From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Actually the bible indicates the Canaanite Hamo Semitic Origin of Philistines[edit]

The bible gives strong indication that "Philistine" were indeed a " Canaanite Hamo Semitic", the name of Philistinian king is Abimelech אֲבִימֶלֶךְ ( an Arabic/Semitic name translated to English "King Father"). This ( the semitic name of Abimelech אֲבִימֶלֶךְalone refute the Zionist's repetative fallacies and lies of the Philistinian's Aegean Origin.

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

avimelech is not in arabic but in hebrew, because king in arabic is malich and not melech. melech is the hebrew word for king.. i wrote this in here before but someone deleted it, probably because it doesn't fit their agenda.

Correct, but note the Phoenician and Canaanite words are also the same. There could be various explanations for that, but when it comes to reasons why people start using their neighbour's languages it pays to avoid the temptation of jumping onto the most simplistic answer, because it's often quite complex. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 12:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The Number of Jews[edit]

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: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

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[edit]

The Bible paints them as the Kingdom of Israel's most dangerous enemy(?)[edit]

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 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Peace dove.svg

An editor has requested assistance at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a dispute about this page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Template:Governance of Palestine from 1948
This template is only a talk page banner - the dispute must be listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard for editors to respond.

Philistine pig imports- Unsure where to place this on the page[edit]

See here: [[3]] 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)


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)
If they were Greek they were not Semitic. ♆ CUSH ♆ 18:29, 2 June 2015 (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)


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)

Nissim Ganor (Who Were the Phoenicians?) (also [ here}) writes:
"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.
Oncenawhile (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

New discoveries - Palistin and Walistin[edit]

Killebrew's 2013 book (page 662-3) describes in two detailed footnote paragraphs a number of new inscriptions now entering the Philistines debate. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've put them in, but didn't know exactly where because this page has become a mess. --Zimriel (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Background in Bronze Age[edit]

This edit by User:PiCo [4] 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)

Proposal to merge with Philistia[edit]

I propose to merge this article with Philistia, given the latter appears to be a fork with very little if any different content from this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:21, 3 July 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)
  • Oppose - per Cush.GreyShark (dibra) 05:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - there is a difference, Philistia is in Palestine while Philistines are attested in Egypt and Syria too --Attar-Aram syria (talk) 09:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Majority of encyclopedias open with the Philistines being Aegean/Cretan, why not Wiki? What's the agenda here?[edit]

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.

Any ideas? Reaper7 (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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.
Oncenawhile (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
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:// 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.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

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 will bring some more sources. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hi User:Reaper7, I'm sorry you feel that way.
I wonder did you not see my edit earlier today [5] 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.
Oncenawhile (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
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:

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

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.
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
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.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
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).
Oncenawhile (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
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:
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 (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
@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).
To put it another way, what modern scholarship shows is that if the bible was not known, this article would not exist. In archaeology there are only 5 known Peleset references in the contemporary Egyptian archaeological record, 7 known Palastu references in the contemporary Mesopotamian archaeological record, and no equivalent references to Philistines or similar in the contemporary Levantine archaeological record. Unfortunately these 5+7 references tell us very little in the absence of the bible - you can read the primary translations for yourself if you don't believe the modern scholars I referenced.
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".
Oncenawhile (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
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[edit]

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.

--Tritomex (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal.
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.
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • 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 [6] The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment edited by Eliezer D. Oren (a specialist who wrote the stuff at the link), [7](Yasur-Landau, already mentioned), [8] 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[9] 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? (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)


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. (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Philistine is or isn't Palestine?[edit]

"Palestine" in Arabic is فلسطين (as in the name of this newspaper, 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. (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)
It's not that simple. At Timeline_of_the_name_"Palestine"#Biblical_references it is explained that in the original Greek Bible, a different Greek word was used to denote Philistines vs. the contemporary Greek word for Palestine. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

First sentence POV ?[edit]

"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[edit]

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.
By the way I think you are accidentally tagging your edits as minor. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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.
Oncenawhile (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
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.
--Zimriel (talk) 15:01-16:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
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)

I'm not sure how it can, since the archaeological evidence might not be relevant. --Zimriel (talk) 03:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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...

