- Feb 2011
- Kitchener. Ont.
The designation "of the sea" has never sat well with me. In Egyptian the words are, "n-p3-iamu", where 'n' is the preposition "of". Yet in any hieroglyphic dictionary the preposition 'n' is used to indicate the goal of something. In English we should read this 'n' as "for" or "to".and that is exactly the fundamental !point
the srdn/sherden for example were part of the egyptian military already at kadesh aka a good century pre the repulsed sea-peoples invasion, the srdn/sherden were even stationed in garrisons in egypt and yet they like the other 'peoples of the sea' were described as deriving 'of the sea' or from 'the countries of the sea' _not exactly a detailed description if they derived from areas known to the egyptians specially in the case of the srdn/sherden who surly didnt frist their time in the military as deaf-mutes and yet nothing is recorded that their tongue was similar or exact as anything the egyptians knew 'from the midst of the sea' was the best/precise and that says alot;
This 'n' can also be read as "at".
Not all of these Sea Peoples were appended with "n-p3-iamu". If I recall it was only the Sherden, Ekwesh & perhaps the Weshesh, I can check that, but the Peleset (Philistines) were not referred to as "n-p3-iamu". So, scholars have removed the specific name (Sherden, Ekwesh, etc.) and replaced it with the generic "Peoples", which is wrong.
So now everyone uses a fabricated phrase to identify all these groups as a collective 'peoples', which only serves to promote the false idea that they were under one command as an attacking force. This is unjustified and highly misleading.