This is an archive of past discussions about Philistines. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
The editors of this page and other pages - which talk about the Palestinians and Palestine - want to people to understand the Palestine's history according to the bible, while most of Palestinians are Muslims and don't believe in the bible. Moreover, the bible is not a scientific book and does not supply any evidence. As a Palestinian I belive that my origin is mixed Canan + Philistine + Arab , and of cours I should not impose my beliefs as you don't believe in the Quran (our book).
If this website is neutral, you shoud at least put all the opinions ( not only your).
Finally, the map in the head of the page says that Jews had all Palestine while the Philistines had only Gaza, so that is not true at all. In fact, the Canaanites and the Philistines were the first inhabitants of Palestine and there were no Jews with them, but after long time Jews came.
If you have a verifiable source where your opinion has appeared in print, you can attribute it somewhere within the article and say something like 'this is what most Palestinians believe, according to [source]...' Actually (ironically) the Bible agrees with you that Philistines were in Canaan in the days of Abraham, but what the article presents is the mainstream scholarly view that the Philistines were the late-comers, not the Biblical view. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Bible agrees with you that Philistines were in Canaan in the days of Abraham." When the Philistines arrived they probably mixed with the Canaanite populations who were already living there. The Bible may be calling the pre-Philistine population "Philistines" because thats what they became, so the designation is anachronistic but not inaccurate. A similar problem regards saying Abraham was born in the city "Ur of the Chaldeans", because the city came to be called this later, but the Chaldeans had not yet arrived there during the Bronze Age when Abraham was alive. --Haldrik01:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, thanks for sharing your personal speculation about why Genesis (and Jubilees) refer to Philistines in Abraham's day, and of course I have my own personal speculation about why this is so, that is somewhat different, but here I try to stick to what can actually be sourced... (It's much safer!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 01:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, "personal speculation"? You know perfectly well it's a common academic view that the scribes "updated" the texts here and other places. --Haldrik10:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Rather, the Egyptians mention the Israelites in the 13th-century BCE Late Bronze Age. They may have been there since much earlier. LATER, the Egyptians mention the arrival of the Philistines (Peleset) in the 12th-century BCE Early Iron Age. The Israelites were at least a century earlier and probably much earlier. LOL! Regarding the A-R-A-B population, they come from the A-R-A-B-ian Peninsula, not from the area of Israel, and the Arabs didnt enter the region until the Muslim jihadist imperialists invaded and colonized the area in the 7th-century CE. There is no connection between the Philistines who went extinct and the Arabs who arrive centuries later. --Haldrik01:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Ignorance is the cause of many problems in the world and mainly in modern-days Israel. Arab is NOT just someone from the Arabian Peninsula; The meaning of the word has evolved and it now refers to people that identify themselves with the Arab culture; very similar to the so called Western people - Why are Polish and Armenian considered Westerners and some non-Christian countries are not?
I am European and I have no bias in the matter, even though I hold my personal views in favour and against the two factions. However, the state of Israel, which now exists and Palestine and Palestinian authorities ought to accept it, has to take responsibility over the appalling way it has historically been trying to rewrite history.
Philistines were in what now is Israel before the Israelis arrived. If one can claim any region due to ancestry, Iraq is the place to go, as Abraham is originally from there. However, given the fact that all monotheist religions descend from Abraham, which one has a claim over this land?
Israelites as a people were only formed after the exhile from Egypt and if you use common sense, it is only natural that a group of slaves running away from their masters need to find a place to setlle. Divine commandment or basic need, the coincidence cannot be denied.
You wrongly attributed the Arab people to the Arabian Peninsula, I would just like to understand why don’t you use the same reasoning for P(h)ilistines and Palestinea.
Countries and borders have all been subject to changes throughout history and I cannot understand why Israeli authorities think they have a privilged position on this. The whole creation of the state of Israel was political and it proved wrong in the long-term, as we can see with all the conflicts arising from the area. Do not take Zionism as the same as Judaism. You cannot cite the Jewish ancestry as a reason for the claim over Israeli land and then say Zionisn, which is less than 200 years old, is a synonym of Judaism.
Golda Meir has been one of the responsibles for the creation of the myth “there is no such thing as Palestinea”. Convenient indeed for someone leading a country fighting for its right to exist. But you can not forget that the same Golda Meir was the one responsible for using terrorism to fight terrorism. Not “couter-terrorism” but pure and utter cold-blooded murder similar to the attrocity committed against the innocent athletes. An eye for an eye strategy is exactly that: denying each other’s riht to exist and both using terrorist methods to achieve their goals.
Finicky historical evidence only perpetuates conflicts
Archeologists laugh and cry at the silly nonsense that gets taught in Palestinian schools. A friend of mine who is a Palestinian Christian didnt even know Jesus was Jewish. He thought Jesus was Arab. *roll eyes* The irony is, my Palestinian friend himself is possibly Jewish and not Arab. The Christian populations included ancient Jews who converted to Christianity and later resisted the Muslim Arab invaders. The local Christians maintained their own distinct culture and gene pool because those who intermarried with Muslims became Muslims and exited the Christian gene pool. There are Palestinian Christians who claim descend from Jesus's family, and this itself means at least some Palestinian Christians are the descendents of ancient Jews. Across the Mideast there are Christian communities who resisted the Muslim colonialist occupiers. Some of these Christian communities preserved their own pre-Arab languages, such as the Coptics in Egypt and the Syriacs in Syria. --Haldrik01:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Moreover, Jews are the descendents of the ancient Canaanites. After King David conquered the entire area, any Canaanites that didnt go extinct were assimilated into Israelite culture. By the end of the Iron Age, there are no Canaanites, except for Lebanon (who the Greeks called Phoenicians and who survive to some degree in the form of the Maronite Christian community). (The Philistines went extinct during Iron Age III.) Canaanites became Jews. There is no connection between Canaanites and Arabs. So any Arab who claims descent from the Canaanites is in fact claiming to be a Jew who converted to Islam. A Jew. --Haldrik01:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Modern Day Philistines??
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The entry notes a historical account of the Philistine people, but it does not cover a modern day account of it: do they exist in modern times? Who are they?
The Philistines are believed to have gone extinct, more-or-less at the same time and for the same reason the "Ten Lost Tribes" of Israel went extinct, during Iron Age III. --Haldrik01:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
We refer to that area as "Palestine" now, which is derived from the word Phillistine. And no they are not believed to have gone extinct. But they have adopted the culture of conquering peoples, most notably that of islam 97.91.176.159 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The user above seems to be an Islamophobe given their last statement. As for the terms Palestine and Palestinians, Timeline of the name Palestine these words clearly derive from and are related to the words Philistine/Philistines. The individual above is correct in that the Philistines are not believed to have "gone extinct" they are just one of the countless different types of people that have mixed in and lived in the land. As scholar Ali Qliebo mentions regarding Palestinians that they are related to; "Canaanites, Jebusites, Philistines from Crete, Anatolian and Lydian Greeks, Hebrews, Amorites, Edomites, Nabateans, Arameans, Romans, Arabs, and European crusaders, to name a few. Each of them appropriated different regions that overlapped in time and competed for sovereignty and land."
As for Palestinians they are termed "Arab" (whether Muslim, Christian, or even Samaritan if you want to include the Samaritans who consider themselves the authentic followers of Judaism who mainly have a community of about a thousand people in the West Bank, around particularly the city of Nablus if I recall) because of having undergone the process of cultural and linguistic "Arabization", not because people from the Arabian Peninsula supposedly "settled" in any sizable amount in the land of Palestine. "Arab" is not a "racial group" (putting aside that "race" is an unscientific arbitrary social construct, with no unique delineations between supposed "racial groups" to start with) its only a linguistic and cultural term.Historylover4 (talk)
11:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
The term "extinct" here means that Philistine culture and political existence disappeared - not that all of them somehow "died out." As their states were extinguished, the "survivors," if you wish, merged with the surrounding culture and people. HammerFilmFan (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Note that the Palestinians up until 1964 were the Jews.
An Arab would be insulted to be called a Palestinian as it was as if he was being called a Jew!
In 1964 at the instigation of the KGB the Arabs became the Palestinians.
This was done as an act of historical revisionism.
The Romans coined the name Palestine to replace Judea in 135AD.
The Koran in 5:20-21 makes it clear that Allah gave the Holy Land to the Jews/Israelites alone. (anon in May 2013)
Most of your claims are not only baseless, but even if you had sources making these claims, they could not be used in this article Philistines. How could the KGB possibly get all the many almanacs, yearbooks, encyclopedias etc. around the world in the year 1964 to suddenly start calling the Arabs "Palestinians" instead of the Jews? That is patent nonsense, because all the almanacs, yearbooks and encyclopedias etc. around the world from 1948 to 1963 all referred to the Arabs as Palestinians and the Jews as Israelis, just as they did after 1964. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Early Arguments
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
they are spoken of as uncircumcised. It would therefore appear that they were not of the Semitic race, though after their establishment in Palestine they adopted the Semitic language of the country. Semitic describes a group of languages and the peoples who speak them, not a group of penises. Someone also thinks the Philistines adopted a new, Semitic language they had not been speaking. Any reason to imagine this? Some links to modern archaeology would be useful in this entry. Anyone interested? Wetman 01:27, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well the term Semetic is problematic anyway liguists prefer to use Northeast Afroasiatic these days. Perhaps the source being refered to has been misinterpreted? Jews have always understood them to have been descendants of Egypt which of course also spoke an Afroasiatic language. Perhaps the idea is that if they were a founding population of later Helenized isles that they lost their Afroasiatic language in THOSE regions? However as Wetman knows, I would advise anyone to avoid connections of Sea-peoples with the early 12thC.BCE for the time being because of a chronology controversey currently rifting (sometimes violently) the academic community which might sort itself out over the next 50 years. -Kaz
They are described in the Old Testament as an intrusive people that settled in Palestine in the period between the Hebrews' departure to Egypt and their return. What book is being referred to here? This is akin to "I read it in the library." 'Intrusive' is not the word used in the source. Anyone want to come up with something, or would 'immigrant people' do? No one would describe the Hebrews in Canaan as an 'intrusive people'. Does a 7th century text reflecting earlier tribal traditions with a vivid anti-Philistine bias throw authentic historical light on the date of the Philistines' arrival? If it doesn't, it's not history, it's Sunday school... Wetman 03:20, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I first saw this passage written by Llywrch on the Sea-People's page. As far as I know the whole passage is wrong according to any source. Even the book to which you refer indicates that the Philistines were in the southern parts of Canaan when the Hebrews arrived there. -Kaz
They are described in the Old Testament as people that settled Southern Cannan (sic} prior to the Hebrews' arrival there from the North East. There is no such description in any book of the O.T. Does any knowledgable responsible person want to do some editing here? Wetman 11:04, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
people called Pulsata or Pulista on Egyptian monuments and the the land of the Philistines (Philistia) with Palastu and Pilista in Assyrian inscriptions. This is repeated from Wikipedia but otherwise "Pulsata" "Pulista" "Palastu" and "Pilista" aren't getting any Egyptian or Assyrian references. Where are these inscriptions then? I think we deserve to know... Wetman 21:37, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
806 BC: Assyrian inscriptions of Adad-Nirari III (aka Adadnirari III) mention Philistines as Palastu or Pilistu. --Haldrik02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The Assyrian texts mention Philistia (Pilishte/Palastu in the records of Sargon II and Adad-nirari III) near Israel (mat-Chumri), Judah, Edom, Moab, and Phoenicia. Likewise Herodotus (I,105, II,104, III,5,91, IV,39, VII,89), where Philistia (Palaistina) is only the coastal strip of land equating to the modern Gaza Strip. --Haldrik02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This new text is self-contradictory: They are called Allophyli, "foreigners," in the Septuagint. In the Books of Samuel they are spoken of as uncircumcised. It would therefore appear that they were not a native people since circumcision is documented as widely practiced in Palestine at the time, although after their establishment in Palestine they adopted the languages and customs of the country. --If circumcision was customary in Palestine and the Philistines were circumcised, that makes them more likely to be native, not less. In any case, I would have thought that the origins of the Philistines were by now determined by archaelogy without the need to resort to scraps of information of unknown veracity in the Bible. --Zero 22:31, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Perfectly sensible, Zero. Indeed, if the "foreigners" (allophyli is odd) of the Septuagint (but which book?) are in fact identical with the Philistines, and if the author of Samuel says they were uncircumcized, then we can deduce that the Philistines were not Hebrews and that they were not circumcised. The circumcision that was "customary" was customary among the Hebrews. Deductive logic is not taught in Sunday school apparently. Wetman 23:04, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I have edited this entry with identifed element from Easton's Bible Dictionary. Folks'd better have a look, for this area seems sensitive. Wetman 23:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Mea culpa. I was quoting from memory what I had read about the research of Brian Hesse & Paula Wapnish of the University of Alabama, & when I went back to reread my source, it turns out I misremembered: their work was on the eating of pork or pig's meat, not circumcision. (If I had thought for a moment, I would have realized that there is no good way to determine by archeology whether a population practices circumcision.)
And to answer Wetman's question from the Talk:Hittites page here about the Philistines: I did go through my copy of ANET3 last night, trying to find an example of the Ancient Egyptian or Assyrian form of Philistine, but I could not find any. (The word appears in that reference only from Egyptian texts, where it is translated without any clue of the original spelling.) I am suspicious about the claimed forms "Pulsata" & "Pulista", since according to the usual rules of how ancient Egyptian is converted to pronounceable English these forms would presume an attested pwlst' or pwls`t` -- which is clearly different from an expected plst. One would have to explain the consonental w & the one or two asperations, which I suspect aren't attested in the Hebrew text. -- llywrch 18:41, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. And Wikipedia's 1897 reference is spread all over the Web through Google... This is worth your time working into a disambiguating paragraph, llywrch.
"Disambiguating paragraph"? I don't follow, Wetman. Do you mean providing an explanation why this form is suspicious? However, I notice that this misconception is also present the ANE mailling list (from an email dated to June, 2003), where I'd expect better judgement. -- llywrch 23:16, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I was hoping someone else would work the above information into the text. please correct my attempt in the entry and make it more accurate. Wetman15:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
The book of Genesis mentions them as being of Egyptian ancestry This is an interpretation of an unidentified passage in Genesis. Whenevber dealing with an obscure or contentious issue, please mention the passage, even quote it, then interpret it, so that the reader can follow the process not just be presented with the authoritative conclusion.
First sentences need to be readable. Does this example look preposterous, for instance, to an ordinary reader?
"Abraham (אברהם "Father/Leader of many", Tiberian HebrewʾAḇrāhām, Standard HebrewAvraham; ArabicابراهيمIbrāhīm)Lincoln (February 12, 1809 - April 15, 1865) was the 16th (1861-1865) President of the United States, and the first President from the Republican Party."
I have simply shifted the unwieldy transliterations to their own section. Nothing has been removed or changed.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Excuse me, but weren't the philistines believed to be indo-europeans? Why isn't this mentioned anywhere in the article? Fedor 09:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indo-European is actually a family of languages rather than a culture or a genetic kinship. Genetic kinships are unprovable at this distance. Culture groups are touched on: "Peoples of the Sea", Mycene etc. Or were, last time i looked at this entry, where facts tended to disappear at one time... --Wetman 10:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*Duuh!* That is of course what I mean! I repeat: Weren't the philistines indo-europeans (meaning they spoke an indo-european language and had a similar culture). Fedor 13:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Are the cultural connections of early, pre-literate Philistines with Mycenaean culture sufficiently presented now? The fervently hopeful Indo-European connections are quite slender. The entry doesn't say so, but the strained examples should speak for themselves. --Wetman 15:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe that the origins of the Philistines have been now been generally connected with Crete, as part of the Sea-Peoples in general for, among other reasons, the Cretans' mastery of sailing for trade, but also for warfare. Nowhere is this mentioned in the article. 66.108.145.15511:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
Palestina
why is here rederict from palestina? --Macronyx 21:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Palestine
why is here rederict from palestina? --Macronyx 21:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Easton
Currently, the article says, Nineteenth-century Bible scholars identified the land of the Philistines (Philistia) with Palastu and Pilista in Assyrian inscriptions, according to Easton's Bible Dictionary (1897). Is there any reason to think this identification was wrong? It seems fairly straightforward, and the kind of thing that 19th century Bible scholars would have been correct about. johnk 6 July 2005 21:29 (UTC)
If you have a better reference and a more specific scholar in mind, do edit the information in. --Wetman 6 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
Etymology of "Philistine"
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
We have this recent edit:"Etymology: Though some controversy remains over the origins of the term, there has been some speculation that 'philistine' is an anglicized form of the Arabic name 'filastin' meaning Palestine." Anyone want to deal with this? --Wetman08:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
i'm not very good with wikipedia editing, but i do know a lot about the history of the ancient near east, particularly egypt and israel/palestine. the name palestine comes from herodotus who referred to the land of israel as palaestina in his works. herodotus was following standard greek practice, which was to translate difficult foreign names, rather than transliterate them. israel- 'he wrestles with god', became palaestina- 'he wrestles', or 'the place where he wrestles'. herodotus also refers to an area in southern turkey by the same term. he was very interested in wrestling. anyway, the romans used the name syria palaestina to refer to the combined area of syria and judea that they conquered and controled. originally they had allowed the name judaea (their rendering into latin of judah, or 'land of judah') to be used, but after continued uprisings they suppressed the name of the country in an attempt to suppress nationalism. the arab name filastin is derived from the roman's use of the term syria palaestina, and likely from interaction with christian communities using greek bibles.
in the article is the sentence "The name "Palestine" comes, via Greek and Latin, from the Philistines" which, is both 'common knowledge' and incorrect. the egyptians refer to the area around gaza as belonging to the prst, which is the same name they used for the persians. the jews referred to the later people who were there as plshm. although the article references the idea that these people derived from caphtor, their origin in the gaza area according to ancient sources was from the area of pelusium (plshm). these sources state that they were people from capthor who were settled in pelusium and then rebelled against the egyptians, who drove them out, where they ended up in the area of gaza. these people had entirely ceased to exist by the time that herodotus coined the term palaestina.
as far as the arguments that the palestinians were greeks, or arabs, or canaanites, or whatever... we don't really know where the people in any of the areas of the ancient middle east came from in scientifically verifiable fashion. when we do 'digs' what we find is 'culture', and although we have ideas about where different cultures came from, we generally don't know where the people who followed those cultures came from. so, in certain periods in ancient canaan/israel/palestine it's very common to find cypriote pottery. did people from cyprus come with this pottery? were these pots simply fashionable imports? maybe cyprus was the 'china' of it's day, producing cheap goods for export. these questions remain to be answered.
I don't get this sentence on Plishah meaning invasion
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Quote: "'There is no basis to the claim that the etymology of this word can be based on the Semitic word Plishah (פלישה, meaning invasion -- because this people invaded Canaan from the sea).'
