Talk:Merneptah Stele

old thread

in the paragraph about israel it is said that the next non - biblical evidance about israel is the meisha stele but there is another stele found in "tel-dan" talking about hazael ben hadad and how he won over an israeli king from the "house of david". i think that one is a bit older, allthough they are very close —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.130.217.64 (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial Comments

I'm aware that this Stele is widely known as "The Israel Stele", but, considering its content, it is more accurate to call it "The Merneptah Stele". Thus, the revision. -RomeW

Fair enough. While personally I believe most users will come to Wiki and search for "Israel Stela" (right or wrong), you are correct. However, there are also lots of other stelae of Merenptah, but only one Victory Stela. —Nefertum17 09:26, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe Merneptah 'had' a lot of stelae- he was ill for most of his life, and really went on just one campaign (the Libyan campaign depicted here) as a Pharaoh (the other known Stela from him is a direct copy of this Stela at Karnak). Having looked at the text further (in Miriam Lichtheim's book), it should probably be more correctly called the "Victory Hymn of Merneptah" because that's what it is- a hymn. I believe that's what the title *should* be, but I'm not sure if we absolutely *need* to be that accurate. -RomeW

Name

I have moved the article to "Merneptah Stele" as Wikipedia official naming policy is that articles have the "most common name" rather than any technical definition - see Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use common names of persons and things.

Also note that it requests the titles be simple (in the "specifics" of that part of the policy). ~~~~ 18:59, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda?

Ancient propaganda? Israel's seed could definitely not of been laid to waste. It still exists today. Possible motives? Maybe a connection to the legend that Israelite women were giving birth to 7 babies at once.

It was mentioned in the article that "seed laid waste" meant that they destroyed their store of grain. (not everything in the bible has to do with sex)--Jake4d (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And in this case, nothing to do with the Bible. It just means as the fellow above said, they messed up their land. The think about this stele is that what happened is irrelevant to archaeologists, it the name Israel appearing so early in an extrabiblical source that matters. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"The stela does make clear that "Israel" at this stage, refers to a people or tribal confederation" Makes it clear to who? It isn't clear to me. What is clear is that the mention of 'Israel' is absolutely meaningless and has no connection with Israelites, Judaism, Torah, old testament, Dead Sea scrolls, modern day Jews, modern day Israel, etc. To say it does is propaganda and wishful thinking. We've obviously all seen this behavior all over Wikipedia by a certain group of people so it comes as no surprise, but come on..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.225.34 (talk) 04:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well you see the reason for that is because you probably cannot read it in the original Ancient Egyptian (nor can I), because the way it is written shows it was regarded as a people rather than a kingdom, etc. Think of how in some names you have something that looks like a wall surrounding the name and meaning that it is a city. Nope, that is not clear. It means that by 1207 you had a people known as Israel that had established themselves in the area. Now I don't mean this to sound rude, but don't you think that after one hundred years of examination and discussion by hundreds of archaeologists we could have determined whether it was meaninglingness reference? We do re-examine the things we can look at physically and so if after all this time the concensus is that Petrie's assessment was correct, it has to say something. Philip R. Davies btw is a terrible historian with a very clear political agenda just like his other minimalist colleagues. Well I subscribe to Israel Finkelstein's interpretations of the Bible for the most part btw. If my wording is crummy, it's because I just got up. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

2015

Reading it in middle Egyptian using Gardiner and Faulkner

The last three lines of the stele are a titulary signature as evidenced by the cartouches (prenomen)| son of the sun (nomen)|.

Miriam Lichtheim, Berkley, 1976, translates them as

Line 26

The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!" Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,Canaan

Line 27

is captive with all woe, Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,Yanoam made nonexistent;Israel is wasted, bare of seed, Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued.

Line 28

By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun, Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat, Given life like Re every day.

The end of Line 26 refers to Tjenhu,(Libya) Hatti, and Canaan

Line 27 summarizes the first 25 lines which are about the defeat and plunder of the Libyan Nine Bows,

specifically the Tjenen, Meshwesh, and Libyans near Alexandria.

Where Petrie's philologist Wilhelm Spiegelberg, Breasted and Lichtheim read "Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,

Breasteds transliteration reads"inw iskrny" Ashkelon is conquered,

but there he has mistaken a T10 pd bow for an r to get rny instead of pdty (bowmen).

Breasted goes on "mhw m kdr" Gezer seized where the stele reads n mr hst w (Nubians) m tmhi (foreigners)

Breasted omits the determinative and there is no kdr or ynw' = Yenoam.

Breasted has ir w m tm wn to be "made nonexistent" Yanoam made nonexistent; is derived from a determinative

Where Breasted continues [y](end of sentence) sr i3r fk.ti and translates it Israel is wasted, bare of seed,

the stela continues s:y:r iA r:Z1 T14 A1*B1:plural f:n:t:wr (converting VSO to SOV = Her great foreign voice ruined)

Where Breasted has bn prt f h3rw

the stela has bn pr r t f plural h3rw

Where Breasted has hpr.w m h3 rt n Khor is become a widow for Egypt.

the stela has hp r w Mn:sw w r s3(red crown of lower Egypt) and

Gardiner has for widow M12 h3 Ar:t Det D3B1. 142.0.102.239 (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Not propaganda, just a mistake. I.si.ri.ar sounds an awful lot like like Assyra to me. 2600:1004:B042:D95B:BF5E:862D:4EC8:D5A2 (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael G. Hasel's theory

The article contains this paragraph about a theory of Michael G. Hasel of Southern Adventist University:

Another explanation offered by Michael G. Hasel, director of the Institute of Archaeology at Southern Adventist University, is that Israel was already a well established political force in Canaan in the late 13th century BCE: "Israel functioned as an agriculturally based or sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century BCE one that is significant enough to be included in the military campaign against political powers in Canaan. While the Merneptah stela does not give any indication of the actual social structure of the people of Israel, it does indicate that Israel was a significant socioethnic entity that needed to be reckoned with."[7]

I have no idea who Michael G. Hasel is, or how much authority he cqarries in Egyptological circles, I'm inclined to suspect any church-based US university, as many of them are quite mediocre. On the other hand, I don't want to make judgements when I really know nothing of the subject. But my problem with Hasel's theory is this: the line about Israel in the stele, as quoted in this article, gives no indication that Israel was agriculturally based or sedentary, yet here Hasel says that what it was - his conclusion is not supported by the evidence. So I'd be strongly inclined to delete But I leave it to others to decide. PiCo 06:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe that possibly they mistranslated or are attempting to make it into something it's not. Another possible meaning is that Israel was barren of seed. It's fields wasted. If they are not listed as a country it's possible that it's referring to the status of the land. If they were nomadic the Egyptians may have chosen to destroy the fields of the Israelites in order to get them to move or as a punishment for the alliances.71.62.197.151 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The determinative at the end of Isreal indicates 'people' not land or fields.

Herzog is trying to claim archaeologist have proven a negative? LOL. Fallacious arguments are irrelevant. Did he publish before the reference to Bit David was discovered on the Mesha Stele and the Tel Dan Stele? Then he's behind the times.

4.249.3.47 (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

NEW ABOUT HASEL: Hasel is a PhD in Archaeology from U of Arizona and archaeologist William Dever was hs PhD supervisor: https://www.southern.edu/archaeology/facultyandstaff/Pages/michaelhasel.aspx Hasel's theory is based on the understanding that "The phrase "wasted, bare of seed" is formulaic, and often used of defeated nations - it implies that the grain-store of the nation in question has been destroyed, which would result in a famine the following year, incapacitating them as a military threat to Egypt" (Wikipedia, ths article). Israel had to be settled at this time already because the were agriculturalists who planted and harvested crops in a rural setting (central hill country) and not nomadic pastoralists (Bedouin-like) who would have moved from place to place. This fits very well with the period of the Judges and the Israelite Agricultural Festivals found in the Hebrew Bible. Hasel's theory should be included on Wikipedia. 99.253.125.144 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTICE TO REPOST MICHAEL HASEL: If there are no rational objections in opposition, I will re-add to this article Michael Hasel's conclusions on the significance of the Israel reference as follows:

Another explanation offered by archaeologist Michael G. Hasel (Ph.D. University of Arizona) is that Israel was already a well established political force in Canaan in the late 13th century BCE: "Israel functioned as an agriculturally based or sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century BCE one that is significant enough to be included in the military campaign against political powers in Canaan. While the Merneptah stela does not give any indication of the actual social structure of the people of Israel, it does indicate that Israel was a significant socioethnic entity that needed to be reckoned with."

99.253.125.144 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If the grain store had been destroyed by Egypt it would have been mentioned in Judges. I don't think the stele is saying that Mernetpah destroyed the stores, it's just an expression meaning there is famine in Israel. Ruth tells of the famine, and she gives 14 generations before David as the time of the famine, and that is right about the time of Mernetpah. 2600:1004:B02F:7C34:180E:D7EB:E0C2:CFBA (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Picture label incorrect?

