Who were the Sea Peoples?
- Thread starter Thecurioushistorian
- Start date
- Tags peoples sea
Gap? Not in my book. Dendra to Thebes to bell cuirass, obviously. But the thoracic arch doesn't show up until the bell cuirass, and of course it's often more a parabola than a chevron.
We need to stop calling all those European cuirasses "Bronze Age". They are clearly just bell cuirasses with more embossing, and date to the Iron Age. Every feature of shape, closures, etc., is the same as the Greek examples.
Could be. Don't depictions of Egyptian scale shirts have shoulder guards? Not the exact same thing as a plate pauldron, of course, but same function.
No. For that claim you'll need SOME kind of evidence, and there isn't any.
The helmet styles have always been intriguing! But I've seen horned and tiara helmets in enough places now that I'm not sure how much significance we can attach to them.
I know that's a favorite bit of yours! And you know I'm hardly one to dismiss Homer. But why does that raid have to be connected to the Medinet Habu campaign? They could be entirely separate episodes.
Matthew
We need to stop calling all those European cuirasses "Bronze Age". They are clearly just bell cuirasses with more embossing, and date to the Iron Age. Every feature of shape, closures, etc., is the same as the Greek examples.
Could be. Don't depictions of Egyptian scale shirts have shoulder guards? Not the exact same thing as a plate pauldron, of course, but same function.
No. For that claim you'll need SOME kind of evidence, and there isn't any.
The helmet styles have always been intriguing! But I've seen horned and tiara helmets in enough places now that I'm not sure how much significance we can attach to them.
I know that's a favorite bit of yours! And you know I'm hardly one to dismiss Homer. But why does that raid have to be connected to the Medinet Habu campaign? They could be entirely separate episodes.
Matthew
Likes:
Todd Feinman
Unfortunately, as Dan has already pointed out, this idea is flat-out wrong. Back around 1960 John Coles made a "shield" from 0.3mm *copper* and was able to chop it with a bronze sword. That's ONE-THIRD to ONE-QUARTER the thickness of any actual armor, and the wrong metal! Copper is nowhere near as strong as bronze. Ever since then, "all bronze armor is ceremonial" has been dogma, and it's ludicrous. Every test done with even remotely realistic materials has utterly debunked it.
Bronze armor is more protective for a given weight than any other material until the development of steel. Period.
That much, I agree with!
Matthew
Bronze armor is more protective for a given weight than any other material until the development of steel. Period.
That much, I agree with!
Matthew
I never claimed that it did. And really, I don't think consideration of ethnicity itself matters or is even relevant. Basically, all I said is that it significantly narrowed the scope of the debate. A central question of this debate concerns whether a significant European migration occurred. We saw that earlier in this very thread. For instance, from the first page:
It now appears rather difficult for objective thinkers to continue to claim there is "no evidence of a mass migration" as the results presented by the paper seemingly demonstrate significant empirical evidence of migration from southern Europe on a substantial scale, at least as far as this question concerns the Philistines. Does this mean all of the Philistines' supposed "Sea People" brethren also came from Europe? No. Does this mean the Philistines sailed directly from some point in Europe to the Levant? No. Does this mean all Philistines arrived at the exact same time? No. Does this explain everything or answer all of our questions about the "Sea People"? Of course not. It merely appears to foreclose on the idea that no significant migration occurred. There are still plenty of other questions left to decide. I thought I made this clear when I said I thought our answers will ultimately be found somewhere in the middle of the debate.
Sure, but plenty of people don't believe these results mean what others think they do, or even in the accuracy of this sort of analysis. Even I question the reliability of such analysis, particularly at the resolution at which these claims were made.
Did I claim that it did?
For one thing, it's not just pottery. However, like I said earlier, the referenced paper appears to empirically demonstrate that the people who made '"Philistine" Monochrome & Bichrome pottery' primarily descended from a population which originated in southern Europe. It's difficult to see how this can be seen any other way. The argument for this all being a production of regionally local people who moved to this area and simply imported foreign culture appears to hinge on the idea that they "could have done it" so there's no reason to believe a far-flung migration occurred. Well, it increasingly looks to me like the "say it ain't so" position has become logically untenable as far as the Philistines are concerned.
People will argue over the minutiae until the end of time. I'm skeptical we will ever definitively answer all questions concerning the microscopic details of a 50-year timespan from this period of ancient history.
It now appears rather difficult for objective thinkers to continue to claim there is "no evidence of a mass migration" as the results presented by the paper seemingly demonstrate significant empirical evidence of migration from southern Europe on a substantial scale, at least as far as this question concerns the Philistines. Does this mean all of the Philistines' supposed "Sea People" brethren also came from Europe? No. Does this mean the Philistines sailed directly from some point in Europe to the Levant? No. Does this mean all Philistines arrived at the exact same time? No. Does this explain everything or answer all of our questions about the "Sea People"? Of course not. It merely appears to foreclose on the idea that no significant migration occurred. There are still plenty of other questions left to decide. I thought I made this clear when I said I thought our answers will ultimately be found somewhere in the middle of the debate.
Sure, but plenty of people don't believe these results mean what others think they do, or even in the accuracy of this sort of analysis. Even I question the reliability of such analysis, particularly at the resolution at which these claims were made.
Did I claim that it did?
For one thing, it's not just pottery. However, like I said earlier, the referenced paper appears to empirically demonstrate that the people who made '"Philistine" Monochrome & Bichrome pottery' primarily descended from a population which originated in southern Europe. It's difficult to see how this can be seen any other way. The argument for this all being a production of regionally local people who moved to this area and simply imported foreign culture appears to hinge on the idea that they "could have done it" so there's no reason to believe a far-flung migration occurred. Well, it increasingly looks to me like the "say it ain't so" position has become logically untenable as far as the Philistines are concerned.
People will argue over the minutiae until the end of time. I'm skeptical we will ever definitively answer all questions concerning the microscopic details of a 50-year timespan from this period of ancient history.
Last edited:
There needs to be some allowance for the sculptors' materials; depicting hundreds of bosses in a pattern is not practical. There is the piece from Enkomi, Cyprus, Mycenaen colony at the time, and it even might have a mitra plate.. Also: BIG round shield.
Yes, but they look very different; they are half-sleeves.
True, but the tiara helmets have only been found in a Greek context, iirc.
They could, but the story exactly matches the Sea People, including being defeated, captured and settled, and shows the state if raiding and piracy at the time, regardless.
I wonder if Cilicia was the a big staging area and the place where many of their ships were constructed.
Folks don't want to imagine that Greek warriors might have had their phalli handed to them by the Egyptians..
Yes, but they look very different; they are half-sleeves.
True, but the tiara helmets have only been found in a Greek context, iirc.
They could, but the story exactly matches the Sea People, including being defeated, captured and settled, and shows the state if raiding and piracy at the time, regardless.
I wonder if Cilicia was the a big staging area and the place where many of their ships were constructed.
Folks don't want to imagine that Greek warriors might have had their phalli handed to them by the Egyptians..
Last edited:
But that last point is the cornerstone of the invasion/migration hypothesis.
If the DNA suggests these 'Philistines' came from Europe within say a generation then you have evidence of possible migration, if it only suggests they came from Europe over a timespan measured in hundreds of years then the invasion/migration hypothesis falters.
It is widely known Aegeans spread themselves across the east Aegean all through the 2nd millennium, this was not an invasion nor a migration.
Indeed, which makes the initial claim (...It now appears rather difficult for objective thinkers to continue to claim there is "no evidence of a mass migration") somewhat meaningless. There is still no clear evidence of a mass migration.
Perhaps "descended" was a poor choice of term because 20th century caucasian Amercians "descended" largely from Europe, but there was no invasion nor mass migration.
So what really, does this DNA actually tell us?
I don't recall anyone suggesting the Philistines were ethnic pure bread Semites. Though if they have lived in some part of the Levant for several centuries (around Alalakh & northern Syria?), but originating from the west in the mid 2nd millennium, this sounds to be consistent with the DNA analysis (not having read it), so how does this support the migration/invasion hypothesis?
If the DNA suggests these 'Philistines' came from Europe within say a generation then you have evidence of possible migration, if it only suggests they came from Europe over a timespan measured in hundreds of years then the invasion/migration hypothesis falters.
It is widely known Aegeans spread themselves across the east Aegean all through the 2nd millennium, this was not an invasion nor a migration.
Indeed, which makes the initial claim (...It now appears rather difficult for objective thinkers to continue to claim there is "no evidence of a mass migration") somewhat meaningless. There is still no clear evidence of a mass migration.
Perhaps "descended" was a poor choice of term because 20th century caucasian Amercians "descended" largely from Europe, but there was no invasion nor mass migration.
So what really, does this DNA actually tell us?
I don't recall anyone suggesting the Philistines were ethnic pure bread Semites. Though if they have lived in some part of the Levant for several centuries (around Alalakh & northern Syria?), but originating from the west in the mid 2nd millennium, this sounds to be consistent with the DNA analysis (not having read it), so how does this support the migration/invasion hypothesis?
Being defeated, captured & settled fits a good number of different enemies of Egypt. It was the common practice of Egypt to settle their captives.
Cilicia was politically Hittite at the end of the Late Bronze, it was an area of mixed ethnicity, and three city states (in my opinion) are identified among the Sea Peoples (Adana - Denyen, Tarsus - Tursha, Issus - Weshesh). This forms the best starting point for all future questions of 'Who were the Sea Peoples'.
Cilicia was politically Hittite at the end of the Late Bronze, it was an area of mixed ethnicity, and three city states (in my opinion) are identified among the Sea Peoples (Adana - Denyen, Tarsus - Tursha, Issus - Weshesh). This forms the best starting point for all future questions of 'Who were the Sea Peoples'.
I'm taking this a little out of order.
I find that rather ridiculous, as well as an arbitrary and unreasonable condition placed upon the concept of migration. If the starting point is A and the endpoint is C, there's no good reason to insist a migrating population couldn't stop over at point B in between. In Philistine terms, I see something like a stopover on Cyprus as a plausible scenario. Indeed, Cyprus could potentially have served as a sort of gateway to the Near East, considering its pre-existing commercial links across the region and, in particular, its apparent cultural ties to the Aegean region.
In my view, that's complete nonsense. The USA has a population numbering in the hundreds of millions and nearly every single member of this population descended from the many millions of people who came here from far-off places. In actuality, much of that immigration came in concentrated waves of mass migration from certain foreign countries and regions during particular periods of our history. As for whether it amounted to an invasion, I'm sure there were many Native Americans who thought so. There've been quite a few nativists who weren't too happy with all these foreigners entering our country either.
You are correct that we have evidence indicating migration was common throughout this region over the 2nd millennium BC. We clearly see evidence of it in the archaeology as well as written sources from the region like the corpus of Hittite treaties and diplomatic correspondence. However, generally speaking, those phenomena don't appear to be anywhere near the same scale as the movement of the Philistines into the coastal Levant. Previously, we have evidence of things like merchant and artisan communities among a myriad of other smaller and more isolated groups from all over which settled amongst a sea of the existing population surrounding them. When something like a community of Aegean artisans or merchants came to Egypt or a Levantine polity, it certainly doesn't appear they arrived in sufficient numbers to impose their own material culture and practices over that of the locals. This doesn't appear to have happened with immigrants of apparent Indo-Aryan descent either. While it's obvious in many cases that cross-pollination occurred and there may have been significant changes in terms of politics or warfare (e.g. the apparent situation of Mitanni, Egypt under the Hyksos), the existing cultural paradigm generally persisted. Hence, I simply don't see this prior evidence of migration as analogous to that of the Philistine example. If the Philistines were primarily composed of these prior assimilated groups I would expect the existing culture to have remained predominant rather than see sudden and broad cultural change.
Actually, their evidence says quite the opposite, that this migration was not something that occurred "over a timespan measured in hundreds of years". In fact, they found discontinuity between the Bronze and early Iron Age populations of Ashkelon. The early Iron Age population strongly featured European ancestry while the Bronze Age population did not. That's how they concluded this was the result of an influx of new people during the Bronze-Iron transition period. The signal they detected was strong but relatively short-lived...and completely absorbed into the regional population within 200 years. Interestingly, the Philistines were powerful enough to entrench their political and cultural paradigm so deeply over the area that it appears to have actually survived far longer than their genetic profile. Obviously, this necessarily implies a significant migration event occurred and then came to a halt as the Philistines subjugated and mixed with the existing local population rather than being sustained by a long period of additional migration. The paper can't quantify an exact number of years over which this migration occurred but, realistically, their findings do necessarily limit its duration to a relatively brief period. And certainly, "hundreds of years" seems far outside the realm of possibility.
The evidence appears as clear as a bell to me. I would go so far as to assert that, when combined with the archaeological and very small epigraphic corpus, it all gels together and looks rather conclusive. Again, I would note that those who think this was purely a local phenomenon believe it, not because there's any concrete evidence to support that interpretation, but only because they think it's merely possible and prefer not to consider whether a far-flung migration occurred. I realize many probably find this an unwelcome development which challenges cherished sacred cows but here we have substantial empirical evidence of a far-flung migration which clearly refutes the local event hypothesis when it comes to the Philistines.
There's nothing earth-shattering about it. On a fundamental level, it merely verifies empirically a conclusion many have independently drawn from the archaeology alone. What it doesn't tell us is much about the broader context of the Sea People or the associated conflicts engendered by this agitation.
Why would they?
As noted above, this is not consistent with the researchers' findings, nor does it seem consistent with earlier records concerning migration in the region that I'm aware of. In particular, the Hittite corpus covers the topic of migration in this area. While there are certainly extant records concerning a people around this area who could also be a Philistine group or related group, they were contemporaries of the Philistines occupying the southern Levant, not a Philistine power base which existed earlier in the Bronze Age.