I don't understand this sentence. What difference does it make that a supposed invasion took place from the sea? Why does this make the claim that 'Philistine' comes from 'Plishah' baseless? Why is this at all important to mention in the introduction and not moved down under 'etymology' or something?Fedor13:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Shouldn't this be in a redirect page instead of at the bottom of an article dedicated to an aincient historical area? I would make one, but I don't know how. ABart2622:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Someone had written Christina Martinez at the top of the article. It was graffitti so I deleted it, adn now these color boxes showed up.--Mullon22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Removing the Arabic writing from the opening section
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is no historical reason for using the Arabic writing to this matter ("philistiens" - which actually were of Greek origin) other than the unsupported claims of some that the Arab who call themselves for the last decades "Palestinians" are actually the descendants of them.--Gilisa06:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
The term Palestinian goes back far longer than supposedly "the last few decades" (Timeline of the name Palestine) sounds like you were parroting this even before the blowhard Newt Gingrich made this claim in America. Even Israeli academics such as Professor Haim Gerber used the work of a specific 17th century CE Mufti from Ramla, Palestine named Mufti Khayr al-Din al-Ramli to trace the path of what Gerber very interestingly called "embryonic territorial awareness" among Palestinians (even before the development of modern nationalism itself according to most scholars) see Palestinian nationalism. So even this work by an Israeli academic like Professor Haim Gerber discusses Palestinian nationalist sentiments going back over 300 years ago (i.e. more than "a few decades" as you apparently snidely wrote back in 2007). And also you simply ignored what most scholars on the issue, consider another crucible in helping shape and develop modern Palestinian nationalism further and that was the 1834 Arab revolt in Palestine against the Ottoman Empire. And then finally to go back more than just a "few decades" (as by this terminology I'm assuming you meant, back in 2007, something similar to Newt Gingrich's asinine claim that Palestinians were supposedly "invented" in the 1960s or 1970s, many of these are the same people who also claim quite absurdly that Yasser Arafat was supposedly "the first Palestinian" when he wasn't even the first leader of the PLO that was Ahmad Shukeiri followed by Yahya Hammuda and then Yasser Arafat) again going back more than just a "few decades" we have the famous Palestinian al-Husayni family of Al-Quds (that Zionists also like to go on about especially regarding the controversial Palestinian nationalist leader Hajj Amin al-Husayni whose ancestors were Palestinian leaders before time of even the Zionist founder Theodor Herzl). Some small examples: Palestinian Arab Party, Arab Higher Committee, Palestinian Communist Party (1922), etc.Historylover4 (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
What Dougweller was trying to get across is that the Philistines were gone/extinct/dispersed into the surrounding culture long before even the Romans took this area, and there is no direct link with the Palestinians of today. It's a scientific truth, not meant as a slap in the face of the Arab populations of Gaza, etc. His point is also on-topic for the article and this Talk Page. Plus we don't know how much of the ethnic Semitic Canaanites were displaced/overrun during the Arab invasions of the post-Byzantine era - it's possible they were bred out over the centuries - a remnant population that suffered in unknown ways during the terrible destruction of the Bar-Kochba revolt and the various plagues that hit the area before the Middle Ages. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
MISLEADING AND ZIONIST
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
I believe this page reveals a strange and misleading trend that needs to be addressed.
First of all the maps are incorrect and directly sourced from biased and Israeli-oriented sites. These maps do not address Philistine civilization in any relevant way, but instead portray an imagined (non-historical) representation of Israel and the Levant which reduces the importance of Philistine society. A map should be found that accurately displays the Philistia at their height, as well as other stages of their development. I am working on this.
In the origins section an author describes the Philistines as "not autochthonous" meaning they were non-native. It then goes on to insinuate that the jews in the area were native and the Philistines were a kind of temporary, transient phenomenon. This is precisely the opposite of the historical and Biblical fact that the Philistines had long been the residents of Palestine and the Jews were a nomadic people (from Egypt) and occupied the areas currently known as Palestine and Israel for a fraction of the time the Philistines have. There is no mention of the fact that Philistines, Jews, and many other peoples lived side-by-side in multicultural societies. There is no reference for the (purely speculative and untrue) assumption that the Philistines were the mythologized "sea people," who were probably just that, a myth.
Further, the Bible is the primary or indirect source material for most of this article, which is insufficient. The Bible is severely flawed for use as a historical reference and the legends contained in that book hold no bearing without scientific confirmation. As a theologian I can say for certain that the Bible is not unclear about the Philistines. It describes the Philistines as dwelling in the vicinity "for eons," and describes their cultural habits in detail, as does do numerous credible historians and archeologists. None of these accounts are contained in this wiki-page. There is absolutely zero evidence that the Philistines are mythical "sea people." The repeated mention of this demands a credible reference. Moreover, the Bible (as the main reference for this page) does not mention the mythical (probably non existent) "sea people" a single time. The Philistines existed in the Levant for thousands of years and probably came from the arabian peninsula before that. Their descendants are the Palestinians.
I will begin to make some clarifications of fact in the fabric of this misleading article and I'd like to open a discussion on it. I believe that the content herein may be politically influenced, possibly by pro-israel types who wish to distort the fact many peoples have lived in the area known as israel for many millenia longer than the recent flux of zionist Jews. For me, there is no other reason as to why there would be such a curious curtailing of obvious Biblical and historical truths.
-Reedbennett Feb7,2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedbennett (talk • contribs) 21:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Adding one voice here, that 'the Philistines existed in the Levant for thousands of years and probably came from the arabian peninsula before that.' is disputed by archaeological evidence at every single site excavated in Palestine that is identified as 'Philistine.' These cities, almost all of them on the coastal plain and in the highlands known as the Shephelah, consistently show signs of Canaanite settlement prior to a Late Bronze Age / Early Iron Age destruction, and rebuilding by a culture who is very probably Aegean in origin, not Arabian. (This is not just the pottery vessels used, but choice of diet, known words, and many other factors of culture.) Your attribution of them to Arabia and the comment that 'their descendants are the Palestinians' shows as much POV, in my opinion, as any of the information in the article, which seems to at least accurately let you know when information is coming from the Bible, when its coming from Egyptian hieroglyph sources, and when the information is coming from cited archaeological publications, The Philistines and their material culture, for example, being an important typological study of Philistine pottery vessels and their Aegean counterparts. Brando130 (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrong again. Your bizarre and indefensible claim that some village is "very probably Aegean" in origin means absolutely nothing, - Brando130 (obvious sock). The Philistines were semitic arabs and that is so widely confirmed by scientific research and Biblical documentation that your suggestion they are "Aegean" (sea people, I presume?) is the most historically backwards and ill-informed claim relating to the Philistia I have yet to hear. I'll remind you that the term Philistine has been used since Biblical times continuously to describe the same cultural and ethnic body that has existed into the modern era. The word "Palestine" is a direct cognate to "Philistine." This is an indisputable scientific fact, not a "POV." Even the Encyclopedia Britanica identifies a Philistine as a "residient of ancient Palestine, defined as the area between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean, although mainly in the south." Your wacky swerve in history means nothing when somebody examines it with an actual study of historical knowledge. I am correcting the page as soon as possible, and I can assure you that Aegean speculation and "sea people" will be no part of it whatsoever when I'm done. I recommend that you examine your history books and scripture once again. This is very obvious and well documented.
Your rudeness aside, your selection of sources to document your claims is telling. "Even the Encyclopedia Britanica[sic] identifies a Philistine as a "residient of ancient Palestine, defined as the area between the river Jordan and the Mediterranean, although mainly in the south." You quote encyclopedia Britannica in telling me how backwards and ill-informed my suggestion is that the Philistines come from the Aegean. If you even read the article in Britannica, you'd see that it says the Philistines were "one of a people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine in the 12th century BC, about the time of the arrival of the Israelites."[3] Those wacky Britannica authors! They must be as ill-informed as me! Bizarre and indefensible as you find it, the view that Philistine culture is Aegean, and probably Indo-European (and not Semitic) in origin, is the view of literally dozens of published archaeologists excavating at Philistine sites in Palestine, and it deserves representation here in the Wikipedia article. But uh, thanks for all the warm words and thoughtful discussion. I gotta ask: are you sure you're not thinking of the Canaanites? That culture is Semitic, its far more indigenous to Palestine than either the Philistines or Hebrews, its probably one of several genetic ancestors to modern Palestinians, and some sources actually do find an origin for the Canaanites in the Arabian peninsula. The word "Palestine" being a direct cognate to "Philistine" is much more connected to Greek and Roman usage of the term "Palestine", which by then meant all of modern-day Israel/West Bank/Gaza Strip, and even into modern Lebanon. However in the Early Iron Age the Philistines dominated the area around their major five cities of Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron and Gath. By Greek times, when 'Palestine' meant the entire region it does today, that distinct culture had long since suffered defeat by Assyria. And that is the limited, focused culture being discussed in this article, not the culture that includes most non-Hebrew Semites living in Palestine in ancient times, of which of course there are literally hundreds of cities, and they are usually collectively referred to as Canaanites. By the way, you can sign your posts by ending them with four tilds. Brando130 (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Brando130
The bible gives strong indication that "Philistine" were indeed a " Semitic People", just look at the name of their chief king Abimelech אֲבִימֶלֶךְ an Arabic/Semitic name translated to English "King Father". Abimelech אֲבִימֶלֶךְ is the "Philistine" king who invited "Abraham" to live in "Philistine" see Genesis 21.
{And Abraham sojourned many days in the land of the Philistines. בְּאֶרֶץ פְּלִשְׁתִּים }Gen 21:34
אֲבִימֶלֶךְ is a hebrew name, and not an arabic name. the arabic word for king is מַלִךּ, or "Malic", while the word מֶלֶךְ is the hebrew word for king, and it pronounced "Melec".
This issue has nothing to do with modern day politics. The Palestinians have nothing to do with the Philistines, except maybe some genetic descent. Culturally, however (the only thing that counts), they have absolutely no links to them. Palestinians speak Arabic, and practice Islam. These are cultural traits from much further south that only reached the Israel region in the 7th century. They have absolutely nothing to do with an Canaanite nation. --86.135.86.110 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Today Jews have nothing to do with the Israelites Jews are NOT Israelites. Israelites are defined to be the Arabs tribes(y-J1e(P58)) whom are the biological blood descendants of man name Jacob Gen 35:11-12, while Jew is anyone whom adhere to the faith of Judaism( aka jewishness) regardless of his or her race.
The Term " GOYIM JEWS " is what we have today ! Jews NOT blood Related to Jacob( Israel). There is no such thing as homogeneous "Jewish DNA ",( EuropeanR1b1- SlavsR1a1 Kurds -J2, Ethiopian- A2, Amaziq- E3B1, Georgian and Ossetian -G etc of different paternal Y-DNA haplogroups ).Hence the NAME GOYIM JEWS..JEWS FROM NATIONS.
Plus Do U know that there is NO word Jew היהודיin the Pentateuch WHO IS A JEW?
When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?
מתי ואיך הומצא העם היהודי
It is an invention Called 'The Jewish People....There never were Jewish people
The word "Jews" in the Bible first appears in 2Kings 16:6, which is after Solomon's kingdom was split into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah. The term Jews refers not just to physical descendents of Judah, but the people who dwelt in the kingdom of Judah from other tribes. At some point anyone who espoused the religion of Judaism was considered to be a Jew also, which is why there are some who are called Jews today who are not children of Judah.
Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
The philistines-palestines logic is jut idiotic. on the same basis, we can claim that american indians comes from india, because its name is derived of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.225.222 (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence for Indo-European classification of original Philistine language
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Indeed, the only Philistine insciptions available appear to point away from an Indo-European etymology. Furthermore, it is misleading to hypothesize such a classification based on words in the Bible, such as "Seren", which is used in the Bible to denote a military captain of the Philistines. There is another word "Seren" in Biblical Hebrew, spelled exactly the same way, which means the axle of a chariot. Furthemore, the word is quite similar to the Hebrew word for prince, Sar, with the difference simply being dialectical.
The original language of the Philistines prior to their adoption of the local language of Canaan was highly likely to be neither Semitic nor Indo-European, but some unclassified Cypro-Minoan language. Philistine inscriptions found at Ashkelon appear to correspond to the Linear A used by the Minoans of Crete, who employed an unclassified non-Indo-European language.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13phil.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Indeed, in the Bible, the origins of the Philistines are identified with Crete and the Aegean, but are distinguished from the Greeks (referred to as 'Yavan').
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The connection between Linear A inscriptions and Philistine inscriptions at Ashkelon is certainly interesting, but has to be moderated by the consideration that Linear A had declined and disappeared many years, even centuries, before the Philistines arrived in Canaan. Adding references to Stager/Cross' works exploring a Cypro-Minoan connection is great but that does not call for the wholesale removal of any suggestion of an Indo-European connection. True not much is known but there is some cited evidence for an Indo-European connection to some words and inscriptions. (If seren is not a good example, the newly discovered inscription at Tell-es-Safi and its possible connection to other Indo-European names might be noted.) Also considering the archaeological evidence linking the early Philistines with Mycenaean influences, and the fact that the Linear A script was adopted by other Indo-European speakers after its decline (e.g. Linear B), there is definitely not enough new evidence to altogether remove the suggestion that the Philistine language may have been Indo-European, and the text is already quite cautious in suggesting any possible link. (e.g. "some limited evidence", "and can in some cases, with reservations, be traced", etc.) Though other referenced viewpoints should definitely be represented.
Also your statement that Linear A was "supplanted by another, Linear B, which was identified with the Minoan civilization of Crete and was finally decoded in the mid-20th century." is a little confused. Linear A is identified with Minoan civilization, but Linear B is connected with the Myceneaen Greeks on the mainland. Yes it has been decoded, and is in fact Greek (and thus IE) Brando130 (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In fact, the Cypro-Minoan script, to which Old Philistine inscription has been linked, is classified as Linear C, which is a descendant of Minoan Linear A, and does not seem to have been used to write an Indo-European language. According to the Wikipedia link on Cypro-Minoan syllabary, "The Cypro-Minoan syllabary, also known as CM or Linear C is the Late Bronze Age syllabary used on Minoan Cyprus (in use roughly from the 15th to the 12th centuries BC; i.e., 1500-1150 BCE)." This would place it well within the time range which scholars allege that Philistines began settling the coast of Canaan. Also, signs of Mycenaean motifs in pottery give no evidence that the Philistines were in fact Mycenaeans, only that they were culturally linked to the Aegean and eastern Meditteranean. After all, most of the cultural influences on Mycenae came from Minoan Crete, whose naval power was preeminent.
The Tel-al Safi inscription bears no signs of the Philistines speaking an Indo-European language, only that what appears to be a personal name appears to resemble a personal name used by other Mediterranean peoples, which is not surprising given the fact that the sea peoples were a mixed bunch.
The bottom line is that all Biblical references to the Philistines appear to point to them being a Cretan or Aegean group which was not a Hellenic group. I believe that the most obvious link would be to the Pelasgians neighboring to the Greeks.
"I believe that the most obvious link would be to the Pelasgians neighboring to the Greeks." And indeed that suggestion has been made as early as Albright, though I wouldn't call it obvious, as other scholars have looked to connect the Philistines seperately with Cypro-Minoans, Myceneans, or Hittites. I think there is a lot of new information available on this topic but not a lot of overall consensus. I don't doubt that the article would be more helpful if it had a broader discussion of Philistine origins, but its not justified to remove any hint of a possible Indo-European origin, or to remove the cited content on the possible Myceneaen etymology of the name. Brando130 (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"But it's not justified to remove any hint of a possible Indo-European origin, or to remove the cited content on the possible Mycenaean etymology of the name."
But I thought the name "Goliath" was paralled with a Lydian or Anatolian name, "Alyattes", not a Mycenaean one.
Also, I might add that the final letter 'Tav', in the name "Peleshet" (Philistia) is a common feature of a number of Hebrew nouns of feminine gender. This is also indicated in other forms of the language of Canaan, such as Phoenician, e.g. Kart Hadasht (new city). In ancient Egyptian, the final t seems to be a feature of plural nouns of feminine danger. Hence, the true root of P-L-S-T may simply be P-L-S. In that case, the analogy to the 'Pelasgoi' would even be bolstered to a certain extent.
Given my inexperience with Hebrew, I'm in no position to comment on that. Certainly interesting, and if you can cite it I think the Pelasgian connection should be noted. The "cited content on the possible Mycenaean etymology of the name" that I referred to was the study on a possible Greek etymology for 'Philistines' (as "tribe of the hearth") - not the so-called 'Goliath shard' - the text of the article is already cautious when suggesting any possible Indo-European origin, and I honestly wouldn't mind if the text was further moderated; however it does need to keep some simple acknowledgment that scholars are divided, and some have in fact looked for an Indo-European origin to any original Philistine language. Brando130 (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I read the proposed Greek etymology for the Philistines, tribe of the hearth (Phyle Hestia) with interest. However, I believe that this etymology presents problems. Jones proposed this etymology on the basis of a claim that the Philistines introduced the hearth technology to the Near East. However, research suggests that the smelting fire for manufacturing iron and steel weapons was present in the region, specifically the eastern Galilee, in the late Bronze age and may not have been adopted from the Philistines. It has been proposed that the technology entered the region via Syria or Anatolia, not necessarily the Aegean. I refer you to this link: http://www.jstor.org/pss/529279
It would also be curious that an epithet such "the tribe of the hearth" would be applied, in Greek, specifically to the Philistines, when the hearth was a universal technology employed by the Mycenaean Greeks and the Minoans as a whole.
Furthermore, Eusebius of Caesaria relates the writings of Porphyry and Theophrastus in regards to the Egyptians:
"On the testimony of Theophrastus:
[PORPHYRY] 'It is probably an incalculable time since, as Theophrastus says, the most learned race of mankind, inhabiting that most sacred land which Nilus founded, were the first to begin to offer upon the hearth to the heavenly deities not the first-fruits of myrrh nor of cassia and frankincense mingled with saffron; for these were adopted many generations later, when man becoming a wanderer in search of his necessary livelihood with many toils and tears offered drops of these tinctures as first-fruits to the gods.
'Of these then they made no offerings formerly, but of herbage, which they lifted up in their hands as the bloom of the productive power of nature. For the earth gave forth trees before animals, and long before trees the herbage which is produced year by year; and of this they culled leaves and roots and the whole shoots of their growth, and burned them, greeting thus the visible deities of heaven with their offering, and dedicating to them the honours of perpetual fire.
'For these they also kept in their temples an undying fire, as being most especially like them. And from the fume (θυμιασις) of the produce of the earth they formed the words θυμιατηρια (altars of incense), and θυειν (to offer), and θυσιας (offerings),—words which we misunderstand as signifying the erroneous practice of later times, when we apply the term θυσια to the so-called worship which consists of animal sacrifice.'"
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would certainly prefer to see better maps in this article. Although what has been said here that according to the map the "Philistines had only Gaza" is an exaggeration, for it can be seen in both maps that Ashdod and further north are within Philistine territory, at least one of them should comprise the area further to the north and comprise at least Tel Qasila, situated in what is now northern Tel Aviv.
A series of maps which reflect Philistine expansion at certain stages to areas where other sea peoples which became assimilated with Philisteans (Sherden, Tjeker) settled, like northen Sharon and Beth Shean plain, could also be welcomed. Of course, their area diminished with the expansion of Israel an Judean kingdoms. -- Ariel --89.139.171.130 (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Blatant POV
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
"Some Palestinian scholars are using the etymological relationship between the word "Palæstina" and "Philistine" to pretend that the Palestinians are the remnants, even are themselves the true Philistines, and not the descendants of Arab conquerors mixed with native populations of Jewish, Hellenistic, Arabic or Aramaic descent, who inhabited Byzantine Palestine before the Arab conquest. Moreover, (ab)using this historically inconsistent argument, they go further to say that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict dates back to biblical times. Linking the Palestinian/Philistines to their supposedly Indo-European ancestors, they argue that the Jews (an anachronism since at that period they did not exist as Jews, before the Babylonian Exile) stole the Land of the Palestinians at that very early period. This way of importing Nazi style propaganda into the conflict is widely spread in some far-right movements and has some misled followers outside those circles, unfortunately many "philistines" use it in an undiscriminating way."