Is it just me, or does the picture of the stele mentioning Israel only say "Isreal" and just the fragment of the word/concept "waste"? The label under the picture reads "Israel is wasted, its seed is no longer." Maybe the label needs to be changed to reflect this? Possibly change it to "Segment of the Merneptah Stele mentioning Israel"..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.100.252 (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the state of Israel

Is all of this really appropriate for this article? Shouldn't this be in an article about Israel?

Absolutely not. The discussion here is about the Merneptah Stele which never mentions Israel, and how it mistakenly came to be called the Israel Stele.142.0.102.15 (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A theory by Donald Redford states that "Israel" was a band of Bedouin-like wanderers known to Egyptians as "Shasu". Redford notes that among the Shasu in a 15th century BC list at the Soleb temple of Amenhotep III is one labelled "Yhw- in the land of the Shasu", which has been considered an early form of tetragrammaton, thus providing a possible explanation for the origin of Israel. The proposed link between the Israelites and the Shasu is undermined, however, by the fact that in the Merneptah stela, the Israelites are not depicted as Shasu, but wear the same clothing and have the same hairstyles as the Canaanites, who are shown defending the fortified cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam. As far as what "Israel" became after that, there are few conclusions that can be drawn. The next non-Biblical source about Israel, detailing a campaign against Moab by Omri, appears some 300 years later in the Mesha Stele. The 200 years between the Merneptah Stele and the foundation of the Kingdom of Israel by Saul in c.1000 BC are treated by the Bible in a rather cursory manner, leaving much to speculation about how Israel became a kingdom. Regardless, the stele is an important source for Israelite history simply because it is the first official record in history of an "Israel", even if this record does not explain much.

Another explanation offered by Michael G. Hasel, director of the Institute of Archaeology at Southern Adventist University, is that Israel was already a well established political force in Canaan in the late 13th century BCE:

"Israel functioned as an agriculturally based or sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century BCE one that is significant enough to be included in the military campaign against political powers in Canaan. While the Merneptah stela does not give any indication of the actual social structure of the people of Israel, it does indicate that Israel was a significant socioethnic entity that needed to be reckoned with."

If there are no objections I am going to remove it and try to find another article for it. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Well, the Merneptah Stele is one datum of evidence relevant to the complicated question of the origins of the Israelites, but perhaps much of that material should be on an article dealing mainly with the topic of the origins of the Israelites... AnonMoos (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if the discussion were summarized we could leave the key points and move the rest to another article on the subject in question. Sweetmoose6 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The main article appears to be Israelites, but there's very little discussion of the subject there now... AnonMoos (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

2015

The main article is about the Merneptah Stele which is about a failure of the inundation resulting in no harvest and famine for the Meshwesh of Pe Buto. The Stele itself never mentions Israel nor Ashkelon, Yenoam, Khor or Gezar. Its a bad translation made by William Steadman for Petrie in 1896 which has created the confusion, and subsequent similar errors of translation that have made the situation worse. Those of us who can read and write Egyptian occasionally try to make the point that you can make it much easier to read it for yourself if you focus on one task at ta time. Grab a good graphic of the stele, edit it online or print it out and highlight the most

commonly repeated glyphs on the stele which are the letter y used as a word ending and the determinative for enemy so you can recognize them when you see them. Maybe go through and look for a verb like "make" so you can translate a whole sentence verb subject object (VSO). Break out the parts that are the titularies which begin and end the stele. Look for the word Thenu which means Libya, look for where there are references to people plural (peoples)observe that the determinatives like the names of enemy peoples come at the ends of the words.142.0.102.15 (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

article scope

The discussion of the "Israel" mention is rather overblown in this article. The main significance of the stele is the campaign in Libya. I also don't see the reason for three h3 subsections to the "Israel" point. As far as I can see, it is undisputed that the demonym "Israel" is mentioned among a bunch of defeated nations in Canaan. Period. This is rather notable, seeing that an identifiable state called "Israel" emerges only 300 years later, but it is also very simple and can be stated in a single brief paragraph. --dab (𒁳) 11:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, this would be an obscure inscription of very little interest to anyone other than a few professional Egyptologists, if Israel were not mentioned. It owes almost all its general notability to the mention of Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions that the inscription "appears on the reverse side of a granite stele erected by the king Amenhotep III." Does anyone know what (if anything) was on the other side and could they perhaps write (at least briefly) what it was, for the sake of completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.52.149 (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

2015

Its widely and correctly asserted that the original translation by Petries translator William Steadman in 1896 misread a set of glyphs on line 27 as a reference to Israel which simply does not exist. Subsequent translations have repeated the same mistake, but if you are even aware that Egyptian is VSO you can't make that mistake you have no verb in the passage, and then when you go back to the previous phrase (made completely non existent) to get the verb you should realize the y taken as an i by steadman is just a word ending. 142.0.102.15 (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with that is Israel is not mentioned. People discuss a set of glyphs on line 27 which stripped of the y ending from the previous word and the determinatives is s:y (her) i:a (ruin) with the y ending and determinatives it reads y s:y:r (her name) ia (ruin) det.enemy det people. Because Egypt is VSO to make any sense of it you need to go back to find a verb. Now we discover that an inundation failed, the crops were not renewed, the harvest was made (verb) non existent y ending s:y:r (her name) ia (ruin) det.enemy det.people their seed is no more, but this is not Israel, its the walled village of Pe Buto, the Libyan home of the Apis Bulls near Alexandria.

142.0.102.15 (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Assyria?

The transliteration: y-z-y-r-j-A-r is given at:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:YsyriAr.gif

Is it possible that this could refer to Assyria? Does Assyria appear in the Egyptian records, and how is it written? Italus (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doubt it; the original form of this word was like "Aššur". Where does the second "r" come from under your reading? Anyway, "Assyria" doesn't make too much sense geographically in the context of Ascalon and Gezer... AnonMoos (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

2015

It's the set of glyphs taken as the reference to Israel. The y is the ending of the previous word (made non existent)y. The z is a reference to a Hebrew spelling as is the j which makes no sense on an Egyptian stele and is actually s:y:r (s:y her :r det name) iA (ruin)throwing stick det. foreign enemy r det, name. 142.0.102.15 (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a political force?

"However, Prof. Ze'ev Herzog of the Archaeology Faculty at the University of Tel Aviv, asserts that there is no evidence in the archaeological record that Israel was ever a political force, whether at the time of the stele's creation or at any other time during that general period." Huh? So if Israel didn't exist at that period, then who did Merneptah fight? I don't understand what the article is saying Herzog believes: that Israel was politically insignificant? that it didn't exist yet (and if so, is he saying the stele is mistranslated? or that Israel doesn't mean the same thing? or what?) And is this position (whatever it is) notable/non-fringe enough to include anyway? Vultur (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Herzog is notable, and the position that the 'Israel' mentioned on the stele is not a state or polity, but a 'people' or tribe', is held by a number of historians and archaeologists. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

However, the wording "political force" is somewhat vague and unfortunate; probably the basic idea could be expressed in a clearer way... AnonMoos (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, Israel being a tribe at the time makes sense; I thought the implication was that it was nonexistent. (That's why I questioned if it was a fringe idea, as it sounded nonsensical.) And yeah, a better wording is needed here. Vultur (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And we don't know where these people were. Only that Merneptah fought them. Dougweller (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ze'ev Herzog is a fine scholar, but the use made of his article here is inappropriate. I would go as far as to say that the last paragraph is WP:Synth, if not WP:OR. Herzog's article, available online in both English and the original Hebrew, has very little to do with the Merneptah Stele and anyone's use of the term "Israel" in the 13th century BC. Herzog's article is about contesting the Biblical account of the origins of the Israelites and the united Monarchy of David and Solomon (10th centry BC). He dismisses the Biblical account, but certainly does not dismiss the possibity that there were people calling themselves "Israel" in Canaan at an earlier date. Juxtapositioning Herzog next to the claim that an entity/group called Israel existed in the 13th century BC, as if to imply that Herzog disagrees, is just plain wrong. Herzog doesn't even touch on that point. I'm sure sources can be found to dismiss Israel as a political force in the 13th century BC, but Herzog's article is not it. Poliocretes (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? A few more days and I'm removing the reference to Herzog. Poliocretes (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

He does have a paragraph on the stele, and I've added a bit from that, and changed 'political' to 'powerful'. I can't see a reason to remove it. If he didn't mention the stele, maybe, but he does. Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right, I missed that. Your addition is great, but then why keep the other quote lifted off the article which says "Following 70 years of intensive excavations in the Land of Israel, archaeologists have found out: The patriarchs' acts are legendary, the Israelites did not sojourn in Egypt or make an exodus, they did not conquer the land. Neither is there any mention of the empire of David and Solomon, nor of the source of belief in the God of Israel. These facts have been known for years, but Israel is a stubborn people and nobody wants to hear about it."? Neither the stele nor the wiki article are about the patriarchs, Egypt, exodus or empire. The quote is simply irrelevant to the subject at hand. Poliocretes (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think the last sentence can be cut, but doesn't the first bit speak to the significance of the mention of Israel and whether or not it was a powerful force then? Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it? Let's look at what the paragraph says : no patriarchs, no bondage, no exodus, no settlement and no empire. Notice that the only time this paragraph attributes the Hebrews with power is the empire of David and Solomon, an entity of the 10 century BC. That's the powerful "Israel" dismissed here.

