Who were the Sea Peoples?

Feb 2011
757
Kitchener. Ont.
#81
............ for the most part but what about Philistine?

The Egyptians reported that they were the Peleset and apparently they actually settled some of them there as reward for fighting in their armies.
But they didn't.
There is so much in this topic that is misquoted or misinterpreted by scholars & layperson's alike.
Ramesses identifies specific groups and what their fate was, in one portion of the Harris Papyrus we read.

Quote:
I extended all the boundaries of Egypt;
I overthrew those who invaded them from their lands.
I slew the Denyen (D -ynyw-n ') in their isles, the Thekel (T -k-r ') and the Peleset (Pw-r -s ' -ty) were made ashes.
The Sherden and the Weshesh (W -3-3) of the sea, they were made as those that exist not, taken captive at one time, brought as captives to Egypt, like the sand of the shore.
I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name.
Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands.
I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year.


The text seems to explicitly say it was the Sherden & Weshesh who were taken captive, and brought to Egypt. Ramesses says nothing about settling the Peleset anywhere, least of all in neighboring lands of Canaan, outside the borders of Egypt.

The truth of the matter is, scholarship generally accepts the Peleset were the Philistines, yet they do not know why (or how?) these same Philistines were fighting on the side of Egypt in year 5, and against Egypt in year 8. They also do not know how the Philistines could have settled on the coast so close to Egypt.
Most scholars will not even entertain the suggestion that Philistines are mentioned in Genesis as being settled further south on the edge of the Negev (south of Philistia), generations before the Philistines occupied the Pentapolis.
Because of all these unknowns you will find varying theories about these Philistines and their relationship with Egypt, all of it is guesswork.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
757
Kitchener. Ont.
#82
Battle of Djahy:
Battle of Djahy - Wikipedia
"The Battle of Djahy was a major land battle between the forces of pharaoh Ramesses III and the Sea Peoples who intended to invade and conquer Egypt. The conflict occurred somewhere on the Egyptian Empire's easternmost frontier in Djahy or modern-day southern Lebanon, in the eighth year of pharaoh Ramesses III or about c. 1178 BC"
I often feel it's a lost cause reading what historians write about the Asiatic wars of Ramesses III.
On the monuments Ram III describes his advance northward into Djahy. He took his forces north and attacked the towns of Tunip, Arvad & another (name lost), all were described as Hittite towns.
He wrote right there at Medinet Habu, that he was authorized by the gods to drive his forces against Hatti.
There is nothing here about facing Sea Peoples on land.

So, how could this batch of Sea People have come from the Nile delta when they were fought so far north?
"The Denyen in their isles".
What "Isles"? - are we to suppose Ramesses took his Egyptian navy and attacked the Greek islands??
Really?
What we need to look for are what isles were occupied by these Denyen, they had to be close to Egypt.

There's a host of reason's why we should consider the gezirah's throughout the Delta as a home of foreigners not under Egyptian rule.
 
Oct 2013
5,424
Planet Nine, Oregon
#84
Even so, textual evidence aside, I suspect none of this would preclude the excursion mentioned by Odysseus; Greek mercenaries or pirates especially only nine ships' worth attacking Egypt, perhaps with others, could have happened.
 
Aug 2014
3,569
Australia
#85
The whole reason for the contention is because some historians can't tell the difference between piracy and an invasion. Their "Collapse" and "Dark Age" theory only works if there was a foreign invasion.
 
Oct 2013
5,424
Planet Nine, Oregon
#86
The whole reason for the contention is because some historians can't tell the difference between piracy and an invasion. Their "Collapse" and "Dark Age" theory only works if there was a foreign invasion.
Certainly seems like it. Although there apparently was destruction:
"The Late Bronze Age collapse involved a dark age transition period in the Near East, Asia Minor, the Aegean region, North Africa, Caucasus, Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age, a transition which historians believe was violent, sudden, and culturally disruptive. The palace economy of the Aegean region and Anatolia that characterised the Late Bronze Age disintegrated, transforming into the small isolated village cultures of the Greek Dark Ages. The half-century between c. 1200 and 1150 BC saw the cultural collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms, of the Kassite dynasty of Babylonia, of the Hittite Empire in Anatolia and the Levant, and of the Egyptian Empire;[1] the destruction of Ugarit and the Amorite states in the Levant, the fragmentation of the Luwian states of western Asia Minor, and a period of chaos in Canaan.[2] The deterioration of these governments interrupted trade routes and severely reduced literacy in much of the known world.[3] In the first phase of this period, almost every city between Pylos and Gaza was violently destroyed, and many abandoned, including Hattusa, Mycenae, and Ugarit.[4] According to Robert Drews:"

I don't see it as a "Dark Age" Maybe like the migration period in Europe. I don't see it as devoid of artifacts, though the switch to the alphabet happened during that time.
 