Well, it shouldn't be in the article because the article already states the Philistines died out. And, yes, the wording was very WP:POV and WP:SOAPBOX as well. Yet, the similarity between the ancient name and that of modern inhabitants has been remarked on many times. Todays inhabitants are clearly Arabic. Philistines weren't. Student7 (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Watch your language. Do I detect prejudice? Zionists are not the ones claiming Palestinians are descended from Philistines. "Today's Palestinians are descended from the first recorded inhabitants of Canaan who intermarried with the Philistines." from The status of Palestinians in Israel: 1948-Oslo Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) , Spring, 2006 by Labeeb Ahmed Bsoul http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_2_28/ai_n16726432/
See also Philosophical perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict pg. 299, Confronting the past: archaeological and historical essays pg. 260 and even the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people.
References could be found if someone wants to look for them.
Both Arabs and Jews are Semites. Each believes they were descended from a common ancestor, Abraham. That seems to be a reasonable claim. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I think Emmantrg's original paragraph is valid. I don't think it is POV or b***. I object to wikipedia contributors being bullied. But it is true that in wikipedia, everything needs to be documented with references. Do a google on 'palestinians "descended from philistines"' and you will find a plethora of references. --Historian2 (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Philistines as Occupants?
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Seem like someone wanted to make a point which should not be there. Philistines have nothing we know to tell with Arabic history, nor did their Indo-European origin or their language had anything to do with Arabic history. I remove it from the article and I expect from anyone who still want to include it to present references indicating notability for Arabic history.
It is ofcourse stupid to use arabic for Philistine, however, the name Palestine(where philistine used to be) orginates from Philistine, you can only understand this if you speak arabic, the country bears the title Philistine and not Palestine, just like Egypt is in fact "Misr" and not "Egypt". Maybe it was easier for Europeans to call it Palestine, who knows.. Iraq is a mesopotamian word and many other countries are named after ancient names. So if you read palestine in arabic, it spelles "Filistin" or "Philistin", if you however ask them what they are, they will most certainly say they're arab. So it is relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.223.90 (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The map
Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion
I've removed the map again. I think an explanation is needed: this map is labeled "Israel", and the lands of the Philistines show up as a few dots in the lower left corner - three dots only at that, when there were in fact five cities. Something better is needed. PiCo (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I had removed the map because it showed the borders of modern Israel but deliberately left out the borders of the Palestinian Territories (namely the "Green Line"). This reminds me too much of maps in Zionistic publications.
Go ahead, but I don't think it's appropriate to have any modern borders. What's needed is a map that shows just the five cities, maybe going inland as far as the Dead Sea for the sake of giving context. PiCo (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
[moving from my talk page] I believe the map's unsuitable because it doesn't show the Philistine area accurately - only 3 out of 5 cities, and you can't really tell where they are. What would be useful would be a map that concentrates on the southern coastal strip where the cities were, plus inland as far as the Dead Sea and north as far as the southern Phoenician cities (just north of the Mt Carmel promontory) for context.
As to how it might be done, I'm not sure, as it's not something I've ever been involved in. The obvious way would be to use a map from an academic book, but I imagine that involves copyright issues. Could we create our own map using a book plus Goggle Earth? PiCo (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately GoogleEarth image grabs are subject to copyright, as are most maps from academic published works (never mind the time it takes to contact publishers and get a response)
It seems to me that maps for articles on the Ancient Near East would ideally be consistent throughout the range of articles where they are used. This would be encyclopaedic.
While your (PiCo) suggestion is logical, it is exclusionist because this article is of interest to three other geographically-oriented WikiProjects,: Greece, Ancient Egypt, and Israel (see templates in header of this page).
Not only that, but the article also says that
Scholars variously identify the land of Caphtor with Cyprus and Crete and other locations in the eastern Mediterranean.
I would suppose than that the inclusivity of the above would require a map like that below, but annotated appropriately for the Ancient Near East period under discussion here.
Alternatively I would prefer the map below with the modern borders edited out, and appropriately renamed Ancient Eastern Mediterranean
Most city locations and other annotations can be obtained from this French map, and other maps where they are missing
Well, the map on the right is the file I usually throw around here. It is easy to insert some kind of highlight on the Philistia/Peleset area into it or to select other places to show. ♆ CUSH ♆09:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I like the middle map and also Cush's map. Cush's has a lot of cities named, which is useful, but none of them are identified as Philistine or as anything - maybe add a key simply listing which ones are Philistine? PiCo (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Oha, you changed your reply :-) Maybe we could find out what the source of the map on the left is (without the manually edited-in borders). I can use that to insert the places. ♆ CUSH ♆09:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think my changing my reply was a very meaningful act. Anyway, I'm happy with either map, like them both. But I do think K. has a point about including Cyprus and Crete, just to show where the Philistines may have come from. Can that be done? PiCo (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe 2 maps are needed - one showing the same area as in the middle map by K above, to show where they came from, the other showing the corner of the Med where they settled - because if we don't zoom in, we won't be able to show the 5 cities. PiCo (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Why 5 cities? Prior to the alleged conquests of David the Philistines ruled the entire coastal region from the border of Egypt to Mt Carmel, even if the population were not Philistines everywhere, but Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites etc.
The time that Philistia was restricted to the pentapolis is much shorter than the time of much greater expansion. And we surely wouldn't give the impression that Israelites dominated the region in the so called Judges period, would we... ♆ CUSH ♆11:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Cush, how about you focus on the map making and try to suppress your rather obvious POV on the subject of Jewish history and validity of their texts and oral traditions? And just for your database, the region was not called Levant until the medieval French coined the term sometime in the early 15th century. Before then it was variously known as "the sea coast" or "the west coast" (except Egyptians; too early for Greeks), depending on the perspective of who's sea it was at the time. Modern geographers call it the Eastern Mediterranean Littoral region in English Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Having seen your satellite image based map, I would prefer the one available in Wikipedia, the second I posted here, simple for its colour and contrast. The sat image is too bland to look at Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Repeating and summing up my thoughts: (1) Two maps would seem essential, one in the lead showing the five (or however many) Philistine cities, one in the Origins section showing where they came from; (2) for the first map, K's second map would seem ideal - I assume labels for Crete and Cyprus can be added easily; (3) for the second, either Cush's topographic map (to the left above) or else a cropped version of his other, big, map (to the right) - again I assume the unneeded modern political boundaries can be edited out. A good academic book can be cited as the source of the city names.PiCo (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Map of Pentapolis .
Map of the region with other placemarks
Ok, I have provided a map that shows the Pentapolis after the example on Dutch Wikipedia. I am not entirely sure which cities to display and which to leave out. I have also uploaded a map of the surrounding area that shows other places with less opaque labels. Also I am not sure whether to somehow display some borders of Philistine influence during the Judges period and then in the United Monarchy period. ♆ CUSH ♆17:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and well done. I like the map on left - we need the closer-up version to be able to relate the Ph. cities to other cities in the area. Curious why you don't include Jerusalem? PiCo (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Up until David the city was Jebus. I can change the label. I have only posted the larger map to show which other cities could be included in the smaller map. ♆ CUSH ♆23:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to include the name Jerusalem somewhere, otherwise people will ask that question. PiCo (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it looks about right to me if you make that name revision. Any more cities and it would start to get crowded. PiCo (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe I should include Aphek (Antipatris), because it is the location of the Philistine military camp in the battle against the Israelite confederacy in the beginning of 1 Samuel♆ CUSH ♆09:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest keeping the current symbol for the 5 cities of the Pentapolis, and if you want to add more sites do it with a different symbol and a second legend - "Other notable Philistine sites" or some such. PiCo (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Aphek is now mentioned in the History section, along with 2 other places up in that area, so it might be a good idea to include them. PiCo (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Philistines II
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
A while ago I had made maps in the context of Rohl's New Chronology. They are posted here (also scroll down to the end of the page). Maybe maps of the same fashion would be helpful in the Philistines article. Philistines shouldn't be viewed from a jewish/biblical position with its "Davidic/Solomonic golden era syndrome", but with a broader view including Egyptology and research of history of the entire eastern Mediterranean. Your removal of the map was ok. ♆ CUSH ♆12:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You know Cush that the first place Palestines were ever mentioned is in the Torah? And it seems to me a syndrome is predominantly used in medicine and psychology, so either you think all Jews who claim a right to have an own history and culture are mentally ill, or it is you that has a "syndrome". Your attitude is unhealthy for a Wikipedia editor Koakhtzvigad (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
You know Koakhtzvigad that Jewish dogma does not constitute history. Stories from Jewish myth may be used to illuminate what archaeological and historical research have found, but they have no value of their own in contexts related to any time prior to the so called Divided Monarchy period. The Torah and subsequent books of the Tanakh are books of theology, not of history. That is why the Bible is no RS, and quoting it directly is OR.
And the term is Philistines, not Palestines. You seem to be rather wrapped up in modern conflicts. Your attitude is unhealthy for a Wikipedia editor . ♆ CUSH ♆22:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Its history if the Jews choose to think it is. It is to them.
There is no dogma in Judaism so far that I have seen.
However, if you don't like it, you don't have to read it, or learn it, or even have anything to do with it.
In a free society one can ignore all research if one wants to. However, reliability or research is often accepted unquestioningly, including in "reliable sources" used in Wikipedia.
The Tanakh is a reliable source for the text it contains because it is the original source. That is, when writing about it, one can and should quote it and translate, offering best translation available. It seems to me that you misunderstand OR. I just can't make own interpretations of the quoted text directly in Wikipedia, but need to find a reliable published source to express this. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I've gone through the bibliography and cleaned out a number of questionable entries - those which are very old (over a century), clearly irrelevant (a book on Anglo-Saxon England), in foreign languages (therefore unusable for the vast majority of our readers), or of questionable origins (an author who understands Adam as a historical personage). We really need to have a bibliography with modern, appropriate sources.PiCo (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I am against dismissing sources that are not English. Especially in the Levant and Egypt many excavations have been conducted by German- and French-speaking archaeologists and not not all of them published about their findings in English, but that is no reason to not refer to their findings. E.g. the excavator of Avaris is Austrian and his publications in German are more comprehensive than those in English. Sources on the subject matter must be allowed regardless of language. ♆ CUSH ♆07:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't dismiss them, I just can't read them. Don't forget that a prime Wiki policy is verifiability - any statement made must be verifiable by the readers. It's asking too much of the users of English Wiki to expect them to read German. PiCo (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
A reliable source does not lose its reliability because it is in a language that some editor cannot read. And verifiability is also not lost because some editor lacks language skills. Not all the knowledge in the world is expressed in English, you know. And to possibly exclude essential information just because YOU can't understand the source is somewhat ego- or anglo-centric. ♆ CUSH ♆09:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not reliability that's at issue, it's verifiability. Verifiability is indeed lost if we can't read the book. I imagine that if K. started quoting books in Yiddish, you'd complain. PiCo (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
In other words, an article may have to be dumbed down because some sources are not be available in English. That's weird for the international WP. Does verifiability have to be without effort? ♆ CUSH ♆14:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I have deleted a long section on the biblical mentions of the Philistines. There's nothing inherently wrong with using the bible as a source, but it has to be done with care, and via reliable secondary/tertiary sources, and that was not being done in this section. The dangers of an approach like this can be seen in the failure to place the Genesis Table of Nations, for example, in context - it was treated in the 19th century work as if it were to be dated from the 2nd millennium, when in fact modern scholarship is just about unanimous in putting it in the Persian period. Modern secondary sources are a must. PiCo (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Have you considered looking for these reference yourself? You appreciate that the objective of an encyclopaedia is to at all times present an authoritative article on the subject in its completed form? Presenting a reader with partial articles is inherently unencyclopaedic Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
If you object to my edits, especially a large edit such as that one, the best course might be to revert it and ask me to justify it on Talk.
Anyway, here is the section involved and I'll discuss below:
++++++++++
Statements in the Bible
The Philistines and Philistia are mentioned more than 250 times in the Hebrew Bible.[1] The "Plištim" (פְּלִשְׁתִּים, Standard HebrewPlištim, Tiberian HebrewPəlištîm) appear in the Book of Genesis 10:14 in a listing of the Hamitic branch of Noah's descendants.[2] The verse in question, in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, reads as follows:
Most interpretations, including the King James Version, take the consistently plural grammar to mean that the Plištim were a people who proceeded from the Casluhim (כַּסְלֻחִים), and possibly also the Pathrusim (פַּתְרֻסִים) — groups who descended from Mizraim (מִצְרַיִם, Egypt), son of Ham.[3] This biblical passage is therefore generally interpreted as assigning Philistine origins to Egypt.[1] However, in The Companion Bible (2000), the footnote for verse 14 states: "The parantheses in this verse should come after Caphtorim, as these gave the name Philistine. The five cities of the Philistines (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gath) were on the confines of Egypt (Deut. 2. 23)."[4] Other biblical texts also relate the Philistines to Caphtor, such as the Book of Amos which states: "saith the LORD: Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and Aram from Kir?" (Amos 9:7). The later 7th century BC, Jeremiah makes the same association: "For the LORD will spoil the Philistines, the remnant of the country of Caphtor." (Jeremiah 47:4).[1] Scholars variously identify the land of Caphtor with Cyprus and Crete and other locations in the eastern Mediterranean.
One historian has written that Metsir or Mizor was the forefather of the Mizraim, defined as a people of Egypt, and writes that the Philistim, or Philistines, came from Mizor's grandson, Peles, explaining that this is why Jeremiah calls them, "the remnant of Caphtor."[5] Of the Cherethites, whose name is thought to derive from Caphtor, he says they are mentioned as a people of Philistia in Samuel 30: 14. Of the Pelethites, mentioned alongside them, the historian says they were also Philistines, with their name derived from that of Peles.[5] Mentioning that the meaning of Caphtor approximates the Hebrew word "to cut or destroy," and Peles, "to divide or slay," he submits that rather than deriving their meanings from the Hebrew, these peoples imbued the Hebrew words with their meanings, employed as they were as life guards or executioners.[5]
The Philistines are described as having settled "Pelesheth" (פְּלֶשֶׁת, Standard HebrewPléshet, Tiberian HebrewPəléšeṯ) along the eastern Mediterranean coast at about the time the Israelites settled in the Judean highlands. Biblical references to Philistines living in the area before this, at the time of Abraham or Isaac (e.g. Gen. 21:32-34), are generally regarded by modern scholars to be an "update" of the original story directed at a later readership.[1]
Battles between Israel and the Philistines
The following is a list of battles recorded in the Bible between Israel and the Philistines:[6]
As you can see, it's a very long section, or section plus half-section.
The first paragraph treats the biblical texts in a very naive fashion, in a way no modern historian would use them. For example: "The "Plištim" (פְּלִשְׁתִּים, Standard Hebrew Plištim, Tiberian Hebrew Pəlištîm) appear in the Book of Genesis 10:14 in a listing of the Hamitic branch of Noah's descendants." This is sourced to a book published in 1862, and seems to accept Noah and his descendants as real people. "Most interpretations, including the King James Version, take [this] to mean that the Plištim were a people who proceeded from the Casluhim (כַּסְלֻחִים), and possibly also the Pathrusim (פַּתְרֻסִים) — groups who descended from Mizraim (מִצְרַיִם, Egypt), son of Ham." To repeat, no modern historian would give any credence to an individual called Mizraim son of Ham.
The second paragraph is based on someone who wrote in 1842. "Mentioning that the meaning of Caphtor approximates the Hebrew word "to cut or destroy," and Peles, "to divide or slay," he submits that rather than deriving their meanings from the Hebrew, these peoples imbued the Hebrew words with their meanings, employed as they were as life guards or executioners." Well, maybe, but that sounds like typical 19th century speculation, and we need something more up to date.
The third paragraph is based on Killebrew, who is a modern and reputable scholar (in other words, a reliable source). "The Philistines are described as having settled "Pelesheth" (פְּלֶשֶׁת, Standard Hebrew Pléshet, Tiberian Hebrew Pəléšeṯ) along the eastern Mediterranean coast at about the time the Israelites settled in the Judean highlands. Biblical references to Philistines living in the area before this, at the time of Abraham or Isaac (e.g. Gen. 21:32-34), are generally regarded by modern scholars to be an "update" of the original story directed at a later readership." Again, this is taking the text in a naive fashion: what those "modern scholars" are actually saying is that genuine traditions from the interaction of Israelites and Philistines in Iron I (after about 1175-1130, which is when the Philistines settled on the coast and the Israelite highlands were being settled) are preserved in a text which dates from much later, the late monarchy at the very earliest, which is when Genesis was written. This relates more to the history of the bible than to the history of the Philistines - as Killebrew says, "the historical value of narrative accounts relating to the periods prior to ... the 8th and 7th centuries needs to be considered with caution." In other words, you can't just quote Genesis.
Finally, the list of battles between Philistines and Israelites is of little value to a history of the Philistines. History is not a list of battles. You'd be better off paraphrasing Killebrew, where she talks about the way the bible depicts Philistine-Israelite interaction falling into four periods. Then at least you'd be starting to get a wide overview instead of getting lost in minutia.
I don't object to a section on the bible's depiction of the Philistines, but it needs to be well-based on authors like Killebrew. PiCo (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
@PiCo: you write in the article "The biblical history needs to be treated with caution for events prior to the 8th and 7th centuries, but the correspondence between the bible's association of the Philistines with the five Pentapolis cities, and the discovery of Philistine archaeological remains in those cities, suggests that some genuine traditions are preserved in the biblical stories." How do you get from finding archaeological remains to suggesting that biblical stories have any accuracy whatsoever? Does the excavated material justify such an interpretation? ♆ CUSH ♆06:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't me who said that, I'm quoting/paraphrasing Ann Killebrew. I gather she means that the fact that there are Philistine materials in the five cities named in the bible as Philistine means that the bible writers had something right, although she doesn't go beyond suggesting that this is simply the idea that those five cities were where the Philistines lived. But if you ask me what I'm suggesting, I'd say we should use reliable sources like Killebrew and Stager and Finkelstein, and avoid old ones (because they may well have been overtaken by later studies and discoveries), and most of all avoid quoting the bible for ourselves, since, as Killebrew says, it needs to be treated with caution. For us, "caution" means relying on the big-name scholars.PiCo (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just noticed that there was a decision in 2009 to merge the list of battles btwn Israel and the Phils into this article. So perhaps we should keep that material. I can merge it into the section - will do in a while. PiCo (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The bulk of the article appears to be from a biblical perspective unrelated to actual history and archaeology. This is a common problem in articles related to the ancient history of the region. From the intro paragraph alone it's ambiguous whether the Philistines even actually ever existed or are just some biblical myth - this needs to be corrected. --NEMT (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Timeline and History sections
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've started a section called Timeline (self-explanatory) and revised some of the History section to make it more readable and base it on better sources. Any comments welcome.PiCo (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
What I find disturbing is that no justification is given for identifying the Plishtim (פְּלִשְׁתִּים) in the book of Genesis (בְּרֵאשִׁית) with the Plishtim mentioned in the book of Judges (שופטים) and later books. Unlike English, Hebrew writing makes no distinction between generic and proper nouns. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Removing the Cretan's from history
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It is perhaps an open secret that the Philistines were of Cretan ancestry. What is not clear is how this article's editors have managed to skip away from this hypothesis with such fluidity, one would think all the other hypothesis are more conclusive. I believe this article needs a Cretan subsection, the evidence is so much stronger than any other hypothesis.