Right now the quote is used in a context ("However ... no evidence ... powerful force") that implies that because we can dismiss the Biblical naarative, there is no way that "Israel" (whatever they were) could have been an influencial entity in the 13th century. That's a fallacy, Herzog doesn't say that. All we have is what you added recently. We may agree what did not happen, we may agree that the authors of the Bible dreamt up some glorious past, but we certainly don't know what did take place. The point is not that I think that "Israel" was powerful at the time, and I'm sure Herzog doesn't either. The point is that the paragraph quoted here is entirely out of context. None of the Biblical episodes the paragraph cancels are relevant to the Stele. Herzog uses archaeology to dismiss the Bible, not to comment about the Stele, though the juxtaposition gives an entirely different impression. That's pure and simple WP:Synth Poliocretes (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Travelling and no time, do as you will. Dougweller (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A new thought?

I am always a little sceptical about translations based upon one known example as almost inevitably there will be genuine differences of opinion. So perhaps my own thoughts may help muddy the waters a little more.

The Pharoah of Exodus was named Shishak and seems to have looted the Temple of Soloman and removed "twelve gold shields". The biblical account seems clear enough that the temple was looted and not destroyed. Trying to put the assumed details into context it may be possible to come up with another version of Merneptahs stele that satisfy others.

Ramesses II was also apparently named Sesotris and led at least one military campaign deep into the Middle East. After passing through Aramaic/Greek translation etc the change from Sesotris to Shishak seems possible.

If it was Ramesses army that looted the Temple of Soloman, the equivalent of emptying the Bank of England or Fort Knox, then the economy of Israel must have then collapsed completely, similar to the Great Depression perhaps?

If this can be assumed then a possible translation of this stele becomes,

"Israel remains (econonomically)prostrate". The reference to seed may mean that the population have reverted to their ancestral ways of herding being no longer settled enough to grow crops.

AT Kunene (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you lease read WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY - our speculations don't belong here or in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kunene -- There was no temple in Jerusalem until Solomon's reign, and the Israelites didn't control Jerusalem until David conquered it from the Jebusites... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't know that David did conquer it, just that there was most likely a David who had a royal house named after him. The biblical record at that time is spotty. Of course it's the only recording of that period we have to go on (even if it was written about 300 years later, which makes it dubious at best). We also have no proof for Solomon (as Yadin's chronology is incorrect) and nothing definite for a first Temple... yet anyway. Maybe if the Waft weren't given free reign over the Temple Mount to toss out everything, we could find something. Thank God for that project excavating the rubble from their last little 'renovation'. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

2015

The Only known evidence for Exodus is a book of the Pentateuch which dates it 430 years from the first entry of the sons of Israel into Egypt and 480 years back from the 4th year of the temple generally taken as convergent at 1446 BC. Eighty years before the Exodus Moses is born in a time when war threatens. War threatening is generally taken as a reference to the expulsion of the Hyksos by a campaign waged by Kamose at the end of the 17th Dynasty who took the name Ahmose to begin the 18th dynasty c 1550 BC. During the 18th Dynasty the capital of Egypt was at Thebes which was getting rich beyond measure off the trade to funish the mortuary industry at Karnak with goods coming from where Mount Horab joins the wadi Arabah with the head of the the Gulf of Aqaba at Elat. The trade consisted of Ben Jamin or juniper berries and cedar from Lebanon for their wooden sarcophagi, bitumen and natron from the Dead Sea to deal and dry the mummy, linen from Byblos to wrap the mummies in, Frankincense from Punt and Myhhr from ethi ophir to make the rotting flesh smell sweet, copper and semi precious stones from the Arabah and the Red Sea. Collectively Thebes Red Sea ports were known as the chain of Aphrodite. Rameses II dates to the 12th Dynasty and has nothing to do with the Exodus although he did engage in the last of the battles with the king of Kadesh begun half a millenia earlier with Thutmosis III and the battle of Megiddo.142.0.102.8 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Alternative Translations

I have added in text about alternative readings based on a variety of WP:RS - these have been widely debated amongst historians and are therefore worthy of inclusion. I note that an attempt at adding such information was previously added in to this article but subsequently deleted in this edit[1] by User:AnonMoos. If User:AnonMoos's point about the `Ayin phayrngeal consonant can be sourced, it would be helpful to add in to the article as part of this section. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm looking at my Biblical lexicon right now and seeing that Jezreel/Esdraelon is יזרעאל with a voiced pharyngeal ע `ayin consonant, and wondering extremely why this consonant wouldn't have been transcribed into ancient Egyptian as such, since Egyptian also possessed this same sound. Such glottal stops and pharyngeals etc. can look unimpressive in Latin-alphabet transcription, where they often become little apostrophe symbols -- but within the grammar of Semitic languages and ancient Egyptian, a voiced pharyngeal is a consonant which functions like any other consonant in the language. Furthermore, Jezreel is a geographical term for a valley which might be suitable as a site for a battlefield, but it is not particularly attested as the name of a people (as is already made clear in the quote you added). And also, your main sources (other than the cautionary quote) include two indeterminate websites, concerning whose scholarly reliability you have presented no evidence. AnonMoos (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Anonmoos, happy to discuss but please do not revert the text again. Not only did your revert breach guidelines, it breached a fundamental principle of wikipedia which requires articles which are "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources".

Your lexicographical analysis above is interesting - please find a WP:RS to support it and add it in to the article. However, whether you are correct or not does not change the validity of the "alternative translations" text.

The text is well sourced, and contains information which is widely available:

• Out of the seven sources provided, you challenged two, agreed with one and stayed conspicuously silent on the other four. All seven sources record the same alternative translations.
• There are innumerable alternative sources for exactly the same information[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] - these 8 new sources are just from a quick google search.

In the face of this mountain of WP:RS (15 sources and counting), it is impossible not to conclude that the alternative translations are notable views which require a mention in this article.

And frankly, continued attempts to keep these scholars' views out of this encyclopedia are publicly embarrassing for the wikipedia project (see comments here[10]). We are better than this.

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a number of your "reliable sources" seem to be semi-random links turned up through personal Google searches, for which you have presented no specific evidence of their reliability -- and the fact that you have not pointed towards any specific source which discusses one particularly glaringly problematic issue (which would occur almost immediately to anybody who was actually directly familiar with the linguistic scholarship concerning these languages) doesn't inspire very great confidence in some of your alleged sources, either... For instance, Egyptian `ayin in *par-ʕoʔ became Hebrew `ayin in פרעה "Pharoah", so why on earth wouldn't the reverse happen with Yizrəʕel??? Unfortunately, you have written your addition to the article as if Jezreel were a viable (though less accepted) alternative, but until you find something which deals directly with the elephant in the room, you really only have support for Jezreel being an idea which various people have idly considered for time to time. It's really up to you to add material in an acceptable state for Wikipedia, not for me to try to dig up things which will save your edits. AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

AnonMoos, you are going about this the wrong way - phrases such as "semi-random" and "alleged sources" are frankly childish in light of the quality and quantity of scholarly sources provided - each of which speak for themselves from a quick comparison versus WP:RS. This really should be a collaborative effort, not a fight. In that spirit, I have sucked up my pride, despite your behaviour, and done the research you requested to back up your statement. It has now been added in. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we see what these two sources actually say please? I presume you have them to hand and can quote from them.

O. Margalith, "On the Origin and Antiquity of the Name 'Israel,' " ZAW 102 [1990}

A. Nibbi, Canaan and Canaanite in Ancient Egypt Hawskworth, Becardo, 1989

Thanks. Your citations need to be fixed so that they are in line with our MOS, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure - you are welcome to download them from here[11] (click request) and here[12], but I'm not sure they are available free. The Nibbi paper is worth a read, but the Margalith paper doesn't give much more insight than in the Hasel quote shown in the article (and to be clear the Jezreel idea was not Marglith's - it had been first proposed in 1896 when the stele was first found). I'll fix the sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pico, you need to review WP:FRINGE. The text you keep whitewashing out of the article doesn't even come close. Please stop whitewashing this information out the of article.

