Who were the Sea Peoples?

Feb 2011
832
Kitchener. Ont.
If they had to set up a "camp" or base at Amurru.. They would not be from the local population (not all).
I think you have the wrong people setting up camp in Amor. Yes the conventional view has always been it was the Sea Peoples, but I'm saying this view is wrong. It was the Hittite alliance of Kode, Carchemish, Arvad & Alishaya.
In much the same way as the Hittite alliance assembled camp together near Kadesh a century before.

Then they headed further inland destroying as they went. And raiders are not traders; wouldn't you expect that local craftsmen would add Aegean decorations to native pottery if there was some demand from groups of outsiders passing through?
If some large force of foreigners were destroying the land as they pass through it, would you as a potter stay to try sell them your goods?, or flee like everyone else! What makes you think those foreigners were in any mood to buy/trade anything when they are just helping themselves to anything they want.
The texts tells us those Sea People came by boat to attack the Delta, what would they be doing making a camp in Amor?
 
Mar 2014
28
Brazil
The western part of the Hittite empire was not finished by this point?Hattusa was abandoned between 1200-1170 no?


I thought like the Roman-Greeks (Byzantine empire) 2000 years afterward only the eastern part of the empire survived, lead by Carchemish.

I know that the Hittite royal house was divided in 3 parts in its last days.With Carchemish (with kings descendants of Suppiluiluma) being loyal to Hattusa and a rival royal house in Tarhuntassa.

The last documents of the empire showed unrest,famine,rebellions and a campaign against Alashya.

How the hittites in their last days could do a gigantic campaign against Egypt?I think this interpretation is problematic with the old chronology,how it would fit with the new one?It happened before or after the rule of Suppiluiluma II (the last attested Hiitite king)?

The invasion/campaign was done by the royal house (with Ramses III being responsible by the downfall of the empire) ,by the rival royal house in Tarhuntassa,or by some surviving Neo-Hittite states?

Anyway Medinet Habu recording (or it's translation) does not match archaeology.Carchemish survived the end of the Hittite empire.



Enviado de meu E6603 usando o Tapatalk
 

Todd Feinman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
6,831
Planet Nine, Oregon
Greek city-states (the Polis) were fighting each other in this period, doesn't Homer even mention this in his Illiad?



What you quote above, in my view, was not intended to be read as a story. It is poetry, much like the Victory Stela of Merneptah.

The line which begins, "No land could stand before them....", which you quoted above I think refers to the previous line, which was: "They were cut off and destroyed all at once (at one time)". This being a reference to the Egyptian army.

It's poetry, the first line basically announces 'What the enemy did', the next line provides the Egyptian response.
Look at it like this:
Enemy: - "As for the foreign countries they made a conspiracy in their isles"
Egypt: - "They were removed and scattered all at once, no land could stand before their arms" (in this case "their arms" refers to the Egyptian army".

This is a well known transition from first person to third person in Egyptian poetry. Quite often we come across "their" where we would expect "our", but the king is a God, and he shifts the narrative from what 'I' did (as a god), to what 'they' did, meaning his Egyptian subjects - his military.
In Egyptian texts it is not uncommon to read a "they" which means 'the other guys', and in the next sentence a "they" which means 'our guys', and yes, it can get confusing.

The god/king does not tell what the enemy did in battle, that would be praising the enemy. He only announces what "we" (Egypt) did, and in some cases it is what "he" did, and in other cases what "they", his subjects did.

The story then continues with:
Enemy: - "Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad & Alishaya"
Egypt: - "(they were also) cut off, all at once"

They suffered the same fate, first the restless islanders were "cut off", then the Hittite alliance was also "cut off" (by Egypt).

It continues with:
Enemy: - "A camp was set up in Amor" (Amor was under a Hittite vassal king, so this is not an Egyptian camp, its the Hittite camp).
Egypt: - "They desolate its people, and its land was like that which was never created" Again the "they" means the Egyptian army, we should read "we".

