible to suggest that the invading Philistines were responsible for the destruction
of City III, though it is also possible that its destruction was the work of
Amalekites occupying the Negeb (where we find them settled a short while after
the Exodus; cf. Num. 13:29); in view of Velikovsky’s identification of the biblical
Amalekites with the Hyksos … the Amalekite occupation of the Negeb could
plausibly be dated, like the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, to roughly the time of
the Exodus …. But if our arguments have been correct thus far, the evidence of the
bichrome ware favours the Philistines as the newcomers to the site, and as the builders
of City II.
‘Hyksos’ Peoples
Part Two: In the Bible?
by
Damien F. Mackey
A correspondent has asked:
“So what do you think happened to ruined,
leaderless, denuded Egypt immediately after the Exodus? Surely opportunistic
'neighbours' would have quickly worked out there was an opening for looting and
an easier life... There is no biblical note of any population migrating N-S
through Canaan/Sinai into Egypt while the Israelites were in the Sinai-Negev. When
did this happen? (the Hurrians etc) In biblical times or not?”
Testimony of Prophet Amos
Continuing
on with sections from my university thesis on the subject,
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
(Volume One,
Chapter 2, pp. 32-43) I wrote, beginning with a quote from Dr. D. Courville:
- The Philistines in Early Scripture
According to
the table of nations as given in Genesis 10, the Philistines are the descendants
of Philistim in the line of Casluhim, son of Mizraim, ancestor of the Egyptians.
Since the Philistines are stated to have come from Caphtor, which is undoubtedly
correctly identified as Crete, they would certainly be closely related to the
Caphtorims, who are also of the line of Mizraim and who, from their name, also
must have settled in Crete (Caphtor) and have given the island its ancient name.
Courville is
here following the general view that ‘Caphtor’ refers to Crete. Bimson has
noted, though,
that this view has its critics: ….
According to
Jeremiah 47:4 and Amos 9:7, the original home of the Philistines
was the island
of Caphtor (hence their designation as Caphtorim). Caphtor of the scriptures,
along with Keftiu of Egyptian
sources, is usually identified with Crete, though this view has not been
without its critics. For example, J. C. GREENFIELD comments:
“… There is no evidence for a Philistine occupation of Crete, nor do the facts
about the Philistines, known from archaeological and literary sources, betray
any relationship between them and Crete”. …. Greenfield suggests that perhaps
Caphtor was a term used very broadly for the Aegean area.
Bimson
himself, at least in 1978, preferred Velikovsky’s view … that Caphtor was Cyprus:
… “It also seems that Keftiu of Egyptian sources is Cyprus, in spite of the
many claims that it is Crete, based on a misinterpretation of the literary and
pictorial evidence”. Certainly Cyprus was an island of great geographical
importance in relation to southern Anatolia and Phoenicia. However, I think
that the standard view, that Caphtor was Crete, is the correct one, and that
one can in fact trace an archaeological trail for the Philistines right back to
Crete.
Courville
continues:
Scripture
records the presence of the Philistines in the territory just to the south of Palestine
from the time of Abraham. At this time, they may not have comprised a vast
population, but neither were they an insignificant people, since they had a king
over them (Abimelech) and his people (armies) are referred to as a host. At the
time of the Exodus, the Philistines continued to occupy this same territory, as
evidenced by the routing of the escaping Israelites to avoid passing through Philistine
territory, though this was the more direct route.
Courville
continues on, to a consideration of:
- The Philistines in Scripture for the Post-Exodus Period
The
Philistines appear as a fully settled and organized people in the area south of
Palestine at the time of the conquest under Joshua. At that time, the people
were ruled by five lords or kings, each ruling over a city state. They also appear
among the oppressors of Israel during the period of the Judges; the earliest
mention is at the time of Shamgar.
This Shamgar,
according to Bright, “was not even an Israelite”. And Bright refers to various
sources in regard to “this enigmatic figure”, whose name, he says, “appears to
be Hurrian”….. Bright has also
suggested here a possible connection between the biblical Sisera (of the same
approximate era of the Judges as Shamgar) and “Aegean elements” related to the
Sea Peoples.