More broadly, I'd like to say that I think that most of the edits you made to this article, as well as to others such as Tel Dan, Mesha and Biblical minimalism, were high quality improvements and valuable contributions. But you have allowed your own POV to seep through in all of those editing sprees, with the whitewashing of this entire section being the worst example.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment :)

I didn't notice this thread till just now - I'd already made a comment on this subject on a new thread, but I'll now move that up here.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that the material you're restoring is too much and unbalances the article. The majority of scholars do think that the stele is correctly transcribed as "Israel", and the view that it might be Jezreeel or a reference to a Libyan tribe is held only by a small minority. See Ann Killebrew: "The majority of Egyptologists agree that Ysy3r/l should be translated "Israel" (page 154 - the book is in our bibliography). That establishes the majority view. For how large the minority view is, see Hasel: "The interpretation that the term Ysy3r/l of Merenptah actually refers to Jezreel has been maintained by only a few scholars..." (p. 197 - also in the bibliography). Hasel is also good for a summary of the two minority views - page 195 onwards. So, I don't object to a mention that the reading "Israel" has been disputed, but it needs to be much briefer than your text. (And the issue is undue weight, not fringe). PiCo (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A sentence, maybe two, would seem appropriate. From what Pico says, I don't see any justification for anything more. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Pico, your sources (and the ones you deleted) have shown clearly that scholarly reviews of the literature consider, discuss and debate the alternative translations. It is therefore clear that whitewashing of the translation debate was wholly inappropriate. Forgive me for labouring the point, but it was really poor behaviour. Now i've got that off my chest, i'll move on to the fair question of how much weighting is appropriate, assuming the rain delay at Wimbledon gives me enough time. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Jezreel is an idea which seems to have occurred to various people at one time or another, but it suffers from a number of problems -- the problem of `ayin (or lack thereof), and the problem that Jezreel is a fixed geographical term, (not the name of a mobile people) being only the two most prominent. It's not a wacko fringe theory (like the Flat Earth or von Daniken), but it's a scholarly hypothesis which has been rejected by the great majority of scholars, and it would be misleading to present it otherwise... AnonMoos (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your whole comment except the phrase "great majority" which is subjective. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Due weight

As promised, here are my thoughts on what is due weight on this issue. Well, the importance of this artefact is not that it looks nice, or that it belonged to Merneptah. It is because it is understood to include the word "Israel". Therefore, by far the most important question about this artefact is whether it does include that word. Many scholars have a view here, and many scholars are very passionate about it. The translation of this term is the critical issue and has been the subject of debate for over 100 years.

Pico brought the Hasel reference above - to which we should note two points: (1) Hasel is not an unbiased observer (see here and here, and the tone of his essay) - he is trying to underpin his position by making that statement; and (2) his statement re "only a few scholars" is referring to scholars who think the term "does" refer to Jezreel - importantly the number of people who think the term "could" refer to Jezreel (or other interpretations) is of course larger. It's worth reading, for example [13], [14] and [15].

The text which has been deleted could include much more detail and discussion on this issue. It does not in any way, and should not, suggest that the alternative translations are more popular within the field than anyone here is suggesting. But we could add more of the scholarly debate around the translation. If we want to cut anything to keep it from taking over the article, we could remove the quotes, but personally I think they are helpful to give some colour to this the debate at the heart of this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Some might not want to 100% exclude the possibility, but nevertheless would consider it rather less probable than "Israel", given the various factors which make it less plausible. It's still a minority view among the informed... AnonMoos (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point to be that the reading "Israel" is debated, and our article should reflect this. I agree that there's some debate, but my own impression is that it's much less than you seem to believe. I've quoted Killebrew earlier to the effect that the majority of scholars accept the "Israel" translation, and I gather you accept this; the dispute (our dispute) therefore now revolves around the question of how significant the minority viewpoint is.

I quoted Hasel to the effect that the minority readings (mainly "Jezreel") are accepted by only a few scholars; you objected that Hasel is a less than entirely unreliable source, coming as he does from a fundamentalist-aligned US university. Many US universities are among the world's finest; many others, unfortunately, are abysmal. I have no idea where Hasel's university fits, but I do see that Hasel himself is quoted quite regularly by other scholars - if they accept him as an authority on the stele, so should we.

Now, on to a survey of scholarly views regarding Israel vs. Jezreel. I'll begin with the sources you gave us in your post above. Mark G. Brett [16] (these are your own sources, I repeat) says that the hieroglyphs in question "could just as well be Jezreel" - but this simply confirms that the not-Israel view exists, not how large it is, and Brett himself then goes on to treat it as Israel. Lester Grabbe [17] notes the "Jezreel" reading but goes on to say he finds it unlikely and states that "Israel" seems reasonably secure. Davies [18] is much the same - he notes the "Jezreel" reading but says that "Israel" is probably correct. So all three are pretty much aligned with Hasel.

So what should we do in our article? I wouldn't object to a bit more detail on the fact that alternative readings have been suggested, but it given the apparently low level of acceptance, I don't think we need do more than note Jezreel and Libyans but state that the majority position is that Israel is probably correct.PiCo (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pico, I will take that as an apology for deleting the entire section :-)

The version in there seems pretty balanced to me, although we could add more explanation on the -s vs. -z point that AnonMoos raises. The other question is whether the quotes are worth having. My view is that since this topic is at the heart of this article, they are helpful. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you've restored it without consensus. The fact the 3 of us agree that there should be some mention doesn't mean that you had carte blanche to restore something that doesn't have consensus. I've reverted you, and although there are few deadlines in Wikipedia (another reason you shouldn't have restored it), how about helping word a much shorter version (not a longer one as which is what you seem to be suggesting above). Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think your behaviour was unnecessarily combative. You are an experienced editor - throwing your weight around. I reverted in good faith with a thoughtful edit summary (except my typo "not" for "now"). I simply felt it's easier to discuss it with the version readable on the page. After 18 months in the article, the text is not exactly harmful. I was hoping it might encourage someone to make specific comments on the text - I can't sensibly propose any changes based on the high level comments above. It was all in good intentions. And now a good discussion has been thrown off track because you felt the need to make a point about consensus. It's as if obsession with rules has blinded you from the importance of open, free flowing and collaborative discussion about content. I enjoy collaborating, but i don't enjoy being bullied. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Onceawhile, I'm sorry you feel you're being bullied, and I must admit my sympathies lie with you - the usual way these things are done is edit>revert>discuss, and that hasn't been followed this time. That doesn't mean I agree with your arguments, though - I don't think the quotes are needed (we should summarise, and use blockquotes sparingly), nor do I think we need to go into details on why one reading is preferred over another (any of our readers who care about such things can go to the scholarly sources via our footnotes). Anyway, I've edited the first sentence of the section to note what the alternative readings are. I guess that's a minimal position. PiCo (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Pico. Although I think the minimal position is underweight (given how central the issue is), I like your style of editing and your open style of discussion.

I am going to think about this some more - what I might do, if i can find the time, is write a more detailed version in a new article called Translations of the Merneptah Stele. Once that's done, it will be easier to decide what summary is appropriate to have here. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Modification

Anonmoos, I'll concede that the Temple of Soloman was indeed built in stone by Soloman but there must have been some sort of structure before Soloman. Possibly there was an original more modest stone structure which was rebuilt on a much larger scale by Soloman.

If the biblical record is accepted, there had been three generations settled in Israel before we hear of Solomans Temple and I find it difficult to believe that some temple structure wouldn't have been built as the centre of the new city soon after settlement.

Ramesses II may have used his army to loot most of the Middle East but equally must have spent vast sums on his grandiose building schemes. By the time Merneptah became Pharaoh there may well have been almost empty coffers,which possibly explains why Merneptah recycled a modest stone stela from the earlier dynasty rather than having a much larger inscription on a temple.

Working from fragments I don't suppose that there will ever be an explanation that will satisfy everybody.AT Kunene (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Except we have nothing from that Temple to prove its existence yet (keyword being yet of course). Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 07:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Kunene -- If you wanted to reply to my message of "12:15, 19 December 2010", then it would have been better to do so in the original thread. And according to the Bible, before the time of David the site of the later Temple was the "threshing floor of Araunah" in a non-Israelite (Jebusite) city. In the immediate pre-monarchy period, the main Israelite site of worship (again according to the Bible) was Eli's and Samuel's headquarters at Shiloh... AnonMoos (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is talking about something from over 400 years before the earliest known written instance of a biblical passage (the Silver Scroll amulet from 586 that was a portion of Deuteronomy). It isn't proof there was anything there at that time. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure too exactly what you're trying to say -- according to the Bible, the later temple mount site was sanctified by associations with Abraham etc., but it wasn't under the control of Israelites until the time of David, and there was no Israelite temple there until the time of Solomon. This is a few centuries after the time of the Merneptah Stele... AnonMoos (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well I'm saying that the Bible just isn't a good source of info for what happened in the time of David (over 400 years before the earliest known written down passage of the Bible and 200 years after the Stele), and that we don't even have proof of the First Temple (which I said in the comment before). We don't know that Israelites didn't actually control Jerusalem (and yonder Mount Moriah) till the time of David. Of course the Bible is our only source of information even if it is most probably incorrect. I do also understand you're just saying what the Bible is saying and don't think you actually believe it. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Depictions at the Stela?

in the Merneptah Stele the Israelites are not depicted as Shasu, but wear the same clothing and have the same hairstyles as the Canaanites, who are shown defending the fortified cities of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yanoam.

Which can be found in:

Stager, Lawrence E., "Forging an Identity: The Emergence of Ancient Israel" in Michael Coogan ed. The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press, 2001. p.92

Look at the stela, apart from the figures at the top there ARE NO DEPICTIONS at the stela. No Canaanites defending fortified cities. I have been looking for that book "Forging an Identity" and I can't find it. This is not as it should be, sources should be easy to find.

