What the article doesn't mention is that the Israelites are not much different from philistines either. They used the same language (a variant of Canaanite language that later would become Aramaic), had the same gods (as is attested even by the bible), and shared/fought for the same areas. The Israelite group only diverged from the general population of Canaan much later, after their leaders came back from Persia and founded the classical version of the judaic culture and religion in Jerusalem.
A hypothesis I've been developing over the past few years in light of that emerging archeological picture is that the Exodus narrative was a sea peoples story appropriated by the Israelites after the sea peoples alleged settlement and relocation in Palestine in the 12th century BCE by Ramses III.
A number of stories in the Biblical account which have no archeological evidence as occurring for the Israelites have similar events well attested for the sea peoples, including:
Judges 18 has the descendents of Moses as priests for Dan; the Karatepe bilingual and Çineköy inscription both have a "House of Mopsus" as the ancestral lineage for the leaders of the Denyen in Adana (the Denyen have also been connected to Dan)
Sea peoples "without foreskins" battling against Merneptah at the battle of the Nile (see Libyan war inscriptions regarding the captives) vs the second circumcision in Joshua 5:2 immediately following an exodus from Egypt (where partial circumcision leaving the foreskin was practiced)
There's no evidence of the described conquest of ancestral homeland taking place in Canaan per Joshua, but there's considerable evidence of conquest of Mediterranean sites by sea peoples best summed up by the Cypriot response to the fall of Ugarit: "As for the matter concerning these enemies: (it was) the people from your country (and) your own ships (who) did this!"
No evidence of Samson (with similar features to the mythical Hercules) or the Israelites conquering Ashkelon, but considerable evidence (i.e. OP study) of Anatolian or Aegean sea people doing so in the 12th century BCE (where Xanthus placed Mopsus as conqueror).
You even have the Lukku, one of the tribes fighting Merneptah, as one of an explicit 12 groups of tribes brought into captivity by Ramses II following the battle of Kadesh.
This picture even emerged in antiquity following the comparing of notes between Egypt, the Greeks, Anatolia, and the Jews in the wake of Alexander's conquest, from Atrapanus of Alexandria claiming Moses had taught mysteries to Orpheus (the Thracian poet and shipmate of Mopsus), or the Jewish author of book 3 of the Sybiline Oracles claiming the kingdom of Solomon included a number of Anatolian tribes.
The Aramaic languages didn't come from the Canaanite languages. Rather, they both came from a common northwest semitic language and are thus "cousins".
> This "uncircumcised" group is described in several passages as coming from the "Land of Caphtor" (modern-day Crete) before taking control of the coastal region of what is now southern Israel and the Gaza Strip.
This is interesting because the appellation “Adonai” appears likely to have been an import via Phoenician colonization of Crete, where there was a god (Adonis) who could not be referred to by name but only by epithet.
Actually i took that for granted that they were Greeks for many years. I didn't know that it was not settled. Their name is a Greek name, and their tribe was a small tribe if i recall correctly. Many archaeological evidence of their origin is lost, and the evidence was not so much to begin with, anyway. Their origin was connected to other small tribes, and it was complicated but i will research it in the future.
In fact the Philistine are known to have entered in conflict with the egipcians as a group of "sea people". These people were defeated by the egyptians and removed to the area of Canaan that later became known as Philistine, which is exactly the same name as Palestine, indicating that they were recognized as a people up to as late as in the Roman empire.
I’ve read / heard various interpretations on the relationship/lack of of The Philistines and The Palestinians.
The main one being, that original Philistines are not modern-day Palestinians, yet the etymology of the name seems to have its roots.
The alternative etymology is that Palestinian literally translates to παλαιστής in Greek which means "fighter" and in Turkish (the π/μπ sound is written and pronounced as b, so Balestinian where a Balesti is also a fighter in Turkish).
I’ve also heard/read that The Philistines were individuals (possibly some type of proto-Greeks) that were essentially outcasted and banished from Crete and other Aegean States as they were problem individuals, à la Australia? So thieves, liars, shillers, connivers, etc. Which ultimately settled in modern-day Gaza/Israel.
