Die Like an Egyptian: Burial Customs in Iron Age I Philistia Shirly Ben Dor Evian and Mario A. S. Martin Abstract The five tombs of the “Philistine lords” at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) have been a focal point for the study of Philistine burial customs. This, despite the long recognized fact, that they are also highly Egyptianized and possibly earlier than the Philistine pottery within them. In the present study we point out the similarities between these tombs and Egyptian rock-cut chamber tombs from Egypt itself and suggest a different interpretation to the Philistine burial customs they represent. Keywords Tell el-Far‘ah (South) · Philistines · Burial practices 1 Introduction The characteristic burial customs of southwest Israel during the early stages of the Iron Age have yet to be fully comprehended by modern day research. The accumulated evidence has thus far pointed to a mixture of burial forms, ranging from manmade caves,1 to cremations, pit burials, brick-case tombs, jar burials, intramural It is with great joy that we dedicate this article to Tom Levy, a dear colleague, an outstanding archaeologist with a passion for both the past and the future, and above all a true mentsh. 1 For Tell ‘Etun, see Edelstein & Aurant, 1992; for Tell es-Safi/Gath, see Faerman et al., 2011. S. Ben Dor Evian (*) Department of Cultural Heritage and the Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel e-mail: bdevian@gmail.com M. A. S. Martin Institute of Ancient History and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria e-mail: mario_antonio@hotmail.com © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 E. Ben-Yosef, I. W. N. Jones (eds.), “And in Length of Days Understanding” (Job 12:12): Essays on Archaeology in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond in Honor of Thomas E. Levy, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27330-8_27 625 626 S. Ben Dor Evian and M. A. S. Martin infant interments2 as well as rock-cut chamber tombs.3 This diversification is often considered as the result of the varied ethnic groups that inhabited the land in the early Iron Age, most notably the Philistines and the Canaanites. The varied burial forms have prompted attempts to find a correlation between certain mortuary practices and a specific ethnic group, but this has been difficult to pursue. Burials directly associated with the main early Philistine sites are few and include only a jar burial at Ashkelon, intramural infant interments at Ekron and the man-made multi-burial cave at Tell es-Safi/Gath.4 A common practice is therefore difficult to establish. The larger burial grounds at Azor, Tell ‘Etun and Tell el-Far‘ah (South) are just as diversified and cannot be attributed to specific ethnic groups on the basis of the burials themselves. Nevertheless, five tombs at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) have been identified as Philistine burials (Petrie, 1930: 7, Pl. XIX, Tombs 544, 542, 552, 532, 562) on the basis of the Philistine Bichrome pottery found within them (a view maintained also by Dothan, 1982; Gonen, 1992). This however represents an out-dated approach to the question of “pots and people,” one that has been questioned in regard to the Philistine pottery found within some of the Azor and ‘Etun burials (Ben-Shlomo, 2008; Edelstein & Aurant, 1992). What then is the ethnic affiliation of these five unique tombs and their relation to Philistine burial practices? A new analysis of the tombs may provide an answer. 2 The Problem of The Philistine Burials at Tell el Far‘ah (South) Located in the northwestern Negev, the site was excavated during the years 1928–1929 and published in two reports (Petrie, 1930; Starkey & Harding, 1932). An Egyptian residency of the New Kingdom era was unearthed in the northern part of the mound and numerous tombs were excavated in its environs. Cemetery 900 in particular, was correlated with the Egyptian occupation of the site. The subsequent Philistine phase was identified by the presence of Philistine Bichrome pottery found on top and above a cobbled courtyard to the south of the residency (Yannai, 2002). Additional such pottery was retrieved from various burials in Cemeteries 100, 200, 500, 600, and 800, but notably not from Cemetery 900 (Dothan, 1982: 29, n. 53). Five of the rock-cut chamber tombs that contained Philistine pottery in Cemetery 500 were exceptional in their size and plan, hence titled by Petrie “tombs of the 2 For Azor, see Ben-Shlomo, 2008; for Ashkelon, see Birney & Doak, 2011; for Ekron, see Gitin et al., 2006: 54–55. 