I have googled some time, and my best guess at this moment is that the battle pictures of Ashkelon etc. are at the Karnak reliefs. So I changed it. But still we need better sources, we also need high quality pictures of ALL markings on the Stela and at Karnak.Mismeret (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Israelite Israel

"It is also, by far, the earliest known attestation of the demonym Israel." Wouldn't it be more accurate if this said "It is also, by far, the earliest known attestation of the demonym Israelite." Because of the meaning of demonym this seems the appropriate word. Nitpyck (talk) 16:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

2015

The only problem with that is that the stele never mentions Israel. Its was mistranslated by William Steadman, Petries traslator in 1896. and its been repeatedly questioned ever since. For some reason Biblical archaeologists keep trying to treat the Egyptian as if it were Hebrew, substituting glyphs and ignoring the VSO word order which simply doesn't work. without the y word ending from the previous word and the determinatives the gylphs cited as reading Israel read s:y (her) iA (ruin) when you go back to get the verb its inundation harvest renewal (made completely non existent)(verbal phrase) y as a word ending 142.0.102.15 (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mistake or Forgery (with close-up photos from the Stele)

http://www.davidovits.info/496/error-or-forgery-on-the-stele-of-merneptah-known-as-israel-stele

I don't know much about Joseph Davidovits or whether or not he can be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. His website says he is a scientist, archaeologist, and Egyptologist and I know he was previously criticized for a theory that blocks used to build the pyramids were not carved but poured as cement. They recently discovered air bubbles in the casing stones, so he isn't exactly fringe. If I understand correctly, part of the information presented in the linked article was omitted from a book he wrote. He doesn't say why, but my guess is to not to generate controversy.

Unless the photo has been tampered with, one of the hieroglyph's chalk tracing extends beyond the engraving which gives it a completely different meaning. The difference, claims Davidovits , changes the meaning to be the opposite. He claims it really reads "existing are ii-s-ii-r-iar the people, devastated with no seeds is Kharu." The photos look real, although I don't know if his conclusion is. It would be nice to have more photos and alternative investigations, but I can almost guarantee the odds of that are slim. Nobody cares enough and to be quite frank a lot of it is because this object continues to serve an agenda. If the inscription was a hoax (and it's either a hoax or a mistake if the above is true) I would call into question this alleged reference to Israel.

Now the following may be my opinion, but I guarantee others share it and few are admitting it because it is taboo. I agree that it is phonetically similar to Israel. I agree that it could very well be referring to Israel. I'm also aware that Ethiopia and part of Somalia call themselves Israel. I'm also aware that it makes sense in the context, but so does Ethiopia. This speculation became consensus over 100 years ago. What if they were wrong? 100 years is a long time. It's very odd that something like this is embraced (which is fine because it is phonetically similar) but What I'm saying is double standards are applied for phonetically similar words with multiple parallels whenever is appeases an agenda. The same standards are not applied to the Shasu Yhw worshipers even though there is a burning bush involved. And that's also why you don't see very many people pointing out the obvious characteristics between Gudea and Judea for example or asking if Germany's Jews could be related to the Jutes. All you see is the parallels being rejected for political or ideological purposes in favor of a literal definition (as in Jutland 'sticks out' because it's a peninsula and that's what the word means) and the few people calling a spade a spade getting smeared because of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.223.171 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Like a lot of users unfamiliar with Wikipedia, you understandably misunderstand the purpose of this page. Suggesting a source is great - the page is to discuss the article. But the rest of your post is discussing not the article but either the subject of the article or something only tangentially related, and this is not a forum for such discussions, all of which must focus on the article's content, format, etc.

One of our polices concerning article content is WP:NPOV, neutral point of view. From memory it says we include in a proportional matter all significant views, with significance derived from discussion in reliable sources (see WP:VERIFY and WP:RS to see what that means!). I don't recall this idea of his being discussed in such sources, or even on sources that don't meet those criteria, eg the maina academic mailing list dealing with the Ancient Near East.

So, I'm not going to reply to most or your post (and may in fact remove it later), but the answer to your question about the suggested source is for me at the moment no, for the reasons I've given. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Mirror image?

Looking at an image of the stele in The Oxford Bible Atlas, I don't see that the image of the "Israel" section is reversed. It IS the other way round to the transcription shown later. It seems to be on the second line up from the bottom and in the middle. Is this right? Myrvin (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

On reading Laughlin's Archaeology of the Bible, p. 89, I have more evidence for this. So I have removed the "mirror image" words. Myrvin (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

More Egyptian hieroglyphs

Can someone also make and post a break down of the hieroglyphs for Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yano'am I don't have training in Egyptian hieroglyphs, but would like to see this break down as with the reference to Israel. 99.253.125.144 (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to Wikipedia Commons for the stele

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Merneptah_stele,_including_inscription._:Wellcome_M0008443.jpg

1. Select the large 2,450 × 4,389 pixels version to edit on your computer

2. Highlight all the instances of "Y" (two vertical feathers) on the stele

3. Observe they come at the end of words.

4. Look up the words online https://www.egyptianhieroglyphs.net/gardiners-sign-list/2604:6000:1513:44A5:A191:CF2F:F1B9:EEEF (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

5. Look at the occurrences of Cartouches

6. Look at the names of the peoples given as starting after the "Y" ending

7. Compare the glyphs from the translations with the glyphs from the stele

Breasteds Translation of the last three lines (Lines 26, 27 and 28) of this ending :are as follows:

Breasted's Line 26

The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"

Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:

Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,

Canaan is captive with all woe.

Breasted's Line 27

Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,

Yanoam made nonexistent;

Israel is wasted, bare of seed,

Khor is become a widow for Egypt.

Breasteds Line 28

All who roamed have been subdued.

By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,

Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat,

Given life like Re every day.

Breasted reads the stele to the effect that after a long discourse on his campaign against Merey and the Libyans in the Delta, :Merneptah suddenly switches to a discussion of Canaan.

Line 27 is where Breasted translates the text as

Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made nonexistent; Israel is wasted, bare of seed,

Khor is become a widow for Egypt. All who roamed have been subdued.

Breasted’s translation does not recognize the principle that Egyptian is VSO

Egyptian almost never uses the initial “y” in Israel which Wilhelm Spiegelberg read as an i "I.si.ri.ar" = Israel

Where Breasted reads Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,

its important to understand first where his translation comes from, and then to critique why it doesn't work.

Breasteds transliteration reads "inw iskrny" Ashkelon

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/46/tt22.jpg/

Use the above color coded breakdown of the text and check for yourself using any online Egyptian grammar

Line 27 has no reference to Ashkelon, Gezer, Yenoam, Israel or Khor

because Egyptian word order is Verb, Subject Object (VSO)

and rather than starting with the noun Ashkelon it begins with a verb

Green [i:n (bring, fetch) u (imperfect past participle) (brought)](verb)

Yellow [i s*k a d:n:y aggression strong anger] the adverbial phrase Breasted read as Ashkelon

Yellow [a d r (abode)] subject

Purple [r (determinative the thing itself)(name)]

Purple [ideo Aa 13 im ideogram T14(2) club ideo N25 hast [im enemy foreign] object

Orange [y ending]

Yellow[n1:(sky)mr:u*nu (inundation)] Read by Breasted with previous y ending as Yenoam

{see note under N35 page 490} [y n:mr Nu:O29 N35 N25 (Yenoam)]

Yellow [n:G3 (renewal){in the sense of harvest}]verbal clause

Green [ir:u (made)] (verb)

Yellow [determinative (sledge) (completely)]

Blue [n:wn:n non existent]

Orange [y](ending from previous nwny (nonexistent)

This is the portion first read by Petries Willian Spiegleberg in 1896 as Israel

to which Petrie replied "won't the reverend be pleased"

Orange [y]( ending from previous nwny (nonexistent)

Yellow [s:y(her):r name)] subject

Yellow [i a(ruin] object

Purple[r (name) determinative the thing itself Purple [club (enemy) enemy name]

Yellow [determinative (people) determinative (plural) ]

Yellow [page 540 f:k:t determinative G37 sparrow fk read as fak (bare){fk is not used with G36 swallow wr (great)}]

Yellow [b*n (not)]

Yellow [p:r:t (seed) determinative (seed) determinative plural f ending]

Yellow [determinative (1000)a (is used for h, in group writing indicates an obscure foreign name is ihi determinative (lion used as r) :(hr spelling) (Tjhenu)] {read as Gezer by Breasted Gardiner gives Krr Gerar but here there is no k}

Purple [(enemy foreign)]

Green [L1:r (make)] verb

Yellow [u m determinative (thousand) a rt determinative (plough) (variant prt seed)]

Red [red crown determinative for red land beginning of cartouches on line 28

As to the issue of whether a y properly goes at the end or the beginning of a word.

You can look at the other words ending in "y" in the Merneptah stele

Where Breasted continues y sr i3r fk.ti and translates it Israel is wasted, bare of seed,

the stela continues s:y:r iA r:Z1 T14 A1*B1:plural f:k:t:det swallow

sy(her) r (mouth voice name) iA (ruin) r (foreign people) weak

her name ruined and weak.

