Talk:Palistin

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Ancient Near East

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philistine connection proven by ceramics in 2015?

@Nishidani: Needs update. Haaretz is not a great source when it comes to archaeology, but the 21 Sept. 2015 article [1] is too strong in affirming a connection to be pushed aside as it has been so far. Or is it full of inaccuracies?

It claims that it's an accepted fact, but a) it does not indicate precisely how recent that conclusion really was, and b) never trust non-academic sources... If the 2015 Haaretz article reflects a 2015 update of the theory based on then-recent discoveries or analysis, then that is more up-to-date than the 2 books quoted as debunking the connection, which are from 2014 (Trevor Bryce) and 2013 (Ann E. Killebrew), respectively. Haaretz quotes very large quantities of locally-made Late Helladic (or Mycenean) IIIC ware, which is also a Philistine marker, and unperforated cylindrical loom weights, equally typical for the Philistine pentapolis, as the irrefutable proof for the identity of the two cultures. Who can deal with this issue? Thanks.Arminden (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I looked at this because Monochrome raised that issue about Παλαιστίνη coming from the Hebrew, and I glanced here to see how they handle the hypotheses re the former. Nothing at all. But I noted the page needs a lot of work. I noted the fuckup up about Mycenaean 111 etc, but am busy doing other articles.

There's no 'irrefutable proof' in ancient history, only just-so likelihoods, strong, or otherwise. If you want a quick overview of some of the key philological points see K. Lawson Younger Jr's book, just out. A Political History of the Arameans: From Their Origins to the End of Their Polities, SBL Press, 2016 pp.123-135 Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, as always. I found more on the Mycenaean-type IIIC ceramics on p. 131 ff of the book you indicated (A Political History of the Arameans). If a large Aegean population settled in Palistin at the same time the Sea People arrived in southern Levant, a conclusion seemeingly well based in material culture, the philological discussion over the identity or not of Philistines (with a final n) and (parts of) the population of Palistin is, in my opinion, less central; enough that the same wave of migration has brought new settlers of at least similar material culture to both areas of the Crescent. If that can be stated, it's a major step forward in giving the Philistines a clearer identity. Of course nothing is irrefutable, just Haaretz & the press at large can come up with such claims, but physical evidence is far better than hypothetical constructs. The Ashqelon cemetery, even though not from the time of the settlement, might well bring more clarity. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aegean in itself is not helpful for the simple reason that we can't be sure who the Aegeans were (what the Greeks meant by pelasgo(y)i(m)-), We're living in interesting times for this however, as both the Hellenocentric and Bible-centric paradigms collapse, meaning we have a polycentric but interconnected Mediterranean world with the Levant at the end of the Bronze Age constituting the dramatic interface where Anatolian Hittite-Luwian/Hurrian, Mycenaean-Cypriote proto-Greek, Phoenician/Aramaean/Israelitic/Canaaniter/Amorite, and Egyptian interests clash and meld. Another interesting work jusdt out which is good on summing the Anatolian-Greek connections for this period is Mary R. Bachvarova's From Hittite to Homer: The Anatolian Background of Ancient Greek Epic, Cambridge University Press, 2016 though there's nothing directly bearing there on the Philistines. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]