3 For Cemetery 500 at Tell el Far‘ah (South), see Petrie, 1930; Starkey & Harding, 1932. 4 The recently discovered cemetery in Ashkelon is later than the presently discussed period (Master & Aja, 2017). Die Like an Egyptian: Burial Customs in Iron Age I Philistia 627 lords of the Philistines” (Petrie, 1930: 7, Pl. XIX, Tombs 544, 542, 552, 532, 562). However, this designation, although widely cited, presents some major difficulties. Firstly, these “Philistine” tombs yielded such features that were also associated with the Egyptian burials of Cemetery 900, namely Egyptian-type pottery (Tombs 542, 552, 562, see Martin, 2011: 233, Table 112) and anthropoid clay coffins (Tombs 552, 562). Secondly, the same allegedly “Philistine” plan of the “tombs of the Philistine lords” in Cemetery 500, also occurred in non-Philistine tombs from Cemetery 900 (Starkey & Harding, 1932: Pls. LIX–LX, Tombs 905, 914, 920, 934, 935, 936; 960; Petrie, 1930: Pl. XIII, Tomb 902). Therefore, in both design and artefacts, Cemeteries 900 and 500 were more alike than apart. This similarity was also noted by Gonen who commented that the two burial grounds could have been considered contemporaneous, were it not for the Philistine pottery and the anthropoid coffins within them (Gonen, 1992: 128). As anthropoid coffin burials are no longer regarded as a sign of Philistine “Egyptianization,” but rather as the coffins of Egyptian personnel who had died while stationed abroad, or at the very least, coffins of Canaanite personnel in Egyptian service (Oren, 1973: 139–141; Brug, 1985: 151–152; Bunimovitz, 1990: 216; Gonen, 1992: 28–30; Stager, 1995: 341–342; Yannai, 1996: 202–209; Morris, 2005: 701; Ben-Shlomo, 2010: 97),5 the only Philistine aspect remaining in the 500 tombs is the Bichrome pottery (Dothan, 1982: 29–33). Philistine Bichrome Ware is generally dated to the period following the end of Egyptian rule in Canaan, therefore, its appearance together with marked Egyptian traditions in Tombs 552 and 562 was interpreted as the result of on-going Egyptian influence at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) well into the Philistine era (Petrie, 1930: 9; Dothan, 1982; Martin, 2011: 235). However, we stipulate that this view is based on the presupposition that both Philistine and Egyptian-type assemblages in the tombs are contemporaneous, a notion that need not be retained in light of the state of the tombs upon their discovery. Tombs 542, 552 and 562 were discovered in disarray (Petrie, 1930: Pl. XIX; Oren, 1973: 141), having been disturbed in antiquity (Petrie, 1930: 8). Continuous use with multiple-layered burials was attested in many of the Tell el-Far‘ah (South) tombs (Petrie, 1930: 8 on Tomb 542; Dothan, 1982: 30; Laemmel, 2003, 2013: 145 on Tomb 534) and especially in the “Philistine” chambers: “When new burials were Dothan hypothesized that these anthropoid clay coffins were linked to the interment of the socalled Sea-Peoples. Dothan’s argument was based on the similarities between the head decoration of some of the Beth-Shean clay coffins and the Medinet Habu depictions of the Sea-Peoples. This hypothesis has since been widely rejected due to the geographical distribution of clay coffins, which can be found, among others, at the Jordanian sites of Pella, Amman, Sahab and Dibon (Cotelle-Michel, 2004: 205–207) and their chronological affiliation to thirteenth century BCE pottery-coffin burials at Deir el-Balaḥ (Dothan, 2008), thus pre-dating the arrival of the Philistine material culture to Canaan. On the possible connection between the head decoration on the anthropoid clay coffins from Beth-Shean and Aegean burials with similar headdress, see Yasur-Landau, 2013. For a different interpretation, associating the Beth-Shean depictions with thr warriors within the Egyptian empire before the advent of the Sea-Peoples, see Ben-Dor Evian, 2015. 