Talk:Peleset

If this is now agreed to just be a term for Philistines, this is a WP:content fork, and should be merged there. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Tentative agree: I am unaware of any counter-indications for identifying the Peleset and the Philistines, so I agree. However, if there's an expert opinion, I'd like to hear it. Ogress 20:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. These issues have very different scopes. This page is about fleeting literary mentions of a people that are presumed to be related to the Philistines. The topic here is not the Philistines. And the topic at that page is not fleeting literary mentions of their possible forbears. Even ignoring this objection in principle, as a functional matter, the content present here would bloat the proposed target page with fairly tangential material. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This topic is essentially a sub-topic of the subject Philistines, what they were called in a particular language, and given how short this article is is, there's not much justification for not moving it there. FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Strongly disagree. Philistines word is spelled in Hebrew, Hebrew did not yet exist, this name Peleset is spelled in egyptian hieroglyhs. Peleset refers to the first time Palestine was mentioned, before Hebrew was created. It is thus of extreme notability. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Philistine is the English translation of פלשת, which is the Hebrew of Egyptian p-l-s-t. Palestine is a much later term, derived from Palaestina, which is the Greek pronciacion which appears for the first time in Herodotus, and becomes common to describe the land in Roman times. Bolter21 (talk to me) 14:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"before Hebrew was created." How is the origin of the Hebrew language relevant to this topic?Dimadick (talk) 16:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support: Peleset and Philistines are two names for the same people. Also studies of Philistine origins refer their early mentions in Egyptian sources. Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, but what source says they are the same people? How is this defined? What does it imply? A similar population with no population movements, or just cultural continuity? Just because a name appears to maintain continuity, that does not necessarily speak to continuity in other ways. As I understand it, the evidence is somewhat scant around this period. Historians generally aligning two nodes in nomenclature should not be aggrandized into more than it is. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What source? Have you read this article? It literally says that the Peleset (PLST) are identified with the Philistines (PLSHT) Page 202 in Killebrew 2005 says: The name Peleset, translated "Philistine," occurs in conjunction with the names of several other groups of peoples referred to in modern scholarship as "Sea Peoples."23 The Philistines appear in four New Kingdom Egyptian texts. Two are attributed to the reign of Ramesses III (Medinet Habu and the Rhetorical Stela in Chapel C at Deir el-Medineh), one was composed shortly after the death of Ramesses III (Papyrus Harris I), and the fourth (Onomasticon of Amenope) dates to the end of the twelfth or early eleventh century B.C.E.

Besides, this is literally the same name... Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's the author in the context stating that they're translating "Peleset" as "Philistines"; it does not establish that there is an academic consensus on the direct equivalence of the two terms. There is one source referenced on this on the page, but it actually fails verification, mentioning nothing of what historians "generally conclude". It is also, incidentally, the same scholar, i.e.: Killebrew, so is there literally only one scholar saying this? Iskandar323 (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

No there are plenty. As far as I know, virtually all scholars identify the those mentioned in the Egyptian sources with the Philistines. I will be happy to provide a list of these sources, but I would like us to reach a consensus here. This isn't the first time I am heading to look for dozens of sources in a discussion with you. But I have access to plenty of scholarly sources. How many would be enough? Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Iskandar323: Well you didn't answer, maybe you didn't see the comment.

Here are examples from over a dozen leading scholars:

There is really no discussion here, Peleset must be moved to Philistines.

From: The World of the Philistines and Other “Sea Peoples” by Ann E. Killebrew and Gunnar Lehmann in The Philistines and Other "Sea Peoples" in Text and Archaeology 2013, p. 1:

...the somewhat misleading term “Sea Peoples” encompasses the ethnonyms Lukka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Teresh, Eqwesh, Denyen, Sikil/Tjekker, Weshesh, and Peleset (Philistines)

This is an introduction to a book that has chapters written by Itamar Singer, Trude Dothan, David Ben-Shlomo, Tristan J. Barako, Aren Maeir and others.