“Even at this
time”, Courville continues, “the Philistines were evidently not a vast population,
since the slaughter of 600 of them is represented as a significant victory”. He
then proceeds on to discuss the Philistines in relation to Israel’s monarchy,
including the reign of Hezekiah: ….
After an
interval of somewhat less than 300 years, the Philistines had become sufficiently
powerful to dominate the Israelites, at least locally. From this time on through
the era of the monarchy, we find periodic mention of the Philistines, who continue
to occupy territory on the southern border of Israel; at times they are even
within Israelite territory. That their power was intermittently broken is
indicated by
the stated results of the wars with the Israelites at the time of Samuel, at the
time of David, in the reign of Uzziah, and in the reign of Hezekiah.
Just because
the Bible tends to speak of the Philistines in connection with localized areas,
though, does not mean that their geography was thus limited. This brings me to
the introduction of a principle of biblical interpretation that will become
important throughout this thesis. Liel has expressed it as follows, though not
in terms of geography: …. “Remember--the Bible is a didactic history. Its goal
is to teach ideas, not political science”. The biblical writers were not
interested in writing a history or geography of the Philistines, or of the
rulers of Mitanni, or of the Egyptians. They were essentially concerned with
Israel, and any ‘accidental’ information with which they might have provided us
concerning elements foreign to Israel would depend entirely upon the degree to
which these elements impacted upon Israel itself. So, just because most of our biblical
information about the Philistines pertains to their activity along the southern
coast, close to the kingdom of Judah, does not mean that the historical
Philistines themselves were in fact largely confined to that particular region.
Courville now
proceeds to tell of the Philistine occupation of parts of northern Israel at the
time of Saul. This will lead him to important archaeological considerations
further on:
Pertinent to
the problems to be dealt with is the appearance of the Philistines along the northern
coastal region of Israel in the area of Megiddo and Beth Shan at
the time of Saul, as well as in their more commonly recognized home in the south.
To have maintained their presence in territories thus far separated suggests that
they controlled the coast between these territories, either by land or by sea
or both.
And, during
the neo-Assyrian era:
The
Philistines continued to occupy the territory in the south into the reign of Ahaz
.… Since the Assyrians already were harassing the southern kingdom of Judah
also, the Philistines would appear to have been competing with the Assyrians
for the diminishing Israelite territory. Such a situation could be expected to
be a source of difficulty between the Assyrians and the Philistines. It is
apparent from the inscriptions of Tiglathpileser of Assyria and of his
successor, Sargon, that untoward relations did exist
at this time between these two peoples.
Having
summarised the biblical account of the Philistines, Courville now proceeds to
introduce the
somewhat different history of this people as held by the historians: ….
- Current Views on the Origin of the Philistines in Palestine
While
Scripture indicates the presence of the Philistines in Palestine from the time of
Abraham, this concept is generally rejected by archaeologists. This latter view
is based on the absence of recognized archaeological
evidence for such occupation prior to the incident of the invasion of Egypt by
the Sea Peoples in the reign of Rameses III (c. 1200 B.C. by current views), or
possibly a few years earlier in the reign of Merneptah. This invasion was a
failure and the remnants of the abortive attempt were thrown back on Palestine
and Syria.
These
invaders, known as the Sea Peoples, represented a mixture of races who had
origins in the islands of the Mediterranean, including Cyprus, Crete, and the islands
of the Aegean Sea near Greece. However, some of the names indicate a possible
origin in Greece or in southwest Asia Minor. The inscription of Rameses III
mentions peoples by the names Palusathu (generally identified with the Philistines),
the Shakalaha, the Sherdanu, the Zakkaru, the Ashwaka (thought by some to refer
to the Achaeans of Greece), and the Danaus (whom Gordon would identify with the
Danites of the tribe of Dan on the basis of Judges 5:17, but whom most scholars
take to be one of the several peoples related culturally to the Philistines).
