Global InformationPhilistine Bichrome ware information
Philistine Bichrome ware is an archaeological term coined by William F. Albright in 1924 which describes pottery production in a general region associated with the Philistine settlements during the Iron Age I period in ancient Canaan (ca. 1200 - 1000 BCE).[1] The connection of the pottery type to the "Philistines" is still held by many scholars, although some question its methodological validity.[2][3][4]
Scholars have sought to connect Philistine Bichrome ware with imported Mycenaean pottery from Cyprus, and local Canaanite monochrome ware.
- ^ Nicola Schreiber (2003). The Cypro-Phoenician pottery of the Iron Age. BRILL. p. xxi. ISBN 978-90-04-12854-5. (page 204). Retrieved 2 May 2011.
The history of this cultural terminology begins early in the last century with J. L. Myres and M. Ohnefalsch-Richters Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum of 1899. Myres defines the "Graeco-Phoenician Age" as stretching from the First Introduction of Iron, to the Ptolemaic Conquest of Cyprus in 295 B.C... so named, because throughout it Cyprus was the principal meeting-point of Greek colonists and traders from the West, and of Phoenicians from the East" (Myres & Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, 21-22). This enormous span of time included Iron Age Black-on-Red ware as well as late Mycenaean-influenced Cypriot types (Myres & Ohnefalsch-Richter 1899, Pl. IV). In 1924, Albright published his excavations at Tell el-Ful (Gibeah), where he describes "Cypro-Phoenician" pottery concurrent with Aegean Late Bronze Age types and preceding "Philistine" wares (Albright 1924, 16). Albright's use of the term here appears to describe a general region of pottery production. He uses the same terminology in his subsequent Tell Beit Mirsim publication of 1932, but there he also distinguishes a "Cypro-Phoenician" form "of the Iron Age type" which he dates to the late century BC (Albright 1932, 54-55, 61). It is from this point it seems that the term "Cypro-Phoenician" for the Iron Age Black-on-Red ceramic particularly the small 'perfume' juglet, enters Palestinian archaeology.
- ^ Choi, Gwanghyun D. (April 2017). Decoding Canaanite Pottery Paintings from the Late Bronze Age and Iron Age I: Classification and Analysis of Decorative Motifs and Design Structures - Statistics, Distribution Patterns - Cultural and Socio-Political Implications. Academic Press Fribourg. p. 237, footnote 61. ISBN 978-3-7278-1804-2.
The Egyptian prst.w–biblical Philistines–Philistine Bichrome pottery equation is still held by many scholars (T. Dothan, 1982; T. Dothan & M. Dothan, 1992; A. Mazar, 1990; L. Stager, 1995; I. Singer, 1994 etc), although some others question its methodological validity (J. Muhly, 1984; S. Sherratt, 1998; cf. Lesko, 1992). I. Finkelstein accepts it only partly, dismissing the related biblical passages as historically unreliable while (Finkelstein, 1998). I. Sharon believes that there is no reason to doubt that the biblical Philistines were the Philistine Bichrome pottery manufacturers/users, while casting doubt on their direct connection with the prst.w in the Egyptian records (Sharon, 2001: 600). Both of the biblical and Egyptian records depict the Philistines as a people with military skills.
- ^ Sherratt, S. 1998 “Sea Peoples” and the Economic Structure of the Late Second Millennium in the Eastern Mediterranean. In: S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E. Stern (eds.), Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Thirteenth to Early Tenth Centuries BCE. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. Pp. 292-313
- ^ Muhly, James D. (1984): “The role of the Sea Peoples in Cyprus during the LC III period.” In: Cyprus at the close of the Late Bronze Age. Vasos Karageorghis & James D. Muhly (eds.), Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, 39-55.