5 628 S. Ben Dor Evian and M. A. S. Martin made the remains of previous interments were apparently swept aside or placed in the rear chamber to make room for the new occupants” (Waldbaum, 1966: 334). It therefore seems more likely that the Bichrome pottery was in fact another outcome of the disturbance of the burials in antiquity. The above observations strengthen Gonen’s hypothesis that the tombs of the “lords of the Philistines” were cut earlier than the Philistine pottery interred within them (Gonen, 1992: 128). In the following lines we shall present additional evidence for the contemporaneous execution and initial use of the rock-cut tombs in Cemeteries 500 and 900. 3 The Origin of the “Philistine” Tomb Plan The rock-cut tombs in Cemetery 500 stand out due to their unique plan and large size. The tombs consist of a stepped entrance leading into a rectangular chamber. The chamber is divided into a central passageway with raised platforms on either side and the occasional addition of a back chamber. This layout stands in sharp contrast to the rectangular burial pits that constitute the majority of the tombs in the Tell el-Far‘ah (South) cemeteries. The unusual plan was initially compared to Mycenaean chamber tombs (Waldbaum, 1966) but an alleged continuity between the MB IIC (Hyksos) tombs at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) and their Philistine counterparts has been used to suggest a mutual Cypriot origin dating to the Middle Bronze Age (Stiebing, 1970).6 The link to Cypriot and/or local prototypes has since gained further support to the point of refuting the Aegean origin of the tombs (Bunimovitz, 1990: 216–217; Gonen, 1992: 24; Morris, 2005: 750). Indeed, the plan of the so called Philistine tombs, although somewhat reminiscent of Mycenaean chamber tombs, differs from them in significant aspects: the stepped entrance, which is unlike the very long dromos of Mycenaean tombs (Gonen, 1992: 22–24); the roughly rectangular or trapezoidal form, which differs from the often rounded or varied shape of the Mycenaean chambers (Waldbaum, 1966: 335); the internal division into a main hall and side niches, a division completely lacking from the Mycenaean examples. The alternatively suggested Cypriot origin is likewise questionable. Prehistoric Bronze Age Cypriot chamber tombs that have been associated with the MB IIC tombs at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) are characterized by a dromos of varying depth and “a domed, irregular chamber roughly hewn into the bedrock” (Knapp, 2013: 311). These early examples of Cypriot tombs are often rounded and lack a back niche altogether and therefore differ considerably from the rectangular chambers of the Iron I. Moreover, it is difficult to argue for local continuity of the chamber tomb Bloch-Smith uses the term “bench-tombs” and views the Tell el Far‘ah (South) tombs as the prototype of the later Iron Age tombs in Judah, while accepting Stiebing’s MB Cypriot origin (BlochSmith, 1992: 44–47). 6 Die Like an Egyptian: Burial Customs in Iron Age I Philistia 629 plan from the MB IIC to the LB II when chamber tombs are not represented at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) at all between these two periods at the site, e.g. during the LB I–IIA.7 Later Protohistoric Bronze Age Cypriot tombs are highly diversified and mostly restricted to intramural burials, yet none can provide a good parallel for the Tell elFar‘ah (South) plan (Knapp, 2013: 381–383). Late Cypriot chamber tombs are generally rounded rather than rectangular or trapezoidal (Åström, 1972: Figs 25–27; Karageorghis, 1990: Fig. 11; Fischer & Bürge, 2017: Fig. 8). Therefore the possibility that the Tell el-Far‘ah (South) chamber tombs were inspired by contemporary Cypriot tombs is not supported by the Cypriot prototypes.8 In contemplating the prototype for the Cemetery 500 rock-cut tombs, it is significant that the same “Philistine” plan also occurs in non-Philistine tombs from Cemetery 900 (Starkey & Harding, 1932: Pls. LIX–LX, Tombs 905, 914, 920, 934, 935, 936, 960; Petrie, 1930: Pl. XIII, Tomb 902). As Cemetery 900 exhibits many Egyptian characteristics in pottery (Tombs 934, 905, 902, see Martin, 2011: Pl. 63), architectural features (Gonen, 1992: 128, referring to a central pillar in Tomb 914), and burial equipment (Starkey & Harding, 1932: 25, regarding a fragment of an anthropoid clay coffin in Chamber Tomb 935), an Egyptian prototype for the tomb design should be considered. We suggest that the rock-cut tombs in both Cemeteries 500 and 900 follow the basic plan of Egyptian rock-cut private tombs of the New Kingdom era (Fig. 1).9 Such tombs consist of a narrow stepped entrance leading to a rectangular broad room and sometimes include a back chamber. Many Theban private tombs follow this most simple and basic plan, recognized as Types I and IIa in Kampp’s typology (1996: 16–17). See for example TT302 from Dra Abu el-Naga (Kampp, 1996: 570, Fig. 463), with a roughly rectangular chamber and slightly rounded corners; TT205 and TT238, comprising a short entrance, broad room with a depression in the middle and a back niche (Kampp, 1996: 491, Fig. 384; 516, Fig. 410); TT176 (Fig. 1; ibid.: 464, Fig. 360; Calcoen, 2012: Pl. 22); TT54 with a division into two spaces For a comprehensive survey of all burial plans at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) and their chronological affiliation, see Laemmel, 2003: 45–59. 8 An unpublished dissertation by S. Laemmel suggests that various finds from Tell el-Far‘ah (South) exhibit evidence for on-going relations with Cyprus during the Iron I (Laemmel, 2003: Chapter 7, p. 69–70), thus providing a possible scenario for the adoption of Cypriot burial practices at Tell el-Far‘ah (South). Nevertheless, as shall be explained below, Laemmel, as do we, acknowledges a different origin for the plan of the chamber-tombs. 9 The similarity was noted by Risser and Harvey in a short abstract, but the idea was apparently not pursued (Risser & Harvey, 1992). Consequently, Gilmour suggested that the Tell el Far‘ah (South) tombs drew inspiration from three sources: Mycenaean, Cypriot and Egyptian (Gilmour, 1995: 161). Laemmel acknowledged the highly Egyptianized plan of the Tell el Far‘ah (South) chamber tombs, noting: “In fact, structurally, these tombs are not totally unlike some of the rock-cut chamber tombs of New Kingdom Egypt. The steep access corridor, in particular, is in a way quite close to the shafts of the Egyptian tombs and the chamber, which was reopened several times for successive body depositions, is evocative of Egyptian family burial chambers. This Egyptian flavour in the local mortuary practices is further evidenced by the occasional presence of the clay anthropoid sarcophagi in the chamber graves” (2003: 79). 7 630 S. Ben Dor Evian and M. A. S. Martin Fig. 1 TT 176 (Calcoen, 2012: Pl. 22) and Tell el-Far‘ah (South) Tomb 552. (After Petrie, 1930: Pl. XIX, minor features removed), not to scale Die Like an Egyptian: Burial Customs in Iron Age I Philistia 631 (Kampp, 1996: 261, Fig. 152; Polz, 1997: 15, Fig. 2). Numerous examples attest to the popularity of these simple tombs in Thebes and beyond it.10 The Egyptian prototype of the Tell el-Far‘ah (South) rock-cut tombs may also be traced through their dimensions. Some of the more symmetrical chambers are roughly square or rectangular in form and correspond to the Egyptian royal cubit system. Thus, Tomb 544 (Fig. 2) has two adjoining sides measuring 2.70 m each, which is the equivalent of five cubits (a royal cubit measures 52.3–52.5 cm). The entrance to the tomb also measures 2.70 m in length. The third side measures 1.62 m, roughly equivalent to three cubits, while the fourth side is clearly an attempt to correct the offshoot, measuring 1.80 m. The five cubits measure can also be observed in Tombs 914, 934 and 960 (Fig. 2). Tombs 532, 542, 552 and 562 seem to have been initially planned to measure seven royal cubits, as the side of the opening, which would logically have been dug first, ranges from 3.36 to 3.60 m in all of them (Figs. 3 and 4). The same measure is maintained on the perpendicular sides of both Tombs 532 and 552. The remaining published rock-cut Tombs 905, 935, 920 are too rounded to be measured, while Tomb 902 was not drawn to a known scale (Petrie, 1930: Pl. XIII). 