The Egyptian list provides the names of ten different peoples who comprised the
invaders.
Courville is
here referring to the vast literary and pictorial account of this land and sea invasion
as recorded by Ramses III on his mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. Scholars can
vary quite considerably in their attempts to identify each of these peoples (even
to transliterate their names), and as to the degree to which they managed to discomfort
Egypt. Lloyd has high praise for the painstaking study of them by Sandars: ….
During
Ramesses’ land- and sea-battles with the Peoples of the Sea, many prisoners
were taken, and on the walls of Medinet Habu his sculptors not only
listed their
supposed countries of origin but depicted in relief their national dress
and other
peculiarities. The information thus provided has been studied with great care,
notably by N. K. Sandars in a book which is a small masterpiece of patient scholarship.
Sandars
herself, speaking of Merenptah’s time, has written thus of the ‘Sea Peoples’,
including the
important Libyans: ….
With the
Libyans, and their neighbours the Meshwesh, came a number of northern allies:
the Sherden or Shardana and the Lukka, already well known; also three new
names, Ekwesh (Egyptian ´Ikwš), Teresh (Trš)
and Shekelesh (Škrš).
… The name
Sherden-Shardana has, since it was first recognized, been connected with
Sardinia … It has also, rather less convincingly, been linked with Sardis. That
the Shardana wore horned helmets is one of the few sartorial certainties in the
complicated history of Egypt’s friends and attackers. … Horned helmets were alien
to the Aegean … but they were indigenous in Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the
Levant. … The Lukka, who also joined the Libyan invaders, had been allies of the
Hittites at the battle of Kadesh. We have met them already as pirates from south-western
Anatolia. … Also among the Libyan allies are the Ekwesh, not heard of before
this time …. They have been connected with the Ahhiyawa of the Hittite texts …
and so with the Homeric Achaeans; if so, it is rather surprising that, as
Indo-Europeans, they were circumcised. … A Hittite text … refers to Taru-(u)i-ša
(Taruisha), which may be the same as the Teresh …. The Hittites located their
Taruisha in northern Assuwa near the Troad, but they have also been placed not
far from the land that was later Lydia … and from where, according to Herodotus,
the Tyrrhenians migrated to central Italy. This would link the Teresh-Taruisha-Tyrsenoi
with the Etruscans. …The Hittite texts appear to be silent concerning the
Shekelesh …. But just as the Shardana are linked with Sardinia, and the Teresh
with the Etruscans, so the Shekelesh have for a long time been identified with
the inhabitants of south-eastern Sicily.
Trigger, Kemp et
al. argue a relatively feeble Egyptian response
to these incoming hordes: ….
During the
reign of Ramesses III … the political and ethnic structure of Syria, Palestine
and Anatolia was drastically altered as the result of a mysterious population
movement, that of the ‘Sea-Peoples’, who surged along the eastern
Mediterranean
and had to be repulsed at the seaward and eastern frontiers of
Egypt itself.
At the same time, perhaps not coincidentally, Libyan pressure … reached a
climax in two abortive invasions of the western Delta. To a degree, these
developments were uncontrollable; neither the Hittites nor any other state in the
region had been able to resist the ‘Sea-Peoples’ …. But it is significant that Egyptian
reaction was comparatively weak.
According to
Brewer and Teeter, the invasion altered the balance of power in the region: …. “The
“People of the Sea” ultimately changed the entire balance of power in the Near
East, sweeping away the Hittites and setting the stage for Assyria to step into
the void as the new dominant power in the Near East”.
Courville now
turns to the all-important consideration of a distinctive pottery type introduced
by this new mix of peoples: ….
On the basis
of the appearance of a new type of pottery in the area occupied by the Philistines following the attempted
invasion, and in the absence of any earlier recognized evidence
of the Philistines in Palestine, the new occupants are identified with the
Philistines of Scripture in the time of the late judges. This
view, of
necessity, must reject the earlier references to the Philistines in Scripture. Wright
would explain this discrepancy by assuming that a later writer was bringing the
account up to date in terms of the later occupation.