Oncenawhile (talk) 21:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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_Monitor 20:35, 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.)[1] 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_Monitor 02:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  • "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_Monitor 12:12, 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_Monitor 23:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I read as far as

Edomites), and Moabites did not exist in Canaan at that time

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)

There's no such thing as "Edomites/Shasu". What we know about the Shasu is that they were Semitic pastoral nomads associated with YHWH in Southern Syria and the Sinai. As your own source says, "Scholars differ in identifying the origin and identity of the Shasu... Because the Egyptian sources report the Shasu from vast tracts of the southern Levant, it can be assumed that they were not an ethnic group tied to only one specific region. Rather, the Shasu seem to represent a social class of nomads who reflect an ancient equivalent of the term Bedouin, which crosscuts different ethnic groups and relates more to a generic socioeconomic subsistence organization devoted to pastoral nomadism than to ethnicity."- assertions that they are antecedents of a specific Iron Age people in a specific geographic area are unsustainable. I see where your confusion is coming from though- in Egyptian records the Shasu are associated with the Southern Transjordan region (Edom), particularly Se'ir, which has a parallel to the Biblical account of YHVH "coming forth from Se'ir". It's been argued that the Shasu contributed to Israelite ethnogenesis, but that doesn't mean they were Israelites. Being associated with Edom doesn't mean they are Edomites- Edom is a region. "During the 8th year of Merneptah, about 1206 BCE, the term "Edom" appears for the first time"- referring of course to the region Edom, whose name predated the formation of the Canaanite people to be known as "Edomites". Recall that this source was supposed to prove that Edomites were a distinct group in the Bronze Age. It doesn't.

"If one plots the results of excavations throughout Canaan on a map, one can see the core–periphery relationship between Phoenicia and Palestine emerge over time. The richest and most technologically dynamic region was the Coastal Plain, especially Phoenicia, but also stretching south into the Philistine cities. As one moves south and east, this level of material culture gradually diminishes. At the southeast corner (the region the Bible calls Edom), one finds the least populous and least advanced region. Likewise, as one moves south and east, the date at which a region emerges into a more advanced stage of material culture grows ever later. The Cisjordan Highlands to the north of Jerusalem developed earlier than the Judean hills just to the south. In Transjordan, the region the Bible calls Ammon was advanced prior to the region called Moab, and Moab prior to Edom. It is as though a wave of cultural ascent swept over Canaan, beginning with Phoenicia and moving outward from that core. The core–periphery relationship in the Late Bronze Age was based on Egyptian imperial dominance..." First off, when this source talks about regional names in the Bible it's talking about regions- not peoples. The rest is essentially what I was getting onto. The Middle Bronze Age Levant was composed of city-states, by the start of the Late Bronze Age (15th century BCE) all were under the control of the Egyptian New Kingdom. Northern city-states had stronger central administrations which facilitated Mediterranean trade, particularly Egyptian trade. Southern Levantine city-states were numerous but weaker, and Eastern city-states weaker still and less numerous - with the Southeast (Edom) being the weakest- meaning power was not centralized in cities and society was agro-pastoralist rather than palatial (hence groups like the Shasu). This manifests as a clinal change in material culture between the north-central Mediterranean coastal "core" and the south/east "periphery". In 12th century BCE the Levantine city-state system began to collapse, as did the Egyptian New Kingdom (and lots of other places). The end of the established order allowed local populations to reconfigure and reorganize into new palatial structures, and their identities differentiated- and thus Israel, Ammon, Moab, etc came to be. You can read all about Canaanite ethnogenesis in the Iron Age here. (It's a great paper, I highly recommend it.)

"Older Egyptian mentions of Moab do not refer to a state, but to an ancient geographic area of southern Jordan, which later gave its name to the newly created territorial state of the first millennium. A difficult question is that of identifying the origin of the Moabite population, which increased significantly during the Iron Age. Considering the short distance between this region and the Arabian peninsula, we might deal here with the same population which spread through the desert areas... a characteristic element is the worship of the Moabite god Chemosh, but he does not appear in old Arabian inscriptions or names, while the cult of Kamis at Elba ca. 2300 B.C., is chronologically too distant to allow some concrete conclusions... some Biblical texts clearly connect Moab with the Midianites, and one could thus assume that the population settled in Moab around the 10th century BC originated from Midian... there seems to be a link between the two cultures, although the cult of Chemosh is not attested so far in Midian... The Kerak plateau or Moabite tableland, between Wadi al-Mugib (Arnon) in the north and Wadi al-Hasa (Zered) in the south, constitutes the original territory of Moab. Its obvious center is Kerek, the ancient capital" (he's referring to Hareseth which is identified with Al-Karak in Jordan, whose settlement dates to the Iron Age) Nothing in that source says Moabites existed as a distinct people in the Bronze Age. They did not.

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_Monitor 01:11, 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[edit]

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_Monitor 19:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Who says 1rr applies here? Doug Weller talk 19:59, 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_Monitor 20:16, 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 Weller talk 20:54, 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_Monitor 23:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

How did a discussion about the Philistines and their origins turn into another tedious discussion about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict? Please remain on topic and avoid politicizing ancient history. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible Plagiarism in Lead[edit]

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]
  1. ^ The Oxford History of the Biblical World
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference ngeo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ 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."
  4. ^ [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."
  5. ^ 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)

 Done. Fixed phrasing, link, and ref. Thank you for pointing this out. Dr. K. 04:05, 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)