PHILISTINES fĭ lĭs’ tĭnz, fĭl’ ə stənz,—stīnz (פְּלִשְׁתִּ֔ים, meaning uncertain). A warlike people of Aegean origin who occupied a territory in southwestern Pal. known as Philistia. Their period of greatest importance was 1200-1000 b.c. when they were the principal enemy of ancient Israel.

I. Name. The Heb. for Philistine, פְּלִשְׁתִּי, H7149, is an ethnic adjective derived from the territorial designation Philistia, פְּלֶ֫שֶׁת, H7148. It is from there that the modern name “Palestine” derives. The name is found also in Egyp. records from the eighth year of Ramses III (c. 1188 b.c.) as prst (hieroglyphic using r for 1) and in Assyrian texts as Pilisti and Palastu. Since there is no good Sem. etymology for the word, it may be of Indo-European origin.

Another name given to the Philistines in the OT is “the uncircumcised,” a term of derision (Judg 15:18; 1 Chron 10:4; etc.). Since they are the only people of Israel’s neighbors referred to in this way, it may be inferred that they were unique in this respect. This conclusion is supported by the fact that Jeremiah says Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Egypt all practiced circumcision (Jer 9:25, 26).

II. Origin. The origin of the Philistines and their cultural affiliations before arriving in Pal. are still imperfectly understood. It has long been assumed that the Philistines came from somewhere in the Aegean area. The primary evidence for this comes from the Bible, Egyp. records, and archeological finds. According to the Bible, the Philistines came from Caphtor (Jer 47:4; Amos 9:7; cf. Gen 10:14; Deut 2:23; 1 Chron 1:12) which is generally thought to be Crete. The Cretan origin is supported by the term “Cherethites,” a name prob. meaning “Cretans” and used in reference to the Philistines or a part of them. 1 Samuel 30:14 refers to part of the Philistine coast as the “Negeb of the Cherethites.” In Ezekiel 25:16 and Zephaniah 2:5, 6 the Philistines and Cherethites are used in parallelism. Elsewhere, the Cherethites are part of David’s personal bodyguard (2 Sam 15:18, etc.) and prob. were recruited from the Philistines while David was at Ziklag. Egyptian records refer to a nebulous group of “Sea People” who were invaders coming from islands in the N. These “Sea People” caused a tremendous upheaval in the ancient Near E at the end of the Late Bronze Age (c. 1200 b.c.). They caused the downfall of the Hittites and the destruction of the Hitt. capital city, Hattusas, as well as the end of Ugarit. They attacked Egypt during the reigns of Merneptah and Ramses III. Ramses III describes how he successfully repulsed them, though no other land could stand before them (ANET 262, 263). Ramses III lists several groups who made up the “Sea People.” Only the Philistines who settled in the southwestern coast of Pal. and the Tjeker who lived in Dor, according to the Egyp. story of Wenamon (11th cent. b.c.), can be identified. At least some of the “Sea People” came from the Aegean area, but whether the Philistines passed through Crete as part of the Sea People migration or whether they originally lived in Crete cannot be determined with certainty. Finally, the Philistine pottery and other Philistine archeological finds are mainly of Mycenaean (not Minoan) derivation, blended with several other elements. (See Material Culture below.) It can be concluded safely, therefore, that the Philistines came through the Aegean area or originated there.

III. Territory. Philistia, or the land of the Philistines, was a narrow coastal plain in southwestern Pal., extending from Joppa to just S of Gaza. It contained heavy alluvial soil, except for sand dunes along the immediate coast, and was extremely fertile. Since it lacked hills and mountains, in contrast with the rest of the country, land routes naturally passed through here. These virtues combined with coastal cities on the Mediterranean made Philistia one of the richest and most desirable regions in the country.

Five key cities constituted the Philistine pentapolis, but only Ashkelon was located directly on the coast. Therefore, it was the main Philistine harbor. Both Gaza and Ashdod had their own ports, but were slightly removed from the coast because of the sand dunes. The other two cities, Gath and Ekron, were further inland.