To assign this line to the enemy is to give praise to the enemy, which Egypt cannot do. Ramesses is saying his military has destroyed Amor so completely it is desolate, uninhabited, nothing can live there - an exaggeration of course. But the point is, this is what Egypt did to Amor.

Continuing:
Enemy: - "They were coming while the flame was prepared before them forward towards Egypt" In this case the "they" is the enemy, not Egypt.
"Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen & Weshesh, lands united.
Egypt: - "They laid their hands upon the lands to the very circuit of the land, their hearts confident and trusting, our plans will succeed."

This last line, I think, refers the limits of the delta (the very circuit of the land), simply because these islanders already lived in the Delta. So the only forces who are coming into the delta from outside, so to speak, are Egyptian forces, who swept the "rebels" to the very edge of the sea (where the land ends).
I question the translation of "plans", but this is yet to be clarified.



We can all think up some scenario to fit what we believe, but we are supposed to use the existing evidence to provide the scenario.



The Anabasis was a failure that the author turned into a success, of sorts.
Do you think the occupation of the Levant was a failure?
After all, these foreigners lived there for several centuries, why not sing the praises of this Aegean enterprise?
Thanks for explaining your position in detail!
Hmm.. Wouldn't the inscription be first person? 'I caused to retreat the Asiatics who had trodden Egypt...'
Also, if a local rebellion, would they build a base to the north of the Levant if they wanted to attack Egypt? Mames more sense if it was a base to attack Hittite areas and Egypt too.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
832
Kitchener. Ont.
Nope.

You've been advocating that there was no takeover of SE Europeans in the Levant and that the Egyptians fought some sort of locals to the area.

You specifically denied a large group of SE Europeans raiding or taking over in Egypt or the Levant saying that it would need a mass migration event.
Correct, and the DNA results demonstrate no SE Europeans came to invade Egypt or the Levant (as stated in that quote).
Whomever moved in to the southern Levant and made that monochrome pottery did not come from Europe, but only had traces of SE European ancestry in their DNA.

Like I've been saying for at least a decade, three of those so-called Sea Peoples can, in my opinion, be identified as from Adana, Tarsus & Issus in Cilicia. A region of mixed ethnicity, initially Luwian speakers, taken over by Hurrians, and later by Aegeans.
A perfect match for the 'trace' of SE European ancestry.

............. I was the one who told you it didn't need one and that you were over playing that card.
It is the accepted paradigm, for the past century, where the mass migration hypothesis was raised, not by me.
Clearly, there was no such event as a mass migration.

Pirates from Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, Coastal Anatolia don't need mass migration, its straight A -B point sailing following the coast or directly, however, there's no stop offs or settlements needed, this travelling would take days not months or years, and bands of pirates don't need "mass migration".
An international league of Pirates is a large pill to swallow, especially as there is no known parallel for such an enterprise. Besides, the reliefs show & describe well armed warriors in some type of uniform tunics.

All the article your quoting is saying is that the Philistines were as myself, the Egyptians, the Hebrews and other posters here have said ......... they were SE European and that over time they obviously interbred with locals of the Levant, that changes nothing about their origin or this debate.
What do you think the line...., "doesn't mean the Philistines themselves came from these (SE Europe) regions", means?
They were already a mixed race before they arrived in the southern Levant.
The question then remains, 'where in the local region did these Philistines come from?'

Given that Aleppo is not too far from Tel Tayinat, It is interesting that long ago Astour identified a toponym in the region of Aleppo called KasiluHe, which he suggested might be the Casluhim of the Hebrew texts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matthew Amt
Feb 2011
832
Kitchener. Ont.
The western part of the Hittite empire was not finished by this point?Hattusa was abandoned between 1200-1170 no?


I thought like the Roman-Greeks (Byzantine empire) 2000 years afterward only the eastern part of the empire survived, lead by Carchemish.

I know that the Hittite royal house was divided in 3 parts in its last days.With Carchemish (with kings descendants of Suppiluiluma) being loyal to Hattusa and a rival royal house in Tarhuntassa.

The last documents of the empire showed unrest,famine,rebellions and a campaign against Alashya.
Yes, from what we read there might have been civil war between Tarhuntassa & Hattushas, both royal seats appear to have suffered and collapsed, leaving the only Hittite power in the region to be ruled from Carchemish.


How the hittites in their last days could do a gigantic campaign against Egypt?I think this interpretation is problematic with the old chronology,how it would fit with the new one?It happened before or after the rule of Suppiluiluma II (the last attested Hiitite king)?
I suspect the Hittite king in charge was Talmi-Teshub, king of Carchemish, though his son Kuzi-Teshub is also possible. Though if the regal change around 1180? BCE between father & son is reasonably accurate, and the claim by Ram. III equally so, "I slew the king of Hatti", then Talmi-Teshub is more likely.
1187? also appears to be the date of the fall of Emar, which was Hittite at this time, and is listed among the conquered toponyms by Ramesses III. His forces must have been the "Tarvu" (Hoards) noted by Meli-Shipak II

Your questioning of Hittite power in this period, after the fall of the Empire, is reasonable. It tends to explain the alliance of Hatti with Libyans & Asiatics (Peleset, Denyen, Shekelesh, Sherden, etc.), in their move against Egypt.

The invasion/campaign was done by the royal house (with Ramses III being responsible by the downfall of the empire) ,by the rival royal house in Tarhuntassa,or by some surviving Neo-Hittite states?
I think the Empire fell more due to internal fighting, a civil war between Tarhuntassa & Hattushas.

Anyway Medinet Habu recording (or it's translation) does not match archaeology.Carchemish survived the end of the Hittite empire.
If you mean the accepted hypothesis that Sea Peoples destroyed Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad & Alishaya, then yes, historians know, or should know, this is false.
The text has been interpreted wrong.
 
Dec 2009
969
UK
Correct, and the DNA results demonstrate no SE Europeans came to invade Egypt or the Levant (as stated in that quote).
Whomever moved in to the southern Levant and made that monochrome pottery did not come from Europe, but only had traces of SE European ancestry in their DNA.

Like I've been saying for at least a decade, three of those so-called Sea Peoples can, in my opinion, be identified as from Adana, Tarsus & Issus in Cilicia. A region of mixed ethnicity, initially Luwian speakers, taken over by Hurrians, and later by Aegeans.
A perfect match for the 'trace' of SE European ancestry.



It is the accepted paradigm, for the past century, where the mass migration hypothesis was raised, not by me.
Clearly, there was no such event as a mass migration.



An international league of Pirates is a large pill to swallow, especially as there is no known parallel for such an enterprise. Besides, the reliefs show & describe well armed warriors in some type of uniform tunics.



What do you think the line...., "doesn't mean the Philistines themselves came from these (SE Europe) regions", means?
They were already a mixed race before they arrived in the southern Levant.
The question then remains, 'where in the local region did these Philistines come from?'

Given that Aleppo is not too far from Tel Tayinat, It is interesting that long ago Astour identified a toponym in the region of Aleppo called KasiluHe, which he suggested might be the Casluhim of the Hebrew texts.
Your comment on the pirates / raiders is a sideline circus comment, Crete was well known for its maritime raiders, don't try and dilute the argument by trying mix the idea of Greco Cretan warriors with 18th century pirates who spent months at sea ........ the Cretans were Greek but they were more akin to a Viking lifestyle rather than Black Beard, warriors who went on opportunistic raids.

Also you can quote that article as much as you want, it says "May of" there are other articles, particularly the one from the people who took the sample clearly stating "The DNA is SE European" that is the conclusion.

You later comment trying desperately to account for locals completely and utterly sidelines the fact that the Hebrews comment on them as foreign ......... Aleppo is not foreign to Israel, its next door for heavens sake.