Where Breasted has bn prt f h3rw

the stela has bn pr r t f plural h3rw

Where Breasted has hpr.w m h3 rt n Khor is become a widow for Egypt.

the stela has hp r w Mn:sw w r s3(red crown of lower Egypt) and

Gardiner has for widow M12 h3 Ar:t Det D3B1.

I don't think that is intended to read Israel rather its about providing food to the Meshwesh from Pe Buto (a walled village)

who had invaded eastward during a famine. The Meshwesh raised the Apis bulls and were bowmen

Rather than fight Merneptah just collected their arms and fed them

The references to the Meshwesh, Pe Buto and feeding the Nine Bows include mention of the Tjhenu, Hatti,and Canaan

between the cartouches Breasted translates and Princes and the reduplicated A30 Gardner translates as respect.

This is Pritchard

The Israel Stele Pharaoh Merneptah Translation – (Transcription)

The date of this commemorative hymn relates to the Pharaoh Merneptah’s victory over the Libyans.

[removed for copyright reasons]

Source: The Ancient Near East – An Anthology of Texts and Pictures

by James Pritchard - 1958 Princeton University Press

This is Breasted again for comparison

The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"

Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:

Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,

Canaan is captive with all woe.

Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,

Yanoam made nonexistent;

Israel is wasted, bare of seed,

Khor is become a widow for Egypt.

All who roamed have been subdued.

By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,

Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat,

Given life like Re every day.

12.187.95.248 (talk) 10:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Breasted died almost 80 years ago, so I'm not sure why he would be the most relevant source for this article... AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Breasted wouldn't be. He's provided for comparison purposes. Someone has deleted the Pritchard quotes as a copywrite infringement. None of the sources cited, Petries Willian Spiegleberg, Pritchard,(died sixteen years ago) Breasted or Gardiner are still living. There are other living Egyptologists who have commented on the stele however despite the faults as noted above, no major break with the cited interpretations was made in time for the "Israel Stele" myth to be corrected in the public mind.12.187.94.139 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)2604:6000:1513:44A5:A191:CF2F:F1B9:EEEF (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

"Israel" and Hasel in 2011

Our article relies heavily on Hasel's 1994 and 1998 articles, as well as those who quote the same.

Have a read of this article written by Hasel in 2011.

It is much more comprehensive in terms of its description of the "naysayers", and importantly the overall tone is that whilst everyone accepted the traditional interpretation for the best part of a century, there is now much less certainty.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My proposed edit to reflect this source is below. In the spirit of BRD, Irondome, the floor is yours.

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The discovery of the stele was a major milestone in biblical archaeology as it was widely believed that it included the first probable instance of the name "Israel" in the historical record.[1] This view was rarely challenged in the following century, but in recent years a number of scholars have challenged the traditional translation.[2] According to Michael G. Hasel, "the result of these reinterpretations have had a major bearing in the current debate surrounding the origin of Ancient Israel".[2]

I am broadly comfortable with your proposed edit, as long as "documented" is substituted for "probable" in the lede. I would suggest UNDUE in terms of the usage of Hasels' paper. It basically boils down to scribal error, or a geographical confusion. There appears to be no major arguments that the newly unique entity of Israel mentioned was a confusion for other ethnic groupings, rather it is the definition of "Israel" in C. 1303-13 BCE that is the issue. This appears to still be the mainstream academic consensus. Finally would suggest "Levant" for " Palestine" in translation section. It seems a daring leap, considering the poor geographical discriptive ability of Egyptian records concerning terminology as discussed in Hasel. It is also wildly anachronistic in its usage here. We cannot have it both ways. You confidently ascribe the Egyptian wording as Palestine, yet appear to be debating the term Israel. To my knowledge, Palestine was only so named During the rulership of Hadrian after the historically documented nation-state of Judea was finally militarily crushed and a determined but unsuccesful attempt at ethnically cleansing the area of Jews was carried out? It may be seen as POV by some. There appears to have been a detatchment of your signature from your last posting. Sorry if I spaced my posting incorrectly. I tried but I cant seem to move it :/ Cheers.Irondome (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Irondome, on the lede, that's helpful. Do you have any objection to Hasel's paper being referred to in the body of the article? Oncenawhile (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Irondome -- "Palestine" is somewhat anachronistic in that the term referred basically to the southern coastal plain (or extended Gaza strip) area before ca. 135 A.D., but on the other hand, many scholars use it in this anachronistic meaning. It wouldn't be incorrect as such to use the "Palestine" in the article -- but if the word becomes a point of friction or a distraction, it also wouldn't be incorrect to remove it and replace it with a valid alternative... AnonMoos (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi both, i'm happy with whatever you choose re the use of the word "Palestine" here. FWIW you might read Timeline of the name "Palestine" as you have both made incorrect assertions about the term and you also might be interested to note the Egyptian references to Peleset. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

As I say, im comfortable with the Ed with a couple minor changes in single words. hesel deserves to be heard but I would try to avoid UNDUE WEIGHT.

• Oncenawhile,, I am reading the link. It is very interesting, as are the talk threads. Irondome (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of incorrect assertions, Pausanias referred to Judea as being "above" Palestine (huper tês Palaistinês υπερ της Παλαιστινης -- i.e. in the hills inland from the coast), and not "in" Palestine, as I have repeatedly pointed out on the discussion page Talk:Timeline of the name "Palestine", and which you have chosen to blatantly ignore for some reason of your own... AnonMoos (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think It is illogical that they are not in fact geographically seperate, as terminology was the Egyptian cartography, concepetually. Think about that one people. I tend to think that "Israel" is a geographical as well as cultural term as used in the original Egyptian source. The reference to the destruction of "Israels' seed" would indicate a settled agriculturally based grouping. Its usage in any other Egyptian context contemporaneously points to that description. This further implies a physical geographical area that this "Israel" had as its own, for agriculture, implied resources and townships and all that goes with it. The inscriptions ambiguities may also a reflect a genuine confusion on the Egyptian's part, just as to actually who, and/or what they had encountered and apparently bested, nation, people, or more likely both, in early development. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, on "Palestine", i just realised that your concern is re the reference in the "original translation" section. That was taken straight from the original text in the source. PS - AnkhAnon, I did respond to your comments on the other page - scholarly translations support the text. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Who or what is "Ankh"? As for "Timeline of the name "Palestine"", I have very little interest in getting into an edit war on that article (or editing it all, for that matter), but the fact that you pretty much blatantly ignored relevant factual information apparently because it does not support your preconceived position is a potential warning sign for your work on other articles. AnonMoos (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ankh [Shu] (the sound made by Geb; Compare English Thank You) is an idiomatic blessing meaning "Life's breath" 12.187.94.139 (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I know that an Ankh is a cross with a loop substituted for the upper arm (and have known that for decades), but that's not the way he was using the word above. AnonMoos (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

My mistake - there's another editor with the same initials as you and I got mixed up - that's what happens when I edit when watching Wimbledon. As for your comment on the other article, i think your comment is quite harsh! I genuinely thought I had responded appropriately to the information you provided, I am very open to continuing that discussion. To your translation, "uper" has many meanings - similar to english "super" - one of which is "above". So the phrase "Ἑβραίοις τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς Παλαιστίνης", or transliterated "Hebrew per super of the Palestine" is ambiguous and cannot be easily translated by machine. Also worth remembering from our conversation at Talk:Biblical Hebrew that Greek often meant "Aramaic" when they used the word Ἑβραίοις. So the phrase would then be "Aramaic per super of the Palestine" Oncenawhile (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

First off, the word is usually transliterated into Latin as "Huper" or (much more frequently) "Hyper", so I really don't know where "uper"[sic] came from. And it can have many shades of meaning in Ancient Greek, but the great majority of them with any type of spatial reference translate to "above" or "over" in English -- while none of them translate to "in". Second, words referring to language specifically, such as Εβραις/Εβραιστι can vaguely refer to either the Hebrew or Aramaic languages (for the reasons explained at the bottom of Talk:Biblical Hebrew), but I don't know what this is supposed to mean when applied to a basic ethnic adjective like Εβραιος. And Εβραιοις is dative plural, which you seem to have completely ignored in your "translation" -- in fact, your "translation" is almost pure gibberish, as well as original research, and your willingness to resort to this type of dubious method in a subject you seem to know little about for the purpose of trying to get around inconvenient facts is again a warning sign... AnonMoos (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

super/hyper/uper/huper - it's all exactly the same proto indo european root - Super is Latin, Hyper is Greek, and upsilon can be transliterated as u, y, hu and hy. Anyway, that doesn't matter here - we both agree on the point. Where we seem to disagree is what the term implies here. In terms of this wider translation debate, I acknowledge that it's original research - unless i've misunderstood you, that is what you were asking for in your question. So if we both agree that for the translation we should rely only on sources rather than our own attempts to translate based on our own knowledge of koine greek, what is wrong with the two scholarly sources supporting the text in the article? Oncenawhile (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for greatly delayed reply, but I'm really wondering why the personal original research of someone who knows very little about ancient Greek should be preferred to the published translation in the green cover books as at the Perseus website -- and why the Pausanias quote seems to be excluded from the article because it's inconvenient to an agenda. AnonMoos (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, no worries. Should we move this discussion to the relevant page? I don't understand either of your points - on the first, the translation in the article is sourced to two specialist sources - surely you must acknowledge this? And on your second point, it is in the article! I don't understand what you are getting at. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I really do not find it very satisfactory that you have appointed yourself as the gatekeeper of what is and is not allowed on that article concerning a subject which you seem to know very little about (ancient Greek). Since two previous discussions on that article's talkpage have not led to any useful result, I'm not at all eager to start a third one there. AnonMoos (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