However, note that the Casluhim are divided into the Philistines and Caphtorim (in fact, the Philistines are frequently identified with Caphtor, the Hebrew name for at least the island of Crete and perhaps for the whole Aegean region; see Amos 9:7; Jeremiah 47:4). This indicates that their origins lie in the area of Crete, western Asia Minor, and the Aegean Sea, and modern archeology bears this out. For instance, Philistine pottery resembles that of the Minoan and Mycenaean (Homeric Greek) civilizations to the point that a material connection is beyond question. Other substantial links to the area include early Greek weapons, armor, dress, burial methods, military tactics, government, religion, etc.
It is perhaps an open secret that currently the origin of the Philistines is unknown to archaeologists/historians, although several competing theories abound. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Nope, that is propaganda, the reality is within the opening of the article: Since 1822, scholars have connected the Biblical Philistines with the Egyptian "Peleset" inscriptions,[3] and since 1873, they have both been connected with the Aegean "Pelasgians".[4][5] Whilst the evidence for these connections is etymological and has been disputed,[5][6] this identification is held by the majority of egyptologists and biblical archaeologists.[5] Reaper7 (talk) 13:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The question of origin.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The article is too much focused on the hypothesis Mycenaean.
If they were Mycenaeans. We would find some text in Linear B with a known Greek languages in the oldest phase.
It is more likely to be linked directly to refugees of the civilization of the Cyclades. (Pre-Mycenaean with an unknown language). However, the possession of iron suggest newer Anatolian influences. Why not from nearby and cosmopolitan Cyprus that could also support their enclaves constantly besieged by the Phoenician-Canaanites and support them demographically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.75.66 (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss Reliable Sources and their inclusion into the article, don't speculate, this Talk Page isn't the place for that. That is the realm of blogs, forums. HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Map Is Biblicist not Scientific
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I'm not sure that is true. But why can we not have a map to show the borders of Philistia according to the Bible, one of the major sources for this information? Do you have some "scientific" source for the boundaries then that takes precedence or invalidates it? And why the exceptional hostility toward one of the few actual sources available to provide any more detailed information on this? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the map appears in the section about the bible then maybe it can be kept. However, it is to be feared that a reader of the article may get the impression that the map shows territories the existence and extent of which are ascertained. The Bible is not a reliable source. It is better to have no map in the history section than having one that only renders religious POV. ♆ CUSH ♆09:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Assessment comment
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Philistines/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
There are serious flaws with this article.
It puts up a map which it justifies as being "historical" by citing the Bible. It refers to "King David" as a historical character. It refers to the "United Kingdom of Israel" as a historical event. The Old Testament is not a verified historical document, it is a religious document. There is substantial scientific evidence that refutes the existence of any United Kingdom of Israel under a King David, that these were not true events but stories written in the 7th century BCE for religious reasons. Only religious fundamentalists now still assert that what this article says is "historical fact".
This whole article should be revised to make it clear what is and isn't now accepted as being historically true.
Last edited at 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC).
Substituted at 15:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darkpumawins.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Were there many Jews in that time to occupy all these lands that showed by the map ? I don't think so. Initially, Jews were not able to take all this land.
(Y) yes, there were.
Yes there were, the Jewish movement was large enough to be a threat to the Roman empire:
That was a thousand and more years later. And in truth they were no "threat" to Rome, just an annoyance that was ultimately dealt with pretty quickly. ♆ CUSH ♆17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
The Bible paints them as the Kingdom of Israel's most dangerous enemy(?)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
That's POV. Maybe at one point in time they were (before David took back the land of promise), but it is arguable that Israel had greater enemies. the Assyrians, the Babylonians, and the Persians were far greater threats to Israel than Philistine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.18.70 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Philistine pig imports- Unsure where to place this on the page
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
See here: [[4]]
This is a really interesting- and notable- study that I found about wild pigs in Israel. It was discovered, with consideration of ancient pig bones as well, that pigs in Israel have a different, more European, genetic structure than pigs in neighboring countries, and scientists have argued that this is because they were brought to the country 3000 years ago by the non-kosher Philistines, suggesting an "Aegean" origin for Philistines... I'm just not sure where it should go on this page. --Yalens (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Semitic?
Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
This book suggests that most Philistine town names were Semitic, and mentions other semitic language connections. On the basis of this, this article needs to be more balanced re the Greek vs. Semitic question. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
They were semitic due to the fact these names,towns and even the philistines themselves were named by the hebrews philistine derives from the hebrew root word "peleshet" or invader. They were greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:9580:E47:415:6E4A:E563:BF49 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
These towns were founded by Canaanites or even pre-Canaanites (sometimes Egyptians), and were then occupied by nonSemites or at least ruled by men who bore nonSemitic names. Whether these seranim were Greek or Lycian or Carian or whatever, that question is still open. --Zimriel (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There existed and still exist Jewish Greek people. More geenrally, Jewish are widely known for having a double nationality: Jewish Polish. Jewish German, and so on. Not always and not necessarily the Greek and the Jewish languages and cultures have to be interpreted as if they were reciprocally alternative. Ancient Greece was a patriarchal society; Ancient Greeks had patronimcs and used to publicly gave children their baptismal name ten days after the birth, while Jews did the same after eight days; the oldest Athens was organized in tribes and phratries, like Israel; the Greek temples were build up in the highest point of the city, while Greek-style columns and capitals were found in Israel (source: [5]). So, there were a lot of commonalities, not solely from a semantic and linguistic point of view. The German liceo classico studies Jewish, greek and Latin as if they could be seen as a unique family of languages and cultures. But this aspect needs to be put in relation with the Nazi context in which this type of educational path has grown and spreaded all over their country. Further studies are needed to confirm a not irrational hypothesis.
Pelasgians
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am not disputing the idea that a minority scholars have in the past drawn a connection here (though I think it was generally not a mainstream argument) but the quote from Drews (reference 4), if I am not mistaken, is dismissive of this idea (just to judge by the quoted material). Is it appropriate then, to imply that this is a current idea (or even a mainstream one) as I think the phrase "since 1873" does? Even if it is appropriate, is Drews an appropriate source for this sentence given his negative characterization of this connection? I cannot speak to the other book cited, since it is not quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:2:11BD:4A3:9EDB:C17C:21B1 (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
"Today it is generally accepted (in accordance with the theory of Maspero) that we are dealing here with different nations which migrated from the region of Crete or Asia Minor, and tried to infiltrate into Egypt. Repulsed by the Egyptians, the Philistines (P. R. S. T.) settled in the coastal area of Canaan, while the Tyrsenes, Sardanes, and others migrated to Italy, Sardinia and other places. In 1747 Fourmont tried to prove that the name "Philistine" was an erroneous form of the Greek "Pelasgi". His theory was accepted by Chabas, Hitzig and others who enlarged upon it. Maspero stated in this context: "The name 'Plishti' by itself suggests a foreign origin or long migrations and recalls that of the Pelasgi". The equation Plishti–Pelasgi is based solely on a supposedly phonetic similarity."
So Ganor explicitly confirms the "general acceptance" of the theory.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This edit by User:PiCo[6] in 2011 added an unsourced background section to the article. i have removed it, primarily because it is very generic and is not closely enough related to the topic of this article. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to add it back, but please also provide sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. Philistia/Filistia/Palaestina is the name of a geographic region not necessarily inhabited by Philistines, while Philistines were a people living at various times all over the Levant and not only in geographical Philistia. ♆ CUSH ♆07:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Strong Agree Philistia was derived from the Philistines, who were there at various times. They should be credited with this with a logical merge. Reaper7 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Majority of encyclopedias open with the Philistines being Aegean/Cretan, why not Wiki? What's the agenda here?
Latest comment: 10 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion
1/ Philistine, one of a people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine in the 12th century bc, about the time of the arrival of the Israelites. According to biblical tradition (Deuteronomy 2:23; Jeremiah 47:4), the Philistines came from Caphtor (possibly Crete).Brittanica
2/ Member of a group of Aegean origin that settled on the southern coast of Palestine. The Philistines first settled the region during the 12th century BC, about the time the Israelites arrived. They lived in five cities (the Pentapolis) that together made up Philistia, from which the Greeks derived the name Palestine.merriam-webster
3/ Philistines (fĬl´Ĭstēnz, fĬlĬs´–), inhabitants of Philistia, a non-Semitic people who came to Palestine from the Aegean (probably Crete), in the 12th cent. http://www.encyclopedia.com/
The Aegean connection is in the lead. On Crete, this is a complex topic based on Cherethites. I agree we should include it, explaining the origin of the theory. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The "agenda" or maybe with less pathos, the reason is that Wikipedia is dominated by religious editors. All articles on any subject relating to the history of the Ancient Middle East are more or less focused on biblical or bible-inspired sources, no matter how inaccurate. Sources on WP are selected based on assumed reputation of authors, not on demonstrable factual validity and reasonable secondary references to primary sources. ♆ CUSH ♆
But that is the point Oncenawhile. This article suggests an Aegean connection(?) towards the end of the second paragraph! Every other encyclopedia describes the Philistines as an Aegean people in the first line! This article describes them as 'people'? What is the agenda, is there some doubt that they were Aegean on wiki, that all the editors of every other Encyclopedia have missed? Reaper7 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I am working my way through the sources, but from what I have read so far there is no certainty that they even existed at all, although most scholars believe they did. All modern scholars who focus on the origins of the Philistines question the Aegean thesis, because the evidence is extremely thin, but either way it is the common viewpoint as we make very clear.
The only reason it's in the second paragraph is because the first paragraph is devoted to the Biblical description. To my mind this is the right way round, because the Biblical Philistines are ultimately the original reason for the scholarly focus on the topic. Once we establish the Biblical background, we move on to explain the connections scholars have made to modern archaeology etc.
PS - secondary sources trump tertiary sources. Our job is not to copy other encyclopaedias, but to make an even better one. We've got some good secondary sources in the "Sources" section of this article, so I suggest you review those.
This sentence is an oxymoron: there is no certainty that they even existed at all, although most scholars believe they did. So in fact, most scholars believing they did exist is called a majority of scholarship. The Biblical references connect them with Crete (Caphtor, the Hebrew name for at least the island of Crete and perhaps for the whole Aegean region; see Amos 9:7; Jeremiah 47:4)). So therefore, perhaps the Biblical background as you put should include where the Bible points to them coming from? The Biblical description points to their hellenic origin. The rest of the article should be based around that really. I really think this article is a big mess, I am not here to point fingers, just to say, it makes a big confusion of the few things we know or scholars agree on. I am also afraid this statement is a fallacy: All modern scholars who focus on the origins of the Philistines question the Aegean thesis. Lawrence Stager among others concludes that the Philistines were Aegean peoples”specifically Mycenaean Greeks” who came to Canann en masse in about 1175 B.C. and to be honest, with pottery like this discovered all over Gaza.. there is little doubt about that to anyone who has studied Greek pottery in any detail... Http://www.bib-arch.org/images/e-features/canaanites-and-philistines-22-s.jpg There are plenty of other examples highlighted through archaeology from olive oil production techniques to philistine graves.
There is definitely an agenda here, I am not smart enough to figure it out unfortunately but it sure stinks! Anyway at least you can be proud wiki diverges from every other encyclopedia in this article I suppose. Impressive to a degree. Reaper7 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, you're right - it's not "all" - many scholars take this kind of thing for granted. The association with the pottery has been made "since the turn of the [twentieth] century" (Ehrich p.4 and Dothan p.94 n.1) Perhaps i'm only reading the works of the more analytical scholars out there. Anyway, here's an interesting quote for you from Carl Ehrlich (p10-13):
The difficulty of associating pots with peoples or ethnic groups has often been commented on. Nonetheless, the association of the Philistines with the Iron Age I bichrome pottery bearing their name is most often taken for granted. Although some scholars have backed off from postulating that every site with bichrome pottery was under Philistine control, the ethnic association remains. Wherever the distinctive early Iron Age bichrome ware is found, Philistine ethnic presence is assumed. Indeed, Singer has recently argued that the Myc IIIC:1b ware should be designated "Monochrome (or early) Philistine pottery." A cautionary note has, however, been sounded in particular by Brug, Bunimovitz, H. Weippert, and Noort, among others. In essence their theories rest on the fact that even among sites in the Philistine heartland, the supposed Philistine pottery does not represent the major portion of the finds. Although Brug's statisucal analysis of the proportion of bichrome pottery to other forms (mainly the continuation of LB Canaanite traditions) is flawed by his reliance on samples not gathered to be analyzed in this manner, the cumulative thrust of his argument is probably valid, namely that the bichrome ware represents a small proportion of the total assemblage from supposedly Philistine sites. For example, at Tell Qasile, the only city thought to have been founded by the Philistines, the bichrome pottery represents just 20% of the total assemblage. It is thus conjectured that the bichrome ware and its antecedent monochrome ware were the fine china or luxury ware of their time. The fact that both the monochrome and the bichrome wares were locally produced (along with pottery which continued the Bronze Age Canaanite traditions) after the cesation of trade contacts with Cyprus and the Aegean leads to the conclusion that, rather than being evidence of a massive foreign incursion into Canaan ca. 1175, these wares were local replacements for the now unavailable Late Bronze Age luxury import wares. While not denying Cypriote and/or Aegean/ Mycenean influence in the material cultural traditions of coastal Canaan in the early Iron Age, in addition to that of Egyptian and local Canaanite traditions, the above named "minimalist" scholars emphasize the continuities between the ages and not the differences. As H. Weippert has stated, "Konige kommen, Konige gehen, aber die Kochtopfe bleiben." In regard to the bichrome pottery she follows Galling and speculates that it was produced by a family or families of Cypriote potters who followed their markets and immigrated into Canaan once the preexisting trade connections had been severed. The find at Tell Qasile of both bichrome and Canaanite types originating in the same pottery workshop would appear to indicate that the ethnic identification of the potters is at best an open question. At any rate it cannot be facilely assumed that all bichrome ware was produced by "ethnic" Philistines.6m Thus Bunimovitz's suggestion to refer to "Philistia pottery" rather than to "Philistine" must be given serious consideration. What holds true for the pottery of Philistia also holds true for other aspects of the regional material culture. Whereas Aegean cultural influence cannot be denied, the continuity with the Late Bronze traditions in Philistia has increasingly come to attention. A number of Iron Age I features which were thought to be imported by the Philistines have been shown to have Late Bronze Age antecedents. It would hence appear that the Philistines of foreign (or "Philistine") origin were the minority in Philistia. Just as the origins of Israel in Iron Age I are shrouded in mystery and we are unable to pinpoint the changeover from a "Canaanite" consciousness to an "Israelite" one on the basis of isolated cultural phenomena, so too in the case of the contemporaneous inhabitants of the coastal regions of Canaan. Many cultural influences were at work in a variegated population to which the name "Philistine" was given - similarly to Israel - pars pro toto, possibly by the late eleventh century BCE, ironically a time in which the distinctive material culture traditionally associated with the Philistines was waning.
By the way, you are wrong to say that the "Biblical references connect them with Crete". It is actually the modern interpretation of the Biblical references which make that connection, not the Bible itself.
Lawrence Stager is not analytic enough? Goodness... I think you have lost the forest through the trees to be honest and the article reflects that confusion. Within the first line of the article it should be mentioned that the Philistines were an aegean people. That is the consensus whether it suits one's own internal politics or not. I am going to add the word Aegean in front of 'people' in the opening sentence. If you can prove the majority of scholars don't believe this, please find references stating that. Reaper7 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Your edit does not make sense - they were not described as Aegean in the Bible, which is what your edit implies. I am not against your core point, but whatever we include we should do it properly and clearly.
I stated, if you find references stating that the majority of scholars/encyclopedia don't believe them to be Aegean, you can delete it. You just deleted it with nothing but another promise. Its ok, someone with more time can fix all the damage you have done here. Do as you please. You are the one who has to sleep at night knowing you have edited misinformation into an article that now disagrees with all the other Encyclopedia on earth. Do as you please and don't bother with a lone reference if you even manages to find more than two, as most articles, analytic scholars/Encyclopedia agree they were an Aegean people and over 90% of Encyclopedia mention this in the first line.. Remember this lie? All modern scholars who focus on the origins of the Philistines question the Aegean thesis You lied before and seem to be very dominant over your misinformation. Please don't take my failure to ever visit this page again as a symbol of your intelligence but rather a disgust of lies and manipulation concerning your perversion for misinformation. Feel free to have the last words, for ego etc.. It was worth a try... Reaper7 (talk) 13:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I wonder did you not see my edit earlier today [7] in which I added the Aegean point? I hoped that this was what you were looking for?
I do hope you will continue to edit here as your views are valuable to this and other discussions. But please try not to make it personal as you did above, and please try to WP:AGF. The AGF point really is fundamental - if you obsess about possible "agendas" and conspiracy theories you miss the simple beauty of wikipedia, which is that we just need to agree on the best sources and follow them.
I have just added another source from 2011 titled: "A Current Assessment of the Evidence for the Minoan Connection with the Philistines". It is linked in the article and is readable online. I suggest you read it, as well as the 1998 Drews article and Ehrlich's book. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are two more interesting sources to read on the topic:
Silberman, Neil A. (1998), Seymour Gitin; Amichai Mazar; Ephraim Stern (eds.), "The Sea Peoples, the Victorians, and Us", Mediterranean Peoples in Transition: Essays in Honor of Trude Dothan, Israel Exploration Society, pp. 268–275
User:Reaper7,All sources here and editors showed that there is a clear consensus that Philistines were of Aegyian origin as Encylopedia Britannica presents it. User:Oncenawhile you cant put biblical claims and deny historic claims, against the clear consensus shown on this talk page.--Tritomex (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Tritomex, have you read the sources in the discussion above and in the article lead? To suggest that Philistines are a confirmed historical people in wikipedia's neutral voice does not tie with the sources given. The Philistines are a people mentioned in the bible that biblical archaeologists have been working to identify for a very long time.
The quality of the sourcing in this article is at a scholarly level, so if don't agree you'll need to provide equally scholarly sources supporting your view. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Philistines were an Aegyian people, and they are historic people, with numerous archaeological sites attributed to them. Encyclopedia Britannica is off course very much reliable scholary source but you can read also
The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the Late Bronze Age By Assaf Yasur-Landau from P:1,
The Ancient World By Richard A. Gabriel P:193
The Oxford History of the Biblical World edited by Michael David Coogan (Philsitines)
Ancient Greeks West and East: Edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladz P:85,
A Human History of the Mediterranean By David Abulafi P:644
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: A-D edited by Geoffrey W. Bromile P:477
The Uttermost Part of the Earth: A Guide to Places in the Bible
By Richard R. Losc Biblical History and Israel's Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History By Megan Bishop Moore, Brad E. Kelle P:20
The current lead starting with the biblical origin and biblical hypothesis instead of historic facts regarding this historic people can not stand per WP rules.--Tritomex (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Tritomex, you have brought 1 specialist source (Yasur-Landau) and 7 non-specialists. The 7 non-specialist sources add nothing to this debate given the sourcing in the lead is already of higher standard. As are the links given above in this thread, which it seems you have yet to read.