4 Discussion During the LB II, the site of Tell el-Far‘ah (South) provides one of the best attestations of Egyptian presence as well as influence on local Canaanite culture. This includes the founding of a residency, considered to be the most accurately executed Egyptian architectural feature in Canaan (Morris, 2005: 745), associated with Egyptian-type pottery and prestige items (Fischer, 2011), that were likely used by the Egyptian inhabitants at the site (Morris, 2005: 537–538). Mortuary practices also reflected Egyptian habits (Braunstein, 2011), as attested by the abundance of Egyptian-type pottery (Martin, 2011: 229–235) and amulets, as well as the use of anthropoid clay coffins in Cemetery 900, often associated with Egyptian residencies in the Levant (Beth-Shean, Lachish, Deir el-Balaḥ; see Morris, 2005: 701–702). As argued above, Egyptian architecture was employed not only in the residency but also in the burial grounds around the settlement. While many of the interments were simple pit-burials, several large rock-cut chamber tombs in Cemeteries 900 and 500 were prepared in a distinct Egyptian fashion, common among New Kingdom private tombs. It has generally been assumed that the two burial grounds were not contemporaneous. Cemetery 900, associated with the Egyptian phase of Tell el-Far‘ah (South), was dated on both historical and typological grounds to the thirteenth–mid-twelfth 10 Kampp, 1996: 16–17, Table 3 lists more than 50 tombs with the back chamber or niche Type IIA, Table 2 lists 50 of the square room Type I. For Saqqara compare the tomb plan in Martin et al., 2001: Pl. 3. 632 S. Ben Dor Evian and M. A. S. Martin Fig. 2 Plan and major features of Tell el-Far‘ah (South) Tombs 544. (After Petrie, 1930: Pl. XIX), 934, 960 and 914. (After Starkey & Harding, 1932: Pls. LIX–LX), minor features removed Die Like an Egyptian: Burial Customs in Iron Age I Philistia 633 Fig. 3 Plan and major features of Tell el-Far‘ah (South) Tombs 542, 552 and 532. (After Petrie, 1930: Pl. XIX), minor features removed 634 S. Ben Dor Evian and M. A. S. Martin Fig. 4 Plan and major features of Tell el-Far‘ah (South) Tomb 562. (After Petrie, 1930: Pl. XIX), minor features removed centuries BCE (Martin, 2011: 229–234; see already Goldwasser, 1999; Morris, 2005; Fischer, 2011), while Bichrome Ware dated the Cemetery 500 Philistine tombs to ca. 1150–1100 BCE (Dothan, 1982: 290, Table 2; or even later, see McClellan, 1979). However, the fact that rock-cut chamber tombs in both cemeteries follow the same Egyptian plan, and that in both cases the burials included clay coffins and Egyptian-type pottery, suggests otherwise. It seems that under Egyptian rule, rock-cut tombs were prepared in both Areas 900 and 500 following several Egyptian mortuary practices: 1. Both burial grounds were oriented towards the west: Cemetery 900 was dug into the western slope of the tell and Cemetery 500 lies to the west of the mound, although the entrances to the 500 tombs faced the east and the 900 tombs faced the west. 2. The tomb plan followed basic Egyptian prototypes and measurements: the 900 tombs revolved around the five royal cubits Egyptian measure, while the 500 tombs were larger, measuring seven royal cubits. Die Like an Egyptian: Burial Customs in Iron Age I Philistia 635 3. Burial goods included anthropoid clay coffins, Egyptian-type pottery and amulets. The Egyptian-type pottery predominantly comprised of locally produced vessels of Egyptian shape and technology.11 Following the end of Egyptian rule, a new occupation