Talk:Philistines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Philistines is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

HEJ !

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Palestina

why is here rederict from palestina? --Macronyx 21:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Palestine

why is here rederict from palestina? --Macronyx 21:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Etymology of "Philistine"

We have this recent edit:"Etymology: Though some contreversy 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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'). --Jacob Davidson —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.
--Jacob Davidson
"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.
--Jacob Davidson
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
--Jacob Davidson