… Another
example [of modernizing Scripture] is the mention of the Philistines as living
along the southern coast of Palestine … but we now know that the settlement of
the Philistines did not occur until five or six hundred years later … Later
Hebrews were simply bringing the stories up to date, and what modern teller of
tales does not do the same?
Courville proceeds
to challenge the standard archaeological view on the Philistines: ….
IV.
The New Pottery appearing in the Territory
of
the Philistines is not of Cretan Origin
The
archaeology of Crete … yields most damaging evidence for the view that
these invaders
and their culture came from Crete; hence it becomes necessary to refer to one
phase of Cretan history. Using the popularly accepted
dates, the
following
facts are to be noted. The dates by the proposed revision will be five to six
hundred years later. The sea power and culture of Crete reached its zenith in
the period dated c. 1500-1400 B.C. During this century, Crete represented the
major sea power of the ancient world, and produced some of the most beautiful
and elaborately decorated pottery known anciently. About 1400 B.C. Crete was
the victim of an overwhelming catastrophe from which neither its power nor its
culture ever recovered … The evidence indicates that the same culture survived
the catastrophe but underwent a steep decline, so that by 1200 B.C. the power
and culture of Crete was at its nadir, the residual culture being but a crude
remnant of its predecessors. If the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt at this time
came from Crete under these conditions, then how could they suddenly be in full
possession of a high level of pottery culture as indicated by the appearance of
this new pottery type in southern Palestine? This new pottery is stated to be
on a higher level than that used by the occupants prior to this (as compared to
the pottery in the level below it) …. The anachronism that results from
supposing that this pottery had a Cretan origin was recognized by Baikie who
commented:
… But the
remaining tribes [mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions] are in all probability
Cretans, fragments of the old Minoan Empire which had collapsed two centuries
before, and was now gradually becoming disintegrated … There remain the
Pulosathu, who are, almost beyond question, the Philistines, so well known to
us from their connection with the rise of the Hebrew monarchy. The Hebrew
tradition brought the Philistines from Kaphtor, and Kaphtor is plainly nothing
else than the Egyptian Kefti, or Keftiu. In the Philistines, then, we have the
last organized remnant of the old Minoan sea-power. Thrown back from the
frontier of Egypt by the victory of Rameses III, they established themselves on
the maritime plain of Palestine …. But all the same the Philistine was an
anachronism, a survival from an older world.
An examination
of the new pottery that appeared in Philistia at the time of this attempted
invasion of Egypt, and comparison of it with that used in Crete at this time,
and prior to this for two centuries, provides no basis for presuming that this new
pottery is of Cretan origin. ….
Courville next
proceeds to argue that: ….
- This New Pottery in Philistia Is of Aegean Origin
A comparison of
this pottery with that of the Aegean area for this and the preceding era leaves
no room for doubt on this point. While this pottery found its way to Cyprus and
even to the mainland to the north, its origin may be placed
unequivocally
to the Aegean Islands and the immediate area. Miss Kenyon commented thus on
this pottery:
There is,
however, one class of archaeological material which may reasonably be
associated with the newcomers. This is a type of pottery entirely new to Palestine
[sic], decorated with elaborate patterns. The
most characteristic elements in the decoration
are metopes enclosing stylized birds, very often with back-turned head, friezes
of spirals, and groups of interlocking semicircles. The form of the vessels and
the elements in the decoration all have their origins in the Late Helladic
ceramic art of the Aegean. ….
“But if the
pottery is of Aegean origin, and not Cretan”, Courville continues, “then it is
most
inconsistent to identify the pottery as Philistine on the basis of the
Scriptural statements to the effect that the Philistines came from Crete”. “And
if it is not Philistine, then what basis is there for presuming”, he asks, “that
this pottery provides any evidence at all that this is the date for the first
appearance of the Philistines in Palestine?”: ….
