The story of the Philistines as Mycenaean or Aegean migrants,
refugees who fled the Aegean after the collapse of the palace societies c.1200
BC, bringing an Aegean culture and practices to the Eastern Mediterranean, is
well known. Accepted as essentially true by some, yet rejected as little more
than a modern myth by others, the migration narrative retains a central place
in the archaeology and historiography of the Eastern Mediterranean in the
Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age (LBA/EIA). In recent years, and despite an
increasingly shaky theoretical basis, the migration hypothesis has nevertheless
seemed to drown out other interpretations and characterizations of the period,
claiming a normative position that is undeserved. In this paper I explore the
continuing power of this nineteenth century narrative and seek to show why it
is less convincing than its prominent status would suggest.