I have read your first source (Yasur-Landau). You should too. To keep things efficient, please read just seven pages, all viewable on googlebooks at this link. Just read the first 7 pages of the introduction.
Actually, just to ensure we stop wasting time, please read the sources already in the lead before responding. Supporting quotes are clearly provided, particularly for those refs in the final paragraph which is key to your concern. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Oncenawhile, Currently I have no time to finish this now, but I will be back and this issue will likely go to RFC. Your assumption that I did not reed the sources I stated is wrong and little insulting. 1) The clear concensus among main historians is that Philistines were historic people and 2) that Philistines were of Aegean origin. So I do not understand why you try to replace the sentence in the lead regarding who Philistines were, with biblical claims. This is the prevailing opinion as it is clear from all sources used and mentioned, and you were told this fact by other editors too. Biblical claims regarding historic people can not go in front of historic facts, also there are other problems with the way how in lead some authors have been interpreted, yet this is of secondary importance.- --Tritomex (talk) 01:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tritomex, no problem, please ping me when you have more time and we can complete this discussion. My key contention here is that Yasur-Landau, and other sources we use in the lead are very clear, as they explain that:
scholarly consensus in the late 19th / early 20th century was exactly as you mention (i.e. (1) that the Philistines as described in the bible are confirmed archeologically, and (2) that the Aegean origin hypothesis has been confirmed archeologically), but also that
scholarly discussion evolved in the last few decades such that there is no longer any clear consensus regarding either point (1) or (2).
The lack of consensus in modern scholarship is made very clear in the key sources provided, including Yasur-Landau, Silberman and Sherratt in this thread above, as well as Drews and Finkelstein in the article.
Hi Tritomex, yes we have a bit problem here with Oncenawhile. I am afraid he wont budge in accordance with logic. Reading his user page you can many other problems concerning this editor. If you want a neutral article, you will have to get other involved, he is willing to argue his non-historical version for the next 100 years and any references you display to him are simply brushed aside. Reaper7 (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Reaper, I suggest you review WP:NPA. You are wrong about me (my edit history is there for your viewing pleasure), as my focus is to ensure we represent the broad scholarly position accurately even if a preponderence of other reputable sources ultimately shows that my initial understanding was wrong. To suggest I "won't budge" in the face of logic and facts just shows that you have yet to get to know me. I recognise that trust takes time to build, but that does not excuse your refusal to WP:AGF in the meantime.
To repeat, I am very keen to continue this conversation with both you and Tritomex. The only reason we have yet to conclude one way or the other is because neither of you currently have time to read the sources I have pointed you to here and in the article. I have commented on both Stager and Yasur-Landau and respect both of those, amongst other specialist modern scholars on the subject. I look forward to discussing further when you have time (and ideally when you have apologised for the above ad hominem).
Well I am the third editor on this sub topic alone to have a problem with your style and content. All three of us have tried to bring this article in line with logic and met you telling us to read links we already have - and what is more - assuming bad faith that we haven't read your links. Our citations reflect the majority of scholarship and for some reason, you try to distract away from that with flowery language about 'learning together' etc and now trying to play the WP:NPA card. You think that will work with all the editors that disagree with you? Have you ever questioned that perhaps what you are doing is vandalism? I don't have the time to take you to task but it is interesting watching each editor come here and make the same case - only for you to dismiss their logic and accuse them with bad faith of not reading the citations which you just pulled with poor Tritomex. Reaper7 (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Finally you stated I am wrong about you, need to get to you know etc and that your edit history is there for my viewing pleasure. It seems your psychosis that you are displaying on this page is well represented on your talk page and that of others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Greyshark09#Jewish_exodus_from_Arab_and_Muslim_countries - says: Onceawhile knows well that i don't edit wikipedia frequently and i don't tend to edit-war (except trolls and socks) and for some reason used my infrequent editing to bully against me as a "refusal to cooperate" in parallel with his aggressive editing (even though also reverted by 3 other users).
There are more on different pages, but I am not going to load this talk page with them. So why are you causing all this trouble? Who does it suit? Reaper7 (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Points of fact to clarify:
Only you and Tritomex have raised concern with the "style and content". Cush's comment was a general comment and as far as I can tell not specifically related to any person's edit here.
Both you and Tritomex have refused to comment on the sources I have brought, have failed to WP:AGF, and have both engaged in ad hominem attacks. Instead of (poorly) researching my edit history, had you used the same amount of time to move this discussion forward by reviewing and commenting on the sources I have pointed to, we would have made progress here.
Your review of my edit history picked up three examples relating to the same single argument with two editors. The specific issue related to WP:DISCFAIL. We are not going to resolve this question of whether you can work with me by selective reviews of my edit history - either you'll learn to trust me or not.
Please would you give me the benefit of the doubt and try to resolve the content dispute via reasoned discussion?
Maybe we should start from scratch. You wrote "Our citations reflect the majority of scholarship" - please prove this statement.
@Oncenawhile: The article as it is now is a religionist pamphlet fashioned exactly by those editors I have criticized. And if I recall right the dealings I had with you over the years, you are one of them. The whole issue of Philistines is also subject to the current politics and policies of modern Israel that seeks to justify her existence with exclusive rights to the land based on the ahistorical nonsense written down in the Bible/Tanakh, especially with the argument that Arab Palestinians are not descended from Philistines, although they bear the same name. As if that would somehow validate modern Jewish claims. The way the article is written, it implies that Philistines may in fact be a biblical invention altogether, especially with the lede being mostly about the highly subjective if not plainly inaccurate presentation rendered in the Bible (even the Bible admits that the biblical Philistines predate Abraham's arrival). But of course the Bible is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, anyways. The lede and the article should be rearranged to present first the historical and archaeological evidence before descending into any biblical and other mythological references. ♆ CUSH ♆15:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cush, i think there is a case of mistaken identity, as i don't think we have interacted before, and my view on the use of scholarly sources vs religious sources seems to be aligned with yours.
So I have sympathy with your suggestion to put the archaeology first. The problem is the history of the biblical archaeology on this subject, described by a number of the sources I have provided above (and in the article). What they show is that much of the 19th / early 20th century archaeology set out to prove the biblical story of the Philistines. But in recent decades scholars have reevaluated the evidence from the angle of Syro-Palestinian archaeology or Biblical minimalism, i.e. looking at the evidence imagining that they had not known the bible stories. And sadly very little concrete has been found (yet).
Other than that there is a "material culture" of pottery along the coastline, which, without the bible, certainly would not have been called Philistine. The question archaeologists debate is whether the "material culture" correctly leads to the conclusion that a "single ethnic group" controlled the region. See for example the quote from Ehrlich in the box earlier in this thread which discussed the "difficulty of associating pots with peoples or ethnic groups".
I dont know where I " engaged in "ad hominem attacks." against anyone. There is a clear consensus among editors that the current lead can not remain. I suggest proposing a new lead based on historic facts and not biblical claims.--Tritomex (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposed amended lead
Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
Here is my proposal
Philistines were one of a people of Aegean origin who settled on the southern coast of Palestine in the 12th century. As part of Sea people they attacked Egypt during the later Nineteenth Dynasty. By the early part of the 7th century, Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, Ashdod, became vassals of the Assyrian rulers; but during the second half of that century the cities became Egyptian vassals. With the conquests of the Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar II (605–562) in Syria and Palestine, the Philistine cities became part of the Neo-Babylonian empire. Later, they came under the control of Persia, Greece, and Rome. Most of historic knowledge regarding Philistines dates from Egyptian sources and archaeological excavations carried out at Philistine sites in 20th century, where a distinctive type of pottery, a variety of the 13th-century Mycenaean styles, has been found. Philistines are also known from the Bible, which portrays them at one period of time as among the Kingdom of Israel's most dangerous enemies.
Ok let's work together on this. Since all four of us on the above thread have different perspectives, so let's try to respect all the views here.
The perspective I hold most strongly is that the lead should reflect the position of modern scholarship, and not over-simplify areas where there is active mainstream debate. It should focus on the highest quality secondary sources, of which there are many in the article and in this thread to choose from. Does anyone have any objections to this concept?
My objection to Tritomex's draft is that in a number of instances it uses wikipedia's neutral voice to discuss topics which are actively debated in mainstream scholarship.
Support proposal by Tritomex. There is consensus among the editors who have the same perspective. Lets hope we get a logical article here. Reaper7 (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I must agree with User:Oncenawhile - if there is active mainstream debate, that must be reflected and of course we must use the highest quality sources we can find. I'd like to see some suggestions as to how we can do this. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Dougweller Would you help to write a reliable, history based lead? I do not have time unfortunately to engage myself fully on this issue, but based on sources I have checked I noticed a differences between claims made in this article and actual claims from sources itself. The Aegean origin of Philistines and their historicity are mainstream historic opinions.--Tritomex (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
That's what I've found. See [8] The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment edited by Eliezer D. Oren (a specialist who wrote the stuff at the link), [9](Yasur-Landau, already mentioned), [10] Biblical peoples and ethnicity: an archaeological study of Egyptians ... By Ann E. Killebrew (another specialist, also see her The Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” in Text and Archaeology. Where'd everyone else go?
Killebrew's edited book[11] looks good - she is definitely an expert on the Sea Peoples. Note that she says "
The origins and identification of the Sea Peoples, especially the Philistines, in the archaeological record continue to be matters of considerable debate (see, e.g., Bunimovitz and Yasur-Landau 1996; Killebrew 2005,197-246; 2010; this volume; Woudhuizcn 2006)." on p.8 Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Support proposal by Tritomex. The majority of scholars agree on the Aegean/Hellenic origin of the Philistines. This should not be made a emotional issue. Zenostar (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Oppose proposal by Tritomex. All these claims of "majority of scholars" are nonsense unless this can be shown clearly in uncontroversial sources. We don't spend such a majority of the lead talking about where Israelites really came from either, do we? 77.165.250.227 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Could those who support this proposal please examine the lead we have, compared to the proposed form? As it stands it is compatible with wiki drafting (though it is excessively indebted to biblical sources that postdate the archaeological record). As proposed it is discombobulated, ungrammatical, undocumented and unfocused, and displays little knowledge of the subject. (The lead does need rewriting of course)Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose proposal by Tritomex.
Wikipedia is not in the position to declare that if a few people have written works that support a very controversial hypothesis, it should be written as fact. Most Sea Peoples sources are uncertain and speculative. How can we know they didn't just form in the nomadic chaos that was Canaan? Politics and religion have undoubtedly affected this subject. Let's not forget that "their most dangeroes enemies" wrote most about them, and that their name was later used to say "barbarian". Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Economy
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have edited the paragraph on the alcohol industry to remove a copyright violation, since it was simply copy-pasted from the cited source. The source is problematic. It's a religious site, which isn't a problem per se although we might expect it to be biased in favor of confirming Biblical stories. But here it implied an industry in distilled beverages, talking about "spirits" and "strong drink". If true that would be exceptionally remarkable, as there is no other evidence for such a thing in the 9th century BCE. Very likely the source was written by a non-specialist who went beyond his own sources without realizing it. A more expertly-written source would be preferable. 192.91.171.34 (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Philistine is or isn't Palestine?
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"Palestine" in Arabic is فلسطين (as in the name of this newspaper http://falastinews.com/), and this the word is transliterated "filastin" by Google Translate.
Are the words "Palestine" and "Philistine" cognate? If they are, the article should say this - also, if they aren't it should say so, as they are so similar in sound, and the place is the same.
115.64.142.162 (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "Palestine" and "Philistine", which are anglicized variants of Latin "Palaestina" and its Greek origin "Philistia", are cognate. ♆ CUSH ♆07:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
They are cognate, but mean two different things. Philistia was the southern coastal district at the time when it was inhabited by the Philistines (Peleset / P'lishti'im), in their city-states. Palestine is the name of the district first mentioned in the time of Herodotus (described essentially as a district of Syria), apparently larger in area, and not containing Philistine city-states, but populated by "the Syrians of Palestine" (notably described as a circumcised people, in marked contrast to the Philistines of the Hebrew Bible), and subsequently used as a general name for the region. The name "Palestine" is surely derived from the historic Philistines, but does not refer specifically to the former district of Philistia (P'lesheth / Pilistu / Palashtu).
Jacob D
First sentence POV ?
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"The Philistines were a people described in the Bible." This reads as if to say Philistines weren't real. Or what is this supposed to imply? ♆ CUSH ♆09:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It is accurate. It implies that the only support for the basic description of the Philistines (i.e. that they were a People called Philistines who lived in 5 cities on the South-West) comes from the Bible. Without the Bible, not a single one of the archaeological artefacts provides any part of that information. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
What Oncenawhile said. There are plenty of outside references to Gath, Ashdod etc and to their kings. But they don't say they are "Philistines" or, for that matter, anything that might distinguish Gathians from, say, Sidonians. Only the Bible makes this distinction, or cares anything about their ethnicity. --Zimriel (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
What a mess
Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
This whole article is an ungainly heap of scholarship. The facts are cogent and we all seem to be in agreement over what the facts actually are, for which I am glad. But the facts are organised VERY badly here.
I think we need some guiding principles about what should the sections be, and what belongs in each section. The introduction, meanwhile, should be short - as in, just give what the Bible gives, and ending with the question of Aegean links. The rest of the article can then discuss those links.
--Zimriel (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Texts of the OT
Hi Zimriel, I agree with your sentiment wholeheartedly.
I think we disagree on only one point, which is what we mean by "what the Bible gives". To put the Western Christian and Jewish version in the lead but not the Eastern Christian version contradicts WP:WORLDVIEW. I agree we need to keep the intro at a "high level" and avoid detail. The fact that the Bible used by the older half of the Christian world has a totally different picture is too notable to exclude from the lead.
Those parts of the Bible(s) which mention the Philistines were composed in Hebrew: these survive in the MT, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Qumran scrolls. There is AFAIK no Hebrew Vorlage that swaps out "PLSTYM" with a more generic word for "foreigners" ("GWYM" etc). So if we allow a secondary Greek translation - and it will be a secondary translation - then the Assyrians will ask how come we're not allowing Peshitta too. Why not Latin. Why not Ethiopic... --Zimriel (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
See the diagram above. The LXX may well be closer to the original source than those from the Hebrew tree. We cannot know. As the oldest extant complete version of the bible by two centuries, the importance of the LXX to understanding the bible and anything in it is unparalleled.
Very few of the Dead Sea Scroll fragments relate to Samuel, Joshua, and Kings where most of the Philistine story resides. If we can find sources to show what the DSS translation looks like here, it will be very interesting.
I found the Samaritan and "LXX" references; put them into the text. On to Qumran. * 4Q543-7, a pre-Hasmonean and pre-Jubilees Dead Sea Scroll, too (albeit Aramaic). * Off Torah: 4QSama.
Good article on 4QSama: Benjamin J.M. Johnson (2012). "Reconsidering 4QSama and the Textual Support for the Long and Short Versions of the David and Goliath Story". Vetus Testamentum. 62: 534–549. 4QSama witnesses to the "long version" of the Goliath story, against the Greek. But otherwise it witnesses to the Vorlage to the Greek - probably because, there, the Greek is more accurate (as you point out).
To sum up, there *might* exist a Vorlage which has something like goyim instead of plishtim in *Reigns - perhaps also with the short Goliath story? - but we don't have this, even in 4QSama. We do have plishtim in every witness to *Torah. But is *Torah older than *Reigns?
I'll leave this alone because I have confused myself now. Also I'm edging into "original research", which is another of those Wikipedia faux pas-es. Sorry for my heavy hand earlier.
Hi Zimriel, many thanks for this and all the additional sources you added to the article. Very interesting information. I will look for further sources as well. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
"The introduction, meanwhile, should be short - as in, just give what the Bible gives, and ending with the question of Aegean links." Very bad idea. It contradicts Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section which states: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Dimadick (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought that's what I'd said. Since the Philistines are, currently, characters in literature (pending more discoveries) any article on them has to start with that literature. I also hadn't seen a "concise overview" nor any "summarizing" in that textwall I'd ported to other chapters. It's not like I was recommending the singing of a hymn after reading the intro --Zimriel (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the lede now summarizes nothing from the lengthy "Archaeological evidence" section of the main article. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have yet to see an explanatory relation between "Plishtim" and "Philistinoi" > "Philistin" > "Philistine" etc. Is this based on the assumption that they are the same or is it actually proven that "Philistinoi" comes from "Plishtim"? They don't exactly sound the same and yet this is given as the translation. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting question. I have not been able to find primary usage of the Greek "Philistinoi". The LXX used "Phylistiim", and Josephus used "Palaistinoi". Oncenawhile (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Map problem
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Even accepting the fairytales of the Bible as a source (as 90% of our maps do), the map showing Jaffa outside of Philistine influence in the 9th century is flawed, since Uzziah only briefly wrested it back from the Philistines in the mid 8th century. It was in turn taken from a Philistine king Sidqia in 701 BCE. So I'm removing it. Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Confirmation bias
Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Silberman's 1998 article (readable in the sources in our article) is well worth reading. Such healthy and well considered skepticism is much needed in this article, but I haven't figured out where yet.
As an aside, much of this recent journalism on the Ashkelon cemetery is of poor quality, unable to distinguish between the Bible and the archaeological evidence. For a start, the only evidence linking Ashkelon to the Philistines is the Bible itself. If you're not sure, just question what we mean by Philistines. The name? only in the Bible. The stories of them fighting the Israelites? only in the Bible. The pentapolis? Only in the Bible.
That there existed a coastal people who traded with the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean and had different cultural practices from the hill people is no more than common sense. It is the forthcoming DNA evidence which many hope will progress this 200 year old question. Having said that, I imagine the DNA outcome will not differ from the ex-Biblical common sense that coastal trading people would have had a greater percentage of "Mediterranean" DNA than hill people. So will we really get any closer to the truth?
I look forward to more hyperbolic journalistic claims in the coming months...
We'll certainly get closer to the truth, unless "the truth" is "they are not aegean no matter what most scholarship says". Phoenicians, a coastal trading people if there ever was one, had immense cultural exchange with the Mycenaeans/Aegeans and later with the ancient greeks (before ancient Greece though this exchange was largely Phonecian to Greek, not the other way round) but the Phonecians are unambiguously Canaanite. The philistines on the other hand have cultural features which are unambiguously non-Canaanite - or at least strikingly different from known canaanite civilizations. Archeologists looking for evidence of biblical Israelite invasions found that Israelites were actually Canaanites who underwent a societal revolution. So much for confirmation bias. On the other hand the same evidence proving Israelite culture to be native to Canaan is lacking in the case of the Philistines.--Monochrome_Monitor20:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
The point is archaeology totally contraverts the Biblical narrative of the Israelite conquest of Canaan. Scholars take this to mean that whoever invented or embroidered legends centuries later turned history upside down. The 'Israelites' seem to emerge from Canaanite culture, but that is not territorially 'Canaan qua Palestine': Canaan archaeologically is a significantly larger area than 'Palestine', while Biblical Canaan is much smaller. So though wiki articles splash the Biblical stories all over the foundational and monarchical articles, they ignore archaeology unless it controverts the Biblical tale in one sense, i.e. by asserting the indigenous roots of 'Israelites'. In that exceptional case, scientific, extra-biblical evidence is suddenly accepted. The same archaeology seriously questions all those massive maps of David and Solomon's huge empire, and is ignored because it undercuts the foundational myths of the Bible. You can't have it both ways. In this sense Oncenawhile has a point.
