Who were the Sea Peoples?

Dec 2009
969
UK
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!
Well the experts who publish do, all you need to do is take 3 of them and see what each have said, are they in agreement or is Wickerman taking one contentious source and using that as gospel?

In fact take 4 accounts from online translations of one particular glyph of Sea Peoples and see what comes up?

My theory is if you look over enough of them the picture won't support Wickerman's theory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,374
Coastal Florida
My reference was Killebrew from Scripta Mediterranea 2006/2007, and she agrees with Meiberg & Zevulun.

"However, as pointed out by Meiberg, several morphological and functional features of these vessels distinguish them from west Aegean prototypes. These include the lack of an opening for the flow of liquids, a feature which is present in west Aegean Rhyta, thus pointing to the northern Levant and Anatolia as the source of inspiration.
These observations provide irrefutable evidence that the lion-headed cups found at Philistine and other south Levantine coastal sites were part of a long standing Anatolian and North Syrian tradition."

Scripta Mediterranea, 2006/2007, Killebrew, p.254.

Then we get to the crux of the matter, it isn't that there is disagreement between the authors, but you who disagrees with the rationale.
I'm currently very busy but I will be back to this discussion soon. However, I just got a chance to see this and I must say that this is a perfect example of where you've cherry-picked a source to support a false assertion. I have most of those books as well (but not Scripta Mediterranea 2006/2007) and the paper I referred to is actually included in one of the other texts in your photo. You again claim everyone is in complete agreement about this and that simply isn't the case. Meiberg clearly didn't seem to think this conclusion was irrefutable. In fact, she actually waffled on the matter. In her contribution to The Philistines and Other "Sea Peoples" in Text and Archaeology, she stated (pg. 141-142):

Zevulun, in my opinion, is correct in tracing the influence of the early Iron Age Philistine lion-headed cups to Late Bronze examples from northern Syria rather than to the Aegean world. However, could not the Late Bronze lion-headed cups from Ugarit themselves have their roots in Minoan and Mycenaean prototypes? Many would argue that this indeed must be the case since contemporary examples of animal-headed rhyta, though none of a lion, were imported from the Aegean to Ugarit (Schaeffer 1949, 222-23, fig. 93:5-7) as well as locally reproduced (Schaeffer 1949, 220-21, fig. 92). Although this possibility cannot be ruled out, I propose looking elsewhere, that is, to Anatolia.
Further weakening the certainty of her own position, she goes on to essentially assert there's not even any actual evidence of a continuous tradition of such wares in Syria in the first place. Rather, she simply assumes one existed and dismisses the lack of evidence as the "chances of archaeological discovery". The extant cups relied upon here to support this "Syrian tradition" are actually Late Bronze examples from the period when long-distance trade with the Aegean was already occurring. The next available similar examples from the region were manufactured prior to 1700 B.C., according to Meiberg's analysis. The case she puts forward for an Anatolian diffusion prior to 1700 appears strong but the tenuous connection she makes with the Late Bronze material is far less convincing as other equally plausible explanations become available.

So, as usual when it comes to this topic, these people seem to have somewhat speculative opinions but little in the way of clear proof to back them up. There's a big difference between proving what "did occur" and demonstrating the plausibility of something which "may have occurred". As far as these cups are concerned, it simply doesn't seem that we actually have conclusive evidence. In contrast, I think the newest evidence concerning the Philistines is pretty solid and very difficult to refute as it's derived via far more empirical means and stands on its own. Really, it appears to me this is the strongest evidence that's ever been brought forward concerning this topic, as far as it concerns the Philistines, anyway. I would also note that evidence would still stand regardless of what anyone proves about these cups in the future as well. So, they're essentially irrelevant to the question of the origin of the Philistines, in any case.

Isn't this what I've been saying.....

Moreover, the link to southern Europe "doesn't mean that the Philistines [themselves] came from these regions," she added. But the southern European signal is undeniable, so "we can say that the ancestors of the Philistines probably came from southern Europe and arrived into Ashkelon some time either at the end of the late Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron Age."
Philistines, Biblical Enemies of the Israelites, Were European, DNA Reveals
No, that's clearly not what you've been saying. This quote paraphrases exactly what I've been saying: people from Europe migrated to the Levant and procreated with the locals when they got there...the Philistine culture we find in archaeology is the sum product of this event. I would further quote a statement from the Max Planck Institute which was linked in the same article (translated by Google):

The analysis revealed that around the time of the alleged arrival of the Philistines, a European gene component also reached Ashkelon. This indicates that the ancestors of the Philistines migrated across the Mediterranean and reached Ashkelon in the early Iron Age. In the following centuries, the European descent was diluted by the local gene pool, which suggests an intensive mixing between ancestral and newly immigrated populations.
Another example of you misinterpreting a source to suit your own purposes...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MamlukWarrior
Dec 2009
969
UK
The DNA does not represent the enemies of Ramesses III, why can't you get this?
So I'm being selective am I? that's an amusing accusation coming from yourself.

The Egyptians stated that the Peleset settled the Levant, which we know are the Philistines, who we know have SE European DNA.

........... now if your talking about the Sherdan or another of the Sea People tribes then that's your issue, I'm talking about the Philistines.

Actually this area has peaked my interest, maybe I will go over the the deciphering by experts of the Egyptian glyph's ......... however, it still changes nothing at the Philistine sites regarding the DNA or that people in this thread have had a similar discussion earlier on regarding the depictions of the Sea Peoples by the Egyptians.

PS - Reading Dreamhunter's post, he has some of these books and already seems versed on it and doesn't share your selective opinion, if you can't even get him to agree then it looks like you've already been caught out and what I suspected is true .......... you've taken one deciphering which leans toward your thoughts on the matter and construed it as universal, which apparently its not.
 
