The Absolute Chronology for the Philistine Migration and Settlement
Assaf Yasur-Landau

The Absolute dates for the end of the Egyptian rule in Canaan during the 20th dynasty and the migration of the Philistines and their settlement in the southern coastal plain had been a topic of a vivid controversy during the last two decades, following the excavations of Ashdod, Ashkelon and Tel Miqne/Ekron. In the absence of conclusive chronological data from the excavated Pentapolis sites, the core of scholarly argument concentrated on one major topic: can there be a contemporanity between Egyptian rule in some parts of Canaan and Philistine settlement in the Pentapolis, and can we see some positive or negative material culture evidence for this contemporanity? This controversy turned in the last years into a cornerstone in the competition between the "low" chronology, advocated by Finkelstein, who argues for a late 12th century (or post Ramses VI) date for the settlement of the Philistines, to scholars as Mazar, Stager and Dothan who argue for a date in the second quarter of the 12th century, immediately after year 8 of Ramses III. In this paper I shall try to present weaker and stronger points in both camps, while arguing that the overall chronological data enables much more than a single plausible historical reconstruction. This aim will be achieved by combining the following sources:

1. The relative and absolute dates of imported LHIIIC ware into northern Canaan
2. The relative date of locally-made LHIIIC ("monochrome") pottery in Philistia
3. Archaeological evidence for the circumstances of the foundation of Ashdod, Ashkelon and Tel Miqne/Ekron
4. Questions of cultural diversity within Philistia and their possible impact on material culture
5. A reexamination of the data provided by Egyptian sources concerning the migration processes of the Philistines.