Chronological Separation, Geographical Segregation, or Ethnic Demarcation? Ethnography and the Iron Age Low Chronology.

The traditional Iron Age chronology has recently been challenged by I. Finkelstein who proposed a wholesale lowering of its dates. The cornerstone of the new chronology is the seeming absence of Philistine Monochrome pottery in 20th Dynasty Egyptian strongholds in southern Canaan and the absence of Egyptian(ized) pottery in Philistine sites. According to Finkelstein, the only viable explanation for this phenomenon is chronological. Adherents of the traditional schema, on the other hand, prefer an interpretation based on cultural segregation and reject the low chronology. Both views, however, are based on the implicit premise that there is a straightforward correlation between the extent of interaction among human groups and the degree of similarity in their material culture. Relying on ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological evidence, we intend to show that this premise is flawed, and that restricted distribution of artifacts does not contradict interaction. This observation on human behavior is enough to cast serious doubts on the foundations and methodology of the low chronology. Furthermore, since symbolic delineation of group identity and boundaries is accentuated at times of competition, items symbolizing cultural identity may be held back in spite of interaction. As competition seems to characterize Iron I Philistia, it is highly tenable that the social meaning of the Philistine Monochrome pottery as well as of its Egyptian counterpart prevented their diffusion and adoption outside the restricted zones in which they communicated group identity and cohesion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]