Talk:Caphtor

As someone who is not an expert on the matter and simply came here to read about Capthor, this article was not helpful at all. Names of places and peoples are thrown around like grains of sand at the beach, along with scientific research , religious beliefs and personal views. After reading this, i am far more confused than before. Unfortunately, i can't offer anything to improve this. But i need to voice my frustration over this. That's an "insert you favorite theory here" kind of article. Stroumel (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

The text reads "Cyprus and Crete together were known as 'the isles of the Caphtorim'" Where is the phrase "the isles of the Caphtorim" to be found? When I read "were known as"—the passive of non-attribution—I am generally skeptical. Who "knew" the two islands as "the isles of the Caphtorim"? --Wetman 01:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I used the phrase as a paraphrase. While no one "knew" this, both isles have been cited as the Caphtorim's origin. I was attempting to show that it is possible that they both were, without original research or toe-stepping. -- Auric 06:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

"Were known as 'the isles of the Caphtorim'" normally means to suggest that they were known as the "isles of the Caphtorim". Can this misleading suggestion be improved?--Wetman 17:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I thought I was the one who added that, a long time ago, and it may well require some editing... I'll see if I can find it again, but I think my source was R.H. Charles, commenting in his footnotes on a reference to the "Islands of Kaftur" being an ancient name for Cyprus and Crete... I did also notice that Columbia Encyclopedia's online entry for 'Caphtor' reads: "(kăf`tôr), in the Bible, home of the Philistines before they migrated to Canaan. Its inhabitants are called Caphtorim. Caphtor has been identified with both Crete and Cyprus." --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • Sorry, I was sure I added that. Let that be a lesson to check the history before commenting. --Auric 04:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Surely everyone understands that one scholar's identifying Caphtor with Crete in one instance, and another's with Cyprus in another article doesn't create "isles of the Caphtorim"? Theories of Caphtor serve many purposes and attract undisciplined readers and more than their share of zanies: we should be all the more careful not to invent. --Wetman 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC) --Wetman 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The answer will be found in the Charles footnote; just give me a chance to get to a library! Unfortunately, while most of his translations are online, the accompanying footnotes are not; this is a great shame because they are the best part and are quite comprehensive... I'm pretty sure he alluded the phrase "Isles of the Caphtorim", and so if this name does appear in any older literature, his footnotes will not fail to cite it, because as I said, they are quite comprehensive! Meanwhile I will see if I can find my photocopy somewhere around here! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The assertion has been marked as needing a reference in the meantime. --Wetman 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This article needs reworking. Too tired right now, will do more tomorrow.

To Do list:

• Cover traditional identification as Cappadocia (i.e Damietta / Caphutkia in Egypt not the one in Anatolia) - Josephus, all the Aramaic Targum's, Benjamin of Tudela, even Jerome if I remember.
• Cover later confusion with Cappadocia in Anatolia.
• Cover connection with Egyptian Keftiu and Semitic Kaptara
• Cover conjectures about these being Crete and or Cyprus and subsequent dogmatic translation as Crete.

IMNHO stuff purely relating to the people called Caphtorites and what texts say about them belongs in the Caphtorites article while this Caphtor article should focus on the locality and its identification. Kuratowski's Ghost 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Caphtorites really should be merged here IMO. The two topics aren't really separable given there is little data on either one. I'll add a merge tag for discussion. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Done John D. Croft 09:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

The confident assertion here that "The name means chaplet or crown" does not even tell us what language is being adduced. Not very reassuring. --Wetman 02:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

In Hebrew the word means a knob or knob-like button. "Chaplet or crown" would be correct if referring to a knob-like structure not a crown that a person wears. No idea if the usage as a place name is older or later than this meaning. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have inserted the Amos quote, where Caphtor is unequivocally a place, and flagged the assertion that it means a knob. --Wetman 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Says who? I can understand the possible connection with the Egyptian term and I am sure that will be possible for us to find many references of scholars having made the comparison. But Mari !? By following the wikilink and searching on a map, I found that it's some less known Finno-Ugric language spoken by some 600000 speakers in some territory about 600 km east of Moscow in Russia!

This "Mari connection" was introduced by this edit. Could this have been the case of some editor (possibly with command of the aforementioned Mari language) who noticed the apparent similarity and suggested a connection? If so, that would be (blatant, in my opinion) Original Research.

Alternatively, since the term Mari was not originally a wiki link (it was made into a wikilink pointing to the aforementioned language by this anonymous edit, is it possible that something else was originally meant and this was introduced by a failure to disambiguate?

In any case I am proceeding to flag that particular bit as (possibly) {{original research}} and {{uncited}}. Unless someone justifies its inclusion within the next few days, I am subsequently going to remove it altogether. It having once been there will be obvious to future editors from this talk page anyway (should anyone find a reason to reinstate it). Contributor175 02:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorted. The Mari in question is surely the ancient city of Syria where many inscribed tablets have been found, and not the obscure modern Finnish tribe... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for sorting this out in such sort notice. Contributor175 03:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any relation to Ugarit (one of the proposed identities for the Biblical Awites, also in Syria) ?

WRONG MARI, IDIOT!!! This is the problem when dumb, disinterested people make edits about things they don't and refuse to understand. Read The Aegean Bronze age. In this context, Mari is a PLACE, *not* the PEOPLE, lunatics! Not hard to understand if you actually read ANYTHING for more than five seconds. Seriously. This is the sloppiest reading ever and not even possible for any sane person to misunderstand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.207.189 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You insist on quoting the 1979 Standard Bible Encyclopedia (a work not unknown for sloppiness and bias) to refute Strange's work published in 1980, who is the real idiot and lunatic here? Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you expand the article to explain what recent arguments have been made to refute Wainwright and Strange. The way the article stands at present it makes it look like their work is simply being ignored instead being rationally refuted. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your citations all reiterate the view established by Evans but do NOT address Wainwright or Strange's criticism of this view. These citations can be used to support claims that the equation with Crete started by Evans is widely known and considered but they cannot be used as a refutation of Wainwright and Strange! I also do not see anything in the sources saying that the Mari being referred to is the one in Cyprus and indeed this conclusion seems wrong, its talking about 18th century BCE texts, there are no texts from Cyprus dating that far back, surely this is the Mari we all know in Babylonia not an obscure Cypriot village with no known texts? Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Three comments in a row? Get help. It's sufficient to quote QUALIFIED EXPERTS with books from UNIVERSITIES stating that Caphtor = Crete. You keep on quoting fringe and bullshit. Nuff said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.207.189 (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The works being quoted _are_ peer reviewed academic publications by people who examined the subject in detail. Keep up the disruptive edits and insults and your IP addrss will be blocked. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Silencing references through IP blocks? You're seriously pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.207.189 (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

John Strange's own nutjob words: "But in view of the lower limit for the existence of Caphtor/Keftiu I would hesitate to identify in with Crete, if there is nothing which definitely warrants such an identification." Too bad for him that Cretan citynames following kftiw are carved in stone during Amenhotep III. There's nothing to debate because Keftiu is 'Crete' with _100%_ certainty. John Strange is an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.207.189 (talk) 10:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

And the point you miss is that it is not agreed that the inscription is saying that these names identified as places in Crete are in Keftiu as opposed to merely being listed as places in addition to Keftiu.

Additionally the equation of Keftiu and Caphtor is not as certain as the current version of the article claims, Keftiu has also been explained as a native Egyptian word meaning "behind" and that not all places called Keftiu need be the same. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Some points which can serve as basis for reworking the section of the identification of Caphtor:

1. The term "Caphtorim" is used in the Hebrew Bible as a name for an ethnic division of the Egyptian nation and it occurs in a list of other ethnic divisions constituting the Egyptians. The article should state this clearly, it is not some 19th or 20th century hypothesis that they came form Egypt, its part of the way the term is used in the primary source. Modern(ist) conjectures claiming that they were something other than an Egyptian people are thus in conflict with the actual usage of the term in the primary source.
2. Although the Bible does not tell us the location of Caphtor, the traditional understanding of the term is preserved in the Aramic Targums which translate the name as Caphutkia (=Pelusium in Egypt) and reafirmed independantly by the later writer Benjamin of Tudela.
3. The translation of the term as Cappadocia or similar although normally the name of a region of Anatolia was recognized already in John Gill's commentary as relating to the Aramaic Caphutkia for Pelusium and not a reference to the place in Anatolia.
4. With John Gill we also find an attempt to relate this to the locality Coptus in Egypt which the article currently hardly mentions. This identification was popular in the 19th century but is erroneous as a) Coptus is known to be a different locality to Caphutkia/Pelusium contrary to Gill's claim and b) it is a late Latin name derived from Arabic Qubt itself deriving from Aegyptus and thus the similarity to Caphtor is coincidental.
5. Identification with Crete arose out of attempts to find mention of the Minoan civilization in the Bible and some highly speculative arguments starting with Evans and is not supported by any hard evidence.
6. Wainwright and Strong demolish the identification with Crete and cited articles currently in the article which continue to make the equation with Crete do not address their arguments.
7. Wainwright's own identification with Cilicia was influenced by the mistaken understanding of Cappadicia and was criticized by Strong and others.
8. Strong's identification with Cyprus is itself not mainstream, mainstream view is that Kittim in the Table of Nations is Cyprus and this goes back to an explicit identification made by Josephus, although that is a complex subject in its own right.
9. Finkelstein and others have argued solely from archaeological evidence that the Philistines i.e Caphtorites came to Canaan from Egypt (while recognizing that they may have had earlier origins amongst the Sea Peoples) and this evidence of a migration from Egypt accords with the usage of the term in the Bible for a divsion of the Egyptian people.

Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another point, Josephus speaks of the Caphtorim as one of the Egyptian states destroyed in a war with Ethiopia, again confirming that the term was well understood to be the name of an Egyptian people and indeed one which only existed in ancient times, it was not the Hebrew name for Crete or Cyprus. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 08:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

A further point, the Ugaritic k-p-t-r occurs in a parallelism with the name H-k-p-t recognized as referring to a region in Egypt. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Another fact showing that the matter of identifying Keftiu is really not as straightforward as POV pushers would have us believe, the form akupitiyo is found in a Cretan Linear B inscription referring to believe it or not, not Crete but a locality in Egypt! 20:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

)

GeŢi(Romania=GeŢia) GoTS (germans) SCyTians... oSCi(Italy) HiTTiTe...(from Anatolia=country of Nod?...Keftiu=Cush?) euSKaDi=baSQues-GaSCones(Spain-France)...oCCiTan(aQuiTania-France) SKanDi...navia... JuTes... SCoT...land Giza...Gaza... KurDS...(Kurdistan)... GruZi(georgians in Caucasus Mountains)... oSSeTians-yaZyGeS(Caucasus mountains)... Had enough? Eurasia and N.Africa(GeTuLi, CopTeS) are full with GeTai (dogs-wolfs) EUROPEAN-"pelasgian" tribes/nations... Same 2 groups of consonants: C-G-H and T-D-Z-S...various combinations give these names... but I'm sticking with Josephus Flavius... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigshotnews (talk • contribs) 23:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

PiCo please stop reverting the addition of sourced material simply because you don't like it. The earlier version of the article was a confused mess. I am slowly trying to address various topics such as what tradition actually says, what the various archaeological references really say about Caphtor, an honest discussion of the comparison with Keftiu (still more to add here, a paper in 2003 showed that Keftiu is in Egypt and the idea that it was in or across the sea was based on a mistranslation). I will also add a discussion of the various revisionist interpretations placing Caphtor outside Egypt (none of which have stood up to criticism). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is not an article or topic I care about, and will certainly leave it alone. However, you are not simply adding material, you are deleting wholesale and replacing with your own pov. Please consider carefully what it is you are doing. PiCo (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am mainly adding material on what tradition says and what the archaeological sources say, I will try put something in addressing all the various interpretations and the debate around them. A lot of the existing stuff did not take into account the more recent work of Vandersleyen who pointed out that the idea that Keftiu is an island in the sea derives from a mistranslation by Vercoutter and that the text in question places Keftiu in the Nile Delta. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 09:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the following paragraph from the "Traditional accounts" section:

Deuteronomy 2:23 speaks of the Caphtorites coming out of Caphtor and destroying the Philistine people called Avvites and settling in their place. The Talmud (Talmud Bavli, Chullin 60b) explains that the Avvites were the original Philistine people in the days of Abraham and that the Philistines of later times were descended from these conquering Caphtorites. This is also the understanding in Rashi's commentary. Amos 9:7 alludes to these events by speaking of the Philistines having come from Caphtor. (Genesis 10:13-14 and Chronicles I 1:12 speak of Philistines originating from the Casluhim but are here referring to the original Philistines who were later conquered by the Caphtorites.) Jeremiah 47:4 similarly speaks of the Philistines being the remnant of Caphtor and refers to the region as a coastland (Hebrew iy) ^[1].