We cannot say "reasonably follows"

We can present attributed significant views, but we cannot come to conclusions about what reasonably follows. I need to read the recent revisions more carefully when I have time, but I'm not convinced that what I see represents the major current opinions well. Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt

For the recent article edit, when is this considered to end? With the Persian invasion, or the Greek invasion, or the Roman invasion? It would be nice to know... AnonMoos (talk) 04:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Hasel says "the only mention of this entity in Egyptian literature", which is technically even wider than in our sentence... My guess is it means Egyptian hieroglyphs. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, on a related point, i'm working at the moment on an article which has been ignored for some years now - the Kurkh Monoliths. I believe they contain the only reference in cuneiform to the entity Israel. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Egypt runs through the pyramid age and the 12th Dynasty to the first intermediate; The Persians, Greeks and Romans are Late Egyptian; Middle Egyptian is the half millenia for which Egypt was at war with Kadesh; generally the 18th and 19th dynasties.12.187.94.139 (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits (Oncenawhile)

It's somewhat unfortunate that most of the references added were from the nineteenth century; however, since the main (non-footnote) text was not substantially edited, I don't feel like reverting at this point. Also, "the Egyptians could also represent Hebrew zayin" is garbled; it should be "the Egyptian s" (where "s" possibly has a diacritic)... AnonMoos (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain this to me in more simple language. I noticed "Egyptian s" today and removed the space, and you reverted me, sending me here, but what I see here makes no sense to me. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It refers to the Egyptian 'letter' S. Perhaps it should be a capital letter. Myrvin (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Anybody know what that letter "S" is doing there? Debresser (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It refers to a set of various Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols which are transcribed in modern Egyptological conventions by transcriptions which include the Latin "s", and states that the sound involved was equated to Canaanite "z" (at some periods). The only reason why I didn't correct this way back in November was the possibility that there might be a diacritic involved, but I got tired of waiting for User:Oncenawhile to explain whether or not that was the case... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've tried rewriting the sentence. Someone thought the 's' in the word could be a Hebrew 'z'. Myrvin (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Myrvin -- ancient Egyptian writing didn't really have "letters" as such, but the word was already used elsewhere in the passage, so I won't change it now... AnonMoos (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know, but I was struggling to write something that wouldn't confuse people. How about "character for 's'?. Myrvin (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically it's a Phonogram (linguistics), but that will probably confuse people more.... Oncenawhile (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Myrvin -- there wasn't only one character which is transcribed in modern Egyptological notation as "s" etc. There was a set of signs, some of which wrote sequences of more than one consonant, some of which wrote whole words, etc., whose values included "s"... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

For those who enjoy reading Egyptian texts its interesting to read more than a word at a time. There are several different Egyptian "s" glyphs none of which is a "z" but some of which are read "sh". It helps to refer to Gardiner or any online grammar for such issues. The phenomenology of the whole stele is that its talking about a famine in PeButo, a walled city near Alexandria where the Apis Bulls were raised. Their inundation failed and they had no harvest so there was famine and the starving people of the village showed aggression in an uprising.

Line 27 comes at the very end and starts the Titulary summary.

Line 27 has nothing that is intended to read Israel or anything similar to Israel.

The stele is about providing food to the Meshwesh from Pe Buto who had invaded eastward. The Meshwesh raised the Apis bulls and were bowmen.Rather than fight, Merneptah just collected their arms and fed them. The references to the Meshwesh, Pe Buto and feeding the Nine Bows include mention of the Tjhenu, Hatti,and Canaan. Line 27 is a summary of that discussion.

Many translations of the entire stele and not just the word Israel, follow a similar reading of Line 27 to include the word Israel which incorrectly accommodates the first reading by Petries Willian Spiegleberg in 1896 as Israel to which Petrie replied "won't the reverend be pleased"

Since the article is about the Merneptah stele and not a single word on Line 27, its appropriate to read at least the entirety of the line. Its also appropriate to note it comes at the close of the stele with the titulary summary after the detailed discussion of the confrontation with the Libyans in the body of the stele and to read it in that context.

The Titulary summary has no reference to Ashkelon, Gezer, Yenoam, Israel or Khor.

This is because Egyptian word order is Verb, Subject Object (VSO) and rather than starting with the noun Ashkelon it begins with a verb i:n (bring, fetch) u (imperfect past participle) (brought)(verb)

i s*k a d:n:y aggression strong anger the adverbial phrase Breasted read as Ashkelon

is a major problem for any similar reading of the stele that doesn't have the proper word order and can't tell the difference between the different parts of speech.

a d r (abode) subject

r (determinative the thing itself)(name)

ideo Aa 13 im ideogram T14(2) club ideo N25 hast

im enemy foreign object

y ending

n1:(sky)mr:u*nu (inundation)] Read by Breasted with previous y ending as Yenoam

{see Gardiner note under N35 page 490} y n:mr Nu:O29 N35 N25 (Yenoam)

To get the word Yenoam without stripping the ending from the previous word is impossible

If the previous ending were part of Yenoam you would have y n1:mr:u*nu instead of y n:mr Nu:O29 N35 N25

In Egyptian the sounds of one word get stacked together followed by y endings and determinatives

n:G3 (renewal){in the sense of harvest}verbal clause

ir:u (made)(verb)

(sledge) (completely)

n:wn:n non existent

y (ending from previous nwny (nonexistent)

This is the portion first read by Petries Willian Spiegleberg in 1896 as Israel

to which Petrie replied "won't the reverend be pleased"

y( ending from previous nwny (nonexistent)

s:y(her):r name) subject

ia(ruin object

r (name) determinative the thing itself club (enemy) enemy name

determinative (people) determinative (plural)

strip it of the ending from the previous word and the determinatives and you have sy (her) ia (ruin)

You need a verb and should look for it in the preceding words.

inundation n:G3 (renewal){in the sense of harvest}verbal clause ir:u(made)(verb)

(sledge)(completely)n:wn:n non existent y(ending from previous nwny (nonexistent)

Inundation, renewal of harvest made completely non existent (y ending), her name in ruin det. people

Since the harvest is ruined we have the sense in which her seed is no more

Gardiner page 540 f:k:t determinative G37 sparrow fk read as fak (bare)

{fk is not used with G36 swallow wr (great)}

b*n (not)

p:r:t (seed) determinative (seed) determinative plural f ending

determinative (1000)a (is used for h, in group writing indicates an obscure foreign name

is ihi determinative (lion used as r) :(hr spelling) (Tjhenu)

{read as Gezer by Breasted Gardiner gives Krr Gerar but here there is no k}(enemy foreign)

L1:r (make)] verb

u m determinative (thousand) a rt determinative (plough) (variant prt seed)

red crown determinative for red land beginning of cartouches on line 28 (introducing the titulary)

As to the issue of whether a y properly goes at the end or the beginning of a word.

You can look at the other words ending in "y" in the Merneptah stele

Where Breasted continues y sr i3r fk.ti and translates it Israel is wasted, bare of seed,

the stela continues s:y:r iA r:Z1 T14 A1*B1:plural f:k:t:det swallow

sy(her) r (mouth voice name) iA (ruin) r (foreign people) weak

her name ruined and weak.

Where Breasted has bn prt f h3rw

the stela has bn pr r t f plural h3rw

Where Breasted has hpr.w m h3 rt n Khor is become a widow for Egypt.

the stela has hp r w Mn:sw w r s3(red crown of lower Egypt) and Gardiner has for widow M12 h3 Ar:t Det D3B1.142.0.102.15 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Promoted to 'B' class

I've promoted this article to 'B' class as it is well-referenced and supported by additional materials, and covers the history and context of the stele as well as describing the reasoning behind different translations. Once remaining tags are resolved and contributors are happy, I feel that the article has a strong chance of passing Good Article Review.