Aug 2014
3,569
Australia
#87
There WAS NO COLLAPSE. It only looks like a collapse because of the dodgy chronology. I love Drews' work but he was constrained by the chronology issues like everyone else. He never looked at the underlying reasons for the invention of the Collapse theory. He simply assumed that there was a collapse and tried to find a reason explaining why it came about. After debunking all the alternative theories such as earthquakes, migrations, famine, drought, and so on, he concludes that it must have been a military invasion by foreigners with a new way of fighting. If you read my book you will see that this idea is also unsubstantiated. Drews assumed that the chariot-using cultures in the 12th century fought the same way that they had in the 14th century. They didn't. All of those new weapons and tactics that Drews thinks were introduced by his foreign "barbarians" had already been adopted by the "chariot cultures". Both sides fought the same way.

You are never going to get anywhere with this until you forget about the so-called "collapse" and re-analyse the evidence without that preconception in mind. If you remove the Dark Age and take two hundred years out of the chronology, everything starts to make sense. All the inconsistencies disappear and there is no longer any need for the artificial Collapse/Dark Age construction. Instead of a rapid decline followed by a resurgence, the same evidence reveals a gradual transition into the Archaic Period.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
5,424
Planet Nine, Oregon
#88
I don't th ink there was a Hollywood-style collapse, just a lot of change. I don't really believe in "dark ages" generally. I dont think there were apocalyptic catastrophes, just a period of warfare like others, so I suppose we agree on that point. Do you propose to collapse the different styles of art and pottery and account for the more simplified forms. The change to the alphabet? Perhaps gradual? which segment of time is removed?
It has been a while since I have read up on this stuff, but others might also benefit from some of these questions and answers.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
5,424
Planet Nine, Oregon
#89
But they didn't.
There is so much in this topic that is misquoted or misinterpreted by scholars & layperson's alike.
Ramesses identifies specific groups and what their fate was, in one portion of the Harris Papyrus we read.

Quote:
I extended all the boundaries of Egypt;
I overthrew those who invaded them from their lands.
I slew the Denyen (D -ynyw-n ') in their isles, the Thekel (T -k-r ') and the Peleset (Pw-r -s ' -ty) were made ashes.
The Sherden and the Weshesh (W -3-3) of the sea, they were made as those that exist not, taken captive at one time, brought as captives to Egypt, like the sand of the shore.
I settled them in strongholds, bound in my name.
Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands.
I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year.


The text seems to explicitly say it was the Sherden & Weshesh who were taken captive, and brought to Egypt. Ramesses says nothing about settling the Peleset anywhere, least of all in neighboring lands of Canaan, outside the borders of Egypt.

The truth of the matter is, scholarship generally accepts the Peleset were the Philistines, yet they do not know why (or how?) these same Philistines were fighting on the side of Egypt in year 5, and against Egypt in year 8. They also do not know how the Philistines could have settled on the coast so close to Egypt.
Most scholars will not even entertain the suggestion that Philistines are mentioned in Genesis as being settled further south on the edge of the Negev (south of Philistia), generations before the Philistines occupied the Pentapolis.
Because of all these unknowns you will find varying theories about these Philistines and their relationship with Egypt, all of it is guesswork.
So, we don't really know who the "Weshesh" were, correct? They were settled in strongholds by pharaoh. And it is guesswork. So, there is an ambiguity that leaves a big door open for Greek mercenaries; works for me.
Sea Peoples of the Bronze Age Mediterranean c.1400 BC–1000 BC
And as I mentioned before:
"Neither the helmets nor the two identifiable types of armour are present elsewhere in the Egyptian iconographic record" That would be quite surprising for folks so close to home, eh?
doesn't it mention that they set up a camp in Amor? That is far north --or is that a mistranslation?
What about "Northerners coming from all lands"?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2016
400
Munich
#90
An argument for a late Mycenaean-Aegean origin of the "sea peoples" is the first appearance of cremation in the Syrian region at the beginning of the 12th century BCE, e.g. in Azor and Hama. This custom existed at this time only in Europe (Urnfield culture), Alalakh (South Anatolia) and "Troy", more precisely: Troy VI and perhaps VIIa (West Anatolia). It could therefore have been introduced to Syria by said "sea peoples" from the West Anatolian-Late Mycenaean region via South Anatolia.
 
Likes: Todd Feinman

Similar History Discussions