IV. History. The first mention of the Philistines in the Bible comes in the patriarchal narratives. Both Abraham and Isaac had dealings with a king of the Philistines named Abimelech of Gerar. This mention of the Philistines has generally been considered an anachronistic retrojection by a later writer or editor, since it is held that the Philistines did not migrate to Canaan until about 1200 b.c. However, if we were dealing with an anachronism, we would expect that the territory and character of the earlier Philistines would not have been changed. Yet these earlier Philistines lived in the area of Beersheba instead of along the Mediterranean coast; they were ruled by a king instead of five lords; and they were generally peaceful—not the principal enemy of Israel. It is better, therefore, to consider the patriarchal traditions about the Philistines as an accurate account of a historical situation. Admittedly, no specific extra-Biblical evidence can substantiate this conclusion yet. Early Aegean trade and migration to the E may have been responsible for bringing an Aegean colony to the area of Beersheba. The term “Philistine” may then have already been in use in the patriarchal period to describe this Aegean colony.

Ramses III of Egypt claims to have repulsed the Philistines and other Sea People in his eighth year (c. 1188 b.c.). Yet his victory must have been only a partial one, because in the 12th and 11th centuries b.c., Philistine colonies lived in the Nile Delta and in Egypt’s southern frontier in Nubia. Those Philistines who settled in Canaan must have had the approval of Egypt, who controlled Canaan at this time. In fact, they may have been the vassals of Ramses III or been hired by him as mercenaries and placed strategically where they would protect his interests. This would explain the situation at Beth-shan where the Philistines carefully preserved important objects installed by an Egyp. garrison in the temple.

Most of the Philistines settled in southwestern Canaan. This area was occupied by the Canaanites at that time. The Philistine “invasion” should not be considered a mass movement of people who wiped out the former Canaanite population and culture. Rather, the Philistines subjugated the Canaanite population but lost their own culture and absorbed the Canaanite culture in the process. They set up five key cities, all of which had a native Canaanite population, except possibly Ekron, which the Philistines may have founded. Uncontent to remain near the coast, they began to expand into adjacent areas. The first notice of them in the Bible as the principal enemy of Israel comes in the days of Samson (Judg 13-16), about the beginning of the 11th cent. b.c. By this time they already controlled at the least the tribes of Dan and Judah (Judg 14:4; 15:11). Pressured by the Philistine expansion, the tribe of Dan moved to the N (Judg 18:11, 29). The political organization of Philistia, in contrast to the tribal disorganization of Israel, and their superior material culture, including iron weapons (1 Sam 13:19-22), allowed them to continue their expansion rapidly until Israel was surrounded. Obviously their goal was the conquest of the whole country. During Eli’s time, Israel resisted the Philistine advance unsuccessfully at Ebenezer. This defeat allowed the Philistines to capture the Ark and the city of Shiloh, the center of Israel’s worship at that time. Though there was a brief success in Samuel’s day (1 Sam 7:7-14), the Philistine power was not broken. In fact, the Philistines were able to establish garrisons at strategic points within Israel’s territory (1 Sam 10:5; 13:3ff., 23). This action forced a reaction by Israel. She suffered from lack of political unity, and consequently could not effectively cope with the Phil istines. The result was the movement toward a monarchy and the election of Saul as the first king. Though initially successful, Saul had his problems as the well-known story of Goliath indicates. David’s increasing popularity gained at the expense of Goliath and the Philistines drove Saul beyond the bounds of rational behavior. Saul’s attempts on David’s life forced David into hiding and eventually to Achish, king of Gath, and the land of the Philistines (1 Sam 27:2). For a year and four months David made raids for Achish. Then the Philistines prepared for war against Saul and all Israel. This required the services of Achish and David. But the Philistines did not trust David, and made Achish send him back to Ziklag (1 Sam 29:2ff.); H. Kassis (JBL, 1965, 267ff.) has suggested that the events in 1 Samuel 29, particularly the friendship and equality of David and Achish, might indicate that Achish was not a Philistine lord but a Canaanite king who was a vassal of the Philistines. This would better explain why David went to Achish to escape from Saul. In any event, the Philistines were successful in defeating Israel, and Saul and his sons died in battle. Following a policy of divide and conquer, the Philistines allowed David to become king of Judah, and watched with approval the ensuing war between the house of David and the house of Saul for leadership of all Israel (2 Sam 3:1). But, when David became king of all Israel, the Philistine plan was frustrated and they moved to stop his growing power (2 Sam 5:17ff.). However, using his own well-trained troops and knowledge of Philistine tactics, David turned the tables on the Philistines and defeated them handily. Following up his initial successes, he pushed the Philistines out of the territory they had taken from Israel previously. David took Gath and its territory (1 Chron 18:1), and one can infer that he also took Ekron and pushed Philistine control back to Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod. Since Gezer did not come into Israelite possession until the time of Solomon (1 Kings 9:16), it must be inferred that David purposely refrained from taking Gezer, but left it surrounded and isolated. It certainly was not too strong for David to take, so his reasons must have been political. The fact that Pharaoh had the authority to give it to Israel (1 Kings 9:16) prob. indicates that it was understood to be Egyp. property. Thus David refrained from taking Gezer (and one assumes Gaza, Ashkelon, and Ashdod also) out of respect for Egyp. claims which predated Philistine claims and his desire not to become involved with Egypt if this could be avoided. In any event, the Philistines were checked effectively by David. The relative insignificance of the Philistines after David is indicated by the fact that the term “Philistine” or “Philistines” occurs 149 times in both books of Samuel, and only six times in both books of Kings.