Feb 2011
823
Kitchener. Ont.
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.
Maybe it is necessary to make something clear, we do not know for a fact truly what happened in the 8th year of Ramesses III, but according to the Egyptian texts Egypt came out the winner.
We can always call him a liar, a good many scholars have for decades, these pharaohs certainly embellished their campaigns, and I've little doubt Ramesses II did not fair so well at Kadesh, as he claimed in his records at home.
However, If we are going to judge what Ramesses III wrote about his Asiatic Wars then we must take his records verbatim, unless we can find tangible cause to do otherwise.

First - Ramesses III claims to have been invaded and he repulsed all of them, with the exception of the Sherden & Wesesh whom he took captive back to Egypt. He never claimed to take any Philistines (Peleset) captive, or settle them anywhere.

Second - archaeology has established that following this "Sea People" invasion, Egypt dominated the coastal Levant all the way north to the Yarkon for the duration of the reign of Ram. III, and through to Ram. VI. (This is the last Pharaoh known to control Megiddo), an approximate time span of 35-50 years, or two generations.
Several south Levantine sites destroyed at the end of the Bronze Age are covered by windblown sand, a fact which extremely troubled Trude Dothan because this does not fit her theory that the Philistines invaded and directly settled in the Pentapolis - archaeology shows it never happened.

Third - to date, no Monochrome pottery (MYC IIIc.1b) has been found in a secure strata dated to the 20th Dynasty. This pottery, when it does appear, is dated to the 21st Dynasty and is within a generation or so followed by the Bichrome pottery (this, according to Finkelstein).
The people who made this Monochrome/Bichrome pottery only moved in to the Levant after Egypt relinquished their firm hold on the southern Levant.

So, where does this DNA evidence of "ancestral SE European" fit in?
If the Philistines were not living there directly after the invasion, then who's DNA is it?
The only pottery found above the devastated sites is Egyptian & Canaanite, no Mycenaean, no Cypriot, no Monochrome & no Bichrome. Only Canaanites & Egyptians were occupying the southern Levant for roughly 35-50 years, until the end of the 20th Dynasty.
Obviously then, this DNA can only belong to the people who came in to the region in the 21st Dynasty, those who made the pottery. The DNA can only apply to some foreign immigrants who came 35-50 years after the invasion.

Now, you can disagree with anything you like there, but "this" is the evidence.
 
Feb 2011
823
Kitchener. Ont.
PS - Reading Dreamhunter's post, he has some of these books and already seems versed on it and doesn't share your selective opinion, if you can't even get him to agree then it looks like you've already been caught out and what I suspected is true .......... you've taken one deciphering which leans toward your thoughts on the matter and construed it as universal, which apparently its not.
It may have escaped your attention, but debate is often the result of opposing views.
What is wrong with a difference of opinion?
Did you ever follow the debate between Dever & Finkelstein?, scholars disagree all the time, yet you seem to think everyone should agree?
I'm perfectly fine with Dreamregent disagreeing, what I prefer though is to stick to the details. Ever heard the saying, "play the ball not the man"?
No-one should resort to criticizing the other party, if they can't deal with the specifics of the debate, then step out and let others who can continue.
 
Last edited:

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,504
Malaysia
All Rameses did was to list all the minorities who participated in the rebellion. Rebels, by definition, must have lived under Egyptian rule. If they were outsiders, they would not have been called rebels.
Parts of the Levantine coastal regions, including Canaan, Phoenicia & coastal Syria, were also under Egyptian hegemony that time. So, any uprisers from there would also be rebels of sorts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman
Dec 2009
969
UK
Parts of the Levantine coastal regions, including Canaan, Phoenicia & coastal Syria, were also under Egyptian hegemony that time. So, any uprisers from there would also be rebels of sorts.
Also to mention another possibility which they gloss over but would perfectly fit this theory is that the Egyptians took some of the Sea People raiders as captives and allowed them to serve in the Egyptian Army as mercenaries.

This would mean they would of been allowed a settlement as I'm sure they wouldn't of wanted them in the Egyptian Cities.

So if a band of Sea peoples had a settlement for lets say 100 years and eventually rebelled, that would perfectly explain that description, we already know Egypt directed bands of Sea Peoples towards the Levant in some sort of treaty, similar in some senses to how the Franks dealt with Rollo and his Vikings by stationing them in Normandy in exchange for military service.

.......... so even if it was a local rebellion that doesn't change the fact that Sea Peoples were foreign to the area.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman

Dreamhunter

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
7,504
Malaysia
PS - Reading Dreamhunter's post, he has some of these books and already seems versed on it and doesn't share your selective opinion, if you can't even get him to agree then it looks like you've already been caught out and what I suspected is true .......... you've taken one deciphering which leans toward your thoughts on the matter and construed it as universal, which apparently its not.
LOL

I scrolled back a few pages, just to make sure. It was not me, Dreamhunter. It was DreamRegent, I reckon. I'm really novice grade when it to comes this Sea Peoples topic.

But it's certainly a most interesting topic. I always enjoy reading through this thread & contributing what little I know.:hug::yes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman
Feb 2019
613
Thrace
imho they were a group of ex-cucuteni/trypillians from russia. they settled on cyprus then landed at tyr a hundred years later.
state history museum in moscow holds all the proof in one display case... and i guess the bm and louvre have a little too.
this dna stuff just verifies what the most important artifacts say but not aegean... black sea... sea of azov.

alamy
Isn't the cucuteni-trypillia culture from Romania?