Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior Author(s): Jeffrey R. Zorn Source: Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research , November 2010, No. 360 (November 2010), pp. 1-22 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41104416 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms The American Schools of Oriental Research and The University of Chicago Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research This content downloaded from 132.174.252.179 on Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:15:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Reconsidering Goliath: An Iron Age I Philistine Chariot Warrior Jeffrey R. Zorn Department of Near Eastern Studies 409 White Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 [email protected] The text of 1 Sam 17:4-7 gives a detailed account of the arms and armor of the Philistine champion who battled David in the Elah Valley, a description unmatched for detail in any other biblical text. The text seems to contain enough information to provide an approximate sense of Goliath* s appearance. However, this is where the heart of the debate lies. Previous approaches have viewed the description of Goliath as modeled on an infantry man, be it a Mycenaean warrior of the Iron Age I, a Greek hoplite of the sixth century, or something of a mix of the two. However, if he is understood as a chariot warrior, a member of the Philistine elite warrior class, there is nothing in the descrip- tion of his equipment that demands a late date for the text's origin. In fact, all his gear matches well with what might be expected of an Aegean-Levantine chariot warrior of the Iron I period. INTRODUCTION the question remains whether these late editors were aware of and relied upon earlier traditions, including recent years several scholars have those revisited of Philistine the weaponry and armor, or whether issues surrounding the description ofGoliath's the weapons kit is a priori a late fabrication, if anything and armor of the Philistine warrior who reflecting fought the equipment of Greek mercenaries of the famous duel with a youthful David in erathe ofElah the Val- editors. After all, Homer recalls authentic ley (1 Sam 17:4-7). Some, such as Finkelstein touches of (2002: a Myceanean military kit when he describes 142-48) and A. Yadin (2004: 375-76), boar'sfavor tuskin one helmets, tower shields, etc. (Lorimer 1950: way or another the approach laid out by 132-306), Galling (1966:showing that a writer working centuries 150-69), according to which the description after the of events this he describes can preserve at least some gear was fabricated by late Deuteronomistic memories editors of the distant past. Given the flurry of recent and has little, if anything, to do with thestudies material on this cul- topic, a legitimate question is whether tural realities of the Iron I period.1 Others, another such review as of the subject is warranted. While vari- Millard (2009: 337-43), Garsiel (2009: ous 404-9), scholars King have contributed many valuable insights (2007: 350-57), Stager (1998: 169; 2006a: on this 381), subject King over the years, the contention advanced and Stager (2001: 228), and Dothan (1982: here is20), that argue a fundamental misunderstanding has always that Y. Yadin's (1963: 265-67, 354-55) understanding been made in the approach to this passage. Because is essentially correct, and that the description the duel oftook the place on foot, scholars have assumed, Philistine's gear corresponds to that of without a late Myce-comment, that the Philistine described was an naean or Sea Peoples soldier from the infantryend of the man, Late or foot soldier. However, it is the very Bronze Age/Iron I period. While not doubting combination the late of weapons and armor with which he was editing of the biblical text, or that the equipped editor's knowl-- and which to some have seemed a cultural edge of earlier times might be imperfect hodge-podge, or limited, suggesting a completely non-historical character - that are actually the key to understanding the nature of this figure. If, instead, one sees Goliath 1 Ca. 1200-980 b.c. by the Modified Conventional Chronology (Mazar 2005: 16, table 2.1) or 1200-920 b.c. by asthe a Lowchariot Chronol- warrior, most, if not all, of the problems ogy (Mazar 2005: 23). associated with an early dating for the description 1 This content downloaded from 132.174.252.179 on Thu, 24 Jun 2021 22:15:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 2 JEFFREY R. ZORN BASOR 360 of his gear disappear; repertoire (Finkelstein 2002: he 145-46; fitsMillard 2009: very well into an Iron Age I material 338-39). culture To be added to this list context. of incongruous ele- Indeed, it is just dur- ing the era of ments Saul is the giant's and probable bronze David sickle sword, a that Philistine chariots are attested in the Bible and in the material culture weapon of the second millennium. As will be clear record. For example, chariot fittings themselves fromare the following discussion, these three elements attested from the Philistine sites of Ashkelon (Stager are part of the heritage of the ancient Near East. If 2006b) and Ekron (Dothan 1993; Dothan and Drenka the description of the giant is supposed to faithfully 2009). According to the biblical text, in the Philistine depict a Greek warrior of the editor's era, this mix- invasion of the central hill country leading up to ing the of Greek and non-Greek elements is odd. On the battle in the Michmash Pass, the Philistines are said other to hand, the preponderance of bronze among the have mustered 30,000 chariots (1 Sam 13:5; or 3,000: Philistine's weapons and armor, save for the massive McCarter 1980: 224-25)! Similarly, Philistine chari- iron spearhead, is not a weighty argument against see- ots are found at Saul's final battle at Mt. Gilboa (2 ing Sam him as based on a type of Greek hoplite from the 1 :6). Even if the first set of numbers is exaggerated, editor's it era (contra Millard 2009: 341). Greek hoplite seems likely that Philistine armies routinely included gear from 700 b.c. and later was mostly bronze (Snod- chariots, and if so, their crews would be among grassthe 1957: 38, 42-43), except for the iron spearhead elite troops of the army. (Snodgrass 1957: 50-53, 57; Hanson 2000: 71-84). This study will not deal with the literary devel- However, the emphasis placed by the author on the opment of the story, or with the complexities of bronze its composition of certain pieces of equipment is literary transmission, or how it functions in the over-significant and may suggest an early date (see below). all narrative.2 Nor will the historical parallels for the Before going on to a case-by-case analysis of the contest of champions, often discussed in this context, military equipment listed in 1 Samuel 17, it is next be examined. The focus here is only on the narrower necessary to survey the obstacles facing scholars who topic involving military equipment and terminology would clarify this subject. This will eliminate certain and how it illuminates the nature of the Philistine theories and objections at the start. First and foremost, champion. it must be stated that there are no late 1 1 th-century Goliath is, of course, first a literary character b.c. por- sources that document the appearance of Philis- trayed in epic fashion. He is unknown from contem- tine warriors that would be contemporary with the porary sources outside of the Bible, itself a work biblical of Goliath. This is a crucial point. Those who literature. It is unknown how many stories about argue him against an Iron Age I context for this gear note may have been transmitted in Israelite and Philistine that the 1 Samuel 17 descriptions do not match the ap- circles, or even if he actually existed. For this article, pearance of the Sea Peoples warriors depicted in the this issue is not important. The aim is to ascertain mortuary how temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu ca. the storytellers and writers who transmitted this 1175 tale b.c. (A. Yadin 2004: 375-76; Finkelstein 2002: through the centuries, and the audiences who heard 142-43; Rofé 1987: 132). This, however, is something or read it, envisioned this Philistine champion, ofreal a red herring. It is well known that the material cul- or not. ture of the Philistines evolved in the period after their It is important, then, to note that efforts to see arrivalthe in south coastal Canaan (Stager 1995: 334-35; descriptions of Goliath's gear as reflecting some sortDothan 1982: 95-96). Ceramics offer the clearest ex- of mercenary Greek hoplite (Finkelstein 2002: ample143) of this. The initial form of Philistine pottery or retrojection of a Hellenized "Philistine" culture is now known as Philistine Monochrome (formerly of the sixth century and later into the past (A.