Gath of the Philistines: A New View of Ancient Israel’s Archenemy

Editor’s note: An image with human skeletal remains appears in this article.

BILL SCHLEGEL/BIBLEPLACES.COM

I directed the major excavations at Tell es-Safi—“Gath of the Philistines” (Amos 6:2)—for a quarter of a century, from 1996 until 2021.¹ The site, located in central Israel and settled from late prehistory until modern times, is one of the largest archaeological mounds in the country. It has produced a substantial amount of data on many periods and cultures but, in particular, on the biblical Philistines in the first few centuries of the Iron Age (c. 1200–830 BCE). Indeed, our excavations at Gath, together with related research at sites from around Israel, have profoundly changed our understanding of the Philistines, their cultural origins, and their relationship to the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Since the beginning of archaeological research in the Levant, the dominant interpretative narrative about the Philistines was based on a rather literal reading of the biblical texts (e.g., the story of Samson in Judges 13–16 and the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel 17). The Philistines were viewed as an organized, distinct ethnic group of foreign origin, deriving probably from the Aegean. They migrated to the southern Levant and conquered the region of Philistia (the southern Mediterranean coast of Canaan) in the early 12th century BCE. This migration happened during the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, a period when we see evidence of other new people groups as well, such as the Israelites and Arameans.

Depictions of migrating and marauding “Sea Peoples” appeared in Egyptian sources at this time, notably in the reliefs at Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. Scholars identified the Peleset, one of the named tribes of the Sea Peoples, with the Philistines. Leaving a trail of destruction in their wake, the Sea Peoples pillaged the eastern Mediterranean as they sought a new homeland. But they were no match for the Egyptians, who were able to repulse the Sea Peoples’ attack on the Nile Delta.

A.D. RIDDLE/BIBLEPLACES.COM

After their defeat by the Egyptians, the Philistines settled in Canaan. They became the dominant power in the region until the tenth century BCE. With the rise of the Israelite and Judahite kingdoms, their power diminished, but the Philistines remained the primary antagonists of the biblical kingdoms for centuries. Archaeologists argued that a process of assimilation took place, in which the Philistines slowly lost the original Aegean facets of their culture and replaced them with local Levantine elements. By the end of the Iron Age, it was thought, the Philistines looked, sounded, and acted much like their neighbors.

—–

This summarizes the traditional narrative about the origins of the Philistines and their role in ancient Israel’s history. But I believe the finds from Gath—one of the largest Philistine cities and the most powerful kingdom in the southern Levant during the first few centuries of the Iron Age—allow us to revise many of these long-held assumptions.

Cracks in the traditional view began to appear in the past few decades, and not only from the excavations at Gath. Evidence surfaced that the emergence of Philistine culture was not due to one specific migration and conquest in the early 12th century. Rather, it seemed to be the consequence of a long set of events, possibly beginning in the late 13th century and continuing for decades. This was not a monolithic invasion but, more likely, a series of migrations.

COURTESY AREN MAIER/TELL ES-SAFI/GATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT

Similarly, there is little evidence of destruction at the various Canaanite cities, such as Gath, Ashkelon, and Ekron, that became the heartland of Philistia. Rather, in most cases, there is clear continuity from the Late Bronze Age into the Iron Age. Although foreigners undoubtedly did arrive in Philistia in the early Iron Age, they seem to have lived alongside the local Canaanites. There may have been limited destructions at some of the sites where the Philistines settled, including Gath, but, for the most part, the sites continued to exist almost undisturbed.

As I have argued with my colleague Louise Hitchcock, early Philistine culture was a much more complex phenomenon than previously assumed.² It was not identical to and did not originate with any specific Mediterranean culture or people. The Philistines undoubtedly included new, foreign elements, but these originated from across the cultures of the Aegean and Mediterranean, including the Mycenean, Minoan, Cypriot, and Anatolian cultures. Along with these foreign elements, local Levantine influences are seen in early Philistine culture as well.