of the site began during the Iron I. This phase was characterized by the appearance of Philistine Bichrome Ware in both the settlement and the burials around it (Cemeteries 100, 200, 500, 600, and 800). It was during this time that Cemetery 500 was reused and expanded (Morris, 2005: 751; Ben-Shlomo, 2010: 96). Evidence for re-use was recorded in Petrie’s description of the tombs. Moreover, the position of the clay coffins within the tombs, found in the back chamber of Tomb 552 and along the sidewall of Tomb 562, attests to their earlier deposition in the tombs. The Philistine pottery was therefore another sign of disturbance and not the marker of the initial burial. Notably different was the condition of Tomb 532, the only undisturbed tomb of the “Philistine lords.” Nine skeletons were found in articulation together with Philistine pottery. However, no Egyptian-type pottery or any anthropoid coffins were found in this tomb (Oren, 1973: 141–142) and a Ramesses X scarab attested to the later date of this interment (Petrie, 1930: 7, Pl. XXII: 202).12 The layout of this tomb is no different than the other “Philistine” tombs, making it likely that the Iron I occupants either imitated the Egyptian plan or, even more likely, used an empty chamber tomb left unused from the Egyptian era. Such an empty, unused rock-cut chamber tomb was found nearby—Tomb 544—which was tagged as “Philistine” merely for its plan. The evidence from the burial grounds therefore does not support a contemporaneous presence of Philistine and Egyptian populations at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) but opts for a reuse of the original Egyptian rock-cut chamber tombs during the time that Philistine Bichrome pottery became popular in southwestern Canaan.13 This partiality towards Egyptian burial customs can be detected at other Iron I burial sites exhibiting Egyptian motifs associated with the protection of the dead. These include a jar burial from Ashkelon inscribed with an Anubis/Wepwawet figure (Birney & Doak, 2011), and the inclusion of lotus decorations on Bichrome pottery within funerary contexts at Azor and Tell ‘Etun (Ben-Dor Evian, 2012). Personal observation of one of us in the Rockefeller Museum (courtesy of the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem). Note also that the Egyptian forms appearing at Tell el-Far‘ah (South) are typically Egyptian Nile clay shapes; in the southern Levant these forms were by and large locally manufactured (cf. Martin, 2011: 91 for the correlation between shape and fabric). 12 The seal was first published by Petrie as a Ramesses XI scarab, later identified as Ramesses X by Brandl (1982: 383) and later as an Amun-Re cryptogram by Uehlinger (1988: 25, n. 80). In any event, the typological features of the scarab suggest a late Ramesside date. 13 The presence, if at all, of Philistines at Tell el Far‘ah (South) is beyond the scope of the present article. 11 636 5 S. Ben Dor Evian and M. A. S. Martin Conclusions The Egyptian prototype for the Tell el-Far‘ah (South) rock-cut tombs is closer in shape, time and geography than the previously suggested Mycenaean or Cypriot origin. The nature of Tell el-Far‘ah (South) under Egyptian rule provides a reasonable historical background for the execution of Egyptian-type tombs at the site. The similarities between the rock-cut tombs of Cemeteries 500 and 900 are remarkable. Not only do both tomb groups display highly Egyptianized burial practices, i.e. type of offerings, use of anthropoid clay coffins and western orientation, but they also share the most common tomb design of New Kingdom Egypt. The overall evidence of the tomb plan, the anthropoid clay coffins and the Egyptian-type pottery all point to the Egyptian, rather than Philistine, execution of Tombs 532, 542, 544, 552 and 562. Some of these Egyptian-type tombs were later intruded upon and reused by the new occupants of the site. The identity of these new occupants cannot be conclusively identified. Philistine Bichrome Ware cannot, on its own, be used to determine a Philistine, rather