Talk:Philistines

Actually the bible indicates the Canaanite Hamo Semitic Origin of Philistines

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

The number of Jews

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: http://www.hirhome.com/israel/crux01.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.182.84 (talk) 14:01, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

the bible and the facts

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. --Haldrik 01:48, 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. --Haldrik 10:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so but you got a little more specific than that just above, didn't you? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:30, 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. --Haldrik 01:10, 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

--DaCunha 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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. --Haldrik 01:21, 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. --Haldrik 01:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Modern Day Philistines??

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. --Haldrik 01:56, 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)

Early Arguments

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. --Haldrik 02:37, 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. --Haldrik 02:47, 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. Wetman 15:04, 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.

Sorry, I always assume things like this to be common knowledge Gen 10:13-14 Mizraim means Egypt. Zestauferov 15:40, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Opening sentence

First sentences need to be readable. Does this example look preposterous, for instance, to an ordinary reader?

"Abraham (אברהם "Father/Leader of many", Tiberian Hebrew ʾAḇrāhām, Standard Hebrew Avraham; Arabic ابراهيم Ibrāhīm)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.

Wetman 21:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indo-europeans?

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. 66.108.145.155 11:07, 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. john k 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"

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? --Wetman 08:54, 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.

hope this helps. Dave74.4.76.57 (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't get this sentence on Plishah meaning invasion

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?Fedor 13:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The difference it makes is whether or not the word actually derives from Hebrew, or is from another source. --65.6.23.50 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Other meanings of Philistine

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. ABart26 22:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with this. --Liface 23:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Help

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.--Mullon 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing the Arabic writing from the opening section

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.--Gilisa 06:54, 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

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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedbennett (talk • contribs) 10:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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."[1] 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

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.

Telpardec (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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.'"

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm

Concerning possible links between the Philistines, Pelasgians, and Peleset mentioned in Egypt, this link gives some descriptions:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bFpK6aXEWN8C&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=pelasgians+philistines&source=web&ots=YUj2nX2b2U&sig=M8-M_t08OxEnauFp_TqoK-SXaPE&hl=en

Maps

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

"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."

Pure Zionist bullshit. Deleted. (=Pure Islamist propaganda) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.103.65 (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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/

Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem "and with the people of Gaza and Ashkelon, who were descended from the Philistines." http://www.palestine-encyclopedia.com/EPP/Chapter39_2of3.htm

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.

The irony is DNA evidence says that the majority (65%-85%) of modern day "palestinians" are descended from Jews. http://www.the-engagement.org/uploaded/the%20engagement%20short%20presentation09.pps --Historian2 (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

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?

afaik: The Philistines were originally resided by the Egyptians in Gaza to secure their influence on a neighbouring territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.137.216 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

What reason for "Philistines" spelled in Arabic?

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

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.

And since I am the map-master I will make a map for this article :-) ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

For this purpose there is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps

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

How does this sound? KoakhtzvigadMobile (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

The area I could include must be a subsection of this map (warning: large file 7200x7200 pixels, 8.06mb). The places represent only a small selection of sites in my database. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:19, 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)

Yep. Any other changes? Any cities to include/exclude ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:43, 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)

Ok. I'll do some research for accurate sources and then make a suggestion. ♆ CUSH ♆ 02:54, 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

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)

History is determined by archaeologists and historians, and not by religionists. Sorry. ♆ CUSH ♆ 01:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

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)

Surely the same information can be found in an English-language source? Just google for it. PiCo (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Not always or not in as much detail. ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of the bible as a source

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. 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. The verse in question, in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible, reads as follows:

"...w-et-patrusim w-et-kasluḥim, ˀašer yaçˀu mi-šam plištim, w-et-kaptorim."

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. This biblical passage is therefore generally interpreted as assigning Philistine origins to Egypt. 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)." 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). 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." 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. 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.

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.

Battles between Israel and the Philistines The following is a list of battles recorded in the Bible between Israel and the Philistines:

• The Battle of Shephelah
• Israel defeated at the Battle of Aphek, Philistines capture the Ark of the Covenant (1 Samuel 4:1-10) - See Eben-Ezer; Aphek)
• Philistines defeated at the Battle of Eben-Ezer (1 Samuel 7:3-14)
• Skirmish at Michmash, Philistines routed by Jonathan and his men (1 Samuel 14)
• Near the Valley of Elah, David defeats Goliath in single combat (1 Samuel 17)

+++++++++

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

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)

Philistines in the Bible

I realize that the entire section seems to be OR or SYNTH. Are there no secondary RS ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:57, 1 November 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

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.

Read more: http://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/PW/k/1183/Who-Were-Philistines.htm#ixzz1gSf1geyM Reaper7 (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

The question of origin.

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

The map "The region around 830 BC" shows a grand Israel of Biblical description and not historical reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.31.239 (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion