Chapter 1 pointed out that in the books of Joshua and Judges, Ekron is assigned to both the tribes of Judah and Dan, but evidently neither tribe could drive the Philistines from the city. The Book of Judges also tells the stories of Samson, which are set in the Sorek Valley but do not even mention Ekron. The "lords of the Philistines" visited Delilah, but the specific cities they came from are not named. The biblical record tells us very little about Ekron during this Late Bronze/Iron I period of the judges before Samuel. What does the archaeological record tell us?

This is an appropriate time for such a question, since Ekron is currently part of an ongoing interregional study of the settlement pattern in the Shephelah and on the coastal plain of Canaan during the Iron Age. The archaeologists of the sites that have been discussed thus far are constantly consulting with one another about the finds of their respective sites. A wealth of new information has come to light that demands a reassessment of the Philistines, who became residents of the coastal plain during the transition years of the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I. This reassessment also demands that the archaeological evidence on Cyprus be reexamined, since this island seems to have been the staging area for Philistine migrations to Canaan.

We have already noted that there are diverse opinions among archaeologists on four key issues: 1) Were there one or two waves of Sea Peoples who settled on the coast of Canaan? 2) Do the two major pottery forms, Mycenaean IIIC:1b and Philistine bichrome, indicate one group of invading people who assimilated neighboring forms or two groups of invaders, the second of which included the Philistines who introduced the bichrome pottery? 3) Did the Philistines settle in Canaan just after the reign of Pharaoh Merneptah or later, during the reign of Ramesses III? 4) Is the high chronology or the low chronology of the Egyptian rulers more accurate?

Most archaeologists agree that by the first half of the twelfth century B.C. the generic term Philistines was the appropriate name for the invaders of Canaan and Egypt who evidently came by land and sea. Furthermore, they are in agreement that these Philistines were either Mycenaean Greeks (which may include Cretans) or western Anatolians who, from various points in the Aegean, fled the collapse of their society that is exemplified in the Iliad and the Odyssey.

At Ekron striking discoveries from the end of the thirteenth century B.C. have been made at a couple of places in the Late Bronze layer of the tell. This is the period of the Canaanite Ekron from which ceramic imports from Cyprus and elsewhere in the Aegean world (Mycenaean IIIB) have been uncovered. A few dark brown krater sherds bearing wavy incised decorations with heavy burnishing have also been recovered. This type of pottery is commonly called Trojan ware or Anatolian grey polished ware. These few sherds do not necessarily indicate that Trojans or Anatolians had migrated to Ekron. They may simply indicate the movements of pots as objects of trade.

However, the abundance of Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery found at Ekron and Ashdod does indicate, I believe, the arrival of a new ethnic element. The pottery, as mentioned numerous times above, is locally made but is definitely linked stylistically and decoratively to Cypriot sites as well as to other sites in the Aegean. On Cyprus, archaeologists link similar locally made pottery to the arrival of Achaean immigrants. One such distinctive pottery find at Ekron which has created considerable interest is the recovery of numerous lekane bowls. In Cypriot and Greek literature, these bowls are also referred to as kalathos bowls. They were well known from the end of the Late Minoan period (corresponding to the Late Bronze Age; see Cottrell 1957, 234-37).

At Ekron, along with the lekane bowls and numerous other Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery sherds from the Iron I period, some kilns were uncovered, including a large square kiln. No evidence has been found in connection with this kiln to reveal whether it was used for pottery or for metal items. The whole field I area was enclosed by a massive eleven-foot-thick mudbrick wall, which evidently encompassed the entire fifty-acre tell. Twelfth-century B.C. Ekron was a site worthy of a Philistine lord.