I find that rather ridiculous, as well as an arbitrary and unreasonable condition placed upon the concept of migration. If the starting point is A and the endpoint is C, there's no good reason to insist a migrating population couldn't stop over at point B in between. In Philistine terms, I see something like a stopover on Cyprus as a plausible scenario. Indeed, Cyprus could potentially have served as a sort of gateway to the Near East, considering its pre-existing commercial links across the region and, in particular, its apparent cultural ties to the Aegean region.
In my view, that's complete nonsense. The USA has a population numbering in the hundreds of millions and nearly every single member of this population descended from the many millions of people who came here from far-off places. In actuality, much of that immigration came in concentrated waves of mass migration from certain foreign countries and regions during particular periods of our history. As for whether it amounted to an invasion, I'm sure there were many Native Americans who thought so. There've been quite a few nativists who weren't too happy with all these foreigners entering our country either.
You are correct that we have evidence indicating migration was common throughout this region over the 2nd millennium BC. We clearly see evidence of it in the archaeology as well as written sources from the region like the corpus of Hittite treaties and diplomatic correspondence. However, generally speaking, those phenomena don't appear to be anywhere near the same scale as the movement of the Philistines into the coastal Levant. Previously, we have evidence of things like merchant and artisan communities among a myriad of other smaller and more isolated groups from all over which settled amongst a sea of the existing population surrounding them. When something like a community of Aegean artisans or merchants came to Egypt or a Levantine polity, it certainly doesn't appear they arrived in sufficient numbers to impose their own material culture and practices over that of the locals. This doesn't appear to have happened with immigrants of apparent Indo-Aryan descent either. While it's obvious in many cases that cross-pollination occurred and there may have been significant changes in terms of politics or warfare (e.g. the apparent situation of Mitanni, Egypt under the Hyksos), the existing cultural paradigm generally persisted. Hence, I simply don't see this prior evidence of migration as analogous to that of the Philistine example. If the Philistines were primarily composed of these prior assimilated groups I would expect the existing culture to have remained predominant rather than see sudden and broad cultural change.
Actually, their evidence says quite the opposite, that this migration was not something that occurred "over a timespan measured in hundreds of years". In fact, they found discontinuity between the Bronze and early Iron Age populations of Ashkelon. The early Iron Age population strongly featured European ancestry while the Bronze Age population did not. That's how they concluded this was the result of an influx of new people during the Bronze-Iron transition period. The signal they detected was strong but relatively short-lived...and completely absorbed into the regional population within 200 years. Interestingly, the Philistines were powerful enough to entrench their political and cultural paradigm so deeply over the area that it appears to have actually survived far longer than their genetic profile. Obviously, this necessarily implies a significant migration event occurred and then came to a halt as the Philistines subjugated and mixed with the existing local population rather than being sustained by a long period of additional migration. The paper can't quantify an exact number of years over which this migration occurred but, realistically, their findings do necessarily limit its duration to a relatively brief period. And certainly, "hundreds of years" seems far outside the realm of possibility.
The evidence appears as clear as a bell to me. I would go so far as to assert that, when combined with the archaeological and very small epigraphic corpus, it all gels together and looks rather conclusive. Again, I would note that those who think this was purely a local phenomenon believe it, not because there's any concrete evidence to support that interpretation, but only because they think it's merely possible and prefer not to consider whether a far-flung migration occurred. I realize many probably find this an unwelcome development which challenges cherished sacred cows but here we have substantial empirical evidence of a far-flung migration which clearly refutes the local event hypothesis when it comes to the Philistines.
There's nothing earth-shattering about it. On a fundamental level, it merely verifies empirically a conclusion many have independently drawn from the archaeology alone. What it doesn't tell us is much about the broader context of the Sea People or the associated conflicts engendered by this agitation.
Why would they?
As noted above, this is not consistent with the researchers' findings, nor does it seem consistent with earlier records concerning migration in the region that I'm aware of. In particular, the Hittite corpus covers the topic of migration in this area. While there are certainly extant records concerning a people around this area who could also be a Philistine group or related group, they were contemporaries of the Philistines occupying the southern Levant, not a Philistine power base which existed earlier in the Bronze Age.
Last edited:
Likes:
dvch
Similar History Discussions
-
How were European forts or castles built in overseas lands?- Started by Millennium
- Replies: 2
-
Who were the Sea Peoples?? What impact did they caused?- Started by Modest Learner
- Replies: 5
-
Were the "Sea Peoples" and the Philistines the same people?
- Started by DS1967
- Replies: 2
-
