Ancient and Archaeology permalink
The 'Sea Peoples'.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by wanderer75 (U9290777) on Tuesday, 7th August 2007
I've often come across the term the 'Sea Peoples' during my casual reading of history. They seem to have had a considerable impact upon the eastern med during the late bronze age but I've yet to read a satisfactory explanation of there origins. Many texts seem to contradict each other giving various explanations of who they were and especially where they were from.
Can anyone enlighten me on the subject or point me in the direction of some recommended reading.
Regards. -
Message 2
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 7th August 2007
I assume you mean the ones who the Egyptians identified as 'pirates'. Their identification is a mystery, or maybe one that is not too hard to understand given the collapse at that time of several hitherto cohesive and even powerful cultures in the area - the Mycenaeans being top of the list in terms of modern knowledge of them. What seems apparent however is that the Egyptian phrase is a rather vague one - all inclusive and dismissive at the same time - and was used throughout several reigns probably to indicate several different 'waves' (pardon the pun) of disruption to their nautical trade, and even an attempted invasion.
They were probably for the most part Greek in the broadest sense, especially those identified in the Egyptian record as the destroyers of the Hittite, Mitanni, and even the Mycenaean civilization. This lends weight to the theory that what the Egyptians were countering was the thin end of a very large wedge indeed - a series of mass migrations in the Eastern Med and the Levant. Unfortunately the evidence for any of it is thin on the ground with regard to detail. Archaeological evidence does however support the culture-shift that occurred on a grand scale in a relatively short timespan corresponding with the Egyptian accounts.
The wiki article, which I assume you've read, is rather good at identifying the Egyptian account, but for a more detailed hypothesis of who they were and how it all gels with the record I recommend Mariusz Burdajewicz's niftily titled "The Aegean Sea Peoples and Religious Architecture in the Eastern Mediterranean at the Close of the Late Bronze Age". He uses artefacts convincingly to draw some continuity from events as the pharaohs recorded them and centres the 'sea peoples' in three alternate sites at three different times - the Aegean/Mycenaean territories, Lebanon/Syria, and Libya. -
Message 3
Posted by henvell (U1781664) on Wednesday, 8th August 2007
Ramses III was challenged [ca1177 BCE] in the Nile Delta by an ephermal alliance of warriors from Asia Minor [ie:Peleset] and marine marauders [ie;Weshesh]."The Sea Peoples" is the name,which is commonly used for the latter component of the coalition.
The Mediterranean Sea has a long history of piracy and marine attacks on coastal settlements. Polichini on the Aegean Island of Lemas had defensive walls ca 4200 BCE [B Cuncliffe,2002].
The activities of freebooters ranged from hit and run actions to full scale engagements.Composition of the sea raiders varied temporally.Brief alliances of convenience were forged,to assault seaboard strongholds,when they were most vunerable.They looted the victims and sailed away in search of new targets.When powerful fleets [ie;Minoan] protected the the seaways,the incidence of piracy was relatively low.Whenever there there was a power vacuum or an unstable era,the opportunity for easy plunder attracted seafarers from distant ports.
Egyptian inscriptions record the defeat of a naval force in the Nile Delta by Ramses II ca 1278 BCE."They came in ships from the midst of the sea"."The King destroyed the warriors from the midst of the Great Green Sea",[J Brested 1903-04].Syracuse on the Island of Sicily was plundered by maritime marauders about or shortly after 1270 BCE.The peace treaty between Egypt and the Hittites after the battle of Kadesh and the Mycenaean fleet contributed to stability in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
After the death of Ramses II,political relationships became fluid.The state of flux in Egypt encouraged other rulers to pursue their expansionist ambitions.The Victory Shield in the Temple of Merenptah at Thebes commemerates the triumph of Merenptah over a Libyan army ca 1213 +/-10a BCE.Libya's northern allies included the Shardana.Lukka,Teresh,Meshwash,Ekwesh and Shekelesh.The latter two were Sea Peoples and,with the Lukka,transported the land forces to Libya.The Lukka,who fought with the Hittites at the Battle of Kadesh and who occupied the mainland north of Rhodes,had a long history of piracy.The Ekwesh.who are only mentioned once in Egyptian records,were the most numerous of the allies.They are described as tall of stature,with white bodies,fair hair and blue eyes [F Braudel,2002],which are not Eastern Mediterranean characteristics.Internal problems reduced Egypt's capacity to defend its merchant ships.
Post 22020 BCE the efficiency of the Mycenaean navy progressively declined and merchant vessels were frequently attacked.This disrupted international maritime trade and impacted adversely on the prosperity of the Greek populations.The fortifications at the Greek city of Pylos were allowed to deteriorate.Ca 1200 BCE it was burnt and destroyed.Prior to its destruction Pylos assigned a group of 800 men to guard its shoreline,which infers a threat of a seaborne attack.the stores remained intact,which eliminates famine,[C Thomas.1999].The plight of Pylos can probably be attributed to the Sea Peoples.Mycenae and Tiryne upgraded their fortifications about this time.The chaotic conditions along the Aegean seaboard were conducive to lawlessness.Land brigands and pirates often united to exploit a perceived weakness of the opulent.