Enough Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery has been recovered from Ekron for Trude Dothan to posit the following chronology. The Canaanite city of Ekron in the Late Bronze Age (more specifically, the thirteenth century B.C.) was destroyed during the first third of the twelfth century, and its northeast sector (field I of the tell; see map, p. 121) was replaced with an industrial area (stratum VII) in which appears locally made Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery with plain horizontal bands or spirals similar to those found on sites on Cyprus and in the Aegean. The final two-thirds of the twelfth century saw still another change; architecturally this northeast sector (field I) changed to domestic dwellings (stratum VI) in which were found a slightly altered style of pottery called Elaborate Mycenaean IIIC:1b. These vessels were pictorial, with highly stylized fish and bird decor. The same trend is seen at sites on Cyprus. It is in stratum VI that we also find the earliest Philistine bichrome pottery at Ekron. T. Dothan sees through this data the influx of two waves of peoples -- those of stratum VII followed by those of stratum VI -- both tied to Cyprus and the Aegean. According to T. Dothan, the first wave came at the beginning of the twelfth century (after the reign of Merneptah) and the second came still during the first third of that century (the reign of Ramesses III). The Philistine bichrome pottery, according to her, is an outgrowth of the Elaborate Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery of stratum VI. This schema seems entirely possible when one considers that the Egyptian records of Merneptah do tell of attacks by the Sea Peoples at the end of the thirteenth century, and some of these peoples could have settled in Ekron and Ashdod (Breasted 1906, 4:41). It is also possible that Ashkelon continued to be Canaanite throughout the reign of Merneptah, as did Timnah.

It is the second wave during the reign of Ramesses III that T. Dothan sees as the Philistine invasion. Ramesses III specifically identified one of the attacking groups as the Philistines, and I believe they became the dominant group in Palestine and, therefore, are named as such in the Bible. The Ekron of stratum VI with the Elaborate Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery and the Philistine bichrome ware is the city associated with the defeat of the Sea Peoples by Ramesses III (according to his own records), around 1175 B.C. Two pieces of evidence that Trude Dothan cites are the cartouche of Ramesses III found in the same stratum with Philistine pottery at Gezer and the scarab of Ramesses III likewise found in the Philistine stratum at Ashdod.

Another intriguing find of stratum VI was uncovered in a pit in the northeast sector of the tell (field I). There, a bovine scapula was found alongside large fragments of lekane bowls. (More cattle scapulae have been found in stratum V.) The well-defined, cylindrical pit in which the scapula was discovered was not cut haphazardly, leading me to surmise that perhaps this was a favissa, where objects used in cultic observances were discarded. This whole area was strewn with objects that may have been of cultic significance: clay figurines reminiscent of the Ashdoda, miniature vessels, clay fragments of various sexual body parts, and a lion-headed rhyton, that is, an Aegean drinking cup. The lekane bowls have ties to Cyprus, and the scapulae found in the pit may be related to scapulomancy, the divination technique using sacrificed oxen mentioned earlier (pp. 87-88). Oxen were the chief sacrificial animals on Cyprus. These scapulae will be discussed in detail when I relate the finds of stratum V at Ekron, the period that coincides with Samuel.

I have one final comment concerning the diversity of opinion among scholars about the four questions raised above. I accept Stager's conclusion that Ashkelon was a Canaanite city at the time Pharaoh Merneptah repulsed the Libyans and their Sea People allies. I can also accept that Ashkelon did not become Philistine until the time of Pharaoh Ramesses III, the time when, according to Stager, Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery was followed generally by Philistine bichrome ware. However, Ashkelon is a very large site with meters of debris above the Philistine strata, and I also believe that Sea Peoples could have been living in Canaanite-controlled Ashkelon, a polyglot seaport, while making and using their Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery. A. Mazar believes that the Philistines came to both Tell Qasile and Timnah in the mid-twelfth century; at these sites there was no Mycenaean IIIC:1b pottery, only the Philistine bichrome. This too, I believe, is a correct conclusion. The excavators of Ekron and Ashdod have concluded that the Sea Peoples came earlier to these cities, perhaps at the end of Pharaoh Merneptah's reign. From my involvement in the Ekron project since 1984, I have been convinced that we have unearthed sufficient artifacts along with ceramics to warrant this conclusion, as well.

Is it possible for regional cultural changes and movements of peoples to be uniform and simultaneous? I think not. The Egyptian records of Merneptah and the succeeding pharaohs speak of migrations occurring over a period of years. The Iliad and the Odyssey speak of wars and movements of peoples stretching also over a long period of time. Even the biblical exodus and the subsequent conquest occurred over many years. Perhaps it was at Ekron and Ashdod where the core of the Sea Peoples first settled before the second wave moved down into Canaan -- the complete Sea People migration thereby spanning some fifty years.