Solomon’s rule covered a territory from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and the border of Egypt (1 Kings 4:21). The three coastal cities were still apparently under Philistine rule but Gath was not. It had been taken by David (1 Chron 18:1) and was still under Israel’s control in Solomon’s day (1 Kings 2:39, 40); or, if Kassis is right (see above), Achish had a suzerainty treaty with David which continued into Solomon’s day. In the fifty years after Solomon, Gibbethon, a town just W of Gezer, was controlled by the Philistines, though two kings of Israel unsuccessfully attempted to recapture it (1 Kings 15:27; 16:15-17). The strength of Judah under Jehoshaphat induced the Philistines to pay tribute to him (2 Chron 17:11). But Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, suffered a serious raid by the Philistines (2 Chron 21:16, 17). In Israel Ahaziah had preferred to consult Baalzebub the god of Ekron rather than the God of Israel. Later the Assyrian king, Adad-Nirari (810-783 b.c.) boasted of collecting tribute from the Philistines in his fifth year. Not too much later, Uzziah attacked the Philistines, broke down the walls of several cities, and built his own cities in Philistine territory. One of the cities whose walls were broken was Gath. Probably as a result of this, it lost its significance and was not mentioned by the prophets with the other four Philistine cities (Jer 25:20; Amos 1:6-8; Zeph 2:4; Zech 9:5-7). Ahaz of Judah suffered the attacks of the Philistines who occupied many of his cities (2 Chron 28:18; Isa 14:28-32). Within a year the Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser III, subdued the Philistine cities because of their disloyalty. Assyria was now the dominant power in Pal.; Samaria soon fell to Assyria and Judah, under Ahaz, was her vassal. When Heze kiah took the throne he reversed his father’s policy, rebelled against Assyria, and possibly sought by force to have other cities join him in the rebellion against Assyria. This may have been his reason for attacking and defeating Gaza (2 Kings 18:8). Hezekiah is the last king mentioned in the Bible who had dealings with the Philistines. During the reign of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, the Philistine cities were captured and the rulers and people were deported. This proved to be the permanent end of the Philistines.

V. Culture.

A. Government. The Philistines were ruled by lords (s^eranîm). There were five of them, one for each of the five cities of the Philistine pentapolis (Josh 13:3; cf. 1 Sam 6:4, 18). The five together were the ruling body of the Philistine nation, acting for the common good and overruling the decision of a single lord (1 Sam 29:1-7). They possessed civil power and citizens requested advice from them (5:8). They felt themselves to be vested with authority (Judg 16:5, 8), and their civil power was executive (1 Sam 5:11). They had the power to offer sacrifices to their gods (Judg 16:23). In wartime, they possessed military authority (1 Sam 7:7; 29:1-7). Each lord apparently ruled his own city, plus the surrounding villages independently (1 Sam 6:18). The fact that together they ruled the Philistine nation gave the Philistines a tremendous advantage over the disorganized Israelite tribes, who had no central ruling body. How the lords were elected and whether there were other officials cannot be answered.

B. Language. Little is known of the Philistine language or script. There is never any indication in the Bible of a language problem between the Israelites and Philistines. The Philistines must have adopted the local Sem. language soon after arriving in Canaan, or they might have already known a Sem. language before they came. Their names are usually Sem. (e.g. Ahimelek, Mitinti, Hanun, and the god Dagon). But two Philistine names may have come from the Asianic area: Achish has been compared with Anchises, and Goliath with Alyattes. A few Heb. words may be Philistine loan-words. The word for helmet, kôḇa’ or qôba’, is a foreign word often attributed to the Philistines. The term for lords, s^eranîm, (sing. seren) can be connected with tyrannos (Eng. “tyrant”), a pre-Greek or Asianic word. Some have connected three seals discovered in the excavations at Ashdod with the Philistines. The signs resemble the Cypro-Minoan script. Three inscribed clay tablets from Deir Alla (Succot) also have been attributed to the Philistines. These signs resemble the Cypro-Mycenaean script. Both the seals and clay tablets are still imperfectly understood.

C. Religion. There is little evidence available with which to reconstruct Philistine religion. The three gods known to us from the Bible, Dagon, Ashtaroth, and Baalzebub, all have Sem. names. There were temples of Dagon in Gaza (Judg 16:21, 23-30), Ashdod (1 Sam 5:1-7), and prob. in Beth-shan (1 Chron 10:10; cf. 1 Sam 31:10); temples of Ashtaroth in Ashkelon (Herodotus I. 105) and prob. in Bethshan (1 Sam 31:10); and a temple to Baalzebub in Ekron (2 Kings 1:1-16). Sacrifices were made to Dagon by the lords of the Philistines (Judg 16:23), and warriors wore small portable images into battle (2 Sam 5:21). There were priests and diviners from whom advice was sought to remove a plague (1 Sam 6:2-9). The Philistines’ experience with Israel’s Ark revealed their belief in the existence of Israel’s God and His extra-territorial jurisdiction (5:1-6:18). The Philistines also earned a reputation for soothsaying (Isa 2:6).

D. Material culture. Archeological work in Philistia itself has been minimal, but the excavation of Ashdod in the past few years is correcting this. Most of our limited information comes from excavations in adjacent areas into which the Philistines expanded. This has revealed a distinctive type of “Philistine” pottery, the only ware in ancient Pal. that can definitely be ascribed to one people. Three main arguments support the connection of this pottery with the Philistines: its geographical distribution, its stratigraphical position, and a comparative study of its various components. It is a large and homogeneous group of locally made painted ware with the fusion of various ceramic styles. Four different influences can be distinguished: Mycenaean, Cypriote, Egyptian, and local Palestinian. By far the most influential, both in shape and decoration, has been the Mycenaean, esp. Mycenaean III c1b pottery, closely related to Rhodes and Cyprus. But Philistine pottery is not a product of people bringing a homogeneous tradition directly from their home country. Rather, it reflects various cultural influences picked up on the long journey from their Aegean homeland. The chief pottery types are the buff-colored beer jugs with spouted strainers (indicating that the Philistines were heavy drinkers), craters, cups, and stirrup jars with a white slip. Characteristic decorations, painted in red and black, are the geometrical designs (spirals and interlocking circles) and metopes enclosing stylized birds (similar to swans, often with the head turned back).

Since no cemeteries have yet been found at the five major Philistine cities, burial customs are still imperfectly understood. Rectangular chamber tombs from Tel Fara closely resemble Mycenaean tombs. Burials in anthropoid clay coffins are esp. distinctive. These coffins have a lid at the point where the head and shoulders of the body would come. On this lid, the head and hands of the deceased are found in high relief. Sometimes the arms are included, and in other cases a stylized headdress, similar to the “feather crown” of the Philistines shown in the scenes in the temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu near Thebes in Egypt. These reliefs from Medinet Habu depict the Philistines and their manner of waging war. They are clean shaven, wearing a helmet decorated with reeds or feathers similar to the plumed head from Crete. They wear short kilts similar to those from the Aegean. Although not equipped with a bow, they carry a spear, long rapier, and circular shield.

The description of Goliath’s armor indicates that the head of his spear was made of iron (1 Sam 17:7). It is clear that the Philistines controlled the smelting of iron and kept Israel from having even one ironsmith (1 Sam 13:19-22). Smelting installations for iron have been found only at Philistine settlements in Pal. (Ashdod, Tel Qasile, Tel Jemmeh, and Tel Mor). In making the five golden mice as an expiatory gift, the Philistines are depicted as competent in the goldsmith’s art (1 Sam 6:4, 5), and the discovery of golden jewelry at Philistine sites is in sharp contrast to the poverty of Israelite sites. All of this indicates that the Philistines were accomplished in the arts and crafts and that their material culture was far superior to that of Israel.

IV. Role. Today the term “Philistine” is used of an uncultured person. This negative reputation is due, in part, to the fact that the Bible always speaks of the Philistines in derisive terms as the principal enemy of Israel. However, such a reputation is unjustified. We already have seen that the high material culture of the Philistines was far superior to that of Israel. It was really the Philistines who were the main civilizing influence on Pal. Their superior culture and political organization seemed for a long time to assure their dominance over all of Pal. At great odds, Israel waged a long and difficult struggle with them for the Promised Land. During the struggle, however, Israel learned from them some of the lessons of culture which she needed. More important, the external opposition of the Philistines brought the bickering and rival tribes of Israel together and forged them into a nation as nothing else could have done. This was the historic function of the Philistines and though they no longer remain, the magnitude of their impact lives on in the name “Palestine” which they gave to the country in which they lived.

Bibliography R. A. S. Macalister, The Philistines (1914). Outdated in some respects, but still the only comprehensive work in Eng. The Argonaut reprint of 1965 contains a brief introduction and valuable Bibliography by A. Silverstein; A. R. Burn, Minoans, Philistines, and Greeks (1930); W. A. Huertley, “The Relationship Between Philistine and Mycenaean Pottery,” QDAP 5 (1936), 90-110; A. Furumark, The Chronology of Mycenaean Pottery (1941); W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (1949), 110-122; W. F. Albright, “Some Oriental Glosses on the Homeric Problem,” AJA 54 (1950), 162-176; J. B. Pritchard, ANET (2nd ed., 1955), 262, 263, 281-294, 307, 308; C. H. Gordon, “The Role of the Philistines,” Antiquity 30 (1956), 22-26; T. Dothan, “Archaeological Reflections on the Philistine Problem,” Antiquity and Survival 2 (1957), 151-164; G. E. Wright, “Philistine Coffins and Mercenaries,” BA 22 (1959), 54-66; G. A. Wainwright, “Some Early Philistine History,” VT 9 (1959), 73-84; E. C. B. MacLaurin, “Anak/̓Αναξ,” VT 15 (1965), 468-474; H. Kassis, “Gath and the Structure of the Philistine Society,” JBL 84 (1965), 259-271; G. E. Wright, “Fresh Evidence for the Philistine Story,” BA 29 (1966), 70-86; J. Waldbaum, “Philistine Tombs at Tell Fara and their Aegean Prototypes,” AJA 70 (1966), 331-340; H. Tadmor, “Philistia under Assyrian Rule,” BA 29 (1966), 86-102; T. Dothan, The Philistines and Their Material Culture (in Heb.) (1967); The Philistines and Other Sea Peoples, The Israel Museum Catalogue no. 68 (Winter, 1970), See esp. the Bibliography, pp. 18-20; CAH (3rd ed., 1970ff.). K. Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land (1970), 221-239.