1. In Genesis 10:13–14, the Philistines came out of Casluhim, who was from Mizraim (Egypt).

2. In the Deuteronomy 2:20–23 parenthetical, Philistines are not mentioned. The Avims, who were a race of the giants, were dwelling between Egypt and Azzah(Gaza) to the northeast. Some of the Caphtorims displaced the Avims and dwelt in the country along the coast, southwest of Gaza, which was the southern bound of the land of the Philistines.

3. Although Jeremiah appears in the Bible before Amos, in chronological order Amos prophesied in the days of Uzziah, but Jeremiah prophesied later, from Josiah to the dispersion.

4. The passage in Amos 9:7 was after Tiglath-pilezer took the Syrians of Damascus captive and settled them in Kir (2Kings 16:9), and the captive Philistines were settled in the country of Caphtor. The same LORD that brought Israel out of Egypt, also later brought out the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir in Amos 9:7.

5. Jeremiah 47:4 deals with those Philistines that were the restored remnant of the country of Caphtor, that the LORD had brought out. They were not "of" Caphtor originally, but descended from Casluhim.

Attempts to equate Caphtor with Crete or Cyprus are vain.
Telpardec (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Kuratowski's Ghost has clearly violated WP:OWN in this article. The original article, which ascribed the location as probably Crete or Cyprus, is all but gone. To recap:

• 2006: The article before he first edited it vs. his version
• 2006-2009: Several edits showing a similar claim on the article, changing wording and adding/removing content often to change its tone considerably: 1, 2, 3, 4
• 2009-2010: An extremely long edit conflict between KG and an IP that lasted 75 edits
• 2010: Most considerably, a series of 80 edits by KG that changed the article from this to this.

Relatively little has changed in the 6 years since then, with the article still heavily leaning towards the Biblical version (or, as KG calls it, "traditional") while describing modern scholarly efforts as merely "alternative" or "non-traditional" and putting them at the end of the article. I have no idea how to fix such a huge bias. It's important to at least have it noted here, though. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the "Traditional accounts" section, the last sentence is "The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 37:5 (page 298 in the 1961 edition of Maurice Simon's translation) says that the "Caphtorim were dwarfs".[7] However Goliath, is a giant Philistine warrior."

1. Initially I did not know what Midrash Rabbah was, it might be a good idea to link to Midrash Rabbah or Genesis Rabbah
2. Genesis 37:5 is about Joseph's dream of becoming greater than his brothers. No mention of Caphtor. If the Genesis Rabbah is broken down in the same way as the bible, but the subsections do not align, then the sentence should clearly reflect that "37:5" belongs to the Genesis Rabbah and not Genesis itself.
3. "However Goliath, is a giant Philistine warrior." The comma is in the incorrect place. Also, this sentence doesn't make sense anymore after the edits listed above (Philistines were captives) had removed the part about Philistines after the time of Abraham being from Caphtor.

Wcichello (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Accounts from the city state of Mari call the island of Crete "Kaptara" (Wikipedia Link (see sited source also)). I cross referenced with the German Wikipedia's Keftiu and it says that Egyptian sources call it names like Keftiu, Keft, Keftu, Kaftu, Kafta, Keftdet, and Keftyu, the Akkadians called the island Kaptaritum, the Ugarit called it Kptwr or Kptr, and the Mykenaeans likely called it "Kapte", but I can't access the source for that last one. Lastly, there is the phonetic connection; the Minoans were major trade partners with the Egyptians and Pelusium was a major port town, so having a lot of foreign traders there wouldn't be uncommon. It's likely that the original author heard about them through Egyptian sources and misunderstood who they were, explaining the similarities to the Egyptian version of the name (both use a labial fricative as opposed to the other Semitic languages which all seem to use a labial plosive). smoltran (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply