In this paper we review and consider the relationship between Mycenaean and Philistine archaeology, outlining the historical and recent treatment of this relationship. We conclude that the polarized views that the Philistines were Mycenaean colonists, or alternatively had no connection with the Mycenaeans, still reifies long held, polarized narratives, while also mirroring the interaction (or in many cases, lack thereof) between archaeologists working in Philistia and in the Aegean. With a handful of notable exceptions, many archaeologists work in one place or the other and remain immersed in the literature of one place or the other. In addition, scholars working in their respective areas tend to find what they are looking for.
We suggest that the pathway out of these extreme models, one which over-simplifies the Aegean evidence and the other which treats it as meaningless, can be achieved by conceiving of the different tribes of “Sea Peoples” as already mixed and entangled cultural entities that had preexisting connections with various parts of the Mediterranean and shared an affinity for particular Mycenaean symbols. Understanding the complex relationship between Mycenaean and Philistine archaeology requires a broad familiarity with Mediterranean archaeology, scholarly collaboration, methods situated in the study of transcultural and transnational identities, attention to context — looking closely at how the objects were used — and a healthy dose skepticism about what one is looking for in order to separate fact from fiction
