Who were the Sea Peoples?

Oct 2013
6,428
Planet Nine, Oregon
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.
Others don't seem to share your view of the Medinet Habu inscriptions:
The Battles between Ramesses III and the " Sea-Peoples " When, Where and Who? An Iconic Analysis of the Egyptian Reliefs
Looks like Amurru was destroyed when the Sea People showed up and camped there. These lands being "cut off" makes me think that they were essentially under siege, cut off from supplies, etc.
 
Feb 2011
822
Kitchener. Ont.
......

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.
Like most people 'married' to their theory, you have not read the original texts.
Ramesses specifically calls them Setetyew/Amu = Asiatics, and they are in his view, not foreign enemies but local "rebels".
You have plenty of studying to do.
 
Feb 2011
822
Kitchener. Ont.
Wickerman, is this your own interpretation, that: 'It's poetry', or can you cite some folks who support that view?
It's pretty well understood, in fact Miriam Lichtheim wrote about it (Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2006) , but she isn't the only one.
Historical accounts gvien in prose are normally represented by the records of Thutmosis III, but the change to presenting the account in poetic form came with Ramesses III and the poem of Pentaure, the account of Kadesh. After that this poetic method is seen in the Victory Stela of Merneptah & the war records of Ramesses III.
 
Feb 2011
822
Kitchener. Ont.
Others don't seem to share your view of the Medinet Habu inscriptions:
The Battles between Ramesses III and the " Sea-Peoples " When, Where and Who? An Iconic Analysis of the Egyptian Reliefs
Looks like Amurru was destroyed when the Sea People showed up and camped there. These lands being "cut off" makes me think that they were essentially under siege, cut off from supplies, etc.
Thats right, no-one has read these texts the same way.
If anyone else had, I would reference them, being the first isn't all bad unless you're after the cheese.
By the way, there is no archaeological evidence for Amor being destroyed by any outside forces at this time. The enemy being "cut off" is one of many 'canned phrases' used by the scribe. Ramesses also uses "None could stand before my arm" in the Libyan war also.
 
Oct 2013
6,428
Planet Nine, Oregon
Well, there is so much to sort out and so many problematic details, perhaps we can all read that that there monograph and discuss it; should be illuminating for everyone. Mamluk Warrior? Should be of interest to others here who can actually read the glyphs..
 
Well, there is so much to sort out and so many problematic details, perhaps we can all read that that there monograph and discuss it; should be illuminating for everyone. Mamluk Warrior? Should be of interest to others here who can actually read the glyphs..
The problem is and what we're seeing is one its down to interpretation, two Wickerman is also being extremely selective and entertaining his selectivity is allowing him to sidestep the evidence, three the physical evidence, DNA, Pottery, Weapons, Scriptures from Hebrews and depictions of them in Greek style by the Egyptians.

These people were not Semetic.

If you two want to pour over the glyphs then by all means, but I would advise you to look over the glyphs of every mention of the Sea Peoples especially the earlier timeline glyphs over the later ones which he is referring to, also look at various sources, not just the ones Wickerman points you to.

Myself, I'm happy to sit on the hard evidence of DNA etc because that can't be doctored down to interpretation, which Wickerman's theory is living on.
 
Oct 2013
6,428
Planet Nine, Oregon
The problem is and what we're seeing is one its down to interpretation, two Wickerman is also being extremely selective and entertaining his selectivity is allowing him to sidestep the evidence, three the physical evidence, DNA, Pottery, Weapons, Scriptures from Hebrews and depictions of them in Greek style by the Egyptians.

These people were not Semetic.

If you two want to pour over the glyphs then by all means, but I would advise you to look over the glyphs of every mention of the Sea Peoples especially the earlier timeline glyphs over the later ones which he is referring to, also look at various sources, not just the ones Wickerman points you to.

Myself, I'm happy to sit on the hard evidence of DNA etc because that can't be doctored down to interpretation, which Wickerman's theory is living on.
I am in accord with your views Mamluk Warrior, and we have a mainstream interpretation.; Wickerman has a lot of knowledge and has developed his own theory. So, we'll see how it fares against new publications on the subject! I think he may be correct on some points. I don't read hieroglyphs or understand ancient Egyptian language, so I'm trying to lure someone in who does!
 

Similar History Discussions