3 ms·

Yes he makes this case in the blog, supported by some recent discoveries. It also has a good overview of population flows in the region up to that time. Really

• rendall 5y ago
  References, perhaps, but no footnotes. He makes confident assertions about which current scholarly consensus is far less certain. It would be nice if he highlighted that. For instance, contrast the tone of his blog post with the tone of this article, quoting the researcher whose findings Nimitz references[*]: > "Some interpretations of ancient texts have suggested that the Philistines were one of the groups that comprised the Sea Peoples," study leader Michal Feldman, from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, told Newsweek. > "Our genetic results could fit with this hypothesis since we detect a movement of people that crossed the Mediterranean and reached Ashkelon in the relevant time period—around the 12th century B.C. However, from the genetics we cannot determine whether these ancestors of the Philistines that migrated to Ashkelon were indeed part of the Sea Peoples or not." [emph. mine] I think footnotes, particularly for assertions like this that he believes to be true - or that he chooses to gloss over for the sake of narrative - but that scholars are not so convinced, would lift his writings out of the realm of entertainment. As it is, unfortunately, his writings - as entertaining as they are - could mislead readers like me who prefer accurate uncertainty over inaccurate but consistent and entertaining narrative. [*] https://www.newsweek.com/biblical-philistines-sea-peoples-dna-1447114 https://www.newsweek.com/biblical-philistines-sea-peoples-dn...