To be sure, it
remains possible, though not demonstrated, that this pottery is Philistine of
Aegean origin. But if shelter is to be taken under this possibility, then consistency
would require that not only the early Scriptural references be rejected, but
also the later references which so clearly portray a Cretan origin of the Philistines.
It is to be noted that Miss Kenyon recognized the insecurity of the proposed
identification of this pottery as Philistine.
It cannot of
course be accepted without question that this pottery is necessarily associated
with the Philistines, but the evidence does seem to be strongly in favour of
this ascription.
Courville will
eventually trace back this distinctive pottery type to the earliest phase of Cretan
archaeology, in support of the biblical view that the immigrant Philistines
were of Cretan origin. More on that later.
I think we
need to recognize, with Rohl, that the coming of the Sea Peoples was “a secondary
wave of migrants”, following on from an earlier influx of ‘Indo-Europeans’.
With that in
mind, whilst Caphtor would still stand - as it does conventionally - for Crete,
Cyprus may later have become prominent as a base and stepping-stone for these
peoples during the second invasion. Here is Rohl’s account, with a
corresponding stratigraphy (he juxtaposes here OC - Old Chronology dates -
against his NC - New Chronology dates): ….
… who were
these Philistines and where did they come from?
Of course, in
the conventional chronological scheme, the Philistines appear in
Philistia not
during the Middle Bronze Age but at the beginning of the Iron Age
(OC – c.
1200 BC).
They are
identified with a group called the Peleset who attack Egypt by land and sea in
the 8th year of Pharaoh Ramesses III (OC – 1177 BC,
NC – 856 BC).
These Iron Age
invaders are indeed Philistines – but they are not the first ‘Sea
Peoples’ to
arrive in the region. In the New Chronology the original incursion of
Indo-European
peoples from the Aegean occurs towards the end of the Middle
Bronze Age (NC
– c. 1350 BC). The Peleset of Ramesses III’s time
are a secondary wave of migrants moving into the Levant (to dwell alongside
their ancestral Philistine kin) during the period of collapse of the Mycenaean
Bronze
Age city
states of Greece. This collapse was triggered by the long and debilitating campaign
of the Trojan war (NC – c. 872-863
BC) and the subsequent Dorian invasion (NC – c. 820
BC) which ousted the Mycenaean élites onto the islands of the eastern
Mediterranean and into the Levant itself. But these events are hundreds of
years in the future as the original Philistine migrants arrive on the Canaanite
coast during the Hyksos period.
I had earlier
referred to the person of Shamgar, during the period of the Judges, and had noted
Bright’s indication that his name, at least, might be Hurrian. Now Rohl has
dated the arrival of the first wave of ‘Indo-Europeans’ precisely to this very
same time of the Judges, conveniently, according to his New Chronology, in 1300
BC: ….
During the
judgeship of EHUD only one minor external
conflict occurred in this long period of internal squabbling
amongst the tribes. Shamgar, son of Anath, came up against a raiding party of
Philistines (Hebrew Pelishtim) in the Shephelah
hills which border the coastal plain. As had happened with the Edomites and the
Moabites, here too the Israelites managed to push this new
enemy back
from their territory. But behind this apparently insignificant biblical
story – which
occupies just one line in the book of Judges [Judges 3:31] – is a
momentous
event in the history of the ancient Near East. This first mention of the Philistine
soldiers heralds the arrival of a new Indo-European-speaking political force in
the region.
The year of
Shamgar’s run-in with these strange foreigners from a far-off land was 1300 BC.
In Egyptian terms, this places the Philistine ‘arrival’ on the biblical
stage right in
the middle of the Hyksos period – a little over a century after the
invasion of
the eastern Delta by King Sheshi (in c. 1409
BC) and the subsequent demise of the remnant native 13th
Dynasty.
Mackey’s comment: Regarding this “King
Sheshi” Maibre, I have more recently,
in my:
tentatively identified him as the Pharaoh
of the Exodus, with the Hyksos-like Amenemhet III (“Lampares”), and with St.
Paul’s “Mambres”.
Back to the thesis:
Whilst it is
perhaps arguable that the Old Testament, with its aforementioned emphasis upon
pedagogy rather than having any particular concern for recounting the history
of foreign nations, could relegate to “just one line”, in only one of its
books, an event as momentous as the incursion of the ‘Indo-Europeans’ into the
ancient Near East, I would nevertheless instead embrace the view of Courville …
and Bimson (see next page) that there was an actual biblical tradition
associated with the arrival of these foreign masses.
And, according
to such tradition, this significant event pertains to a period somewhat
earlier than
the one that Rohl thinks he has pinpointed to the time of Ehud and Shamgar, in
the era of the Judges. Here I take up Bimson’s account of this biblical
tradition: ….
There is a
tradition preserved in Joshua 13:2-3 and Judges 3:3 that the Philistines were
established in Canaan by the end of the Conquest, and that the Israelites had been
unable to oust them from the coastal plain …. There is also an indication that the
main Philistine influx had not occurred very much prior to the Conquest. As we
shall see below, the Philistines are the people referred to as “the Caphtorim, who
came from Caphtor” in Deuteronomy 2:23 … where it is said that a people called
the Avvim originally occupied the region around Gaza, and that the Caphtorim “destroyed
them and settled in their stead”. Josh. 13:2-3 mentions Philistines and Avvim
together as peoples whom the Israelites had failed to dislodge from southern
Canaan. This suggests that the Philistines had not completely replaced the
Avvim by the end of Joshua’s life. I would suggest, in fact, that the war
referred to in Ex. 13:17, which was apparently taking place in “the land of the
Philstines” at the time of the Exodus, was the war of the Avvim against the
newly arrived Philistines.
As
conventionally viewed, the end of MB II C coincides with the expulsion of the Hyksos
from Egypt. Bimson however, in his efforts to provide a revised stratigraphy
for the revision of history, has synchronised MB II C instead with the start
of Hyksos rule. He will argue here in some detail that the
building and refortifying of cities at this time was the work of the Avvim
against the invading Philistines, with some of the new
settlements,
however, likely having been built by the Philistines themselves.
Rohl,
basically following Bimson, has identified certain MB pottery as Philistine,
and
representing
his first wave of ‘Indo-Europeans’. And he will link it to a similar form of
pottery
belonging, later, to the Sea Peoples – the second wave:
….
Towards the
end of the Middle Bronze II-B era a new kind of pottery begins to appear in the
Levant – particularly on the coastal plain and at Tell ed-Daba (ancient Avaris)
in Egypt. This ‘bichrome ware’ is finely decorated pottery with
designs
painted in black and red on a beige slip (background). The designs include
metopes (rectangular boxes) running around the shoulder of the vessel,
within which
stylized birds and geometric designs are placed.
Figure
1: Bichrome Ware
In the above
illustration, the two bichrome vessels on the left belong to the first wave of
Philistine migrations, whereas the two on the right belong to the second wave. “Note
the backwards-looking bird
motif common to
both types of ceramic decoration, four hundred years apart”. ….
Rohl
continues: ….
The basic
principles of such decoration are witnessed once more, three hundred years
later, when the so-called ‘Philistine ware’ proper appears in the
archaeological
record at the beginning of the Iron Age (around the time of Ramesses III). This
later pottery is Aegean in origin and is regarded as being a
rather
degraded development from Mycenaean Bronze Age ceramics. Given that the earlier
bichrome ware of the late MB II-B/LB I is very similar in terms of its decoration
to the Iron Age ‘Philistine ware’, you should not be surprised to learn that
the clay from which many of the earliest bichrome pots were made comes from
Cyprus, thus confirming the Mediterranean connection to the culture which introduced
it into the Levant and Egypt. It seems that the first generation of bichrome
ceramics was made in Cyprus and brought by newcomers to the southern Levant who
then began to produce these distinctive vessels from local clays found in their
newly adopted lands.
