Talk:Sea Peoples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Portal:Egyptology
 Egyptology Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
plan of the stonehenge site This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This needs way more links. If there's a theory that their sea routes were inherited by the Islamic caliphate, which seems more or less a tautology given the co-extent of trade, and the way Islam spread through trade, that should be linked both ways as an explanation for how Islam spread so fast and far. Among other things that helps back the sea power thesis for how empires spread, mentioned in rise of Rome.

Also the confrontation with Egypt should be mentioned, if nothing else because it was so much later, and suggests that there were later people who were called Sea Peoples.

There really was a group called the "sea peoples" whose migrations and raids disrupted the Eastern Meditrranean and Near east, ca 1200 BCE. Why not start fresh with some real history?

Thank you. I was wondering what this had to do with the Sea Peoples whose history I know about. Is there really such a group as this? RickK 01:12, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
(removed my former remark, now that Llywrch has given us a sound fresh start) Thank you Llywrch. User:Wetman
If that be the case why not correct the mistakes which you can and delete the things you feel are unsubstanciatable. Isn't that the wiki way? I think I am going to label this a stub to get some constructive input on the theory. The way I see it, it is better to put a stub down to allow it to grow with input from others than to never give it the opportunity by planting it for fear of criticism. Wikipedia cannot be THE reference center over night, it needs many years of input and growing stubs but will in the end be the best reference encyclopaedia on the planet. I think this kind of entry needs encouragement. Well done 202.30.144.91 :)

Oh Wetman, I checked up the tribes mentioned in the article and they are the same tribes associated with the 12thC.BC people you mentioned. Why don't you correct as much as you think you can? :)

Kaz

Sorry for my outburst. I hate to delete other people's work. I feel high-handed. Historical entries just do need some research first, even thru google. A date, at least mentioning the 12th century BCE-- stuff like that. I promise to come work here. Yes, good start 2202.30.144.91. User:Wetman

Removed the following text. I'm leaving it here if someone can attribute these speculations to a published writer. Otherwise, in our contributions to Wikipedia, let's focus just on facts that come from peer-reviewed works. -- llywrch 00:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Sea Peoples are one of the enigmas of ancient history,

There is no enigma in them.The Pelasgians are the sea people since Pelasgians means exactly this, Sea People.Learn some foreign language (other than English) and stop believing what american universities tell you as devine truth!

though their culture has perhaps been the single most influencial legacy in the evolution of civilization. Pirates, noted for their advanced weaponry most commonly identified as Phoenicians (Puntians/Puntites), they are said to have first appeared ruling Tylos/Dilmun (Bahrain) in the Arabian Gulf as early as the end of the 4th millennium BC perhaps stranded there following severe flooding in Mesopotamia. They maintained trade routes on the coasts around the Arabian peninsula from that time until the Islamic period but are most famous for over-running Egypt & the eastern Mediterranean around 900 BC (Revised Chronology) or 1200 BC (Traditional Chronology). The collection of port city kingdoms they occupied was known as Phoenicia or Sidonia from the name of the most importan conquest Sidon.

Alternative theories on their origin include a "Kult-Bund" i.e. groups from different nations partak ing in a common culture/way-of-life some originating in Greece and others Crete, Asia Minor (Anatolia), Libya and Asia, moving through the mediterranean and Arabian islands and coasts though never venturing far inland. They were certainly closely connected with coastal Arabs and the extent of Islam from Morocco to Indonesia may be a reflection of the trade routes they controlled/frequented. They were a curly-haired people who wore feathered head dresses similar to those used by the Iban in Sarawak and used high-prowed "Serpent" ships, later adopted by the Nordics and may have been the source for the "Fomor" in Hiberian (Irish) myth. Little is known of their original language, though Aku/Ego may have been the original term for self-reference. Ancestrally, the Maltese & Lebanese both have connections to them.
They are supposed to have called their own homeland Ahhiyawa while the Bible has been interpreted as saying they hailed from Caphtor.
Nations which have been grouped with Sea-peoples include:
  • Danuna
  • Sherden
  • Tutsha
  • Lukka
  • Sheklesh
  • Tjekker
  • Palistines (subjected)
  • Calushites (subjected)
  • Zidonians (subjected)
Their influence in Uruk period (Sumeria) and Nakada II (Egypt) has been established. It has also been suggested that The Olmec & Mayan civilisations of Meso-America may have been founded by them (the start of the Mayan chronology at 3114 BC follows on closely from the archaeological Uruk flood), and that they are the source of myths about people of Atlantis.

More stuff pulled from this article:

  • References to ``Old Chronology`` vs. ``New Chronology``. I'm unaware that anyone inside the academic community seriously thinks that the traditional dates for Egyptian history -- based on an astronomical record in the 9th year of Amenophis I -- vary more than 50 years. And there are synchronicities between the Egyptian New Kingdom & neighboring Mesopotamia that confirm the traditional dates.
  • This passage: "Also the recently discovered discrepancy of upto as much as 300 years between Egyptian accounts and events recorded in other chronologies prior to the sacking of thebes in 664BCE brings the otherwise floating chronologies of the Mycaeans, Hittites, Minoans, and late Bronze-age Levant city-states down with Egypt's." -- This is frankly irrelevant to the article, & Thebes is neither properly identified nor capitalized.

As I said above, "let's focus just on facts that come from peer-reviewed works." If students & researchers find our dates 300 years off from the other encyclopedias & the reference works they consult, it can only hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. -- llywrch 05:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thebes was a minor edit indeed. As an alternative encyclopaedia Wikipaedia is not looking to repeat what all the popular conventional encyclopaedias offer but rather it is the opportunity for everyday people to add their two cents. The new chronology of Egypt is no whimsicle half hearted theory but a powerful challenge to conventional Egyptology and the only reason it has not been accepted in the orthodox circles yet is because of misplaced and dogged loyalty to geriatric traditions. Hence Egyptology is now divided in two schools the traditionalist and the revisionist. It is vital to NPOV on any entry concerning Egypt to mention both sides of the coin. As the article was, it showed the NPOV by avoiding dates and restricting the dating to the reigns of the Pharoes. It also mentioned the dates of both views. The info about the floating Mycaeans, Hittites, Minoans, and late Bronze-age Levant city-stateschronologies is also important since they are mentioned in the article to show that their dating will also be affected while Greece and anything after 664BC will not be. Also people (like Llywrch in her mention above of "synchronicities between the Egyptian New Kingdom & neighboring Mesopotamia") might believe that their synchronisation with the old chronology was some kind of proof of its established trustworthiness. Llywrch's opinion is to only repeat what others have written while mine is to include all relevant data and allow the readers to come to their own conclusions. One is purely regurgitative and hegemonistic and the other is regurgative only as much as is neccessary but also generative (a major principle of wikiness) and therefore does not impoose a standard way of thinking on the reader.

Since people who are concerned with ancient history may not be aware of any "new-age" alternative New Age Ancient Near East Chronology (there! that's a good link to my just-now-created stub!), let me offer a link to the ISIS website, which gives some of the "whimsicle" flava: ISIS site. ...A better way for 'everyday people' (that is, well-read non-professionals, such as all of us) to put our two cents in, is by carefully reading fresh genuine archaeological material, editing a condensed version and adding it to Wikipedia entries. Often Wikipedia is already better than the Columbia Encyclopedia etc. There's room too for all new-age interconnections of Sea People, Atlantis and Olmecs etc.

As a general rule, Religion and occultism may not provide reliable models for studying history.

But I'm copying the text above, zany as I consider it (privately) into a new entry (see above). See? No problemo! Wetman 21:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Well-read non-professional does not actually apply to myself (I can't really say I am well read considering, though I am professional :-P ). There is already a wiki entry about revisions in chronology in existence but maybe your page can be merged with it later (to include the new age perspective). I couldn't agree more about the advice on reading fresh genuine archaeological material etc.. I think I am going to take some of that sea-people info and work it into the appropriate sea people article here and also include some of Llywrch's ideas from the previous edit.
However much Rohl, et al, would like to see themselves as leading a split in Egyptology, and not being accepted because their ideas are just too radical for the hidebound geriatrics who dominate the field to accept, I think it is objectively true to state that this is simply not the case. Aside from a very tiny group, who are mostly supported by lost Velikovskians and journalists trying to rouse up a scandal, there is, so far as I am aware, no serious dispute within the academic community about whether Rohl's, et al's, theories are right. They are simply (considered to be) wrong by nearly everyone else. I suppose this doesn't mean that Rohl is necessarily wrong, but it does mean that we, as an encyclopedia, should not give him any particular credit. I'd also recommend looking at [1], where actual people who study ancient history poke massive holes in Rohl's theories. john 22:35, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I keep on comming accross people who are missing the point of Wiki. If it were meant for reportage only of popular (I refuse to endorse the word professional) academic views they there would be a very strict policy on who can join & edit and my membership would have been cancelled long before now. Obviously the job of Wikipedians is to offer all perspectives and info available on a subject from all possible ngles so that someone searching the net for info about for example Sea Peoples and their place in the New Revised Chronology of the ancient Near & Middle East can find the info they require alongside the conventional views. In order to make up their own minds. We are not trying to impose a popular view on readers nor are we custodians of a certain point of view only. There are enough encyclopaedias in the world already for that job. We must simply report all the available views for the reader to use their own brain. To be sure these are NPOV one set of dates must be labelled as Conventional and the other as Rohl's (since the term Revised cannot be NPOV). The page of links you gave is very useful for allowing experts to discern the viability of Rohl's arguments but since there are a whole bunch of factors which amateurs cannot know about in order to make judgement the latter really should refrain. The biggest problem with the human species is our tendancy to believe we are qualified to make judgements about things when we cannot really know one way or the other. We want to make everything simple and judge by what is obvious only in our limited scope and follow the majority the whole time which is why the world was flat for so long.

Wikipedia's job is not to present offbeat theories not accepted by any professionals as being of equal merit to the conventional interpretations. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I must have missed that in the join-up policy could you point that out to me please? I was under the impressionWikipaedia was an alternative encyclopaedia which would offer the best sources of info on a topic to all people regardless of what point of view they may hold. Our job is to maintain NPOV which simply means not hiding any alternative ideas no-matter how much we might hate them. e.g. I don't like the very narrow POV held by a few people that Hanukkah is based upon a babylonian festival of lights. Have you ever heard of that theory? Well I had not, and I think it is a load of rubbish but my POV is of no importance, what is important is that someone has mentioned it for the reference of others whether they want to see some fact like that or like me do not. I do not defend what they say but I do defend the value of what they say as a different POV and for the sake of NPOV then all relevant views must be presented. If I am wrong then ask someone to try and block my membership because someone like me must then be stopped if I am truely damaging wikipaedia by fighting for NPOV and promote easy access of info from whatever POV on a subject. Zestauferov

The idea that saying "revised" is not NPOV is simply ridiculous. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree Zestauferov

If we are to present Rohl's views, we should also present the many flaws in them that show why most ancient historians reject his views. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree which is why i put the links above in the Rohl article online here. Excellent links I think. Zestauferov

Much of the material in the link I discuss is readily understandable by amateurs - me, for instance. The fact that there are lengthy, complete lists of generations of hereditary officeholders which leave no room for chronological revision, for instance, is hardly difficult to understand. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually it is readily misinterpreted only by amateurs which is why Rohls ideas are spreadding these days because when one gets into the compexities of the at first glance straightforward issues mentioned in opposition like the site you mentioned turn out to have a variety of simple explainations but it is simply the way in which the evidence has been presented to amateurs that it seems to be irrefutable. But why trust me. Why not try any prof at the University of London or University College London in the Ancient History dept to explain the variety of possibilities. My personal view is that Rohl's dates are certainly not to be taken as gospel (chuckle) but that much of the old testament events certainly do seem to fit at least some kind of chronological regardless of what the dating may actually be. Zestauferov

At any rate, Wikipedia's job simply is not to present all options as equally valid. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree which is why it is important as Wetman has mentioned in the past to report the origin of a view. Thus I have never said we should call the Conventional chronological dates OC (Old Chronology) nor that we should call the Revised dates NC (New chronology) because that is not NPOV in use of language Conventional and Revisionist is much more neutral. Zestauferov

An NPOV page (or pages) on Rohl's views, presenting both his own arguments and the counterarguments of his opponents, would be worthwhile. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It exists and looks like it is growing Zestauferov

But to start introducing Rohl's ideas into other articles on ancient history is simply unacceptable. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To who? To you maybe but not to many. Anyway no-one is forcing an introduction of Rohl's ideas it was one of my own students who started this article in September and it was quickly torn to pieces making my student opposed to wiki while I was trying to spread the news of the value of Wiki. Since her ideas were deleted she has not put them back again and all I am arguing for is that alternative POVs which are relevant to any topic please not be deleted but rather treated with good reportage. As wetman mentioned why not allow anything as long as the introduction of the topic is valid. I could mention what Fiction says about Sea Peoples as long as I mention that it is from Harry Potter book if necessary, since it is relevant to the article. Thus so equally are Rohl's views. Zestauferov
I also find introducing Rohl's ideas to articles on ancient history unacceptible for one simple reason: relevance. If you want to add Rohl's take on Egyptian chronology to articles on Ramesses II or Shoshank I, then that is the proper place. I read Rohl's book Pharaohs and Kings (the American version of his Test of Time), & I failed to find where he mentioned the Sea Peoples in that work, so I'd say that his theories are irrelevant to an article such as this one, except indirectly. -- llywrch 21:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Then that makes two objections against bestselling (do you know how many satisfied readers that means?) author and Britain's highest profile archeologist. Since the book you read did not deal with the area in depth, if you are an amateur to be fair it would not be very clear to you. But if you are pretending to be an expert in the area, then the fact that you did not get the correlation between the revision of egyptian chronology & the timing of the sea-peoples is a testimony to your lack of understanding of the intricacies of dating the sea-peoples (how on earth do you think the floating chronologies of the Mycaeans, Hittites, Minoans, and late Bronze-age Levant city-states were fixed? Don't say archaeology, don't you know that it is impossible to date any strata of MB LB I1 etc. to within anything like a band of 500years without a known historical event to count from?) and to your less than required nor careful nor critical (obviously you did not know what holes one really should be looking for) reading. Since the third book has not been published yet (though you can put an order on it through amazon). I will not spoil the conclusions for anyone (unless you email me for more info) but recomend you look again carefully at pages like 17-8, 31, 72, 92, 174-5, 218, 242, 256, 285-6, 288, 299, 309-11, 345, 352, 393 and 395 which should be more than enough to a person with any real idea about the area to easily deduce the book deals specifically with Phoenecia/Caphtor/Philistines/Sea-Peoples. user:Zestauferov
"Two objections against bestselling (do you know how many satisfied readers that means?) author and Britain's highest profile archeologist" By that analogy, since there are more Americans than Iraqis, the US has the right to invade that country, QED. Arguing by counting noses is a specious argument. -- llywrch 03:58, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I think you might already be realising the pointlessness of this statement.
Which statement? An argument based on popularity? Or my analogy? And please sign your comments, otherwise it is not only hard to understand the context of these statements, but also who is talking. -- llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
And yes, I am an amateur. I do this stuff for love (whence the word amateur comes from), not money. However, the other professional Egytpologists also look on Rohl's work with disdain; Rohl has answered these objections with a puzzling claim that because he is an amateur, he's not hindered by facts. Lastly, I found his book fraught with countless minor errors, which hindered my ability to give it a fair & objective shake & which others have noticed. llywrch
Rohl is not an amateur I suggest you start reading some published Journals and pay less attention to things you see on the internet. I do not know the date of that quote but it must be at least 10 years old if it is really his.
As for floating chronologies in the Ancient Near East, they've been fairly well anchored by synchonicities to the Assyrian royal chronologies. Further, Rohl suggests changes to the Assyrian chronology to defend his redating of Ramesses II that would result in assuming that the Hittite New Kingdom came to an end in the 9th century BC -- leaving scare enough time for the kingdoms of the Cimmerians & Phrygians to rise & fall. llywrch 21:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
You will just have to read the latest book when it comes out which deals with such matters. The point that there are alternatives to the conventional chronology is now being lost sight of. I don't think you will find anywhere I have said Rohl Is Right everyone else is wrong. What I am saying is that the sequence is certainly aesthetic and the conventionally accepted dates need to be identified as only tentative with a suggested margin for upto 300 years of error. Do you have any idea about how long it has taken for all the accepted chronologies to come to their present states? And if so do you seriously expect one body of researchers to either keep quiet on all revisionist theories until they have a complete new model (and if so where will their funding come from in the mean time)? Or alternatively expect them to be finished doing it all by now since it has been a few years since the first major publication about the area was released?
If this comment is from Zestauferov, then I'd like to ask him why he doesn't simply cite sources that can be verified? He tells me that I should read Rohl's next book & be convinced; I should read what is published in Russian & Georgian journals; I should stay current in the latest secondary literatrue. My objection is simple: the arguments I have been reading from you fail my test for logic. If this failure is due to evidence not presented, then supply them in a simple manner here. Otherwise, I'll also start referring to journals in Kurdish, Hopi, & German, as well as forthcoming works by Kitchen et alia. -- llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In a nutshell, accepting every assertion & thesis Rohl makes forces too many chronologies to be rewritten when there are simpler explanations for all of his points. The principal of Occam's Razor leads us to decline Rohl's chronological thesis until further evidence is produced to support it. -- llywrch 03:58, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No not too many chronologies, rather vitrtually EVERY chronology because they were mostly all put together around the same time wehn one set of anchors were held to be true but now those anchors seem to be built up one upon another with no real foundation. Of course this is like a nightmare for the history buffs because they will all have to find new books as of yet unpublished re-written with new accuracy. But then professionals rarely consider what popular readers take as gospel. Rather we like to look at the sources. And please do not try to assign Occam's Razor to history. It works excellently for classical & Neutonian physics but not chaotic patterns of human intervention. Even withing physics string theory is taken seriously despite its failure to pass the Occam test. You are trying to fit the whole world into a nice simple explainations where the reality of human existence is much less comfortable and stable. Having said that Occam's Razor works perfectly well with Rohl's ideas. In fact neither one side is more complicated necessarily just alternate. It is the opposition to new ideas which give alternatives to accepted ones (e.g. the world is round as opposed to flat) a hard time and causes their supporters to be raged against until the persecution dies out. I really see little point in arguing, it is just a matter of time.
Occam's Razor is a tool applied to logical arguments. The topics you have mentioned -- history & physics -- use logic to determine their conclusions. use of logic & her tools especially applies to chronology, which is perhaps the most scientific portion of historical studies. Or are you implying that we should forego logic when studying history? llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
That being said, you assert that Rohl does not introduce unneeded complexity into the chronology of the ancient Near East. I'm not sure that rewriting the history of Anatolia, & reworking a chronology of Assyria that has stood the test of about 100 years of criticism all to favor one set of conclusions from archeological findings (which are subject to alternative conclusions of equal plausibility that do not require these revisions) doesn't meet the criteria for applying Occam's Razor. -- llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
If that doesn't convince you, then maybe I should start incorporating Samuel Kramer's views on Sumerian history into every article about Mesopotamia, Iraq, Egypt, Persia/Iran (the next nation over from Sumeria), farming (the Sumerians are the earliest documented farmer) and writing (they invented the cuneiform writing system). It's the same thing. -- llywrch 21:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I see what you are thinking. But as far as I know about Kramer, Rohl is not like him a specialist in one narrow cultural area from one specific time. Rohl's area of specialism is Egyptian Chronology (in which the only other -albeit old school- specialist alive now is the evangelical Kenneth Kitchen -Rohl's opponent) which happens to be the foundation of for the chronologies of almost all adjacent peoples and thus by its very nature must be interdisciplinary in that one must look for synchronisations with in other chronologies, geology & astronomy at the very least. Now if Kramer was a specialist in agricultural developments, then I would expect to see his views in almost every article which touched upon agriculture be it Egypt, Mesopotamia/Iraq, Susa, farming etc.. user:Zestauferov
And chronology is a cross-cultural discipline? I feel that you are like the Red Queen, deciding that words mean exactly what you wish, & nothing more or less. -- llywrch 03:58, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What is that supposed to mean? Didn't you realising that investigating chronologies needs more than just blind acceptance? That is the main reason why there is opposition ot Rohls ideas because they require us to drop blind acceptance of the Biblical dates.
That is supposed to mean that the study of chronology is a single discipline, like the history of farming or paleography. Knowledge of related fields (e.g., economics, genetics, law, biography) can be useful -- & the leaders in any discipline will familiarize themselves with those relevant disciplines -- but chronology of any one country is not cross-cultural. And if it was, Rohl then fails that requirement. In his book Rohl demonstrates:
  1. Ignorance of Hittite chronology, as well as of its culture (for example, he makes an obvious, elementary error concerning the Hittite use of cuneiform);
  2. He is not conversant with current thought about the history of Ancient Israel (for example, there is a group of credentialized scholars who argue plausibly that the united Kingdom of Saul, David & Solomon did not exist; whether or not they are right, he must respond to their arguments in order to construct his own model of the chronology of ancient Israel);
  3. He admits that "the subject of Mesopotamian chronology lies outside my competence" (Pharaohs and Kings, pg. 394).
I am skeptical towards all conclusions. I want to understand the arguments, & then report them here under the relevant articles. -- llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, to satisfy you, we should say something like "traditionally/conventionally dated ca.whatever" instead of just giving the conventional account dates as being facts. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

not perhaps but certainly. And not just to please people like me but because it is our duty as reporters. Zestauferov

But we should not give out Rohl's dates as though they are equally valid alternatives. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

agreed but we should give out Rohl's dates as well as anything mentioned about them inHarry Potter if they appear there for the sake of providing the full account of all existing ideas surrounding the topic. as long as they are introduced properly first i.e. something like Conventional dates 1200BCE Revisionist dates (se David Rohl) 1200BCE&900BCE. Zestauferov

Contents

[edit] ====================================================================

Do the habiru refer to the Hebrews, ie the ancestors of the modern Jewish people?-jsonitsac

If the Habiru were (as it most likely seems to be the case) the original Hebrews then they eventually lost whatever language/languages they spoke in favour of the local Canaanite dialects. Some Argue thatthey formed an ethnic group in a similar way to the way the Cossacks were formed on the steppes ofeastern Europe. Others argue that the word must be transated to mean nothing more than outlaws/mercenaries/freemen in general and refered to no particular group. Discourses in the available records along with lists of their names indicate however that they were indeed at least at some point a Hetto-Iberian groupwhich filtered down into messopotamia & the levant. You can take your stand either way. They were Hthe original Hebrews or they are only coincidentallyrelated.Zestauferov 14:36, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Minoans

I saw a documentary last night which made a very convincing case (they even had Leonard Nimoy doing the narration ;) that the Philistines were synonymous w the sea peoples, and that the sea peoples were synonymous with the Minoans, and finially, that the atlanteans were actually the minoans! Pretty exciting stuff, and I don't see it in this article. I'm no expert, and I don't know if Nimoy is or not (lol), but they had various talking heads suggesting that this might be a workable theory. Thoughts? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure you got this right? The Pilistines are indeed commonly associated with the Sea Peoples, and with the Mycenaeans. The Minoans had been replaced by Greeks for some 300 years when the Sea peoples appeared. As for "Atlanteans", as you may imagine, what they were is anybody's guess (this particular theory probably assiciated the myth of Atlantis with the Santorini eruption, which happened in Minoan times. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yep, I´m sure I got it right. Minoans not Mycenaeans. The idea is the minoans-atlanteans were warlike at the time they were driven off their island, and thus went on to be the warlike philistines-sea peoples for sometime thereafter. It was a very long documentary, and this was their theory they were promoting. I´m not saying its true, I´m just saying it´s a theory, and one not currently present here. Does wrap alot of lose ends up pretty neatly tho, assuming these guys could stay "sea peoples" for all those hundreds of years. Maybe unlikely, but it seems possible to me. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
well, sure. dig up the references. I am less than thrilled by the theory. It seems to say, "the enigmatic Minoans were displaced by the Greeks. They roamed the Mediterranean for 300 years, and then resurfaced as the enigmatic Philistines and the enigmatic Sea peoples". But of course we can state the theory here, we just need to find the relevant publications. dab (ᛏ) 13:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
AFAIK the only "publication" is the documentary I have right here. If your interested, I'll copy the title and whatever else down, but I'm not real sure how to go about referencing a video (I'm only 1/2 way confident w citing a book ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] speculation

Removed the following. Questions needing answering are interpolated, in italics:

The most likely implications sez who? consequently become prehistoric Romans to the north of Greece? um. . . and prehistoric West African Saharans to the west. Just as the Romans are reknown for their military prowess (see Military history of the Roman Empire) not during the Etruscan period, they weren't; and the Romans were not the only people in Italy. Did "Romans" even exist as a distinct entity at the time?, the West African Saharans are reknown for their advanced shipbuilding (see West Africa: Prehistory) early, yes; advanced, though?.

[edit] Unsubstantiated speculation

The mainstream view is that the Sea Peoples came from the Northern Mediterranean; primarily the Aegean, with possible components from Italy or Central Europe.

The speculation connecting the Sea Peoples to the Israelites does not belong here, as it is unsubstantiated and is not backed by any scholarly research, so far as I know. It seems very much like original research to me. I suggest we delete it.--Rob117 22:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Connecting the Denyan subtribe of the Sea Peoples with the Tribe of Dan is found in many scholarly works. I believe Redford discusses the issue in Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. See also, e.g., N. K. Sanders, The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1985. p. 163-164.


Looks like I had forgotten about Denyen/Dan, as I had seen that before. But the other ones- connecting the Uashesh with Asher, the Shekelesh with Issachar, and the Tjekker with Manasseh, all seems like folk etymology, at best. The big problem with connecting the Sea Peoples to the Israelites is that it just doesn't fit the material and archaeological evidence. The earliest Israelite settlements appear ca.1230 BC, and the material culture of these settlements is of standard West Semitic derivation, little different from the pottery of the Canaanites. The Sea Peoples appear to have their first permanent settlements in Canaan shortly after their battle with Rameses III in 1176 BC. Sea People pottery, particularly Philistine pottery, is primarily of Mycenaean Greek derivation.--Rob117 03:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No argument here, as long as we have the admittedly speculative Denyen/Dan connection in there. --Briangotts (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I can gather, much of this article was written by Zestauferov, who is a nut. It probably needs a good going over... john k

You've also forgotten about the Meshwesh, who are almost universally identified as Libyan. So basically you have

  • Denyen - seen before as possibly the tribe of Dan
  • Peleset, almost universally identified as Philistine
  • Meshwesh - Libyan (almost universal)
  • So some general coast of eastern mediterranian thing going on, including Canaan.
  • Appearance of sea peoples after Rameses III
  • Apparantly Ramases III is the pharaoh of exodus, so the Israelites appear in Canaan after him as well

Important points to remember:

  • The question is not where they originated, but where they eventually settled.
  • A confederation does not require all tribes involved to have the same origin in the same location.

--Victim of signature fascism 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenecians?

Scholars, if any are reading this page: Having read a lot of the source material, I'm puzzled by the absence of speculation that some of the "Sea People raids" might have been Phoenecians, having given up trade and turned to piracy. There seems a lot of circumstantial evidence of this; the Phoenecians had superior ship-building technology which would have made them potent raiders, their cities (Tyre, Byblos, etc.) were untouched by the Sea Peoples, and they seemed to come through the period pretty much intact, declining only with the rise of Athens.

There's probably a good reason to reject the idea of the Phoenecians as the Sea Peoples, but I've not read it yet. Anyone know? Jberkus 06:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Its connected to the Philistines I think. The Peleset, one of the groups of Sea Peoples, are almost universally identified as later settling and becoming the Philistines. The Phoenecians occupied the same location as the Philistines, possibly inheriting their culture and peoples, hence theories involving the Phoenecians probably originate in the Philistine connection. --Victim of signature fascism 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Identifications of Sea Peoples

Perhaps, the peoples of Sea Peoples Group have the below identifications):

  1. Peleset ( = Pelasgians, the known Philistines),
  2. Tjeker ( = Teucrians, a Thraco-Trojan tribe) ,
  3. Shekelesh ( = Scolotians or Scolotoi, or Scoloti), a Scythian tribe, in classical period.
  4. Denyen ( = Danaeans (or Danaoi or Danai), a Greek/Achaean tribe, the posterior Danites) and
  5. Weshesh ( = Bessians (or Bessoi or Bessi), a Thracian tribe, in classical period.

--IonnKorr 14:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've not seen the Bessian or Scolotian connections being made before, but I have seen the others. The Danaean connection is highly controversial, since it implies the Danaeans (and by extension the other hellenes) are part of the group that destroyed pre-hellenic culture (a theory that does exist, but is nonetheless very controversial). Scythia also seems a bit out of the way to me for them to have been involved as sea people, rather than a land army. Thrace seems geographically plausible though, except that I can't think of a linguistically plausible reason for the B to be dropped (Weshesh is how the name is usually referred to, but the name is actually ueshesh in the inscriptions), and the doubling of the ss into ss-ss also seems a bit odd. --Victim of signature fascism 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Are Bessians identified with Weshesh of Sea Peoples Group?

In Classical Era (8th-1st centuries BC), Bessians (or Bessi, Bessoi, Βησσοί) were an independent Thracian tribe who lived in a territory ranging from Moesia to mount Rhodope in southern Thrace (according to Herodotus), but are often mentioned as dwelling about mount Haemus, the mountain range that separates Moesia from Thrace (according to Strabon).

However, classical Bessians should were simply the remains of a people of numerous population that, lived in the whole Thrace (and its coastal region, as well), in previous time period (15th-10th centuries). Very probably, Byzantium, that in the classic era was a colony of Greeks of Megara, in strait of Bosporus, was previously a city of Bessians (etymologically, the root *Byz- is resembling with the root *Bes-).

Obviously, the name “Byzas” was not the real name of the Megaran settler of this colony (furthermore, it is not a Greek name) but an agnomen, which was ascribed to him, after the foundation of colony (as respectively, Scipio the “Africanus”).

Another city of Thrace, emanating etymologically from the same root, was the Bizya (or Bizye, Bizyê, Βιζύη). The same is the case with the city Bisa ( or Βίσα).

But, the naming of the strait of Bosporus proceed from the same root, as well (i.e. Bos+porus = the porus (channel, in Greek) of Bessians). This means that the pre-classical Bessians exercised control over the strait of Bosporus (as respectively, their neighbours Ilians (the known Troyans) did over Hellespont (i.e. Helles+ pontus = the pontus (sea, in Greek) of Ilians).

Finally, Bithynians (or Bithyni, Bithynoi, Βιθυνοί), in northeastern Anatolia, emanate etymologically from the same root. That means that there was an settlement of Bessians in the Asiatic side.

So, Bessians were not a mountainous race (as they were in the classic era) but lived at the coast, as well. This means that there is a strong possibility that Bessians of coast were Weshesh that took part in group of Sea Peaples with their neithboors, Teucrians and Pelasgians.

--IonnKorr 15:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That strikes me as original research. You appear to be presenting your own argument. There are several etymological difficulties in the association, one of which is the presence of the completely different roots, hard s rather than sh in a position where a transition to sh is extremely unlikely, and the letter b which is unlikely to be dropped so completely as to be not present in the egyptian inscriptions. Please present an academic argument, and provide references. --Victim of signature fascism 18:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atlantic Origin

Has anyone ever heard of the Atlantic and in particular Western Europe as possible origin of the Sea Peoples as Iman Wilkens claims and is it possible that they were proto-Celts? --Antiphus 14:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How sure are we that the Sea Peoples existed?

Hey, I've been reading up some on this since I first posted. It's seeming more and more plausible to me that there were no "Sea Peoples" per se, and that the raids, destruction, and collapse of trade and Mycenean civilization was caused by an outbreak of escalating warfare in the Eastern Mediterranean. Is there a reason why a "world war" hypothesis is not more plausible than some enigmatic invasion? Jberkus 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing is Beyond Doubt

Hmmm .... can we have a citation for this paragraph? One thing about the Sea Peoples is beyond doubt: following violent conquest, the Sea Peoples always burnt rich cities to the ground. They made no attempt to retain this wealth, but instead built new settlements of a lower cultural and economic level atop the ruins. This demonstrates a cultural discontinuity. It is unlikely that the traditional Helladic warrior classes would have so discarded the spoils of victory, if the writings of Homer are to be considered a guide. ... beyond doubt? I wasn't aware that anything in ancient history was "beyond doubt". Given the lack of a citation, I'm revising the paragraph to be more equivocal.Jberkus 20:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The term "Sea People"

I've read the Merneptah Stele (the one from the Israel Stele link on the Merneptah Stele page), and nowhere does it say "peoples of the sea." It talks about Libyans and Meshwesh (two people associated with the Sea People) but not other groups of Sea People.

Perhaps the opening is refering to some Kenneth Kitchen translation when it says "The Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah explicitly refers to them by the term "the Peoples of the Sea" in his c.1209/1208 BC Merneptah Stele."

I would hate to delete anyone's entry here, but if anyone else reads the "Israel Stele," and doesn't find the term "peoples of the sea," please change it.

btw, I'm pretty sure I've read that the term "Sea Peoples" didn't come about until the 19th century, as it said in the opening of this article before, but since I don't remember where, it's hardly worth mentioning. Jus Tinpace 05:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • the term exists in Egyptian. It didn't occur in English translations before the 19th century because no-one could read Egyptian before the 19th century. "Sea Peoples" is an easier way of saying "Foreign-peoples of the Sea" when speaking English. Therefore, I fail to see what the importance of pointing this out is. "Mitanni" didn't occur in English before the 19th century as well and for the same reasons. —Flembles 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural discontinuity?!

"One thing about this period which demands explanation is that many "Sea Peoples" sites involve the violent conquest and destruction of rich cities. The invaders apparently made no attempt to retain the cities' wealth, but instead built new settlements of a lower cultural and economic level atop the ruins. This demonstrates a cultural discontinuity, and is somewhat inconsistent with the theory of Mycenean warfare. It seems unlikely that the traditional Helladic warrior classes would have so discarded the spoils of victory, if the writings of Homer are to be considered a guide."

This statement doesn't make much sence. There is no discontinuity, what of Homer's Troy? Or the homeric epithet "sacker-of-cities"? Rather than this behavior being out of character it seems to have been a common atrocity for raiders to loot a palace of valuables, enslave its inhabitants and then burn the place, leaving a depopulated and wasted land as a monument to the ferocity of its attackers.

Considering the scope of the destructions at the end of the bronze age it is worth considering that of all of the myriad of sites what few artifacts or valuables that are found in the destruction levels of what in many cases were very wealth palatial states, are scattered randomly or hidden in small caches. This seems to indicate that the people of these destroyed cities either took their wealth with them as they fled from the city-sackers, or had it taken from them after their city was captured.

As to why these raiders would've destroyed cities that they themselves might obstensively have wanted to live in; many cities were razed in antiquity, usually by men who had homes of their own to which they intended to return. In the case of the Philistines, a possible hypothisis might be that after the destruction of the mycenaean palace states, a dispossesed helladic warrior/aristocratic class takes to raiding the levantine coast, destroying many of the cities there. Later they engaged the egyptians in a series of battles which they ultimatly lost. In defeat, after being relieved of their captured booty, they were placed in military concentration camps in modern Palestine by Ramesses III. Ramesses says that he "settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands. I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year". After Egyptian authority in the area collapsed during the 21st dynasty, these Philistine settlements now independent, would have later become the five famous Philistine cities.-75.3.238.32 02:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.238.32 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The statement might not make sense, either.69.216.97.240 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various Items

I remember from when I was studying the Ancient Near East that my professor had said the following: The Sea Peoples originated in the Balkans, discovered iron-working earlier than any contemporary cultures, conquered Macedon but, because Macedon was a command economy at the time, could no longer support the current population. The original Sea Peoples, along with Greeks from the failing Macedonian state, combined and moved into the Near East. Also, after the defeat at the hands of the Egyptians, remaining Sea Peoples and Jewish slaves combined to form the nascent Jewish state in the Levant. The latter was supported, as I was told, by linguistic similarities between the two names for 'God' found in the Torah (YHWH and Elohim). I'm placing this all here because, as anyone can see, I have none of the necessary citations to back any of this up. Still, it might jog somebody's memory. Elijahmeeks 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/a/Talk%7ESea_Peoples_2c63.html"