On the other hand, the crucial news is that the Ashkelon skeletons will be analysed for their DNA. Note that the masses of skeletal material from the area, presumed to belong to Israelites, do not appear to be subject to DNA testing. There are several hundred from Lachish ca.700 BCE. Religious orthodoxy refuses to allow science to do its work if the skeleton is presumed to be Israelite. But skeletons presumed to be non-Israelite can be tested. The ideological stakes in all this are very high, and that is what has complicated the rewriting of the history on strictly non-theological empirically evidential lines, dear MM.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Your argument that "there's evidence that Israelites are from Canaan but not that they're from Palestine" is just silly. In the Middle and Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture characterized all of Canaan - same language, same pantheon, etc. Only after the Bronze Age collapse did Canaanites split into distinct peoples. These peoples arose in different parts of Canaan - the Phonecians in Northwest Canaan, the Ammonites in East Canaan, the Moabites in Southeast Canaan, the Edomites in the South and the Israelites in Southwest Canaan. And guess what Southwest Canaan is? It's Palestine! By religious orthodoxy do you mean "jews consider it a sin to disturb jewish dead"? Have more cultural sensitivity. I bet you'd defend Australian aborigines who don't want their remains to be studied by scientists. I'm actually very consistent in prioritizing tangible evidence over dogma. It is a fact that most scholars regard the Philistines as non-Semitic in origin. And David didn't have a huge kingdom envied by all the neighbors and the exodus was most likely an inspiring national origin myth made to show how Israel's God is better than everyone else's. Similarly Palestinian Canaanite theology is a national origin myth, and one only half-heartedly defended at that. (You're the one who brought up Palestine, not me, I wanted to talk about Phonecia.)[7] But lets not get off track.
This article can be considered Israel-related so I can't edit it, but could someone please delete "and noted that the coastal area identified with "Philistines" was not more "Aegean" influenced than the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean". That's an invention not found in either source, probably inserted by Onceinawhile.--Monochrome_Monitor02:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
^ abcdCite error: The named reference Killebrewp204 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
"there's evidence that Israelites are from Canaan but not that they're from Palestine"
Well, you must have put in an extraordinary amount of mental work to extract that distortion from what I wrote. If you must be combative, try to focus on what people say in the context of the scholarship referred to, not on your fantasies of some nonsensical view their words perhaps might be twisted to imply they might really be intending to insinuate. Disappointing. No progress in learning to construe precisely what is being said, and answer in a focused manner. Ah well.Nishidani (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
1. That's disrespectful. 2. To clarify I mean Palestine specifically. As in "there's evidence they're culturally canaanite but not specifically culturally palestinian." To quote you: "The 'Israelites' seem to emerge from Canaanite culture, but that is not territorially 'Canaan qua Palestine': Canaan archaeologically is a significantly larger area than 'Palestine'". What I'm saying is then palestine had no identifiable cultural differences except for things like dialect and some tutelary gods in addition to canaanite ones, so looking at culture alone will not tell you as much as looking at where these communities were geographically. From canaanite culture israelite culture popped up in samaria and then judea. 3. You didn't contest any of my other points so I'll take it you agree, which I respect. Not being sarcastic. 4. Here my hostility is directed towards onceinawhile, not you- not that that justifies it.--Monochrome_Monitor12:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Respect is earned. I remember a "chair" coming back from a world tour of universities, and delivering a paper on new developments in Chinese, his specialty. The local chair of linguistics listened, and when, at the end of the lecture the Chinese scholar called for:'Questions', the tough-minded Middle European professor of linguistics just said:'Utter bullshit."(We all sighed with relief) That was it: the chair was a fine sinologist, but was wholly out of his depth on theory. He took it on the chin. Peer review. If you make declarations that flourish an evident lack of knowledge, while descanting on a topic, you don't get respect automatically. You get raised eyebrows.
I make a statement, you misread it. I correct your misreading, you come back and 'clarify'. Isn't it simpler just trying to learn how to read what someone else is actually saying? I didn't contest your other observations because they are wrongheaded, and I don't want to be dragged into a long discussion, when it suffices for you to sit down, switch off the computer, and read 2 monographs on the topic in several hours, to fix up the errors of approach.
You're trying to get into a conversation without having any real understanding of the subject. The remarks just flag that you have never read a recent book length study of the topic. One more example, since you took my silence for consent.
['In the Middle and Late Bronze Age Canaanite culture characterized all of Canaan - same language, same pantheon, etc.']
Just a second of reflection if you have acquired a feeling for the social history of the ancient Near East would have stopped you in your tracks when tempted to say that. Tribal Transjordan 'Canaanites' with a herding economy had the same culture, traditions, beliefs and and language as Sidonian and Ugarite merchants of northern Canaan etc.
You meant to say, I have to guess, 'material culture', but in adding you mean actually 'same language' (Ugaritic, Hebrew, Phoenician, Aramaic etc), same pantheon' (Nope: the pantheon is a construction and has wide variations, Anat is popular in the north of Canaan, for example; Dagon survived in Philistia, but died off in the north, replaced by Ba'al etc.)
You claimed a uniform set of beliefs and language shared by Arameans, Arkites, Arvadites, Amalekites, Amorites, Edomites, Gibeonites, Girgashites, Hamathites, Hittites, Hivites, Israelites, Ivri, Judahites, Jebusites, Kenites, Moabites, Perizzites, Sinites, Zemarites, etc.etc. not to mention the coastal pre-Philistine-Philistines which the Bible claims were there under Abimelekh, a contemporary of Abraham.
It's much more enjoyable closing down the computer, going to the library, taking 3 or 4 books of recent scholarship on that period out and sitting down for 3 days, say in 3-4 hour sessions, with breaks for eye exercises, to absorb the whole picture and make it part of your culture. I keep getting the resonance of wiki reading here, and our articles are a slovenly patchwork of incoherent clutter.Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
"Arameans, Arkites, Arvadites, Amalekites, Amorites, Edomites, Gibeonites, Girgashites,Hamathites, Hittites, Hivites, Israelites, Ivri, Judahites, Jebusites, Kenites, Moabites, Perizzites, Sinites, Zemarites, etc.etc. not to mention the coastal pre-Philistine"
You're clearly the misinformed one- most of those peoples did not exist yet (the Judahites, Arameans, Edomites, and Moabites) or probably never existed at all (only attested in the bible). The Hittites (the Anatolian people called the Hatti) predate the Iron Age quite a bit but their connection to the Hittites of the Bible (the "neo-hittites" of syria), both ethnically and culturally, is controversial. Hamath was undeniably a Syro-Hittite city but that was in the Iron Age. The only people in your list who actually existed in the Bronze Age are the Amorites. But the Amorites were not a canaanite people- their language has been put in the canaanite group by some instead of in a Northwest Semitic branch of its own (same with ugaritites) but its more likely that the Canaanite language has roots in early northwest semitic Amorite than the Amorite language in proto-Canaanite. Regardless Amorites were never Canaanites proper- historians speak of Amorites and Canaanites as separate peoples, and the canaanites persevered while the amorites fizzled out after the bronze age collapse (like the hittites and ugaritites).
Just to clarify I am talking about Canaanites - not Canaan-ites. Not every people in canaan was canaanite, case in point the Philistines. Just because the range of their cultures overlapped doesn't mean they can't be distinguished (they can). You say the Canaanites did not have a common language- they did. What became the Canaanite languages (languages of Canaanite polities) were originally regional dialects of Canaanite.You say they did not have a common religion - they did. Most city-states had tutelary deities and they often had specific cults, but they had one religion, one pantheon. We call this Ancient Canaanite religion. To compare, ancient greek city-states had different patron gods/godesses, and many eccentric cults, but we call their religion Ancient Greek Religion.
So yes, there was a distinct Canaanite culture. It was not uniform, no cultures are, but its internal divisions were not between different peoples - they were a clinal change between the urban elite core and the fringe hilldwelling pastoralists. In the late bronze age they began to form regional groups which would become the Canaanite polities. The ethnogenesis of Canaanite peoples are all placed after the Late Bronze Age Collapse- Iron Age I. Canaanite tribes of the Late Bronze Age could be called proto-X, but it's anachronistic to speak of any Canaanite nation pre-collapse.--Monochrome_Monitor23:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
And realized from the first word 'Edomites' (Edom is attested in the same year as Israel in the Merneptah period, Edomites/Shasu) you have absolutely no knowledge of core/periphery theory as part of World-systems theory per Andre Gunder Frank's influential extension of it to the ancient world, used everywhere in the historical sociology of periods like that of late Canaan. It's boring to have to insistently remind you that vast know-ally generalizations based on snippets and tidbits of 'stuff' read here and there are ridiculous. Even fucking worse. I studied Hittite philology (briefly) several decades ago, and here I'm given a high school level 'lesson' on the Hittites by a 19 year old who has 'mastered' the subject in her spare time.
Our conversation has ended here. Go ahead and talk to yourself. Someone there may listen, but I doubt it. Either that, or do some quiet reading for 2 months. Nishidani (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I share this sentiment. MM's commentary shows an inability to separate extra-biblical knowledge from biblical knowledge, and scholarly conjecture from hard facts. If Wikipedia is to reach its potential in this highly complex area, editors will need to be able to delineate these clearly. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I was reminded, Oncenawhile, while looking over a Hurrian word list today, of a paper by Henry Cazelles you can find here. It's somewhat dated. But rereading it was a refreshing experience. If you aren't familiar with it, it might be worth looking up. Though it still takes the Biblical timelines more seriously that minimalists do, it summed up a vast amount of material with philological acumen, and made some interesting conclusions (He hints that Ephron the Hittite of Machpelah fame, for example, might just be an Ugarite-related Ḫapiru). Nishidani (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The next source concerns the dating of the Song of the Sea, one of the oldest parts of the Hebrew Bible. It proposes many dates and arrives at 1150 BCE. It is very possible that the textual tradition is that old- but that does not make any people that old. Like the Merneptah Stele it's probably proto-Israelite. Also, 1150 BCE is not before the twelth century BCE (generally cited as the start of the Iron Age in the Levant).
And lastly this source agrees with me. "The origins of Ammon, Moab, and Edom fall apparently within the same broad category of anti-imperial and anti-fuedal sociopolitical formations. They are alike indebted for their emergence to the decline of Egyptian control of Canaan and to the relative weakness of the city states." They all emerged after the Late Bronze Age Collapse!
Since you pretend not to have read most of what I wrote above (in reality you did or else you wouldn't know I mentioned Hittites) because you refuse to face your own fallibility, I don't imagine you'll respond to any of this. I wish you could accept that I'm not inferior to you, and we could both learn from each other.I would love to hear what you know about world-systems theory, but unfortunately for you teaching and belittling come hand in hand.--Monochrome_Monitor01:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
I.e. you have zero inability to understand a point.The links I gave indicate clashes or modulations of scholarly opinion, not 'truths'. You always harp on who, in your puelline opinion, is 'right' - access to which you have, whereas the skeptical, no matter how thoroughly familiar with the learned literature, are always wrong. I've seen more theories blown out of the water than British ships sunk by U-boots, and have studied these things for 50 years, having read at an early age. Kindly desist. See my page.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Continued discussion
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
I have removed the following pending discussion:
They migrated to the southern coastal plain of Canaan from the Aegean in the 12th century BCE during the Bronze Age Collapse, after which they came into conflict with the pre existing Canaanite speaking peoples, which included the Israelites, Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, Suteans and Amalekites[1] Egyptian sources describe the Philistines as part of a confederation of "Peoples of the Sea", naval raiders that attempted to invade Egypt during Ramses III's reign.
This relies on the Sea Peoples theory, yet the sources in that article are very clear that this migration idea is just a romantic 19th century theory which has been debunked by modern scholarship. It is also clear that the Peleset were never referred to in the primary sources as Sea Peoples - this was a scholarly extrapolation based on biblical readings. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Monochrome Monitor your proposed drafting here represents a single POV. You have also sourced it to a "popular" (lightly written and unsourced) tertiary work, rather than the plethora of high quality scholarly sources on this matter. Let's work together on this talk page to agree some wording that represents a balanced and NPOV view. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
You violated 1RR my frenemy. I won't report you but at least have the decency to self-revert and reinstate your edit when 24 hours have elapsed.--Monochrome_Monitor 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Most egregiously the oxford history of the biblical world is not "popular science".--Monochrome_Monitor19:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The POV slant, which has to be handled with great care, consists in using sources to establish the biblical Philistines (aliens)/Israelites (indigenes) on the basis that one strong theory now sees the Israelitic proto-statelet formation as a variant of Canaanite realities and people. The same model however accepts that the Israelite (proto-Jewish), Moabite, Edomites etc., had nomadic elements and were drifting in at the same time as the Philistines emerged. To oversimplify and manipulate this to affirm 'Jewish' autochthony is POV-pushing.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is part of wikiproject palestine and wikiproject Israel, so 1RR applies does it not? (that's a genuine question) First off, you cannot speak of Jewish autochthony (esp in scare quotes, since "Jewish" is indeed the ethnonym for residents of the southern kingdom, a civilization formed from the rural israelitic people of the Judean mountains) while asserting Palestinian autochthony, for which there is comparatively little evidence short of "there are palestinian farmers and shepherds and these people can't be replaced that easily", an argument easily refuted by the numerous Indo-Aryan peasant-shepherds in India, who outnumber indigenous Dravidians. (if you can call a group which predates the indo-aryans by a few thousand years indigenous, the fact is given enough time no one is "indigenous" anywhere, for example "native Hawaiians" predate Europeans by mere centuries. Probably the only exception to this is the Khoisan but even they are native to a primordial swamp somewhere.) I agree that when talking about historic philistines its downright criminal to make a proxy for the modern israeli-palestinian conflict. (palestinian ethnogenesis has a significant jewish component and low to no philistine one and the only similarity is the name) But I don't want to politicize this article unlike some, I know the Israelite ethnogenesis included nomadic (Hebroid) elements and I deleted the bit about indigenous canaanites (many of whom weren't canaanites). I merely want to add that philistines immigrated to the coast of Canaan in the 12th century, which I cited, because this is one of the few things agreed about them and is fully supported by material culture.--Monochrome_Monitor20:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
"Jewish" is indeed the ethnonym for residents of the southern kingdom, a civilization formed from the rural israelitic people of the Judean mountains
sigh...The abused use of the phrase scare quotes to refer to a rational use of language indicating that to speak of Jews in the 12-10th century BC is an anachronism, is just one of a dozen things wrong with the excursus above. No finesse in historical judgement. Just ideology. Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
As amended this year, editors are "limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." So if you are saying this relates to the conflict.... Doug Wellertalk20:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Funny how you name just one thing I say as problematic (in your opinion) and yet claim that a myriad of other unmentioned problems exist. I highly doubt you'd slack off in criticizing me as you've devoted entire paragraphs to it on less pretext. Sure it's an anachronism to call Israelites Jews during the LBC and Iron I, I assumed you were casting doubt on the ethnonym "Jewish" in general. (a common anti-Zionist argument serving to deny Jews self-determination) It's also an anachronism to prejudice modern Arab history in Palestine against modern Jewish history in Palestine in the article History of Palestine, as if the State of Palestine is a natural extension of the history of the region, including the Jewish history, because both contain the word "Palestine". My point was that according to Onceinawhile's "reasoning" (those were scare quotes) at Modern Hebrew, because Wexler said his hypothesis was rejected by linguists because of "Zionism" that article is under 1RR restrictions. In the same vein this article should be protected because both Arab and Jewish nationalists occasionally equate Palestinians with Philistines. In my opinion neither articles should have 1RR protections because they shouldn't have anything to do with the conflict.--Monochrome_Monitor23:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Philistines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
This seems difficult to sort out, but the lead seems to contain two plagiarized sentences, possibly from Britannica. Until this can be resolved, I'm moving the suspect bit here to the talk page. The relevant wording is:
In 2016, the discovery of a huge Philistine cemetery, containing more than 150 burials, seems to point toward their Aegean origin. Genetic testing of the human remains will provide further information.[2][3][4][5]
^Cite error: The named reference ngeo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Biblical archaeology: "Ashkelon’s cemetery supports the Philistines’ distinctness from their neighbors and may be able to connect the Philistines to related populations in the Aegean world."
^[1]:"Already, the find in Ashkelon seems to point toward an Aegean origin, since the oval-shaped graves resemble those found in the Aegean cultural sphere. Genetic testing of the human remains will provide further information."
^Philippe Bohstrom, 'Archaeologists find first-ever Philistine cemetery in Israel,' Haaretz 10 July 2016. [2]: "Cemetery in ancient Ashkelon, dating back 2700-3000 years, proves the Philistines came from the Aegean, and that in contrast to the conventional wisdom, they were a peaceful folk.
The citation there seems to indicate that the wording has been lifted, mostly word for word, from a story at Britannica, but then the link given doesn't go to an actual Britannica story. Feel free to put this back in if you can rewrite it and/or confirm that plagiarism isn't occurring.Alephb (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it. I noticed that you found an archived version really quickly of the deadlinked article. I didn't find a version when I went through Google. I'm guessing you've got to search the archive site itself? Alephb (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You are very welcome. As far as the link, yes, I repaired it manually by going to the web archive website. Somehow, even the Internet Archive bot, which I run before going to the archive, did not seem to find it. By the way, I found, and removed, several additional copyvios, by using earwig's copyvio detector. Dr.K.05:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll make sure to try the archive site itself next time. I hadn't heard about earwig's copyvio detector. I think I'll start trying it out on other articles. Alephb (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Earwig's copyvio detector is a great tool. It should be embedded at the top of the history page of every article, just like the other tools. Dr.K.05:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Article Evaluation
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I chose the Philistines article, there was nothing that distracted me everything seemed to flow with the article.
I feel as though in terms of religion and economy there could have been a bit more information it was quite light. This als goes for population as it does cover the needed stats it does not seem like it has enough meat to the passage.
All of the references seemed reliable and the links work.
The article had a B rating on it, and is also part of a WikiProject.
The Wiki article get more in depth about the topics than we do in the books there is definitely more information covered.
There is quite a bit of talk in the view pages everything friendly, mostly minor edits one did take out some information that was not useful.
There is also a bit of sharing in the talk pages of useful info pretaining to the article.
Darkpumawins (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Philistines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Philistines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 5 years ago37 comments9 people in discussion
The controversial Prime Minister of Israel tweeted this today:[12] “A new study of DNA recovered from an ancient Philistine site in the Israeli city of Ashkelon confirms what we know from the Bible – that the origin of the Philistines is in southern Europe. The Bible mentions a place called Caphtor, which is probably modern-day Crete. There’s no connection between the ancient Philistines & the modern Palestinians, whose ancestors came from the Arabian Peninsula to the Land of Israel thousands of years later. The Palestinians’ connection to the Land of Israel is nothing compared to the 4,000 year connection that the Jewish people have with the land.”
We must be careful here. Politics is not a healthy influence on archaeology.
What I don’t understand about the recent news reports from Ashkelon is on what basis they are suggesting that these skeletons are Philistine and representative of the group as a whole. Is it just because they were found in Ashkelon at around the time that the Bible said the Philistines were there?
New to this, came across it by accident. There are 5 cities supposed to be Philistine centers, Ashkelon (the current news item), Ashdod, Ekron, Gath (this is supposed to be Tel el-Safi, right?) and Gaza.Selfstudier (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes you are right – I am mixing up sites (now fixed above).