Last year, there were new scrolls discovered that were dated as BC and contained the contents of some of the most important books in The Torah and written in Ancient Greek - where the Hebrew texts of these books were discovered much much later as in centuries later.
There’s also the mystery of that whole area where the scrolls were discovered that were for the last part of the century closed off from further archeological studies and excavation (orders from the State of Israel) which has always puzzled historians and archeologists. As if, to avoid rewriting any history as has been written or further disprove / prove any claims individuals have long argued for.
Now that the site is back to being open (I think) for such further explorations, maybe we’ll get more truths / alternative histories. I once heard from local Cretans that back in the post WWII era, there had been Israeli divers that found Hebraic potteries/treasures off the Cretan coast that had looked aged, but ultimately were found to have been planted and staged a few decades earlier.
Again, never confirmed any of this, so it’s all here-say, but there’s definitely some forces that are or have been trying to keep certain truths and facts well-hidden out there.
> There’s also the mystery of that whole area where the scrolls were discovered that were for the last part of the century closed off from further archeological studies and excavation
Why is that surprising? Given the topic, some enduring Philistinism is only to be expected.
It's the other way around, hebrew is just a derivative of the language spoken by the Phoenicians, also closely related to the Aramaic that became the common language over that whole area. Hebrew was, for a long time, just a cerimonial language used by the jewish religion.
The Goliath Wikipedia section “Goliath and the Greeks” adds color to this theory. If the Philistines had Greek cultural origins it explains why the David story involved one on one combat (a motif in Greek myths). And a Greek etymology of the name Goliath explains its apparent non-Semitic origins.
You can see the other side of the "sheepherder kills elite pre-Greek warrior" story in the Argonautica book 4 verse 1485-1500:
> On pasturing flocks didst thou light; and there followed a shepherd who, in defence of his own sheep, while thou weft leading them off to thy comrades in their need, slew thee by the cast of a stone
In this story it's in the desert of North Africa vs Palestine and isn't a dual.
But either (a) sheepherders were killing elite pre-Greek warriors regularly with the cast of a stone, (b) one story influenced the other's existence while somehow having little to no other shared details or attribution, or (c) an event like that may have actually occurred and left a lasting impression on both sides, which over time morphed into their respective versions in each group identity, woven into broader events.
If anyone is interested in this idea, Adam Nicolson spends a few entertaining pages covering the story of Goliath in his book Why Homer Matters. He makes an argument that the Goliath story is basically a satirical take on the battle scenes in the Iliad.
Your comment piqued my interest and I found this JBL (not sure what their reputation is) article making a case for a surprisingly amount of Biblical intertextuality with Homer. I was familiar with the influence of the Hellenistic culture in the area but had no idea that Homer could have had reach pre-Alexander.
It all depends on when you believe the old testament was written. Some people think it is later than traditionally thought (at least the final composition). This final composition may have happened after Alexander time, when greek culture was already well know over that area.
That’s a good point, and actually was wondering about the timeline of events after I posted. A post Alexander authorship (or enhancements) makes more logical sense.
I think the argument in favor of a more contemporaneous date would that the Hebrews would have to remember the Greek connection hundreds of years later, long after the Philistines became Canaanized. Also I think I remember Judges and Samuel (referenced in article) are among the oldest books in the Bible (don’t know Jewish name for these set of books).
I’m not sure. I can’t think of other instances like this in the Bible off the top of my head though. The significance of its inclusion is to show that Saul was not chosen by God to lead Israel, but rather David. By Occam’s razor, this explains its inclusion not any adjacency to a Mycenaeanesque Greek civilization.
It’s a cool theory though, and the circumstantial evidence is there. Which is why I shared
The headline is chauvinistic. Females and Middle East locals do not seem to count.
> The DNA study shows that the European DNA of the Philistines disappeared within 200 years, most likely because they intermarried widely, and their genetic signature was diluted within the local population.
In other words: The Philistines primarily were of local origin. There were a few people from the Aegean (I shy away from calling them "Greeks" at that early time) that contributed to the gene pool.
To use a historical analogy: According to the evidence presented, the Philistines seem to be as much of Greek origin as Southern Italians are of Viking descent. -- Such a characterisation would not be completely wrong, but would neglect everything else, which is much more.