After the battle of Kadesh the Hittites were a stabilizing influence in Asia Minor.Post 1200 BCE their dominance rapidly waned.The Egyptian ruler.Merenptah,sent grain to relieve a famine [J Brested,1903-04].Subsequently the Urgarit fleet and Hittite soldiers defeated the Sea People in a naval engagement off the coast of Cyprus.The Hittite King Suppilulima III petitioned Urgarit ruler for a ship to carry grain stores from the Orontes Valley to Cilica ["it was a matter of life or death'] and boats to transport the royal familty,courtiers and army to safety [F Braudel,2002].The collapse of the Hittites is poorly documented.It can probably be attributed to a combination of factors.Written Hittite accounts reveal that there was considerable discension among the royal family.It has been suggested that earthquakes,famine and plague decimated the people of Hattusa during its latter days.The Hittites depended on mercenaries to maintain order in their domains.During periods of turmoil the allegence of foreign troops can be tenuous,[ibid].Hittite documents infer that a coalition was being formed against it by the states to the west prior to ca 1180 BCE,when Hattusa was looted,destroyed and burnt [by their traditioal northern enemies, the Kashkap?].The Hittite collapse provided anopportunity for the numerous states of Anatolia to realize their nationalistic ambitions and for Egypt to expand its sphere of influence northward. Ramses III conquered Amurra ca 1179 BCE,which placed Egypt in diect confrontation
with the states to the north.
The above sequence of events allowed the Sea Peoples to extend their activities southward.Late Urgarit documents [ca 1185? BCE] reported that the Sea Peoples had attacked Cicila And Cyprus."They sailed from the isles of the Great Green Sea [Aegean?]".'Behold the enemy ships,my cities were burnt and they did evil things to my country....all my ships were in the land of Lycia....and the country was abandoned' [G Callender,1999].Urgarit was the centre for wheat shipments to the Hittites.When it was destroyed by the Sea Peoples ca 1182 BCE,
the fate of the Hittites was sealed.As the Sea Peoples sailed to the south,there was a discernible change in their tactics.Many of the coastal communities were not atacked [Tyre,Sarepta and possibly Sidon and Byblos].It would appear that an ephemeral alliance was forged between the states of Anatolia,the shoreline communities of the Levant and the Sea Peoples to acquire the resoures of Egypt by force of arms.Amurra was captured from the Egyptians.
The threat that this coalition posed to Egypt is descibed on the MedinetTemple walls.Prior to the battle of the Nile Delta Ramses III defeated the Peleset and Tjekker on the Halo Plains of Syria.Most Levant armies had war chariots.the Peleset and Tjekker did not have chariots.This land battle may have predated the the formation of the coalition against Egypt.The Egyptians defeated the Peleset,Tjekker,Denyen,Shekelesh and Weshesh in a naval engagement in the Nile Delta ca 1177 BCE.The Denyen came from their Isles and the Shekelesh and Weshesh were of the Sea.These three were probably the Sea Peoples.The enemy ships on the battle scenes at Medinet Habu have identical fore- and aft-posts,with birds heads on the top.S Wachsmann [2000] traces the design to the Danube corridor,which could infer that one component of the Sea Peoples came from the Black Sea Region.
The information that is contained in Egyptian victory inscriptions can be deceptive [ie:the battle of Kadesh].The origins of the forces that fought against Ramses III are conjectural.They might have come from as far west as Sicily or beyond,the Aegean and Black Seas.Mariners from the ravished Aegean seaports may have joined their ranks.The land soldiers could have been migrants from Anatolia with elements from the Levant.Tthe Sea Peoples did not destroy the Hittite Empire,but made an indirect contribution to its demise,when they sacked Urgarit.The Sea Peoples lost the Nile Delta conflict,Egypts capacity to extend its boundaries north of Palestine were thwarted and the Phoenicians rapidly emerged as a major maritime power. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 9th August 2007
Dannish and Swedish and Norwegians had some considerably shipping tradition but in the 17th century they were not the major shipping forces. The pirates of the Carribean and of Magadascar were mainly of English and French and Dutch (and to a lesser extend of Spanish and Portuguese who were usually the victims of piracy). I.e. pirates were coming from the main maritime cultures of the era.
Now back in the late 2nd millenia B.C. there were not many maritime powers in the Mediterranean (and in the world!). One can mention only two regions, primarily that of the Aegean and secondarily that of Palestine that seems to succeed in predominance when the former fell into decline. I think that it is there that we have to research our pirate Sea people. The reference to birds on ships and the link to Danube is highly speculative (such designs were merely a fashion that rarely could be attributed to a particular ethnicity when talking about those times). Let alone that the Danube area (i.e. coastal Roumania) was not known to have hosted any major shipping power, nor was any other part of the Black Sea. The only known power to have circulated up there in numbers were the Mycenean ships carrying wheat. Myceneans were carrying their wheat from the Black sea, from Minor Asia and from Egypt and the epicenter of trade fell accordingly to availability, prices, political relations, wars etc. It was imported wheat that fed the increasing populations of the Aegean (an area that cannot feed naturally but a very small population). That multiple trade was also the cause of wars (most probably also the one that inspired the Iliad as Troy was a city that controlled the Dardanelles - or tried to control as it was repeatedly looted as evidence but also myths claim - e.g. Hercules had raided the city one generation before Agamemnon). Now when there is such sea trade there is necessarily piracy. But pirates have to have ships and ships capable enough. -
Message 5
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 9th August 2007
I agree with you E_Nik, and would go further in saying that the term 'pirates' (which I myself alluded to earlier) is more of a hindrance than a help to understanding the phenomenon. That Egypt labelled them as such is not a surprise, given that these people disrupted and generally threatened Egypt's attempts at not only trading in the Mediterranean, but effectively being the 'rulers of the waves', a lucrative position to be in if it could be achieved as Phoenicians, later Greeks and Romans were to discover.
However the temptation to interpret the Egyptian records as referring to vast and organised fleets of pirates-cum-invaders (depending on the nature of the confrontation) leads one to suppose a form of 'aquatic superpower', and from there one is apt to deduce the necessity of organised 'fleets', aligned and deployed almost ilke military units on land.
My own view is that you are right to say that there is no contemporary evidence of such a power at the time Egypt was recording its alleged assaults on their state and their trade. But that does not say there would not have been a hell of a lot of shipping out there - a look at a map of the Mediterranean is enough to deduce why - and that many of those ships were manned by people who, at various stages, were descended from societies that had indeed used their maritime fleets as an extension to their military and political ambitions. What Egypt was encountering was the legacy of a thousand years of such development, temporarily unfocused in terms of empirical or other political control, but none the less effective in loose alliance for all that when a handy target presented itself - and Egypt was just that.
The 'sea peoples', in my view, were not strictly speaking people who lived on and from the sea - but the plentiful remnants of powerful states in decline, in lands where great population shifts had occurred and were still occurring. The sea therefore offered them a form of structure and opportunity for power denied them in their traditional homelands, and their great number meant inevitable alliances, sometimes large and strong enough even to make concerted attempts at invasion in a land as strong as Egypt then was. Given the time scale involved as well it is only fair to reason that these alliances shifted many times, could be identified with different land bases, and might even disappear at times only to reform elsewhere later. The Egyptians saw it all as a continuation of the same foes' tactics directed against them, but that even they credited these foes with an impressive list of 'tribal' names suggests that the 'sea peoples' were less of a dynasty at sea, and more the expression of a few hundred years of dynastic vacuum on the Mediterranean's Northern, Eastern, and North African shores.
They disappeared finally from the records not after some great victory over them, but coincidentally when areas such as Greece, the Levant, and Libya (amongst others) began once more to settle and eveolve into powerful entities in their own right again. -
Message 6
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Sunday, 12th August 2007
There is also a small but persistant claim that the 'Sea People" came fom the great Indus Civilisation - at it's height circa 1800BC.
This sophisticated and extensive culture traded widely with large sea trading ships. Stone wharves in the Indus Delta and along the river are common.
The trading seals have been found in Dubai and the Red Sea area. Artifacts from as far distant as the Ural mountains have been discovered in the Mohenjodaro site.
When their culture weakened - for many arguable reasons there is always the theory that many moved to the Middle Sea to trade and establish small trading sea marginal posts - much as the Phoenecians did. And unless I've missed it in the longer texts here, no one is saying much about them. If ever there was a sea people it's the Phoenicians.
All right, back in my box
Am just so mad that the are closing the People's War Board.
Regards P. -
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 12th August 2007
Couldn't agree more. In fact there is much to link some of the Egyptian descriptions of "Sea People tribes" with the people later identified as Philistines, and from other sources to link them with the Phoenicians (and many people have done just that).
It might represent just one element of the Egyptian's "Sea Peoples", but in their case it seems they evolved into doing the same job, but with a land base from which to operate, and a hell of a lot better than the Egyptians ever did themselves - something that even the Egyptians had to acknowledge. Acquired a bit of respect once they acquired a home address, in other words. -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 13th August 2007
Philistines were far from being related to Phoenicians, they were descendants of Minoan Cretans and in bible the terms Philistine Cretan (and later Greek) are interechanged. One certainly cannot rise Phoenicians above Minoans or Myceneans as a naval power since Phoenicians simply took advantage of the demise of the latter starting in the 13th century A.D. while the height of their shipping industry was in 8th A.D. century never to be reached again (even in the times of mighty Carthage - talking as a whole and not city by city). What is interesting though is that you have the pattern of Myceneans falling, "Sea people" arriving in the scenery and then disappearing and then Phoenicians rising subsequently as - Phoenicians being the first Middle Eastern people ever (ever!) to be occupied with serious seafaring and the first not to write in cuneiform but in linear alphabets (while all ther neighbours and major trade partners like the nearby city of Ugarit wrote in cuneiform. Since Phoenicians (in this statement represting any Middle Eastern culture of the area since Sumerians) seem to have developed their taste for the sea only after contact with major shipping powers such as Minoans and Myceneans they are less of a candiate when speaking about the 13th century B.C.
In my view, the gradual (and rather long, not short) fall of Minoans and the long and steady (not short) rise of mainland Myceneans was accompagnied by a steady rise in population. Hence, the need for ever more commerce of food drove the major Myceneanian kigdoms via loose alliances to control trade routes to the Black Sea, Egypt and Middle East (the two former the major wheat producers, the two latter major luxury items producers). In exchange Mycenians probably were selling the most valuable of trade items, slaves acquired from their conquests, along with the traditional olive oil and wine.
Now, in that effort of theirs they must had met the increasing resistance of Minor Asian cities (some of them - possibly even mythical Troy - might had been also Mycenean colonies - ethnicity was no matter here in wars on trade routes), who might have alied to face the expansion of Myceneans that meant less control over the lucrative commerce; for Myceneans it was also a matter of life or death as it was mainly food that they were bringing back home. Hence, to face that antagonism both sides must had developed strong navies and as there was no signle battle, navies might had fought here and there trying to establish their military/trade routes. Obviously Myceneans had the leading edge, they won but as usually in a case of a loose alliance, victors fought for supremacy creating a chaotic environment that actually disrupted the commerce rather than ensured it - thus creating problems also back in the home kingdoms. With less food arriving, prices go up and with much of the armies fighting offshore, citizens reach easily the point of unrest which of course only enables the invasion from other people - the Makedni, later recognised as Dorians that came down from western Macedonia. The supposed refugee resetlement of Mycenians (i.e. Minoans, Aeolians and Achaians) in western Minor Asia seems much too easy for refugees fleeing an invader (as if Minor Asian people refused to live in the coast)... obviously Myceneans had already cleared much of the ground for that resetlement to be able when the trouble came.