In Barako's chapter "Philistines and Egyptians in Southern Coastal Canaan during the Early Iron Age" he writes (p.37):

...William F. Albright (1930–1931, 58) and Albrecht Alt (1953) first formulated the traditional paradigm, whereby Egypt settled the Philistines in garrisons within Canaan, based primarily on a brief notice contained in Papyrus Harris I, 76.7–8: "I slew the Denyen in their islands, while the Tjeker and the Philistines were made ashes. The Sherden and the Weshesh of the Sea were made nonexistent, captured all together and brought in captivity to Egypt like the sands of the shore. I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name." (John A. Wilson in ANET 262)

This translation of Papyrus Harris I, which is listed in our article, translates Peleset to Philistines. So you could also add John A. Wilson (Egyptologist) and William F. Albright and Albrecht Alt.

In the book "“I Will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar on the Occasion of His Sixtieth Birthday" Vol 1", 2006, there's an article by Susan Sherratt called "The Chronology of the Philistine Monochrome Pottery: An Outsider’s View". There it says in p. 361:

At first, this pottery was regarded as evidence of an earlier wave of seaborne (“Sea Peoples”) invaders preceding the arrival of the Philistines, themselves long identified with the Peleset of the Medinet Habu inscriptions and thought of as settling in Canaan immediately after the events of Year 8 of Ramesses III’s reign (T. Dothan 1982: 289–95; 1983; 1989).

Another article in that book, by Lawrence E. Stager, called, has the following in p.378:

The Bible, Egyptian texts of the 12th century bce, and archaeology suggest that the Philistines/Peleset were foreigners in the Levant

In the book Nomads of the Mediterranean: Trade and Contact in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Studies in Honor of Michal Artzy Edited by Ayelet Gilboa Assaf Yasur-Landau, there's an article by Aleydis Van de Moortel where she writes in p. 319-320:

Already in the late nineteenth century scholars had used etymological arguments to link the Sherden/Shardana with Sardinia, Lukka with Lycia, Ekwesh/ Aqajawasha with Achaea, Teresh/Tursha with Tyrsenoi (Etruscans), Shekelesh/ Sikala with Sicily, and Peleset with the biblical Philistines and Aegean Pelasgoi (Yasur-Landau 2010: 180). Some of these identifications have gained greater credibility as more written sources and archaeological evidence have become available. So, it is now widely accepted that the Lukka were the Bronze Age Lycians, whereas the Peleset settled in Philistia, and at least some of the Shardana appear to have moved to Sardinia

In the book The Land of Canaan in the Late Bronze Age, 2016, Edited by Lester L. Grabbe, there as an article written by him called "Late Bronze Age Palestine: If we had only the Bible …". In p. 29 he write:

The Philistines were one of the components of the Sea Peoples who migrated from the wider Aegean area in the late second millennium BCE. As C. Ehrlich (1996: 9–13; cf. also Morris 2005: 694–707) indicates, there are two main interpretations (depending heavily on the Medinet Habu inscriptions and other documents but also bringing archaeological data into the question). The ‘maximalist’ interpretation argues that Ramesses III fought a coalition of Sea Peoples (Peleset [Philistines], Sherden, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen, Tresh and Weshesh) in both sea and land battles, defeated them and forced (or allowed) them to settle in fortresses and cities in the Palestinian (Philistine) coastal plain (Dothan and Ben-Shlomo 2013). This would have been in his eighth year (roughly 1175 BCE). This view is still found in much of secondary literature.

Further in an article called "Canaan in the Transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age from an Egyptian Perspective" by Meindert Dijkstra he writes in p. 59:

In the distant mirror of time the many tribal groups who terrorized the Mediterranean shores have been condensed into one ‘people’, the Peleshet, the Philistines from one origin: Crete

In a third article in that book, called "The Archaeology of the Late Bronze Age in Palestine" by Eveline van der Steen, she writes in p. 173:

...At the same time, from the west, over the sea and along the north coast, came the only totally new population groups to settle in the region in the Early Iron Age: the Sea Peoples, and in the Palestinian coastlands particularly, the Peleset or Philistines. The Peleset would eventually give their name to the country. The Peleset have been accused of starting the decline in Palestine, in the thirteenth century, but it seems that they entered a country that was already in decline. Analysis of settlement patterns in the coastal area shows a decline in some cities, such as Lachish, but a rise of other cities, particularly those that later became part of the Philistine ‘pentapolis’: Ashkelon, Asdod, Gaza, Gath and Ekron (Killebrew 2005: 207–8).