Honestly at this point I don't care what you believe, I've listed previously all the evidence stacked up and your just selectively pot holing it which may make sense in your head but it doesn't on paper, the DNA has damned your theory and your just not willing to accept it.

I've studied the Middle East extensively and am half Middle Eastern myself, the Philistines were not Semetic or indigenous ......... they were not like the Amorites, the Hewbrews, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medes, the Akkadians, the Southern tribal Arabs, the Hyksos, the Egyptians, Mittani or even the Hittites.

The Hebrews and the Egyptians are literally telling you "These guys aren't from around here" so is the DNA, so is their dress and weapons and the fact that their Boat raiders, you wouldn't call Scythians "Sea peoples would you!".

If your not going to believe all of that, then you never will, there is no point trying to make you see sense.
 

Todd Feinman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2013
6,831
Planet Nine, Oregon
Greek city-states (the Polis) were fighting each other in this period, doesn't Homer even mention this in his Illiad?



What you quote above, in my view, was not intended to be read as a story. It is poetry, much like the Victory Stela of Merneptah.

The line which begins, "No land could stand before them....", which you quoted above I think refers to the previous line, which was: "They were cut off and destroyed all at once (at one time)". This being a reference to the Egyptian army.

It's poetry, the first line basically announces 'What the enemy did', the next line provides the Egyptian response.
Look at it like this:
Enemy: - "As for the foreign countries they made a conspiracy in their isles"
Egypt: - "They were removed and scattered all at once, no land could stand before their arms" (in this case "their arms" refers to the Egyptian army".

This is a well known transition from first person to third person in Egyptian poetry. Quite often we come across "their" where we would expect "our", but the king is a God, and he shifts the narrative from what 'I' did (as a god), to what 'they' did, meaning his Egyptian subjects - his military.
In Egyptian texts it is not uncommon to read a "they" which means 'the other guys', and in the next sentence a "they" which means 'our guys', and yes, it can get confusing.

The god/king does not tell what the enemy did in battle, that would be praising the enemy. He only announces what "we" (Egypt) did, and in some cases it is what "he" did, and in other cases what "they", his subjects did.

The story then continues with:
Enemy: - "Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad & Alishaya"
Egypt: - "(they were also) cut off, all at once"

They suffered the same fate, first the restless islanders were "cut off", then the Hittite alliance was also "cut off" (by Egypt).

It continues with:
Enemy: - "A camp was set up in Amor" (Amor was under a Hittite vassal king, so this is not an Egyptian camp, its the Hittite camp).
Egypt: - "They desolate its people, and its land was like that which was never created" Again the "they" means the Egyptian army, we should read "we".

To assign this line to the enemy is to give praise to the enemy, which Egypt cannot do. Ramesses is saying his military has destroyed Amor so completely it is desolate, uninhabited, nothing can live there - an exaggeration of course. But the point is, this is what Egypt did to Amor.

Continuing:
Enemy: - "They were coming while the flame was prepared before them forward towards Egypt" In this case the "they" is the enemy, not Egypt.
"Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen & Weshesh, lands united.
Egypt: - "They laid their hands upon the lands to the very circuit of the land, their hearts confident and trusting, our plans will succeed."

This last line, I think, refers the limits of the delta (the very circuit of the land), simply because these islanders already lived in the Delta. So the only forces who are coming into the delta from outside, so to speak, are Egyptian forces, who swept the "rebels" to the very edge of the sea (where the land ends).
I question the translation of "plans", but this is yet to be clarified.



We can all think up some scenario to fit what we believe, but we are supposed to use the existing evidence to provide the scenario.



The Anabasis was a failure that the author turned into a success, of sorts.
Do you think the occupation of the Levant was a failure?
After all, these foreigners lived there for several centuries, why not sing the praises of this Aegean enterprise?
Wickerman, is this your own interpretation, that: 'It's poetry', or can you cite some folks who support that view?