Now, where the sea people come? Just after the Mycenean power expansion in Minor Asia and just before Dorian invasion. One has to imagine that Myceneans won their campaigns in Minor Asia after long wars (a myth about a 10 year campaign, well its kind of indicating) during which a huge navy and army must had been developed (well the myth talks about 75,000 soldiers just in one front). On the other hand, cities in Minor Asia must had done the same thing. After the end of these wars (obviously it was not just one front but many), the area was largely left to Myceneans who would also have their inner antagonisms leading often to wars. In whatever case the area was left "suddenly" with logarithmically increased numbers of war ships and soldiers. I cannot imagine Mycenean leaders and their soldiers who participated in long military campaigns to suddenly sit down from one day to the other and become farmers in the new lands (though some of them did that also utilising locals as slaves). The strongest of them became the major trading power in the greater area, but then the rest not 100% content would the next most obvious thing: piracy. You have ships, you have the men what else do you need. Obviously some "pirate leaders", that most possibly were kings and aristocrats and not your lonely loser bucaneer, took their navies back to mainland to seek back their thrones, others certainly more ambitious took it to the rich east raiding all the coastline from Minor Asia to Palestine, before finally attacking Egypt. In that process of course they would create many enemies but also they would strive to create many friends also. Hence, the final "armada" that would reach Egypt would be of course largely international. It also seems that Phoenicians came into intense contact with these pirates - as themselves were practicing that lucrative business being introduced into sea-faring, possibly participating in the "Sea-people" campaigns. In the end, when the "pirates" lost by the Egyptian army and much of their navy possibly being destroyed Phoenicians were left as the only major shipping power in the region. Even better when in the Aegean Myceneans were already crumbling from internal problems and soon by the invading Dorians.
One may find many "what ifs" and may disargree with the above (very) general picture. But the truth is that in the 13th century there was no other major sea power than Myceneans. Phoenicians were just in their begginings, yes they had some navy, so had Lycians and northern Phrygians and Italic people from Sardenia to south Italy but nobody had the navy to be remembered as the "Sea-people": an alliance of many coastline people of eastern and central Mediteranean coastline without the presence of Mycenian people seems to me highly unprobable. Even more unprobable
PS: Phoenicians learing shipping from Indians? Give me a break! How far do we have to go to aviod the "Greeks" who seem to appear everywhere? I am not trying to call it all Hellenic as some will jump in to suggest to avoid proper argumentation, just talking on facts. And facts are that there is absolutely nothing that shows anythign else than intense hellenic presence in the Palestinian coastline that itslef carries a Hellenic name. The truth is that the Middle East after some 4000 years of wonderful Soumerian and Akkadian and Babylonian cultures came to the point of producing one shipping power (Phoenicians) only after heavy Hellenic presence in the area - there was trade in the Indian ocean but nothign compared to what was going on in the Mediterranean and it seems that the latter dragged the former (later pepper and silk trades). -
Message 9
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 14th August 2007
Hi E-Nik - sword and buckler time again.
I did not suggest that Indus civilisation people taught the Greeks anything? Would I even DARE?
On the other hand I got to thinking. Boat builders along the Makkran coast (desi fishermen) build their hills in exactly the same way as ancient Greeks.
And this I do know something about, for a change - boat building, that is. Perhaps Alexander-the-not-so-great-in-my-book as you well know, left this legacy.
It takes aboput 30 days to construct a 30ft long hull and his men must have made many for the sea bound half of his army to get home.
On the other hand the Indian Ocean is a force to be reckoned with. So the ancients who sailed it from the Indus delta to Dubai had skill.... and look I've sailed it and know.
Thor Heyedahl in another reed boat adventure was warned not to try it by very knowledgeable fishermen... he tried anyway (an irrascible fellow but perhaps we met on a bad-reed day.) After about 12 days down the coast his boat fell to bits. It's to do with wave length and broaching possibly.
All I ask is that you do not discredit an ancient civilisation 2500Bc to 1500BC who built 180 towns and cities on grid street patterns, with house drainage to buried street conduits. They traded cotton in particular.
And one thing which has always impressed. They did not go in for many walls - and very few weapons have been found. These were the Vedic peoples who revered water and the geat bath at Mohenjo Daro was possibly religious. It has a sloping floor.
Regards P. -
Message 10
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 14th August 2007
The fisherman also build hulls - the hills are fishy midden!
P. -
Message 11
Posted by villamarce (U9034231) on Wednesday, 5th September 2007
as usual you seem to be suffering from hellasitis an unusual condition that causes blindness to historical reality and placing Greece at the centre of the universe. "Greece did not exist as an entity in the time period you are talking about. Thats why you have to go a long way to find them.
-
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 5th September 2007
I developed my points pretty much in detail, so have you any precise disagreement with all that - please point out instead of saying whatever...
-
Message 13
Posted by Ravenlocks (U1447601) on Sunday, 9th September 2007
Herodotus in his Histories has described who are these "Sea People". At the moment time prevents me to give you the No. of the Book where he has described them. Sorry!
-
Message 14
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Sunday, 4th November 2007
You've got some interesting points in answer to this question but none answers the basic problem of why was there such a massive movement of people at this time.
As seems to be admitted, the exact dating of the various events is lacking but with such a massive move round could our old friend climate change be possible and the final culprit the Santorini eruption? -
Message 15
Posted by terakunene (U9761462) on Tuesday, 11th March 2008
If you can trace a 1960s article by the late prof. Willy Ley, i think that you will find a well deduced answer for the origins of the "Sea People".
-
Message 16
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Tuesday, 11th March 2008
Nordmann
i've not looked up Prof Ley in case i get involved with lines but was interested in your description of the Sea People. They sound to me as if they were in a similar situation to the "Vikings" who were close to your residence, if not your home.