TODD BOLEN/BIBLEPLACES.COM

The early Philistines likely were composed of an assortment of foreign groups—from different socioeconomic backgrounds, including even pirates—and local Levantine peoples. This mixed background is apparent in most facets of Philistine culture, including pottery, language, foodways, burials, and religion.

We’ll start with pottery, perhaps the best-known aspect of Philistine material culture. Previous studies suggested that the first phase of Philistine decorated pottery—which appeared in Philistine settlements in the early 12th century—was modeled after contemporary Aegean pottery (called Late Helladic IIIC) and evidenced the direct transfer of Aegean ceramic traditions to Philistia. Yet only part of the Late Helladic IIIC ceramic repertoire appears in the southern Levant in the early Iron Age. In addition, this pottery was used in Philistia in different ways than in the Aegean and is also stylistically unique, incorporating local traditions in both form and decoration.

© MELISSA AJA/LEON LEVY EXPEDITION

Moving on to language, scholars have long assumed the early Philistines spoke something similar to Bronze Age Greek. Certain names and words connected to the Philistines in the Bible, such as Goliath, Achish, and seren, seemed to be associated with the Myceneans. Yet this interpretation oversimplifies the matter. Some of these “Philistine” words relate to other languages. For example, seren (a title meaning “leader”) probably comes from Luwian (a language spoken by the Hittites), and the name Goliath finds parallels in Luwian as well. Thus, the early Philistines are better imagined as being made up of “language communities”—groups of people who share linguistic norms, expectations, and patterns of usage—that used both local and foreign languages. Later in the Iron Age, these evolved together into the language spoken in Philistia, a Northwest Semitic language, attested by a small corpus of inscriptions, which was similar to Phoenician, Hebrew, and Moabite.

Food traditions have also been considered one of the more distinctive traits of Philistine culture. Preference for or lack of consumption of certain species was thought to indicate Philistine sites. This was particularly the case with the consumption of pork, but also of dog meat and specific plants, supposedly brought by the Philistines from the Aegean. Botanical evidence does show plant species that first appear in early Iron Age Philistia, as well as the earliest utilization of certain plants and possible changes in agricultural practices. But these new plants and traditions did not necessarily arrive exclusively from the Aegean, as they were also known in other regions of the Mediterranean.

PHOTO BY M. ENIUKHINA/COURTESY OF THE TELL ES-SAFI/GATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT

Pork consumption is a complex issue. People seem to have eaten pork at urban sites in Philistia, but less so at rural ones. Pork consumption decreases over the course of the Iron Age at some sites in Philistia, such as Ekron and Ashkelon, but not at Gath. Even more confusing, although it seems that people ate very little pork at some Canaanite and Judahite sites during the Iron Age, they did eat pork at sites in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Thus, a straightforward connection between pig consumption and identity, at least during the Iron Age, is problematic.

The diverse population of early Iron Age Philistia is also reflected in its burials. Published ancient DNA evidence from Ashkelon, isotopic studies from Gath, and unpublished DNA evidence from Gath and Tel Erani indicate a population made up of both foreign and local elements. In particular, whereas some infant burials from Ashkelon seem to show Aegean ancestry,^a other Iron Age I burials from Gath, Erani, and even Ashkelon appear to be more related to the local Canaanite population.

We’ll end our discussion of Philistine origins and culture with a brief look at trade. In the past, it was assumed that international trade largely ceased with the arrival of the Philistines in Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age. But new evidence from Ashkelon, Gath, Erani, and the more northern coastal site of Dor indicates that trade continued, though at diminished volumes as compared to earlier periods. The traded items include pottery, metals, and even exotic imports, such as bananas and soy. This may indicate that foreign influences—and perhaps people—continued to arrive in Philistia throughout the early Iron Age.

COURTESY AREN MAEIR/TELL ES-SAFI/GATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT

We turn now to the tenth and ninth centuries BCE. As discussed above, it was previously thought that Philistine culture and power diminished with the rise of the Judahite kingdom in the tenth century. But this view is not supported by the finds from Gath. There is no evidence that Judah dominated the region at the expense of the Philistines. On the contrary, it appears that this was a time of growth and prosperity for Gath. The city expanded to include both an upper and lower city during the 11th century and continued to thrive until its destruction by the Aramean king Hazael in 830 BCE. There is no evidence of any large destruction until then.

COURTESY AREN MAEIR/TELL ES-SAFI/GATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT

The finds in Gath’s lower city include a massive city wall and gate complex, public buildings, a temple with multiple phases, a large metal working area, and domestic structures with olive oil production facilities. The overall size of the city (which grew to more than 125 acres) and these impressive remains indicate that the kingdom of Gath was in all probability the region’s most powerful polity until the city was destroyed by Hazael. In fact, its geopolitical and economic importance may have been one of the main reasons behind Hazael’s efforts to destroy it so thoroughly.

In other words, there is no archaeological evidence that Philistia was dominated by the kingdom of Judah from the tenth century onward. While it is possible that Judah did expand into the southwestern Shephelah (the foothills between the coastal plain and the Judean hill country) at this time, the central Shephelah was still dominated by the kingdom of Gath. I believe that the destruction and abandonment of several Judahite sites in the early tenth century, including Khir-bet Qeiyafa and also perhaps Khirbet al-Ra‘i, may reflect Gath’s dominance over the region.

Although the biblical text paints the Philistines as the enemies of Judah (see sidebar), archaeological evidence indicates a fair amount of cultural interchange between the two neighboring regions. For example, Late Philistine Decorated Ware is found at Judahite sites, and Philistine forms of religious paraphernalia, such as figurines and animal head-shaped drinking vessels (“headcups”), appear at the Judahite temple at Moẓa just a few miles west of Jerusalem.

Four-horned altars are well known from ancient Israel and Judah, and when such altars were earlier found at the Philistine city of Ekron, they were interpreted as evidencing Israelite influence on Philistia, brought by Israelites who escaped the Assyrian destruction of the Northern Kingdom in the late eighth century. The discovery of a two-horned altar in a ninth-century temple at Gath, however, indicates that such altars first appeared in Philistia, and that cultic influences between the regions existed earlier than previously thought. Interestingly, next to the horned altar was found a Judahite storage jar inscribed with the Hebrew name Abtam (or Abitam). This suggests that some people from Judah actually participated in cultic activities at this Philistine temple.

COURTESY AREN MAEIR/TELL ES-SAFI/GATH ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROJECT

We know from archaeological and textual evidence that Gath’s dominance came to an end with the campaign of Hazael in the second half of the ninth century. Across Gath’s upper and lower city, impressive evidence of the massive destruction wrought by Hazael can be seen. Entire houses burned and collapsed, with their contents scorched at high temperatures. Hundreds of well-preserved vessels and other finds were found in the destruction, as well as the remains of more than ten individuals killed in the conquest. The destruction was so massive that the dead were left unburied, most likely because there were so few survivors, and anyone who was left alive fled.

After Gath’s destruction, the region’s geopolitical structure changed completely. Judah, along with the Philistine cities of Ekron and Ashkelon that had previously been subordinate to Gath, expanded into the Shephelah. Never fully recovering from the Aramean destruction, Gath lay abandoned for decades. In the eighth century, the once great city suffered yet further damage from an immense earthquake, recorded by the prophet Amos (Amos 1:1), and eventually fell under Judahite control until it was again destroyed, likely by the Assyrians, at the end of the century.³

More than a quarter-century of excavations at Philistine Gath has revealed a hitherto unknown bustling Iron Age city. The rich finds from Gath not only shed light on its status and role both within Philistia and the surrounding region, but also provide rich data that enable us to understand Philistine culture in a new and more sophisticated manner.

A quarter-century of excavations at Tell es-Safi, site of the Philistine city of Gath, has allowed archaeologists to refine longstanding assumptions about ancient Israel’s most feared rivals and how these people of foreign origin integrated into the social and ethnic fabric of the southern Levant. Venture into this thriving metropolis to glimpse the rich and diverse culture of one of the region’s most powerful Iron Age kingdoms.