than Canaanite identity. It is however interesting to note that Philistine Bichrome Ware has been unearthed at other formerly Egyptian sites of the western Negev (Tell el-‘Ajjul [Dothan, 1982: 35], Tell Jemmeh [ibid.: 33–35; BenShlomo, 2014], Deir el-Balaḥ [Brandl, 2010: 107–108] and Qubur el-Walaydah [Lehmann et al., 2010: 149–151]) attesting to the reuse of the deserted Egyptian residencies by the local and/or new populations of southwest Canaan. The presence of Philistine Bichrome pottery within the Egyptian burials of Tell el-Far‘ah (South) may be the result of a similar process by which newcomers associated themselves with the land through the reoccupation of its past centers of power. Alternatively, this can be seen as a further manifestation of the “entangled” identity of the early Iron Age inhabitants (Maeir & Hitchcock, 2017), mixing Egyptian tombs with Philistine, Canaanite and Egyptianized objects. References Åström, P. (1972). The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Volume IV. Part 1C. The late Cypriot Bronze Age architecture and pottery. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition. Ben-Dor Evian, S. (2012). Egypt and Philistia in the Iron Age I: The case of the Philistine lotus flower. Tel Aviv, 39, 20–37. Ben-Dor Evian, S. (2015). “They were thr on land, others on sea…” The etymology of the Egyptian term for “Sea-Peoples”. Semitica, 57, 57–75. Ben-Shlomo, D. (2008). The cemetery of Azor and early Iron Age burial practices. Levant, 40, 29–54. Ben-Shlomo, D. (2010). Philistine iconography: A wealth of style and symbolism (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 241). Academic. Ben-Shlomo, D. (2014). Decorated Philistine pottery. In D. Ben-Shlomo & G. W. van Beek (Eds.), The Smithsonian institution excavation at Tell Jemmeh, Israel, 1970–1990 (pp. 721–731). Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 50. Die Like an Egyptian: Burial Customs in Iron Age I Philistia 637 Birney, K., & Doak, B. R. (2011). Funerary iconography on an infant burial jar from Ashkelon. Israel Exploration Journal, 61, 32–53. Bloch-Smith, E. (1992). Judahite burial practices and beliefs about the dead (JSOT Supp 123). JSOT Press. Brandl, B. (1982). The Tel Masos scarab: A suggestion for a new method for the interpretation of royal scarabs. Scripta Hierosolymitana, 28, 371–405. Brandl, B. (2010). The stratigraphy of the settlement. In T. Dothan & B. Brandl (Eds.), Deir el Balaḥ: Excavations in 1977–1982 in the cemetery and settlement (Qedem 49) (pp. 63–249). Braunstein, S. L. (2011). The meaning of Egyptian-style objects in the late Bronze cemeteries of Tell el-Farʿah (South). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 364, 1–36. Brug, J. F. (1985). A literary and archaeological study of the Philistines. BAR International Series 265. Bunimovitz, S. (1990). Problems in the “ethnic” identification of Philistine material culture. Tel Aviv, 17(2), 210–222. Calcoen, B. (2012). TT176. The Tomb Chapel of Userhat (GHP Egyptology 16). Golden House Publications. Cotelle-Michel, L. (2004). Les sarcophages en terre cuite en Égypte et en Nubie: de l’époque prédynastique à l’époque romaine. Faton. Dothan, T. (1982). The Philistines and their material culture. Yale University Press. Dothan, T. (2008). Deir el-Balaḥ: Uncovering an Egyptian outpost in Canaan from the time of the exodus. Edelstein, G., & Aurant, S. (1992). The Philistine tomb at Tell ‘Eitun. ‘Atiqot, 21, 23–41. Faerman, M., Smith, P., Boaretto, E., Uziel, J., & Maeir, A. M. (2011). “… in their lives, and in their death …”: A preliminary study of an Iron Age burial cave at Tell eṣ-ṣāfī, Israel. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-vereins, 127(1), 29–48. Fischer, E. (2011). Tell el-Far‘ah (Süd): Ägyptisch-levantinische Beziehungen im späten 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 247. Fischer, P. M., & Bürge, T. (2017). Tombs and offering pits at the Late Bronze Age metropolis of Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus. BASOR, 377, 161–218. Gilmour, G. (1995). Aegean influence in Late Bronze funerary practices in the southern Levant. In S. Campbell & A. Green (Eds.), The archaeology of death in the ancient Near East (pp. 155–170). Oxbow Monograph 51. Gitin, S., Meehl, M. W., & Dothan, T. (2006). Occupational history – Stratigraphy and architecture. In M. W. Meehl, T. Dothan, & S. Gitin (Eds.), Tel Miqne-Ekron. Excavations 1995–1996, Field INE East Slope: Late Bronze II–Iron I (pp. 27–69). The early Philistine city, Tel Miqne-Ekron 8. Goldwasser, O. (1999). Hieratic fragments from Tell el Far‘ah (South). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 313, 31–38. Gonen, R. (1992). Burial patterns and cultural diversity in late Bronze Age Canaan (ASOR dissertation series 7). Eisenbrauns. Kampp, F. (1996). Die Thebanische Nekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie. Theben 13. Karageorghis, V. (1990). Tombs at Palaeopaphos: 1. Teratsoudhia 2. Eliomylia. A.G. Leventis Foundation. Knapp, A. B. (2013). The archaeology of Cyprus. From earliest prehistory through the Bronze Age. Laemmel, S. (2003). A case study of the late Bronze and early Iron Age cemeteries of Tell el-Far‘ah (South). Dissertation, University of Oxford. Laemmel, S. (2013). A few tomb groups from Tell el-Far‘ah south. In A. E. Killebrew & G. Lehmann (Eds.), The Philistines and other “Sea Peoples” in text and archaeology (pp. 145–189). SBL. Lehmann, G., Rosen, S. A., Berlejung, A., et al. (2010). Excavations at Qubur al-Walaydah, 2007–2009. Die Welt des Orients, 40(2), 137–159. Maeir, A. M., & Hitchcock, L. A. (2017). Rethinking the Philistines: A 2017 perspective. In O. Lipschits, Y. Gadot, & J. M. Adams (Eds.), Rethinking Israel – Studies in the history and archaeology of ancient Israel in honor of Israel Finkelstein (pp. 247–266). 638 S. Ben Dor Evian and M. A. S. Martin Martin, M. A. S. (2011). Egyptian-type pottery in the Late Bronze Age southern Levant. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 69. Martin, G. T., van Dijk, J., Raven, M. J. et al (2001). The tombs of three Memphite officials: Ramose, Khay and Pabes. McClellan, T. L. (1979). Chronology of the “Philistine” burials at Tell el-Far‘ah (south). Journal of Field Archaeology, 6(1), 57–73.. Morris, E. F. (2005). The architecture of imperialism: Military bases and the evolution of foreign policy in Egypt’s New Kingdom. Probleme der Ägyptologie 22. Oren, E. D. (1973). The northern cemetery of Beth Shan. Leiden. Petrie, F. (1930). Beth-Pelet I (Tell Fara) (BSAE 48). Polz, D. (1997). Das Grab des Hui und des Kel: Theben 54. Archäologische Veröffentlichungen 74. Risser, M. K., & Harvey, S. P. (1992). A reexamination of chamber tombs at Tell el-Far‘ah (South). American Journal of Archaeology, 96(2), 344. Stager, L. E. (1995). The impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 BCE). In T. E. Levy (Ed.), The archaeology of society in the Holy Land (pp. 332–348). Starkey, J. L., & Harding, L. (1932). Beth Pelet II (BSAE 52). Stiebing, W. H. (1970). Another look at the origins of the Philistine tombs at Tell el-Far‘ah (S). American Journal of Archaeology, 74(2), 139–143. Uehlinger, C. (1988). Der Amun-Tempel Ramses’ III. In p3-Kn‘n, seine südpalästinischen Tempelgüter und der Übergang von der Ägypter- zur Philisterherrschaft: Ein Hinweis auf einige wenig beachtete Skarabäen. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästinavereins, 104, 6–25. Waldbaum, J. C. (1966). Philistine tombs at tell Far‘ah and their Aegean prototypes. American Journal of Archaeology, 70(4), 331–340. Yannai, E. (1996). Aspects of the material culture of Canaan during the Egyptian 20th dynasty (1200–1130 BCE). Dissertation, Tel Aviv University (Hebrew). Yannai, E. (2002). A stratigraphic and chronological reappraisal of the “Governor’s residence” at Tell el-Far‘ah (South). In S. Ahituv (Ed.), Ahron Kempinski memorial volume: Studies in archaeology and related disciplines (Beer-Sheva 15) (pp. 368–376). Beer Sheva. Yasur-Landau, A. (2013). The “feathered helmets” of the Sea Peoples—Joining the iconographic and archaeological evidence. Talanta, 44, 27–40.