I've also rated it as 'mid-importance' for WikiProject Ancient Egypt, as it is supposedly the most famous find of Flinders Petrie, whose own article is rated as 'high-importance'. Please feel free to revise the importance rating up further if believed appropriate. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I also think this article stands a good chance of passing a Good Article review. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Debunked theory

Once again, wikipedia is used as a propaganda tool and states mere theories as facts. I don't know who's in charge of editing this page, but you should really update this information. Joseph Davidovits has debunked the theory of the Stele making mention of the name "Israel", and unless you have reasons to believe you are more qualified than him, it should at least be written somewhere that the whole article is a simple theory advanced by Jewish historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.192.83.122 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

One chemist/chemical engineer (Davidovits, whose most well-known idea was suggesting a way the pyramids could be made from concrete) — who also does not specialize in archæology, paleography, nor Egyptology — does not make a scientific consensus in this area. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for any assertions made in articles, so unless you have reason to believe those reliable sources are not more qualified than him, take issue with the reliable sources rather than implying some kind of Wikipedia Jewish conspiracy doesn't really have a place on Wikipedia. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Joseph Davidovits, a renowned building materials researcher and the father of modern geopolymerization, is responsible for significant pioneering theories concerning the techniques used in the construction of the Egyptian pyramids. In 1974, he posited that many of the “stones” used in the construction of the pyramids are actually man-made masonry blocks that were compacted in place in temporary formworks and that utilized advanced, geopolymer-like binders. Davidovits suggests that ancient Egyptian chemists, including the famed Imhotep, combined lime and natron salts to create a type of caustic soda, a key ingredient in their early brand of geopolymer. As in modern geopolymerization reactions, the introduction of alkaline media (caustic soda, for example) to aluminosilicate materials (pozzolanic ash and clay in this case) precipitated a strong chemical reaction that catalyzed the integration of silica and alumina products. These reactions resulted in the formation of strong, cement-like, C-A-S-H binders with exceptional performance properties.

Flinders Petrie was a 1853-bor British archaeologist and collector. He made a mistranslation, a translation error, not a "Jewish conspiracy": Error or forgery on the Stele of Merneptah, known as Israel Stele --93.211.215.60 (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You've made a case for Davidovits being an excellent chemist/materials scientist, including on construction of Egyptian sites, but not on his ability to translate written text. He's not an authority on that, as presented. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually his construction suggestions just don't match the evidence and are not accepted. Egyptian pyramid construction techniques#Limestone concrete hypothesis. And there's no evidence Imhotep was a chemist. That's nonsense. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Refs

References

Biased article

This article takes on a very skeptical tone to the point of inaccuracy - for example: "It is not clear, however, just who this Israel was or where they were located" distorts both the quotes referenced. The first reads: "while the Merneptah stele may indeed prove beyond doubt that shortly before 1200 B.C.E. Egyptian intelligence either encountered or was informed of an inimical "Israel" residing in the highlands of Palestine, and that it was considered significant enough to warrant inclusion in the only known campaign of Merneptah in this region, any attempt by biblical scholars to translate this practical category into the substantialist idiom of an internally homogeneous, externally bounded group which serves to demarcate the evolution of that singular, regulative and constituting cultural tradition identified textually and archaeologically as "Israel" simply cannot be sustained"... First off, before this passage he gives a rundown of what other scholars think the stele says about "Israel" and comes to the conclusion that Israel is a "socio-ethnic entity" subsisting on agriculture in the highlands of Palestine. Nowhere does it say its not clear who and where they are, in fact he says the stele may prove these things beyond doubt. What he says "cannot be sustained" is the idea that that the Israelites are a homogeneous, clearly defined people with borders that correspond to the borders of the later Israeli polity- from what we know we cant relegate Mernephtah's Israel to a stage in the continuous cultural tradition of the Israel we know from the Iron Age. He's not saying we can't know anything about "Israel" for sure (since that's true for pretty much everything), he's saying we must be careful in our interpretation of what the stele implies. He must've meant "essentialist idioms", as in "they are Israelites so they must be X, Y, Z". Substantialism is related but humorously different. Going straight to the source - the quote continues "Yet, while the cognitive perspective outlined in this work may well offer resources for avoiding such analytical groupism by viewing ethnicity and indeed ethnic groups not as substances, but as collective cultural representations, my attention is necessarily drawn towards the political, cultural and psychological processes through which such categories become invested with groupness." Here it becomes evident that this book is not a history of Israel- it's a cognitive perspective on the formation of israelite identity. And not just Israel, he's interested in the cognitive basis of cultural constructs such as ethnicity in general. This source doesn't support what it references. The next quote is: "Assuming we have Merneptah's dates correctly as 1213-1203, and that the reading "Israel" is correct, the reference places an Israel in Palestine in the thirteenth century. The word read (probably correctly) as "Israel" also has a sign indicating a people and not a place. That makes the alternative reading "Jezreel" less likely — though Hebrew "s" and "z" could both be represented by the same Egyptian letter; also, since "Jezreel" is partly made up of the word for "seed", the inscription could be a pun by a Semitic speaking scribe. It might also be considered that Merneptah would find it easier to fight in the plain of Jezreel than in the highlands." It says while the (probably correct) reading is Israel, it could in theory be Jezreel. Keep in mind that this quote is used to support the idea that even if it says israel we don't know what "Israel" is. The quote does not say that. There's UNDUE weight on Jezreel in general: though its a minority interpretation, its also mentioned in Eissfeldt 1965 - "Unfortunately, even the supposed earliest mention of the name Israel in the triumphal hymn of Merenptah composed about 1230 b.c. does not provide any unambiguous answer to this question, for this name may also be explained as Jezreel." Maybe it did in 1965 but this theory has few proponents today- now that we've discovered a distinct material culture in the highlands of southwest Canaan contemporaneous to the stele. This article rightly says the (vast) majority of scholars read the word as Israel- but fails to mention that the majority also interpret this Israel as related to Israel. There is no quote mentioning this. In fact the longest quotation in the whole article is of a biblical minimalist who believes the bible has no basis in history (and Jesus is a myth) yet has the nerve to say "to begin the origins of biblical Israel with Merneptah ... on the grounds that we have extra-biblical rather than biblical attestation is willful. These texts are, mirabile dictu, even less relevant than the biblical traditions [that I already think are irrelevant]" He's not exactly a neutral source. The belief that the whole bible is a lie is just as fanciful as the belief that the whole bible is truth. (just because it says "Israel" doesn't mean it's referring to Israel, it could refer to a region called Israel! Even though the hieroglyph for a people is used!) Of course none of these biblical minimalists would write a history of England without the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Anyway, I'm tagging relevant wikiprojects.--Monochrome_Monitor 22:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You're probably right. AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You make some interesting points MM. They will be even more interesting when you make them at the proper time which is not now! Please avoid all Jewish and Israeli-related subjects be till the agreed time is up. Don't test the boundaries here G ;) Irondome (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Location

How can the reference "Palestine" be used when the term itself was not created until the period of Roman rule when they used it for the first time to punish the Jews? Would not a more time related location be more appropriate for this site and discussion? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:84:303:6AA0:900B:6E42:BBAE:9E6C (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

The references to Palestine are all in quotations from eminent scholars.

As an aside, you might find it enlightening to read Timeline of the name "Palestine". The point about "punishing" or similar is nonsense. A recent PhD thesis has dismantled it further. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

See the comment of "13:52, 27 June 2013" above on this page. AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

1208 BCE described as Iron age?

This is not accurate: "The stela represents the earliest textual reference to Israel and the only reference from ancient Egypt.[4] It is one of four known inscriptions, from the Iron Age" The other 3 inscriptions are proper Iron age as far as we know. The Israel Stele is still bronze age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldcall (talk • contribs) 12:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Coldcall (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC) So i changed this obviously erroneous referral to 1208 being Iron Age, it was changed back by some user. Obviously the problem for them is the name Israel on the stele. So im off as not going to get involved in what appears to be a use of the dating of this Stele as a proxy for the current Israel-Palestine conflict. I have read the history of this page and frankly it is a disgrace, quite obvious historic facts are being distorted and in fact falsified all because of an argument over territory in 2020. Shame on both sides, and this only discredits wikipedia as a source one can trust. Coldcall (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The user who changed back your edit explained why into the edit summary: "The start of the Iron Age depends heavily on the region, thus a general explanation does not suffice as a source. You need a source specific to this region." To which I personally agree. There are multiple sources within the article claiming that the stele is datable to the Iron Age, thus you have to find other reliable sources claiming that it is still datable to the Bronze Age in order to add validity to your argument. Khruner (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC):

Early Iron Age "The PreHistory and ProtoHistory of the Arabian Peninsula Volume One Saudi Arabia" Dr Muhammed Abdul Nayeem" Dates it as 1200-1000 imported from other places such as Africa, Asia, and Europe. Some copper and bronze turned up as amulates, traded across the Gulf from Elim to Elat for the mortuary industry In particular there was trade in metals such as copper, gold possibly meteoric iron, bronze jewelry, "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" Bains and Malek pp 12-175 §2603:7081:7040:3D:9410:9D58:B23D:CB1B (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Heavily biased article

It would be a stretch of any imagination to say that this article is not biased. This has clearly been a problem for nearly a decade as anybody can see from reading the previous notes. This is a disappointing indicator of the general degradation of the quality of Wikipedia. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

You haven’t even bothered to say in what way it is biased. This is an absolutely useless comment of yours to make that will not lead to any change in the article since no one can have any clue what your actual problem with the article is, let alone any suggestions for improvement or reliable sources supporting any changes to it. —OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly heavily biased towards pro Israel / Pro Bible. To the point of absurd , clearly. Each and every note here of current Egyptologists denotes that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.143.193.72 (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The majority of scholars with relevant expertise think it refers to the name "Israel". Of course, this only "corroborates" the Bible in a very limited way. Not sure exactly what you're referring to... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)