[HN Gopher] Ancient DNA may reveal origin of the Philistines
___________________________________________________________________
Ancient DNA may reveal origin of the Philistines
Author : bryanrasmussen
Score : 64 points
Date : 2022-06-05 13:13 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nationalgeographic.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nationalgeographic.com)
| hacknat wrote:
| This was pretty much settled long ago according to pot sherd,
| architectural, and textual analysis. DNA is just the final nail
| in the coffin.
| notlukesky wrote:
| Could the Greeks not be of Philistine origin?
| kurupt213 wrote:
| No, we know the Greek ethnic origin is a series of migrations
| down into the Peloponnesus from the north.
| coliveira wrote:
| 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.
| senorsmile wrote:
| The Aramaic languages didn't come from the Canaanite languages.
| Rather, they both came from a common northwest semitic language
| and are thus "cousins".
| matrix12 wrote:
| Their Amphoras gave away their origins long ago. The corruption
| of the name to "Palestine" does a disservice to the history.
| aerodog wrote:
| In the Muslim world, they are called "Philisteen" or the like.
| "Palestine" is an Anglification.
| slim wrote:
| Rome is guilty of that as well. When they invented latin, they
| transliterated greec lettet Phi to the letter P
| matrix12 wrote:
| And the Punic, Punicians who spoke a "Hebrew" when invading
| with Elephants.
| kurupt213 wrote:
| Hebrew was just one of many Semitic languages.
| coliveira wrote:
| 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.
| kurupt213 wrote:
| This isn't surprising, the eastern shore of the Mediterranean was
| a series of Greek settlements...even during the late phase of the
| Bronze Age.
| Archelaos wrote:
| > The Philistines were likely of Greek origin
|
| 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.
| AprilArcus wrote:
| 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.
| wumpus wrote:
| How can you tell why people downvote?
| Veen wrote:
| > patriarchal grievance culture revanchism
|
| That's a new one for the left-wing academia bingo card.
| AprilArcus wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| Archelaos wrote:
| 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.
| Veen wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| dc-programmer wrote:
| 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.
| Archelaos wrote:
| 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
| naive, 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.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| 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.
| Veen wrote:
| 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.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/ancient-d...
|
| [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax0061
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we've changed to that from
| https://greekreporter.com/2022/05/18/philistines-greek/.
| Thanks!
| matrix12 wrote:
| Read Herodotus. He's very clear about western semitic peoples
| not marrying greeks for what they eat.
| gumby wrote:
| > 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.
| emporas wrote:
| 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.
| coliveira wrote:
| 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.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| 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.
| wumpus wrote:
| > If the Philistines had Greek cultural origins it explains why
| the David story involved one on one combat
|
| Don't many other unrelated cultures have one on one combat?
| kromem wrote:
| 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.
| lurquer wrote:
| If you think a shepherd fighting off rustlers was (is) a rare
| event, you know little about shepherds.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| I'm hoping it's (c) because that's the most metal choice
| hnmd wrote:
| 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.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| 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.
|
| https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/jbq-past-
| issues/2016/443-july...
|
| I will have to buy Why Homer matters.
| coliveira wrote:
| 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.
| dc-programmer wrote:
| 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).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-06-05 23:01 UTC)