- Feb 2011
- Kitchener. Ont.
It's not my intention to misrepresent anyone, though we all know there is a prevalent paradigm for this subject so if you don't want your views misrepresented because they differ from the accepted paradigm, then perhaps you should step up and state your particular nuanced take on the Sea Peoples phenomenon.What's strange is why you continue to misrepresent my argument by raising straw men as you're essentially objecting to arguments I haven't made. You're referencing things I haven't even mentioned.
Killebrew & Zevulun have demonstrated the Lion-Headed cups & Hearths show their closest parallels to the same artifacts found in southern Anatolia and northern Syria, not the west Aegean....... As for the pottery, the most immediate links are certainly evident.
Mazow has shown the 'Bathtubs' & Loomweights are found locally at several sites on Cyprus, and at Megiddo, therefore no reason to look to the west Aegean.
The 'Ashdoda' type figurines, as stated by Singer are very much in the style of the Anatolian mother goddess Kubaba. There is nothing in the west Aegean with which to draw a parallel.
Likewise, the incised scapulae found in the Pentapolis finds it's origins in Mesopotamia, and spread to Syria, Anatolia & Cyprus. There is nothing like it in the west Aegean.
Much of the tableware long since touted by Dothan as reflective of Aegean wares in both style & form were already identified as existing in the Late Bronze Levant by Ruth Amiran before Dothan published her work.
There's simply no justification for a west Aegean origin for these foreigners.
Which tends to scuttle the idea of a migration because these ex-pat Aegeans could have occupied various cities in the east Mediterranean for a couple of hundred years before they joined up on some political venture against Egypt...... For all we know, Cyprus or other locations closer to their origination point(s) could have had large transient expatriate communities from many places to the north and west to support commercial trade and that's how they became associated with one another. Or they could have been more isolated and transient for some time.
So, there you go.....
I don't think that is something that can be done intentionally. If their ancestors had links to Europe then the link does not fade with time.But regardless of how it occurred, it appears they managed to maintain a European genetic profile prior to their arrival in the southern Levant.
Totally agree, for all the nations that have invaded Egypt across the Sinai, there is precious little to no tangible evidence of their passing.Something else I'd say here. You know, I recently encountered a phenomenon that I really hadn't thought about before. Actually, it was in the sphere of Roman archaeology. But it was the idea that a large transient population could temporarily occupy a place and leave virtually no sign they had been there. That archaeologically, the best you could do would be to dig trenches looking for post holes and sift every square inch of dirt in hopes of a few small finds because no permanent or substantial structures were built. But, in order to do that you'd first have to know exactly where the site was located because, obviously, you'd have to sift all of the dirt. If a population didn't stay in a place long enough to construct large stone buildings (or didn't care to because they didn't intend to remain permanently even if they stayed a while), I'm not sure how we would even be able to document their movement because the labor required to do so would be prohibitive, particularly when it's a needle in a haystack if you don't know where to look. There's no institution that's going to commit billions of dollars to sifting every square inch of dirt along every possible route in hopes of discovering small finds or post holes which we probably have little hope of finding anyway.
This is the same dilemma I face with those islands in the delta. As yet no archaeological evidence exists the argument is purely from a textual perspective.
Yet, the west Aegean origin for these foreign invaders doesn't even have that.
There is no archaeological nor textual evidence in support of that claim. The idea comes entirely from an interpretation.
But surely that argument applies to where ever we think they came from. Whether Greece, Europe or northern Syria. Shouldn't we have already found it by now? The simple answer must be "no".Prior to the period in question, we have absolutely no evidence of large settled colonies of Aegean or European descent who stayed to themselves or dominated the area around them with their cultural paradigm. And certainly, we have no evidence of state-level polities like this. In contrast, the Philistines appear to have established a state-level polity immediately after arrival. Considering they immediately began mixing with the locals here, I'm extremely skeptical they would have refrained from doing so if they'd been settled for a long time in some other Near Eastern location. I mean, really, they set up shop across a pretty good size contiguous area here. If they previously had a permanent state-level location to call their own, surely we'd have been able to find it by now, as well as a great deal of continuity from the previous location to the new. There's nothing anywhere near like that in the archaeology from the region that I'm aware of, certainly not anything that existed substantially prior to the arrival of the Philistines in the southern Levant.
But then there is the occupation of Tel Ta'yinat just outside Alalakh where some think the Philistines had strong links.
A location of that sort would still make them Asiatic, and close enough to the Aegean influenced Cilicia, yet also politically Hittite. As a site it seems to fit all the parameters.
Your Philistines are never identified as "Sea Peoples" (n-p3-iamu), and they have towns & groves which the Egyptians destroyed. Therefore, they lived right on the doorstep of Egypt in year 5, three years before the so-called Sea Peoples invasion.None of this is even relevant. In regard to what I've said, it makes no difference whether the Philistines arrived before or after the Egyptian withdrawal.
But 'migration' is a subjective term.As I've stated before, the evidence shows only that the Philistines were of European descent and settled over a relatively brief period. I've made no claims except ones which directly concern that. It shows only that there was some element of a far-flung migration. I certainly don't believe all groups purported to be members of the Sea People came from Europe but it certainly looks like the Philistines did.
How many caucasian Amercians have DNA traces back to Europe?, which migration does this indicate?