Yes, it would probably be better if this linked to the National Geographic article [0] or the original study [1]. The current Greek Reporter link is a rewrite of the NG article.
Even the Greek Reporter article says that "the origins of the European genes are inconclusive" (sic):
>> While the origins of the European genes are inconclusive, experts have determined that they were most likely from Greece, Crete, Sardinia, or the Iberian peninsula.
I'm Greek (though not a reporter) and I have to say that the constant attempt to pin a "Made in Greece" sign on basically every ancient site or people around the Mediterrannean (and much further afield) is extremely frustrating.
I think your sentiment is both right and wrong. There is scientific benefit to tracing the origins because it can help solve mysteries such as identifying which language family their tongue fell under. Also evidence of this type of cultural migration helps explain similarities in the material culture of the Greeks and Philistines.
But yes, many countries hype up the historical peoples that lived within their modern-day borders or who spoke a similar language. Now, it definitely seems like countries in the Balkans, Near East, and Caucus region are keen to jump on any genetic or archaeological result that supports their nation building project.
It was not at all my intention to critizise research about population movements in the past. To the contrary, I find it extreemly fantastic what modern science can find out here. What annoyed me in this particular case was the fact that a particular statement was given a headline that I could not help but call an aberration. It is an example of a not so uncommon narrative in popularized history that is not only naïve, but can become dangerous if it becomes dominant, such as in present-day Russia.
Perhaps people may find my complaint about this headline a bit nitpicking. But as a sort of historian by profession, such observations force themselves upon me, and I hope that HN is a place where at least a couple of people feel some affinity with a nerdy scholar.
I’ll admit I was socially primed to make a lukewarm commit due to the greying of your comment. After reading your response, I fully agree with what you are saying.
There was a recent post sharing an article trying to add nuance to popular understandings of the Viking age. The response was pretty negative. It’s sad so many people only see history as a cultural centripetal force to reinforce in-group ties.
This comment is an accurate contextualization of the report within the broader literature. It appears to have been heavily downvoted, which seems to be a matter of patriarchal grievance culture revanchism rather than informed engagement with the material. What a shame.
I'm pleased you enjoyed it. We can bandy words all we like, but it won't change the fact that we descend equally from mothers as well as fathers. By analogy, the fact that Kievan Rus' was founded by Vikings doesn't make the Russian people essentially Norse in some kind of metaphysical sense.
Oddly that doesn’t always happen. The pattern of foreign male invaders marrying local women is common, like the Vikings and Normans arriving in the UK, but Scottish people identify as Scottish and not “actually French and Scandinavian”. And even genetics websites arbitrarily decide to cluster them that way.
(23AndMe and several other sites give me 100% British despite my YDNA and mtDNA both being ~2% among typical British people.)
As the author of the initial comment, I was very surprised to see that it was downvoted. I did not expect that here on HN.
See how carefully the original Science article quoted by user Veen avoids cliches of national historiography. Here is their abstract:
"The ancient Mediterranean port city of Ashkelon, identified as 'Philistine' during the Iron Age, underwent a marked cultural change between the Late Bronze and the early Iron Age. It has been long debated whether this change was driven by a substantial movement of people, possibly linked to a larger migration of the so-called 'Sea Peoples.' Here, we report genome-wide data of 10 Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon. We find that the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature."
So a "European-related admixture" without a "long-lasting genetic signature" in the original paper becomes "likely of Greek origin" on a Web-site calling itself "Greek Reporter". How could that not be chauvinism? It is using a later national identity and projects it back to a time where it has no real meaning. This was popular 100 years ago for example with the Germans and their Germanic or the French and their Gaul ancestors, neclecting all the other influences. If we are confronted with an admixture, singling out a certain "origin" is pure ideology.
This view is so deeply incorporated into todays humanities disciplines (no matter whether a scholar tends more towards the Left or the Right in her or his political views -- a few exception might always be found, though), that I am totally buffled about the downvotes. And I know what I am talking about here, having myself an academic background in the study of European culture and history of ideas. It feels like skipping at least half a century of awarness raising in our disciplines.
Many people are quite attached to their cliches of nationalist historiography. In fact, they find it quite annoying when they are called chauvinists for believing them.