People who had great seafaring ability but on land were afflicted by either climatic or demographic problems which forced them to look elsewhere for their livelihood. i have heard several suggestions for why the Scandinavians moved from their homeland, but my favourites are climatic change and overpopulation.
Is there any evidence for such changes in the Mediterranaean area in the period of the Sea Peoples or would it simply have been political change - collapse of the Minoans etc?
glen -
Message 17
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 11th March 2008
Hi Glen
The Thera (Santorini) explosion theory follows along the same lines as climatic change in that it has been convincingly demonstrated using data extrapolated from similar events that the effect of the eruption must have lasted several years and could well have had repercussive effects lasting decades. The salt water inundation alone would have been catastrophic in the Minoan territories but it has even been suggested (by Wunderlich and others) that the tidal surge essentially destroyed Egyptian agriculture for a period long enough to have severe political and social impact. The "sea peoples", they argue, were a threat as much because Egypt was in a weakened position to withstand them as because they were huge in number.
But the problem with the theory is not that it is implausible in itself, it is that the geological evidence suggests that the great explosion of Thera was by no means the only one before or after. Seismic activity, some if it quite violent in terms of volcanic activity, preceded and followed the "big one" and might well have had an even more disastrous effect long term than one great cataclysmic event might have achieved.
The Minoans, we know, survived beyond the date, even retaining a sophisticated social structure, and we know also that at least some of the "sea peoples" could well have been migrating beforehand. The decades of potentially disastrous harvests that it is reckoned might well have followed the explosion must contribute, if they occurred, to an acceleration of social breakdown and migratory movements of people, but we just don't know to what extent, and we haven't an iota what was happening agriculturally beforehand. We have a fair idea of population levels in the Eastern Mediterranean region and they don't suggest overpopulation by any means, but we don't know how fragile their social structures might have been or how vulnerable they were to even slight drops in agricultural yield - some more than others it must be assumed. And there the conjecture must end through lack of data.
That leaves us with politics - and the effect of the Minoan decline. Even there we are rather clueless. No one knows to what extent the Minoans acted as regulators in the area or if their disappearance in that role would have automatically led to anything like the great migrations suggested by Egyptian sources.
Which brings us back to the other great imponderable - how reliable are those sources in quantifying the numbers concerned? If Egypt, for example, was itself going through a politically turbulent time (whether because of famine or not) the impact on their ability to defend their society from incursion could also well have been matched by their reduced capacity to measure it reliably.
The Viking parallel could really be a good one, especially in light of the fact that the percentage of Scandinavians who could be said to have migrated during the Viking era is estimated to have been between five and ten percent - a much lower figure than other notable population movements such as, for example, the Vandals and Goths of four hundred years earlier. Yet politically that movement had huge cultural and political ramifications as is well known, and they were experienced at the time as cataclysmic events in their own right by many of the societies targeted by the Scandinavian influx. Which all just goes to show that the size of a demographic shift (for whatever reason) does not necessarily correlate to its impact. The "sea peoples" might well have been a real threat in their day, but that perception might as easily have been born out of situations pertaining in their "target territories" as by their size, conduct or frequency. -
Message 18
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 11th March 2008
It's interesting to have old topics resurrected; along with old angst revived.
These 'Sea People' then; migration is often the result of a problem back home. A flourishing community cannot always support a sudden increase in population in the land resources are less robust. Likewise, I suppose, a weakened community - for whatever reason - seeks a better place. Then there are the power hungry. And there must be other reasons for it. What is surmised of 'the Sea people?' Or is not enough known to give reason?
Regards, P. -
Message 19
Posted by JonWickerMan (U11991665) on Saturday, 17th May 2008
The Sea Peoples as an historical event is an academic creation. Ramesses III and Merneptah certainly did face northerners from other lands, but what academia tend to dismiss or sidestep is that both Merneptah possibly, and Ramesses III certainly, had a political confrontation with the Hittites.
Archaeology has failed to demonstrate that the Hittites were destroyed by any Greeks from the Aegean. Likewise the strata at Carchemish contemporary with the 12th century has failed to show any evidence of conflict. Therefore the inscription at Medinet-Habu which has been interpreted as saying, "no-one could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad/Arzawa and Alishaya" must not be a list of destroyed nations but rather a list of allied Hittite states.
Most of these same allies are also listed at Kadesh 100 years earlier fighting against Ramesses II.
The inscriptions at Medinet-Habu of Ramesses III make it quite clear that Ramesses took captive a "chief of Hatti", and a "chief of Kode", whilst listed among the 125 lands & cities attacked by Ramesses III are the "land of Carchemish" and "land of Arvad". It is also written that Amon has granted Ramesses his sword "so that thou might move against that land of Hatti".
The inscriptions make it clear enough that Ramesses III fought Hittites, only when this is acknowledged will it be possible to identify a number of those enigmatic so-called Sea Peoples.
In part of the Hittite province of Kizzuwadna (classical Cilicia) we see Tarsus, Adana and Issus which will be immediately recognizable as the Tursha, Denyen and Weshesh of Sea People fame.
The Sikel (Sheklesh) are known in the vicinity of Ugarit and there is no reason to not accept the Tjekker and Peleset as longterm residents of the Levant, contrary to popular opinion.
The Sherden were functioning in the vicinity of Byblos as far back as the Amarna period.
We know the Tjekker and Peleset were already resident in Ramesses III's 5th year as they are listed as involved in the Libyan war. Ramesses also tells us that "they tremble in their towns", and that he has "burned their groves", all hints that these were a settled people already by the time of Ramesses III.
The Egyptian inscriptions also call these so-called Sea Peoples, - "sebiu" which means "rebels", not foreign troops or soldiers. The term "sebiu" means that Pharaoh regarded them as his subjects, hardly a term to use for alien foreign strangers. The inscriptions also refer to the so-called Sea Peoples as "amu" which means "Asiatics", clearly then they are not Aegeans but actually live in the adjacent Asiatic lands on the doorstep of Egypt.
Thats just the tip of the iceberg...
The Sea Peoples as devised by Maspero never really existed, it's an academic creation which transpired from the misunderstanding of the Egyptian texts. And it is still a problem for many in the the academic sphere.
JonWickerMan -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
Interesting but not convincing. Lying is bad and hence I have to admit of completely ignoring any time in human history when southern Minor Asia and under any culture ever produced any worth mentioning navy... apart the Byzantine paradigm that had at some point Attaleia as the capital for the navy obviously because Cyprus (the obvious point to set up a capital navy city) was a bit too exposed and suffered more often the Arabic raids.
Again, Hittites? When above I showed to you that even Phoenicians' navy was not yet up to the point of doing such a campaign since this obviousy happened in the 12th century while the great Phoniciean times were just a but later...
Hittites were a strong and distinctive culture. Had they been seafaring (like Middle Easterners) around those times we would had noticed it. For the latter we have noticed it mainly after 1200 B.C. For Egyptian seafaring we know not much. Even if they did they did not leave much behind as for them the only land that mattered was around the Nile (I doubt they could ever get used to have 1 yield per year (1 and a poor one!) instead of two and four!).
However, the thing we know for sure is that at least since 3000 B.C. (and in archaiological terms that easily means at least since 5,000 B.C.), the Mediterranean was the Minyan-Minoan-Mycenaean playground. Anything built with some art in it from 3000 B.C. in coastal Mediterranean apart Egypt only resembles too much the Greek neighbourhood. Guess why all Mediterraneans are "the Mediterraneans".. well because they look like Greeks not because they look like Arabs or eastern Anatolians!!! Even your Phoenicians, guess what... they only learned how to sail only after some centuries of Greek presence in their coast.
There little to near no case of any other considerably big navy of being there. That does nto exclude an alliance of weak pirate-like navies of Phoenicians or anybody else you like (some earler had proposed even tribes from... the black sea... I mean anything on earth just to avoid the most obvious, the Greeks!).
Honestly I will not argue that Hittites, being more often enemies than allies of the Egyptians, could not be participating in that campaign. However certainly not as sea people but mostly as collborators.
This whole farce about the sea people is only too fitting between one great collapse and one great success story, that of the fall of Mycenaean kingdoms and the rise of the Phoenicians that replaced them in the role of the responsible for naval commerce in the Mediterranean. That being even more suspicious in the case these wars were really of greater length. But also had they been of smaller scale they still fit with what was going on in the Aegean (lengthy wars in Minor Asia Thrace and the Black Sea) over-expansion but finally less coherent control over the area, lots of armies, no use of them there as they (probably or obviously) could anymore be in position to secure safe traderoutes as in the past.
What these wars do not fit much with is with non-naval powers like the Hitites or the Middle Easterners of those times. That does not mean that I exclude their presence even in important numbers (even in slight majority). After all had all these people been one people, Egyptians would not talk so much about their diffentiation.
My view is that these wars were the aftermath of the lengthy wars in western Minor Asia that weakened a lot the Mycenaean kingdoms but also left a number of armies and especially navies with no other special job, other than piracy. We know that Mycenaeans were often acting pirate-like at times commercial balance was not on their side - and around those times, most certainly they had some reason to do so.
The maximum case for Hitites I can imagine is a basically Hitite campaign that contracted foreign ships from the Aegean to tranport armies in Egypt (first as allies or mercenaries who then became enemies).
However, still while the Hatuya or how on earth they are called by the Egyptians (cos pronounciations we do no know otherwise I will start about the Dani being the Danaians i.e. Achaians) can be seen as the Hittites... the Egyptians mention a large number of other tribes out of which few seemed very familiar to them. Certainly Egyptians were quite familiar with Greeks but with the internationalised ones (the Greek mariners), not so much the individual tribes...since Egyptians had not many ships and did not like to visit around the Mediterranean to see others in their own homes, at least not very often.
Having mentioned that God knows what other tribes took part in that (obviously multinational) campaign. Lycians, Phrygians or Lydians and who knows who else... Bringing the Hittites on the very top (even with the case of sub-contracting) would be for me a second guess. -
Message 21
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 20th May 2008
so Nik, are you convinced the Hittites had no boats? Ever?
Seems no point in ruling Anatolia to me if you can't utilise one of its biggest assets. Especially if that rule should extend from the 18th to 8th century BC (1,000 years without going out on the water?)
Or did the Greeks invent boats too? -
Message 22
Posted by JonWickerMan (U11991665) on Wednesday, 21st May 2008
Towards the end there were three royal houses ruling the Hittite empire.
Hattushas the principal seat.
Carchemish, established by Suppiluliuma I, looking after northern Syria.
Tarhuntassa, re-established by Hattusilis III, on the south coast of Anatolia and likely controlled the international Hittite sea port of Ura.
Kizzuwadna, which was later known in classical times as Cilicia was under Hittite control in the empire period. Cities within Kizzuwanda at the end of LBA were essentially Hittite satellite states, though ethnically may have been a mix of Hurrian, Aegean and Luwian.
So yes, most certainly the Hittite empire had direct access to, and frequently used ships. Not forgetting they were frequent clients of Ugarit. -
Message 23
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Thursday, 22nd May 2008
E-Nik, hello again.
Greeks were not the only ones who managed to sail and trade 3000Bc and later. You had better check on the Indus civilisation. From ancient trading seals, their boats were powered by sail - and more Dhow like, able to reach rather than merely run before the wind - or use slaves to row for them.
