ABSTRACT
The traditional system for the chronology of the late Iron I and early Iron II strata in the Levant is based on two pillars: (1) The date of Philistine pottery and its implications to the end of the Iron I; (2) The date of the Iron IIA strata in the north. These two pillars are certainly related, but they are not necessarily dependent on each other (contra Bunimovitz and Faust 2001: abstract; Mazar 1997). In other words, the acceptance or rejection of one does not call for a similar attitude to the other. And I should say from the outset, these two pillars have very little to do with archaeology. Rather, they are based mainly-the second pillar solely-on the biblical account of the early history of Israel. In other words, this is a unique (and annoying) case in which archaeologists compromised the evidence provided by their own discipline in favor of the one-sided interpretation of the textual material provided by another discipline, material which has been the focus of a fierce dispute since the early 19th century. The first pillar is the Albright/Alt Philistine paradigm (1932: 58; 1944, respectively), according to which:
1. The Philistines were settled by Ramesses III in his strongholds in Canaan immediately after his battles with the Sea Peoples in his eighth year, that is, in 1175 BCE.