The article in the tweet quotes from one of the scientists “we finally have real scientific proof that people moved into Ashkelon from Europe”. That is the only wholly objective statement in all the reporting. The only connection to the biblical Philistines is the estimated time period, which rests on assumptions regarding the Chronology of the Bible with a large margin of error.
Frankly it is obvious that Mediterranean people moved around during the Bronze age. But extrapolating that single fact to imply the veracity of what could still be just a Biblical fairy tale is cheap journalism. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You can turn everything to politics but it doesn't mean archaeology findings are not true. If a new archaeology research discover new facts about those ancient people we should write it here (with reference of course). btw Onceinawhile your claim that there is no connection between biblical Philistines and the archaeology findings are just ignorance, you should read more articles before claiming such statements. the biblical Philistines are well defined by the pottery, tools, writings and name of cities which are different from the rest of Canaan at that time.Assafn (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Assafn, the bible did not mention pottery and tools, so that doesn't establish the connection. No separate writing has been found - only Canaanite / Semitic (see Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription). And just as the fact that New York is a real place doesn't prove the existence of King Kong (whose story was set in that city), the sole fact that Gaza/Ashkelon/Ashdod are real places doesn't help us evidence the Biblical story of the Philistines. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The bible mention a nation of people leaving in several cities (such Ashkelon, Ashdod etc...) those cities still exist today with the same name. The name of the cities are not of hebrew origin and considered Philistine word (btw, they are not the only Philistine word in the bible such argaz - box). Excavation sites in those cities reveal a distinct culture that match to the time frame of the bible and the stories of a separate nation (evidence that they are indeed separate nation also exist in the finding of Macedonian pottery and DNA). Most of the archaeologists establish the connection between the bible stories to the archaeology findings so here in Wikipedia it is our job to present there conclusion. If you have other options you are free to express them but Wikipedia articles should be based of scientific articles not personal option. Assafn (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
We should always be wary of such breaking news stories. Like this one, where within hours of the archaeologists making the announcement, "two of their peers insist they most certainly have not." Policy (not a guideline) states that are we are not a newspaper. " Bar Ilan University Prof. Aren Maeir, director of the Tell es-Safi/Gath Archaeological Project for the past 23 years, is adamant that it is not. In a phone conversation with The Times of Israel, Maeir said, “This suggestion of Yossi Garfinkel is so unacceptable, it’s unbelievable. There is simply no basis for this. I don’t know how he got to it.” "Tel Aviv University Prof. Israel Finkelstein also discounted the identification of Ziklag at the Khirbet a-Ra‘i site. “Identification of places mentioned in historical texts, including the Bible, with a given archaeological site is done according to three criteria: the geographical context in which the place is mentioned in the text/s, chronological match between the period of the text or the period portrayed in the text and the finds at the site and, when possible, preservation of the ancient name in the modern (usually Arabic) one,” wrote Finkelstein. “In the case of biblical Ziklag, the name is not preserved.”[13] Read the rest of the article. It's too soon. We're an encyclopedia, we can wait to see how this is received. Doug Wellertalk13:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The news on Ziklag are still very new I agree that we need to wait and see if there is a consensus about this finding, but I don't think there is any problem to mention it in the article with the proper cited criticism. Assafn (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but not the article on the Philistines. Much of the debate among archaeologists is whether the uncovered settlement is Ziklag or not. This can be mentioned in our article on the city. Dimadick (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Virtually all of the sources cited for the lede paragraph about genetics are journalistic/newspaper sources, which are unreliable sources for history, as per WP:HISTRS. As such, I have removed most of the lede paragraph attributed to journalistic/newspaper sources. Please stick to actual reliable historical scholarly sources, like academic journals and university press publications, rather than unreliable journalistic/newspaper articles. Maestro2016 (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes but those views will also be in the scholarly publications, so unless those are unavailable, we should use the scholarly articles instead of newspapers. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Resemblances between the new cultural traits and 13th century patterns found in the Aegean have led some scholars to explain this so-called “Philistine phenomenon” by a migration from an Aegean- related source, potentially associated with the “Sea Peoples,” a pop- ulation that is thought to have settled in other parts of the coastal Eastern Mediterranean (2, 3). This hypothesis has been challenged by those arguing that this cultural change was driven by a diffusion of knowledge or internal development of ideas (5–8) rather than by a large-scale movement of people. Even for those who do accept the idea of large-scale mobility, the homeland of the new arrivals is disputed with suggested alternatives including Cyprus or Cilicia (4), a mixture of non-Aegean east Mediterranean peoples (8), and mixed heterogeneous maritime groups, akin to pirates (9). Proposed links go as far as north- ern Italy where depopulation events have been suggested to trigger population movements throughout the Mediterranean (10). Recent ancient DNA (aDNA) studies have reported a high degree of genetic continuity in the Levant during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene that was followed by increasing population admixtures with Anatolian- and Iranian-related populations at least up to the Middle Bronze Age (11–14). Genome-wide data from Late Bronze and Iron Age populations have, so far, not been available for this region.
Summary of 2019 research
Here, we report genome-wide data from human remains excavated at the ancient seaport of Ashkelon, forming a genetic time series encompassing the Bronze to Iron Age transition (Fig. 1, A and B). We find that all three Ashkelon populations derive most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool. The early Iron Age population was distinct in its high genetic affinity to European- derived populations and in the high variation of that affinity, suggesting that a gene flow from a European-related gene pool entered Ashkelon either at the end of the Bronze Age or at the beginning of the Iron Age. Of the available contemporaneous populations, we model the southern European gene pool as the best proxy for this incoming gene flow. Last, we observe that the excess European affinity of the early Iron Age individuals does not persist in the later Iron Age population, suggesting that it had a limited genetic impact on the long-term population structure of the people in Ashkelon.
Caveat to headline conclusion
We note that, because of geographical and temporal sampling gaps, populations that potentially contributed the “European-related” admixture in ASH_IA1 could be missing from the dataset.
Discussion of 2019 results
Our analysis suggests that this genetic distinction is due to a European-related gene flow introduced in Ashkelon during either the end of the Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron Age. This timing is in accord with estimates of the Philistines arrival to the coast of the Levant, based on archeological and textual records (2–4). We find that, within no more than two centuries, this genetic footprint introduced during the early Iron Age is no longer detectable and seems to be diluted by a local Levantine-related gene pool. The relatively rapid disappearance of this signal stresses the value of temporally dense genetic sampling for addressing historical questions. Transient gene flows, such as the one detected here, might be overlooked because of a lack of representative samples, potentially leading to erroneous conclusions. In geographic regions unfavorable to DNA preservation, obtaining such datasets requires exhaustive sampling and the utilization and further development of advanced technologies such as DNA enrichment techniques (15–17) and targeted sampling strategies (27). We do not rule out that some gene flow occurred during the Bronze Age as low significance of the f4-statistics might be due to the limited statistical power of our data stemming from either insufficient coverage or a lack of appropriate contemporaneous proxy populations. Thus, additional sampling is needed to further investigate the question of the genetic diversity within the Levantine Bronze Age populations and to characterize the spatiotemporal extent of potential incoming gene flows. Similarly, a larger sample size might help to accurately infer the extent and magnitude of the early Iron Age gene flows and to identify more precisely the populations introducing the European-related component to Ashkelon. While our modeling suggests a southern European gene pool as a plausible source, future sampling in regions such as Cyprus, Sardinia, and the Aegean, as well as in the southern Levant, could better resolve this question.
@Maestro2016: I suggest we use this peer-reviewed article as the main source for what we say in our article, and remove the journalistic extrapolations.
Newspaper articles about scientific advances often contain citable feedback from other scientists. Apart from that, I'm all for using the original paper as the main source. Zerotalk17:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. We should cite the original academic peer-reviewed scholarly sources, not newspaper articles written by non-expert journalists trying to interpret them. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the peer-reviewed article must be cited. However, that does not mean that the opinion of first class scholars that comes from reliable secondary sources on this issue has to be removed. Primary sources are not as good as secondary sources, because they could be interpreted in different ways. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." In cases where there are only primary sources like (genetic studies on certain population groups) PS are included, but when we have plenty of reliable secondary sources, SC are preferred. Here we dont have just one peer-reviewed study that was published by a scientific journal, but also a debate and lot of arguments made by leading archeologists and geneticists. Beside this, the current wording nowhere contradicts with the peer-reviewed article itself. In my opinion the study points to three main elements. The South European genetic origin of Philistines, their migration in 12th century BCE to Levant and intermarriage which made Philistines similar to neighboring Canaanite people. Tritomex (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
As per Zero000 and Maestro 2016 I replaced the newspaper article with peer-reviewed primary source as reference to the conclusions of this genetic study.Tritomex (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The following statements are problematic in the text you added:
“modern archaeologists agree that Philistines migrated to Levant in 12th century BCE” [This statement of agreement is explicitly contradicted by the first quote above]
“indicating an Aegean origin, which now has been confirmed by genetic testing.” [The research does not purport to be this certain. It found 4 skeletons with partial markers of possible European ancestry, that is all]
“Genetic studies... revealed that Philistines migrated to Levant most likely from South Europe” [it did not “reveal” this, it provided circumstantial evidence of genetic mixing in 4 skeletons]
“suggesting intensive intermarriage” [this is not in the research, the word intensive makes no sense in 4 skeletons]
If a per-reviewed journal found the amount of extracted and sequenced DNA scientifically reliable for the conclusions given I think our research on this question can hardly be equaly relevant.
As far as I see they "extracted and sequenced DNA from 108 skeletal elements excavated in Ashkelon. In line with the low DNA preservation previously reported for the southern Levant (11–14), only 10 yielded sufficient amounts of human DNA (data file S1). Sequencing libraries for these 10 individuals were enriched for human DNA using an established in-solution DNA capture targeting 1.24 million genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms..They performed population genetic analysis on a merged dataset, including the genotype data of the newly reported individuals from this study and previously published datasets from 638 ancient individuals and 4943 individuals belonging to 298 present-day populations.
The indication of Aegean origin was based on pottery and as far as I read the primary and secondary sources it is being supported by this genetic study. Again, concerning the question of of the reliability of this study, based on the number of skeletons that were sequenced, it has to be challenged by reliable secondary or primary sources, which I don't see to be a case.
“modern archaeologists agree that Philistines migrated to Levant in 12th century BCE” Maybe this sentence has to be changed, however I think that you also agree with me, that the Aegean origin of Philistines is supported by the majority of historians and archeologists, as as it is noted by the secondary sources cited there. As for the opposing views, the 1985 citations is outdated, while the two additional references, which I checked, do not directly dispute the Aegean origin of Philistines.
intermarriage, based on 4 skeletons. As far as I see it is 10 skeletons with 1.24 million genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphisms and datasets from 638 ancient individuals...However all this numbers are irrelevant,if a per-reviewed journal found the amount of extracted and sequenced DNA scientifically reliable, it would be WP:OR for us to scrutinize archeologists, geneticists and the peer-reviewed journal for publishing this findings. Off course if there are reliable sources that are challenging this study based on the numbers of skeletons they used, that would be a different story. Tritomex (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC).
Conclusion of the research?
The research found 10 skeletons with analyzable DNA. All 10 were predominantly native. 4 of these skeletons found under a single cluster of houses showed about 1/8th of their DNA may have come from Europe, subject to more data being needed to confirm this.
This seems to provide early proof of the opposite of the “Philistine migration theory”, since it proves that the people are by-in-large local. We don’t need expert scientists to figure out that a single generation with 1/8 European ancestry doesn’t suggest a particularly large-scale migration; it could instead be a single fishing boat which lost its way three generations before.
It reminds me of the discovery of the Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription, which as the only known inscription from “Philistine” areas seemed to prove that the people of Ekron wrote in the local dialect, yet because it didn’t fit the “migration narrative” it was interpreted as simply “something of an enigma”.
For the migration hypothesis to be proved, surely we would need to find a meaningful number of individuals who died in the area with primarily-European DNA? Currently we have zero of those, just like we have zero European inscriptions in the area.
Well, okay that is your opinion, but again I do not see reliable sources supporting your view. Where did you find the 1/8th of DNA from Europe claim??? On other hand, I see, a plenty of agreement among scientists, about the origin of poetry, burial rituals, dietary habits, Philistine names, in addition to archeological findings and genetic testing that points to South European origin of Philistines. Should we note that almost all authorities, from encyclopedia Britannica to simple news journals threat this "questions" more as fact, than a real question? The Ekron Royal Dedicatory Inscription is a 7th century artifact and for many years we knew that Philistines, during only few centuries became culturally Levantized people. It is not new revelation, it was known as their European origin, by mainstream historians for long time.But why you claim that Ekron inscription is the "only known inscription from “Philistine"?? There is another one, and it is much older. The oldest Philistine inscription is somehow however omitted from this article too. The Tell es-Safi inscription contain two names comes from a language of Indo-European origin and dates 300 years before Ekron inscription.
What about Inscription 4.5 from Ashkelon? [14] Why we dont mention this Cypro-Minoan text??
[15]
This is not political question and has nothing to do with modern day politics. The factual origin of Philistines, has nothing to do with the rights of Israelis or Palestinians and with their history and fore all knowledgeable people, making such link is laughable.Tritomex (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
To your questions:
The 1/8 statement is “We find that all three Ashkelon populations derive most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool... genetic clustering assigns ASH_IA1 with an average of 14% contribution from a cluster maximized in the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers labeled “WHG””
The Ekron inscription is the oldest “connected body of text”, whereas the Tell es-Safi inscription is just seven letters, and the others you point to are similar or less. Either way, all are written in local script. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The article is written by well known journalist and represents a very correct criticism of the attempt to politicize history and archaeology. It is not criticism of the scientific methods used in this study, but a criticism of making artificial political links between things that have nothing in common. The same journalist made a very good article about the results of this study as well. I strongly advise to keep politics, Netanyahu, his supporters and critics outside of this article.Tritomex (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course, the criticisms I mentioned are not in that article they are from respected archaeologists "Archaeologist and professor at the University College London (UCL) Dr. David Wengrow linked to the study in a tweet, saying “There’s so much wrong here I almost don’t know where to start.” and archaeologist and writer Michael Press pointed out that the study, which presented as “definitive conclusions and sweeping statements” were based only on the DNA of a total of 10 ancient individuals.“When you read the study, you see that the news stories bury or ignore what might be the most interesting thing: *most* of the DNA of *all 3 groups*, including the supposed early Iron Age immigrants, is said to be “local”!” Press tweeted. He noted that such conclusive interpretations of the study should not have been made without a significantly larger sample. “The point is this: far from letting the ancients “speak for themselves”, the DNA only show a Greek or southern European origin b/c it’s interpreted in the light of a century of Philistine research that suggested that!” he said.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
We can't use twitter its WP:UNDUE against peer review scholarly paper if they views would be WP:DUE there would at least printed in some respected news outlet--Shrike (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
So Times of Israel newspaper is OK but Times of Israel Twitter isn't? It's the same material. Anyway it depends, if it's the views of someone who is an expert in their field why would it not be allowed?. I haven't added it in because I don't really care one way or the other, as I have I think already indicated, the whole thing is politicized in this instance and therefore worthless.Selfstudier (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I taught that you refer to political aspects of this study, a subject that covers most of that article. Scientific criticism as per WP:NPOV, has place in the article in proportion to its weight. However, for the tweet of David Wengrow “There’s so much wrong here I almost don’t know where to start.” there is so little and unspecified here, that I really dont know what we can do. As for Michael Press, a visiting scholar at the Borns Jewish Studies Program at Indiana University, as far as I see he is historian. His view that the century of Philistine research suggest South European origin is fully in line with his credentials, as historian. His view on scientific methods used by genetics lacks proper credentials from a science he is not associated with as he has no academic expertise (from population genetics). In addition to this, we shouldn't forget that here we have a peer reviewed study.Tritomex (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, those quotes were picked up by a news aggregator, it's how I obtained them. Whether or not such material is suitable for Wikipedia, it's evidence (to me) of politicization, which is the point I have been making all along.Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
The "cluster maximized in the Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers labeled “WHG" is not interpreted by authors as a code name for the amount of South European origin of Philistine scekeltons from 12th century BCE. That is why primary sources should be used with extreme caution. To quote " All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."The authors and the secondary sources provided, very clearly explanation that the prevailing European genetic markers were dwarfed by the Levantine gene pool within two centuries. This is inline with facts we already knew about Philistines, namely their Aegean origin, cultural and linguistic Levantization that made them indistinguishable from Canaanite population within few centuries.Tritomex (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Disputed paragraphs
View of modern archaeologists
Latest edit: "Although this theory has been disputed by some,[9][10][11] modern archaeologists agree that Philistines migrated to Levant in 12th century BCE, most likely from the region of South Europe.[12][7] [13][14]"
Scholarly Sources: (1) Ashkelon article above described this theory as "so-called", says "This hypothesis has been challenged" and "Even for those who do accept the idea of large-scale mobility"; (2) This oft cited article presents a detailed critique of the concept of "Philistine material culture" which is the archaeological bedrock of the migration hypothesis; (3) This 2017 article presents a deconstruction of the theory, which Haaretz reviews commenting "That does not mean that the Aegean hypothesis has completely lost steam."[16]
Proposed: Revert back to version from a week ago [17]: "although this theory has been disputed" without the "modern archaeologists..."
2016-19 discovery
Latest edit: "In 2016, a large Philistine cemetery was discovered near Ashkelon, containing more than 150 dead buried in oval-shaped graves, indicating an Aegean origin, which now has been confirmed by genetic testing.[7][15][16][17] [18][19] Genetic studies carried out by an interdisciplinary team of scholars from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History revealed that Philistines migrated to Levant most likely from South Europe in the late Bronze Age or at the beginning of the Iron Age. After two centuries, however, the European genetic markers were dwarfed by the Levantine gene pool, suggesting intensive intermarriage.[20][21]"
Proposed: "Recent Archaeogenetic studies in Ashkelon have found some evidence of European genetic markers entering the local gene pool." The rest should be rewritten and further detail added into the body (three long sentences is far too much for the lead on this topic)
The text related to 2016 excavation is part of this artickle for years. I dont know why you removed it. Considering the second part, I do not see any citations that "European genetic markers entered the local gene pool"Tritomex (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The 2016 excavation is the same as the 2019 one. They’ve just done the tests now. As to genetic markers, that is what the report says. You are welcome to provide your own drafting if you don’t like the language. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The 2016 report was a report regarding 30 years of archaeological excavation of this Philistine site that was based on archaeological findings in the cemetery. It tackled Philistine pottery, diet, burial practices etc. The conclusions of Leon Levy expedition could be red here [18], the list of secondary sources that covered it here [19] the report of Israeli museum here [20], National geography [21] By far the report of Leon Levy expedition is the most extensive one, regarding Philistine culture, observed from archaeological point of view. I proposed bellow a "compromise" text for the lead that will include both archaeological and genetic aspects of this study and which would not omit anything important to this issue.Tritomex (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Full misinterpretation and original research of the 2019 study
Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
If this kind of misinterpretation of this study, with conclusions 100% opposite of those that authors gave, continues to be placed there, this paragraph should go to noticeboards.Tritomex (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
My edit is based on on a quote of the study's summary posted above:
Here, we report genome-wide data from human remains excavated at the ancient seaport of Ashkelon, forming a genetic time series encompassing the Bronze to Iron Age transition (Fig. 1, A and B). We find that all three Ashkelon populations derive most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool. The early Iron Age population was distinct in its high genetic affinity to European-derived populations and in the high variation of that affinity, suggesting that a gene flow from a European-related gene pool entered Ashkelon either at the end of the Bronze Age or at the beginning of the Iron Age. Of the available contemporaneous populations, we model the southern European gene pool as the best proxy for this incoming gene flow. Last, we observe that the excess European affinity of the early Iron Age individuals does not persist in the later Iron Age population, suggesting that it had a limited genetic impact on the long-term population structure of the people in Ashkelon.