They certainly traded with Dubai which has a collection of similar seals. The 180 cities of the Indus civilisation were evloved into some well designed places by 1800 BC - with drains, grid layouts, huge wharves and granaries - and a few sea ports with stone quays.
Very much later, Alexander made use of the inherited skills when he turned for home. Unless you like to think his Greek army trained locals to do so. Why is it so hard for you to believe that other communities aside from the Greeks could not develop skills in parallel through out ancient history?
And am I not write that the Phoenician alphabet formed the foundation of the revised Greek one - probably at Miletus - I may be wrong on the place.
And how did the ancients of the Tigris and Euphrates manage river trade - by being taught by Greeks?
If you somehow come up with a theory that the Chinese around the Yellow River were also taught by the Greeks, I must leave the boards for good; I can see you working hard on that, now.
Regards, P. -
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
It is not in me the problem but in you, in your inability to remain to the key facts and your persistence to judge the person as a personality rather than what he says.
I think I was pretty much clear and without the least wish to glorify any Greek navy of that distant past... if anything the 45,000 years b.c. boats of Dravidians later to become Aboriginals that crossed the Indonesian sea precede several 10s of millenia any proof of any Mediterranean navy (not that people did not use boats in the Mediterranean, it is just that we have no active proof of that... other that in general Mediterranean people are defined exactly on how much they look like Greeks (did not hear anybody call Albanians or Croacians Mediterranean people...), and certainly that is not thanks to the Byzantine Empire, nor to the Roman, not to the Hellenistic ones and not thanks to the Greek colonies - that mass movement dates some millenia before that as anthropologists are pretty much certain that this "mediterranean anthropologic type pre-existed in the region". Why existing in Greece, Italy and Eastern Spain and not in inner Gaul I wonder? The answer is easy, river trade was made by the Gauls not by the Greeks that generally stuck to the sea.
In anyway and since you are not in position to stick to the facts I will bring you to the wall:
1) Egyptians never cared to take it to the sea. They had THE Empire of those times, the place to be, yet any influence outside the banks of Nile is minimal in comparison to their power. Despite their very advanced culture even isolated, marginal tribes in Siberia had an influence over 10 times more the surface that the geographical direct influence of the Egyptians. And even when we find cultural exchanges that was almost singlehandedly thanks to foreigners that visited the place for commerce, tourism etc. That is something easily comprehensible as no serious Egyptian would ever search outside when in his own country he was enjoying double and triple harvests (if you are farmer in dry rocky mountainous Greece or South Italy then you understand that fact very easily). Anyway, any international commerce that Egyptians wanted to have was instantly directly subcontracted to others, Greeks or later Egyptians. I guess that even their whatever navy was mostly subcontracted and that can easily explain the close ties with the likes of Minoans and almost in parallel with Mycenaeans (it is a myth that the latter succeded the former after the volcanic eruption... in fact at those times they already had a strong navy - that is why they were able not to give any time to Minoans to recover from the eruption).
2) The first Middle Easterners that took it seriously to the sea in the Mediterranean were practically the Phoenicians. We have no convincing evidence of the opposite. And these started to show their presence slowly from the 13th century by setting bases next to the Greeks in Cyprus (adopting their writing at a time they were supposed to develop the Phoenician alphabet that is said to had been given to Greeks in the 9th century, however with the strange fact that already by then Greeks showed several alphabets (thus they had used them for at least a minimum of 2 centuries which brings us right at the time of the creation of Phoenician alphabet and it is valid to ask... how come? Idiotic historians of course yet one more time are unable to answer that simple question suitable only for first year bachelor mini-assignments).
Phoenicians showed a sizeable navy by the 11th as they replaced the bankrupt Greek kingdoms. In that sense they could be the shipowners of the navy that carried the sea people. However, middle easterners like Phoenicians at the time were living just next to Egyptians, normally Egyptians should be able to identify them more accurately. By their descriptions we get the idea that Egyptians thought that the mass of these people came from a bit more far away. It seems that at least the majority of them was not from the region of Palestine.
3) It is a "known secret" that most construction in the mediterranean (like the Malta fortresses) bare too many Mycenaean features to had been made by anyone else... it is also a "known secret" that Mycenaeans did not voyage necessarily coast to coast (as utterly idiotic 19th century historians believed) - they did so only when they wanted to trade (buy and sell between many cities across the coastline), when they wanted they cut the sea through on will - in anyway the Mediterranean has quite predictible winds hence I think guessing that people used them even in 20,000 B.C. is not something irrational, guess how much in 1200 B.C. And most certainly the first to do would be one from a small place with a coastline equall to the coastline of all Europe together and some 3000 islands out of which 700 habitable.
There was no other main culture in the Mediterranean that had taken it massively to the sea back then. At least we do not know. If you know tell me so that I know. Hittites? Great culture, practically no serious navy! How could they? If they ever had we would have at least one small Hititte village on Cyprus, as a sign of their attempt to take it to the sea. They might had tried, who knows? But till know we do not know.
Someone will ask now: "Like Phoenicians, Greeks were also quite well known to Egyptians". Well yes but not as people. Phoenicians as other middle easternern mostly marched to Egypt for centuries before going there mainly by boat. Hence as a nation they were well known. Greeks had only the option of a boat. Hence Egyptians (who never took a boat themselves) never met with the sum of the Greek people, only with the mariners and commercials, not with the bulk of Greek aristocracy, the landowners, the common people, or their heavy bronze clad land armies (apart the case of mercenaries that true,could not had been rare, still mercenaries served in places like Libya not in Memphis!). Hence, if there was ever any case of Greek tribes descending in mass as an army against Egyptians these would seem quite 'exotic' for Egyptians. Also, the fact that Greeks were traditionally divided into distinct tribes, means that Egyptians would not describe them under one name but under many tribal names. Some of the names of the sea people are not far from being like Achaians or Danaians.