[End
of quote]
It thus
appears that there were two major waves of ‘Indo-European’ migrations, connected
the one to the other by this distinctive form of pottery: the first wave being
coincident in
my revision with the early Conquest and the Hyksos invasion of Egypt, and the
second wave occurring early in the reign of Ramses III (that era to be dated in
Part III, Chapter 11 and
Chapter 12). The prophet Amos even seems to
synchronise for us the first wave against a biblical era (9:7): ‘Did I not
bring up Israel from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor …?’ It
remains to be seen if we can also find a biblical resonance for the upheaval
that was the second wave: the ‘Sea Peoples’.
Whilst it was
mentioned above that famine might have been a factor driving the second wave of
immigrants, Bimson will, in his joint discussion of the Exodus and the arrival
of the Philistines, the first wave, propose that plague had been a significant
factor in both movements of peoples in this case.
Let us follow
Bimson’s discussion, centring upon Cyprus, in which he believes “we find some
interesting correlations emerging”: ….
Bichrome
pottery began to be manufactured on Cyprus at the beginning of the period known
as Late Cypriot I (abbreviated to LC I) …. Since, as we have seen, it occurs on
the mainland at some sites before the end of Palestine’s MB II C period, it is
clear that the transition from the latest Middle Cypriot period (MC III) to LC
I occurred some while before the end of MB II C on the mainland. In terms of
the scheme proposed here, we may tentatively place the beginning of LC I roughly
at the time of the Exodus, the end of MB II C marking the Conquest …. This
means that the first Late Bronze period on Cyprus, LC I A, was at least partially
contemporary with the time the Israelites spent in the wilderness.
This
synchronism is significant. A number of writers have noted that LC I was a period
of considerable unrest of some kind. A striking feature of the first part of the
period is the occurrence of mass burials, which are without precedent in the Early
and Middle Cypriot periods. The reason for their sudden appearance
throughout the
length of the island is much debated …., plague and warfare being the two most
favoured explanations. Against the view that the people thus buried were killed
in battle are the facts, pointed out by SCHAEFFER …,
that no wounds are evident on the skeletons, and that the grave-goods do not
suggest that the graves are those of warriors. Schaeffer therefore prefers to
view many of these burials as the result of plague.
Here Bimson
makes mention of Velikovsky’s novel view that the earth had suffered
catastrophes
at the time of the Exodus and Conquest due to “the effects of a close
approach of
the proto-planet Venus”, before adding:
But even
without the global catastrophe theory, the mass burials would still provide
support for our synchronisms of early LC I with the time of the Israelites’
wilderness
journeys. There is ample evidence from the Old Testament that this
was a time
when plague was rife on the mainland. Apart from the fact that Egypt
was affected
by plague shortly before the Exodus (Ex. 9:8-12), the Israelites themselves
were hit by plague no less than five times between the Exodus and the start of
the Conquest (cf. Ex. 32:55; Num. 11:33; 14:37; 16:46-50; 25:9). I have referred
elsewhere to KENYON’S
conclusion that plague affected the inhabitants of Jericho shortly
before the end of the MB II C city, and have noted the possibility that this
outbreak should be linked with the plague mentioned in Num. 25:9 …. Thus if we
follow Schaeffer, and see Cyprus suffering the effects of plague at the start
of LC I, it is logical to synchronise this time with the period when the mainland
was similarly afflicted ….
However we
interpret the mass burials, there is no doubt that on Cyprus at the
start of LC I,
“abnormal conditions had begun to affect the pattern of contemporary life” ….
One important
result of those abnormal conditions was the abandonment of several previously
important centres at the eastern end of the island …. In the light of the
arguments presented above, that the Philistines arrived in Canaan from Cyprus
in MB II C, it would be logical to identify them specifically with the people
who were abandoning the island’s eastern centres in LC I ….
[End of quote]
Comments