In the book Inhabiting the Promised Land: Exploring the complex relationship between archaeology and Ancient Israel as depicted in the Bible, 2019 by Margreet L. Steiner, in the chapter "In search of … Goliath and the Philistines", she writes in p. 54:

On the Medinet Habu inscriptions the Philistines (Peleset) are mentioned several times, in combination with other peoples.

In the book, THE PHILISTINES AND THEIR MATERIAL CULTURE 1982, by Trude Dothan, in p. 3-4 she writes:

The Onomasticon of Amenope... records a number of peoples, lands, and cities. Three ethnic groups, the Sherden (srdn), the Tjekker (tkr), and the Pelesti (prst)-the Philistines-are listed, together with Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Gaza, cities situated in the territory controlled by the Philistines. Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Disagree; I don't think that the two articles need to merge. This article has a very specific scope which is the elusive Peleset people as they are documented in the ancient Egyptian records. Despite the fact that the general consensus identifies them with the Philistines (which I don't disagree with), the topic of this article is still notable enough to stand on its own. The article has a decent size and covers information that the main article does not cover. Even if we were to move all of the information there, the main article would become even larger and harder to navigate. I believe this article is not a useless fork, but actually serves a purpose. Piccco (talk) 11:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What information does this article cover that isn't covered in the main article? What purpose does this article serve? Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It mentions the exact Egyptian records where the Peleset people are documented. The subsection The "Peleset" from Egyptian inscriptions in the Philistines article doesn't seem to cover the topic with so much detail. The subsection is very concise and it makes sense, since for more information we have this article instead. It is also not the only case where a group of people has a main article and another one that discusses the same people as they are documented in specific sources, for example Achaeans (tribe) and Achaeans (Homer) etc. As long as the article unambiguously mentions the identification of Peleset with the Philistines and links to the main article, there can't be any confusion, I believe. Piccco (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. I see no problem in having the Philistines article incorporate any additional information from this one.

2. I don't believe Achaeans are an appropriate example, since once it is used for all of the Greeks, and once it is used only for a small section.

3. The Philistines as an historiographical-archaeological entity are comprised of the mentions in the Bible, the Egyptian sources, later Assyrian/Babylonian sources and the archaeology of the southern Levantine coast throughout the Iron Age - primarily Gaza, Ekron, Gath, Ashkelon and Ashdod. If this article should be kept, which I believe it shouldn't, it would be better described as "Philistines in Egyptian sources", or something like that. To separate Peleset from Philistine makes the false notion that these are different entities, which they are most probably not. Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I'm still satisfied with the articles being separate, as I said in my previous comments, but I wouldn't necessarily disagree with a rename, as you suggested; "Philistines in Egyptian records" or something like that, with "Peleset" redirecting here. Although a bit wordy, if it accrurately discribes the article's contents and others find it appropriate, I believe it could work. Piccco (talk) 09:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well I think there is no reason to have a separate article on Philistines in Egyptian sources. We don't have a separate article called Frankreich to describe France in German sources. Bolter21 (talk to me) 06:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe this is because there hasn't been any questioning about who the German sources were referring to when they spoke about the "Frankreigh", as it is pretty self-evident. These aren't elusive ancient records and we wouldn't need scientific consensus to tell us that the Germans spoke about the French. To be honest, I don't have a very strong opinion about it and I wouldn't really care if the articles ended up merging, if that was the consensus; I responded that way because it seemed to make more sense to me. If they ended up merging, I just believe that we would perhaps have to move some of the contents there. Piccco (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is true that the Philistines are elusive, as are most people in ancient times. The Philistines are elusive as well. But as I've shown above, there is a broad scholarly consensus that the Peleset and Philistines are the same thing, as an an ethnonym. There are other mentions of Philistines except the bible and Egyptian sources, in other Near Eastern records. No one as far as I know make any distinction between Peleset and Philistines. The question of who were they, what was their identity and origin, how their society looked like - these are the more elusive matters. And yes, a merge would definately mean moving some information to the Philistines article. Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with the move. It hasn't been proven that the Philistines are the Peleset yet, so until it is I think it should stay here.

--ISometimesEatBananas (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply