Who were the "Sea People"

Feb 2011
741
Kitchener. Ont.
#41
Another clue of Alashiya being Cyprus or in Cyprus is that the king of Biblos had to send his evoy to Egypt by way of Alashiya when the Syro-Palestinese route was controlled by enemy ships, this would make no sense if Alashiya was in Northen Syria or Cilicia, since his envoy would never reach Egypt from there, but it would make perfect sense if his envoy first reached Cyprus, avoiding his enemies and then reaching Egypt with the Northwest winds and avoiding the enemy ships in patrolling the coasts of Lebanon.
No, the letter claims the king of Byblos sent the Egyptian envoy from Alashaya, or sent a message via the Egyptian envoy while on his way from Alashaya to Egypt. It could be that his ship had to stop at Byblos en-route to Egypt. Alishaya being further to the north of Byblos somewhere.
 

Theodoric

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
2,549
#42
I think it's fairly obvious who they were. They were from Northward, and were peoples of the sea; peoples who traded a lot by ship. This will include the Greek mainland, the Trojans, possibly the Cyclades, and coast of Western Anatolia (I'll just call this the Greek World for simplicity).

They appeared as raiders and settlers, which means they were likely traveling from strife. We see much devastation between 1250 and the the 12th century BC in the Greek world.

Wave 1: Karkisha, Lukka, and Sherden. Well, we know exactly where Karkisha and Lukka are: both in South-Western Anatolia: Lukka is Lukka, and Karkisha is Karkiya. We don't know where the Sherden came from, only that they were probably the Greeks who ended up in Sardinia during the Bronze Age collapse. There's also Sardis on the other side of Karkiya; it's possible that Sherden was a designation for Bronze Age Lydia. That would make three adjacent states attacking in the first wave: using their classical era names: Caria, Lydia, and Lycia. All in South-Western Anatolia.

Wave 2: Ekwesh, Lukka, Shekelesh, Sherden, Teresh. The Ekwesh are the Achaean alliance of Mycenaean Greece, and the Shekelesh are the Cyclades. There are two major cities that are similar to Teresh: Taruisa (Troy), and Tarhuntassa was a Hittite client Kingdom/city state to the east of Lukka - and I favour this location as the Teresh because of later waves.

Wave 3: Eqwesh, Shekelesh, Sherden, Teresh - nothing new.

Wave 4: occurred after 1190, which is about the time Troy 7a and the Mycenaean world collapsed: Denyen, Peleset, Shekelesh, Sherden, Teresh, Tjekker, Weshesh - Tjekker could be the Teucrians/Teucer/Trojans, which would be North of Lydia. Then Denyen could be the descendents of the Ekwesh - as it fits the name Danaoi which is another designation of the Achaeans; and the Ekwesh disappear before the Denyen appear. Peleset = Pelasgian, also from the Greek mainland who would be migrating around this time. I have no clue about the Weshesh - someone above said Issus/Cilicia, which would be another Southern-coast Anatolia region fitting with the theme.

Wave 5, 6, and 7 are mixes of the same peoples from wave 4.

So:
Greek mainland:
1. Ekwesh = Achaean
2. Denyen = Danoi
3. Peleset = Pelasgians
Aegean Islands:
4. Shekelesh = Cyclades
Anatolia Beginning at Troy, and working around the coastline:
5. Tjeker = Teucer/Trojans
6. Sherden = Sardis/Lydia
7. Karkisha = Karkiya (Caria)
8. Lukka = Lukka (Lycia)
9. Teresh = Tarhuntassa
10. Weshesh = Issus/Cilicia

Interesting enough, the Trojan War (which had a large naval component) was also against two alliances of these groups.

Problems with the designations above:
1. Ekwesh are said to be circumcised, which suggests they may not have been Achaean.
2. The Sherden (probably) are depicted with horned helmets which (I believe) aren't associated with Sardis/Lydia, but ARE associated with the mainland Greeks, Celts, Sardinians, and Cyprus. It's strongly suspected the Sherden migrated to Sardinia and gave it it's name. The other possibility is they were just seaborn Greeks who eventually made Sardinia their stronghold.
 
Feb 2011
741
Kitchener. Ont.
#43
I think it's fairly obvious who they were. They were from Northward, and were peoples of the sea; peoples who traded a lot by ship. This will include the Greek mainland, the Trojans, possibly the Cyclades, and coast of Western Anatolia (I'll just call this the Greek World for simplicity).
I think these "who were the Sea Peoples" theories all suffer from not taking into account the politics of the time.
Egypt was attacking the Hittites in Syria, that was the point of his Asiatic wars.
Couple this with the likelyhood that the Hittite Empire had just collapsed, and the region we know as Cilicia was politically Hittite and you have a justifiable argument for those so-called Sea Peoples to be allies of Hatti.

If Karkisha is your Karkiya therefore Caria then a problem exists with explaining the second 'k' consonant. Also, we can't say for sure if the 'r' in Karkisha is not an 'l' (R or L?). The name may well be Kelekesh who are listed by Ramesses II, most likely the ancient name for Hilakku/Cilicia, c/w the Greek 'sos' ending read as 'sh' in Egyptian.
Hilakku was the highland, Que was the lowland which in Egyptian I think was rendered as Ekwesh. So both Kelekesh & Ekwesh refer to regions within Cilicia. Then, also in Cilicia we have the city of Tarsus, read as Tursha, and Adana read as Danuna/Denyen, then Issus is Weshesh. The Peleset have already been identified as being the Padasatina to the East of the Taurus mountains around Alalakh, and also politically Hittite.

The conventional paradigm of invading Greeks from the west needs to be reigned in and looked at from a new perspective.
Theorists never consider the entire Egyptian narrative, they all stick to the popular bits which have limited value.
 

Similar History Discussions