As you can see, the conclusion is that Ashkelon's population derive most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool, combined with a noticeable presence of Southern-European genes, which gradually diminished over time. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
You have took out of contest a very small piece of text from primary source, not even from results, discussion or abstract, ignoring all secondary sources and ignoring the conclusions of the authors themselves. You nowhere mentioned migration which the authors named as South European. You also didnt take into consideration any of secondary sources which were removed previously. The authors reported in abstract "Here, we report genome-wide data of 10 Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon. We find that the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature."
You have omitted fully that the authors found the European admixture being in line with historic and archaeological estimates of Philistine migration. In fact you fully omitted the migration itself. Also, y our sentence contradicts the genetic section of the article, including all secondary sources used there.
" Our analysis suggests that this genetic distinction is due to a European-related gene flow introduced in Ashkelon during either the end of the Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron Age. This timing is in accord with estimates of the Philistines arrival to the coast of the Levant, based on archeological and textual records (2–4). We find that, within no more than two centuries, this genetic footprint introduced during the early Iron Age is no longer detectable and seems to be diluted by a local Levantine-related gene pool.!
This is also backed by tremendous number of secondary sources.
Nature [22]: "Bones found in the Philistine city of Ashkelon and dating to the twelfth century BC hint at European heritage"
National geographic Now, a study published today in the journal Science Advances, prompted by the unprecedented 2016 discovery of a cemetery at the ancient Philistine city of Ashkelon on the southern coast of Israel, provides an intriguing look into the genetic origins and legacy of the Philistines. The research appears to support their foreign origin, but reveals that the reviled outsiders were soon marrying into the local populations.
Reuters[23] The ancient Philistines, the Biblical villains whose origins have puzzled scholars for decades, came to the Middle East from southern Europe more than 3,000 years ago, new DNA testing has shown.
and I can continue. Further cherry picking without trying to establish consensus will have to be resolved at admin noticeboard.Tritomex (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Tritomex (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Stop citing newspaper sources. As noted above, newspaper articles written by non-expert journalists are not reliable sources for ancient history. The only reliable sources for ancient history are expert academic sources written by historians in the field, published in scholarly journals or by university presses. It's clear that some of the newspaper articles you've cited misrepresented what the actual study itself stated. Again, the actual study itself clearly states:
"Here, we report genome-wide data from human remains excavated at the ancient seaport of Ashkelon, forming a genetic time series encompassing the Bronze to Iron Age transition (Fig. 1, A and B). We find that all three Ashkelon populations derive most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool. The early Iron Age population was distinct in its high genetic affinity to European-derived populations and in the high variation of that affinity, suggesting that a gene flow from a European-related gene pool entered Ashkelon either at the end of the Bronze Age or at the beginning of the Iron Age. Of the available contemporaneous populations, we model the southern European gene pool as the best proxy for this incoming gene flow. Last, we observe that the excess European affinity of the early Iron Age individuals does not persist in the later Iron Age population, suggesting that it had a limited genetic impact on the long-term population structure of the people in Ashkelon."
The study explicitly states that "all three Ashkelon populations derive most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool". The conclusion is that a minority of their genes come from Southern Europe, while the majority of their genes are native to the Levant. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Just for my edification on this issue of study vs newspaper article. I usually would call the study primary and the newspapers secondary and ideally, what we would want is secondary (scholarly for preference, books, journal articles) interpretation of primary. The problem with primary is the potential for misinterpretation of the source material (cherry picked quotes and so on). Because it is recent, the ideal secondaries are not available so we are stuck with trying to verify whether the available secondaries fairly reflect the primary. Is that a fair summary? Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
As per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources are the historical documents and archeological evidence themselves. Secondary sources are the academic scholars who study and interpret the historical documents and archeological evidence. And tertiary sources are encyclopedias which summarize the secondary sources. The newspapers interpreting the study would be tertiary sources at best. However, as per WP:HISTRS, newspaper articles written by journalists are not reliable sources for history. The standard practice for history articles on Wikipedia (concerning pre-modern history) is to cite scholarly academic sources written by historians, and to avoid citing newspaper articles written by journalists. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I won't say where I found this, but it might be interesting:
"Under the conventional paradigm these foreign invaders appear to have been repulsed by Ramesses III. Where his only claim to settling any of the invaders concerned the Sherden & the Weshesh (of the sea), whom he settled in strongholds within Egypt.No claim of settling the Peleset (Philistines) anywhere within or without Egypt.
"And, according to Finkelstein, as yet no Monochrome pottery has been found in a secure 20th dynasty setting, it seems in his view any foreign invaders only came to settle in the southern Levant after Ram. VI, or post 20th dynasty.
If we cannot find evidence of foreign settlers (specifically; foreigners with a trace of European ancestry) immediately above the destruction layers, then we have no evidence of these Philistines occupying the Pentapolis so early.Provisionally then, it seems this DNA evidence tends to support Finkelstein." Doug Wellertalk13:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion the archeogenetic study of Philistine skeletons is a primary source. Scientific journals like Nature and Natural geographic are reliable secondary sources. However user Maestro 2016 went further and removed parts of this article which were there for years, including parts that were summary of the context of the article itself-Namely, the tradition of Aegean origin is obvious from the article itself, beside being referenced with plenty of secondary sources, including academic books. As for the study itself [24] the authors wrote in the abstract "The ancient Mediterranean port city of Ashkelon, identified as “Philistine” during the Iron Age, underwent a marked cultural change between the Late Bronze and the early Iron Age. It has been long debated whether this change was driven by a substantial movement of people, possibly linked to a larger migration of the so-called “Sea Peoples.” Here, we report genome-wide data of 10 Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon. We find that the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature. Now, this is the whole abstract, but user Maestro 2016 took a sentence from introduction (something that was not the point of this study-"We find that all three Ashkelon populations derive most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool") and removed all references to conclusions given by authors (in the abstract, results and discussion of this study), namely the migration event in early Iron Age plus the Aegean tradition. Also, the archaeological excavations of Ashkelon cemetery which linked Philistines to Aegean people was removed and a plenty of scholarship on Philistines, which points to their Aegean origin was also removed. It looks like that the fact that wast majority of historians, archaeologists see the origin of Philistines being in Europe, as a problem. I even proposed a compromise where the sentence Maestro took from introduction will be included, and waited for his suggestions, for 3-4 days. Now, I think the best way out of this is to ask experienced and neutral editors and admins like User:Doug Weller to help us formulate this text that would summerize the artickle and reflect on both archaeological and genetic aspect of this study in neutral and non selective way. In my opinion its finally a time to say clearly what is the prevailing academic opinion about the origin of the Philistines. Maybe sources like Encyclopedia Britannica are wrong in doing so,[25], yet in my op pinion its a requirement for keeping this article neutral- Tritomex (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I've always felt that we should confine ourselves to the conclusions of s study as much as possible and avoid cherry-picking. Abstracts are also ok if we know that they are written by the authors, otherwise no. It's also key that we confine ourselves to the focus of the article. I suggest restoring the last clean version and starting from there. Doug Wellertalk17:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Compromise proposal for the lead
Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
"In 2016, a large Philistine cemetery was discovered near Ashkelon, containing more than 150 dead buried in oval-shaped graves, indicating an Aegean origin. A 2019 genetic study found that while all three Ashkelon populations derive most of their ancestry from the Levantine gene poll, although the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectable in the later Iron Age population. According to authors the timing of the migration is in accord with estimates of the Philistines arrival to the coast of the Levant, based on archaeological and textual record. "Tritomex (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This proposal includes all important points of this study. It is based on the text of authors themselves and does not leave out selectively any important dimensions of this study.Tritomex (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest changing the part stating "indicating an Aegean origin" to "indicating an admixture of Levantine and Aegean origins" as that is what the study is actually stating. Maestro2016 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
What are the references that archaeological findings of Ashkelon cemetery indicates Levantine origin? Remember, this is only about archaeological findings(burial practices, diet and pottery). The genetic study of 2019 is not related to this sentence.Tritomex (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
You can read the study here for yourself: Ancient DNA sheds light on the genetic origins of early Iron Age Philistines. The study doesn't confirm an "Aegean origin" specifically, but confirms that a "Southern European" migration event occurred in Ashkelon. And again, the study itself states that the majority of the Ashkelon remains "derive most of their ancestry from the local Levantine gene pool", combined with a significant amount of Southern European admixture. I think a good compromise would be to say that the study indicates the Ashkelon remains had "Levantine and Southern-European origins", or had "Levantine and Southern-European admixture." Maestro2016 (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
We must not lose the “most”/“minority” quantification, or it will be misleading. We should also be clear that this is a very small sample (4 skeletons buried very close to each other).
More broadly, there is a question of due WP:WEIGHT here. This topic does not represent anywhere near a quarter of the written literature of the subject of the Philistines, so should not represent anywhere near a quarter of the lead in this article.
I added ext link to the dig site. Fwiw, their "headline summary" of the paper goes:
From where did the Biblical Philistines originate?
Thirty years of excavation at Ashkelon, uncovering Canaanites, early Philistines and later Philistines, combined with state-of-the-art DNA testing on ancient bones, allowed us to demonstrate that the Philistines were immigrants to the region of Philistia in the 12th century BC.
I've undid my revert, and restored the last edit by Tritomex, but made some slight modifications to more closely match the source. Maestro2016 (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Not the best, but let us finish this with some compromise. I just corrected the timing of migration, as per authors.Tritomex (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Bronze age Aegean migration
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
The full quote from the article's synopsis is " It has been long debated whether this change was driven by a substantial movement of people, possibly linked to a larger migration of the so-called “Sea Peoples.” Here, we report genome-wide data of 10 Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon. We find that the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature."
A fair summary of this is 'the admixture was likely due to a migration of "Sea Peoples" from the Aegean to the Levant during the Bronze to Iron Age '- and there no need to provide a direct quote which obscures it with technical jargon like "gene flow from a European-related gene pool" Here come the Suns (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair summary, you have transformed "possibly linked to...." into "likely due to....". The "technical jargon" does not confuse me although I can't speak for others.For myself I would rather see "secondary" (by which I mean scholarly) source interpretation of the paper.Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
You may have missed the part I bolded: "Our results support that a migration event occurred. I am glad you are not confused by the technical jargon. Could you explain what a "gene flow" is? Here come the Suns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
And that article says "Gene flow is the transfer of alleles from one population to another population through immigration of individuals." - so why are we bending over backwards here to obfuscate the fact that the Philistines were immigrants into the region? Here come the Suns (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't doing that, I was objecting to the "Sea Peoples" bit. I think (can't remember now) that book I mentioned might have a more categoric statement as to the Philistines which the current study couldn't seem to manage somehow (they put it in the press, I agree, that's not the same thing, really). I wouldn't myself object to the actual phrasing that they used in the study.Selfstudier (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Any sentence which juxtaposes science with the romantic Victorian theory of the Sea Peoples is unsupportable. The theory, and the Philistines’ connection with it, is looked at with suspicion by the archaeological community. Support for it is frequently found amongst Biblical Maximalists; make of that what you will. One of the most well written articles on the topic is at [26].
The authors clearly said "" Our analysis suggests that this genetic distinction is due to a European-related gene flow introduced in Ashkelon during either the end of the Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron Age. This timing is in accord with estimates of the Philistines arrival to the coast of the Levant, based on archeological and textual records" I proposed this wording, as per authors, but accepted as compromise the wording of Maestro. Wiping out the arceheological and textual records of Philistine migration which is the key element of this study, seems to me unacceptable as it represents distortion of results of this study.Its one fact that there was an European admixture and gene flow, but that is not the point of the study. The point of this study is that this admixture is in accord with estimates of the Philistines arrival to the coast of the Levant, based on archeological and textual records. Tritomex (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
If we are unable to move forward and everyone will remove something, than lets ask Dough to help us formulate neutral wording as per source.Tritomex (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
What are the "conclusions"?
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Forgive me for taking up a lot of space, I have transferred in here a copy of what seem to be the "conclusions" (per Doug Weller suggestion above).
There is the introduction or leadin to the study proper on the first page:
The ancient Mediterranean port city of Ashkelon, identified as “Philistine” during the Iron Age, underwent a marked cultural change between the Late Bronze and the early Iron Age. It has been long debated whether this change was driven by a substantial movement of people, possibly linked to a larger migration of the so-called “Sea Peoples.” Here, we report genome-wide data of 10 Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon. We find that the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature
and there is what they call the "Discussion" before all the tech stuff and refs on pages 6 and 7:
By investigating genome-wide data from Ashkelon, we address long-pending historical questions regarding the demographic developments underlying the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age cultural transforma-tion. On a larger regional scale, these data begin to fill a temporal gap in the genetic map of the southern Levant, revealing persistence of the local Levantine gene pool throughout the Bronze Age for over a millennium. At the same time, by the “zoomed-in” comparative analysis of the Ashkelon genetic time transect, we find that the unique cultural features in the early Iron Age are mirrored by the distinct genetic composition we detect in ASH_IA1. Our analysis suggests that this genetic distinction is due to a European-related gene flow introduced in Ashkelon during either the end of the Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron Age. This timing is in accord with estimates of the Philistines arrival to the coast of the Levant, based on archeological and textual records (2–4). We find that, within no more than two centuries, this genetic footprint introduced during the early Iron Age is no longer detectable and seems to be diluted by a local Levantine-related gene pool.The relatively rapid disappearance of this signal stresses the value of temporally dense genetic sampling for addressing historical questions. Transient gene flows, such as the one detected here, might be overlooked because of a lack of representative samples, potentially leading to erroneous conclusions. In geographic regions unfavorable to DNA preservation, obtaining such datasets requires exhaustive sampling and the utilization and further development of advanced technologies such as DNA enrichment techniques (15–17) and targeted sampling strategies (27).We do not rule out that some gene flow occurred during the Bronze Age as low significance of the f4-statistics might be due to the limited statistical power of our data stemming from either insufficient coverage or a lack of appropriate contemporaneous proxy populations. Thus, additional sampling is needed to further investigate the question of the genetic diversity within the Levantine Bronze Age popu-lations and to characterize the spatiotemporal extent of potential incoming gene flows. Similarly, a larger sample size might help to accurately infer the extent and magnitude of the early Iron Age gene flows and to identify more precisely the populations introducing the European-related component to Ashkelon. While our modeling suggests a southern European gene pool as a plausible source, future sampling in regions such as Cyprus, Sardinia, and the Aegean, as well as in the southern Levant, could better resolve this question.
On a fast read, I cannot see how the phrase of the leadin, "possibly linked to a larger migration of the so-called “Sea Peoples.”" can justifiably become "the admixture was likely due to a migration of "Sea Peoples" from the Aegean to the Levant" in the current edit. In addition, the conclusions point out that the results "suggests a southern European gene pool as a plausible source" but that more work is needed to resolve the question. And that a "larger sample size" might help etc.
Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I saw a recent attempt to say that "Philistines" means "invaders". They were certainly invaders, and are described as such in many reliable sources, but the closest I cam to an etymology of "invaders" is "strangers, foreigners" in this book. By way of original research I can add that the root פ-ל-ש means "to invade", as in "ניתוח פולשני"' invasive surgery. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It is a popular etymology that appears in old Bible dictionaries and the like, especially those which work on the assumption (now discarded) that every word that appears in the Bible must have an origin in Hebrew. The use of the word by the Egyptians before Hebrew existed shows that the etymology is unsafe. Most experts these days would say that the origin of the word is unknown. Zerotalk04:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The popularization of that “invader” theory came in the mid-19th century with the idea of Sea Peoples. The creators of that story were so enthusiastic they somehow didn’t notice that the “Peleset” were never associated with the sea in any of the inscriptions. But by lumping them all together they created the now disputed idea. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Then I think we should mention this theory in the article, including the reasons it was rejected. By the way, I see no reason that only sea-people can be called "invaders". I think the same can be true for invaders over land from the North, like the Philistines. Debresser (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
100-year-old sources
Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Are you kidding me? The text reads "There is some debate among interpreters as to whether this verse was originally intended to signify that the Philistines themselves were the offspring of the Casluhim or the Caphtorim. While the Casluhim or the Caphtorim origin is widely followed by biblical scholars ..." 100-year-old sources are obviously no good for framing contemporary debates. ImTheIP (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Please show that contemporary academic sources disagree. As I said, better have an old source than no source.
The version of the article preferred by ImTheIP already mentions the opinions of Macalister, Schwally, Stade, Tiele, so it seems perfectly reasonable, in fact desirable, to footnote them.
I see nothing wrong with using 19th century sources as part of the historiography, but I don't buy the argument "The Philistines are 3,000 years old, so why not have a 100-year old source? Do you think anything changed?". As a general rule, scholarship does evolve, even though what actually happened didn't: the scholarly consensus may change, some questions may simply not be of interest to modern scholars, or may be considered badly posed.
So I think the correct solution is to explicitly say in the main text that these are 19th-century opinions. It would be good to find some more recent sources including all reputable positions, if there are any. --Macrakis (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Still, none of the sources can be used to claim that "[t]here is some debate". I suspect no modern sources can be found on whether Philistines were "Cashluhim" or "Caphtorim" because theories based on interpreting the Old Testament have largely been discarded in favor of evidence-based science. ImTheIP (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Due mostly to archaeology, a great deal more is known about the Philistines today than 100 years ago. So making a clear distinction between opinions than and now is essential. Zerotalk20:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with all that. But note that that paragraph is about the interpretation of the biblical accounts, not about reality. --Macrakis (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: hi. I didn't delete anything, I just placed two paragraphs, which both dealt with the same topic, under a common heading and added an intro to the new paragraph. I hope you agree with the result. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Arminden, it seems that your recent edits have completely removed the following text from the article:
Due to the similarity between Palistin and Philistines, Hittitologist John David Hawkins (who translated the Aleppo inscriptions) hypothesizes a connection between the Syro-Hittite Palistin and the Philistines, as do archaeologists Benjamin Sass and Kay Kohlmeyer. Gershon Galil suggests that King David halted the Arameans' expansion into the Land of Israel on account of his alliance with the southern Philistine kings, as well as with Toi, king of Ḥamath, who is identified with Tai(ta) II, king of Palistin (the northern Sea Peoples).
@Debresser: Can you provide a source for the second part? The URL which was given is dead and it apparently doesn't exist at the Internet Archive either. I guess it was a university media release, but I don't think we can have it if it isn't verifiable. Zerotalk02:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
in hebrew the name Philistine is פלשת - which its Semitic root is פ-ל-ש which means invader, there are some who sees it as perojative name given by the israelites.
there are also some who think the name Philistines is distortion of the greek word Pelasgians, which some belive that they are the origin of the Philistines who setteled in Philistine (and the land called upon them)
I noticed there is no explantion to the name origin of Philistines, this is what I know about theories of its name, I think it should be added
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Darkpumawins.
Done. Fixed phrasing, link, and ref. Thank you for pointing this out. Dr. K. 04:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