My point here is not to call all of them Greek. But since we are talking about "the Sea People" and not "the riverboat people" or "the fisherman's friends", the first point in the Mediterranean to look is the Aegean. As simple as that. Trying to convince we should look first elsewhere is the same as Bush trying to convince the world he wants to bring democracy to Iraq. -
Message 25
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 28th May 2008
Eh - what exactly are you saying E_Nik?
-
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 29th May 2008
simply said:
The "Sea people" campaign was most possibly an international one and perhaps not even one coordinated campaign under one leader but successive waves of armies trying their fate against the (perhaps perceived back then as weakening) Egyptian kingdom. However, it is more than obvious that at least the mass of the navy there came from the region of Aegean if not the majority of the armies that invaded Egypt at the time.
I.e. searching for Hittites, Assyrians, Indians and Japanese before even trying to check the Aegean region is not only a blatant error but highly idiotic unless of course there is (yet another time) some other underlying reason (like in the case of the 8th century Phoenician alphabet little fairytale).
Conclusion: Sorry for all those that are professionals in the domain of history but I am an engineer and thus inherently I will always treat the bulk of historians with contempt not only for their "chair-craving-based" adherence to whatever propaganda (propaganda not necessarily based on any specific political agenda - it could be the idiocy of one professor some 100 years back and then all others following him just to secure their chair)... but above all or their inability to grasp basics like 1+1=2.
You should not be shocked by the reaction. I am an amateur of history. Most certainly not a specialist. But how can react say an amateur in physics when he finds out that a physiscist working in CERN does not know whether neutrons are positive or negative? Well, that is the result of having to tolerate "professionals" who only know to say "this burial artifact is of politico-sociologico-religious importance for this/that culture"... (e.g. when talking about a longitudinal cylindrical tool used by lonely widow for example....). You know very well what I am talking about.
If you do not like this approach you can very well go on and search if it was the Hittites, check also for me the Scyths... hehe! Take care! -
Message 27
Posted by JonWickerMan (U11991665) on Saturday, 31st May 2008
"Sorry for all those that are professionals in the domain of history but I am an engineer and thus inherently I will always treat the bulk of historians with contempt...."
An engineer will always work with the data at hand, not invent his own (I know, because you're talking to one - another one).
The data at hand, that which is inscribed on the monuments, tells us Ramesses "moved against that land of Hatti", it also lists "Tunip of Hatti" and shows Hittites defending a handful of Asiatic cities.
You need to adjust your hypothesis in view of the facts at hand and desist with the apologetics, and this applies to many scholars too.
The monuments have a great deal to tell us if we would only just 'read' them instead of creating our own version of the truth. -
Message 28
Posted by JonWickerMan (U11991665) on Saturday, 31st May 2008
"Some of the names of the sea people are not far from being like Achaians or Danaians."
Yes, another one of those outdated 19th century beliefs.
Here's a pdf that just might enlighten your views on recent thinking concerning where the Achaians/Ahhia/Ahhiyawa came from and who the Danaeans/Denyen/Danoi might have been.
It's a lengthy article but Engineers are use to reading long-winded material..
Enjoy -
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 31st May 2008
Jon, history is no science under the proper sense of the world. If we really stuck to hardore evidence then we do not have proof or anything that happens at any time in history - even 40 years back, even 5 years back. We have as much hardcore proof about wars of the sea people as for the recent wars in Iraq (unless you really believe the "mass destruction fairytale). Thus in history we can only proceed with what is called 'logic" and "common sense".
Thanks you for the links. Yes I was referring to the names of Denyen and Ahiyya that sound like Danaians and Achaians (Greek tribes) but honestly, I did not want to remain there as down to the basics reffering to Egyptian writing, we have no idea of pronunciations anyway.
Now, it could be here the case that we disagree because of refering to slightly different points.
When I am referring to the Sea People I am referring to those people that had the ships and came from the sea. I am not reffering to the one who "organised" these wars, i.e. the direct responsible for the wars. I know very well that back then Hittites were on the top of their power (or perhaps decline had just started to show). It is known that the Hittie Empire 'traditionally' had not the best of relationships with the Egyptian kingdom since they competed for control over the Palestinian coast.
Hence, I do not exclude the possibility of a Hittite king being behind all these campaigns.
However, and since Norman asked me that, Hittites, no they were never sea people. And though the questioning of Norman was 100% logical "how come people that controlled much of Minor Asia did not use one of its best asssets, the sea?). I will reply with a more familiar and more recent example:
... the Ottoman Empire was speading from the Persian Gulf to the Adriatic Sea in the north and to the western Mediterranean in the south!!! However, not only the Ottoman Empire was unable to send a single ship to say Indonesia (who talks about Australia!!!) despite being relatively very close in comparison to western Europeans that had to cross the whole globe to reach there... but they were completely unable to control their own ports in the Mediterranean and hence even in their supposed peak of their power, small Italian city-states (no matter if rich or not, these were small cities!!!!), were able to invade their ports and territories any time....
Judging from the complete inability of the Ottomans who controlled the whole area, who can find strange the inability of Hittites controlling only a large part of Minor Asia, to take it to the sea? I find it 100% natural. Even later, Phrygians had an important culture but never took it to the sea, Lycians had a small navy (insignificant by any standards) despite being coastal people, Moesians (thraecian people of north-eastern Aegian, mainly living in Minor Asia but also having colonised a few islands like Samothrace etc.) might had some navy but of a very local scale, and a bit later Lydians had never any serious navy. In fact it is not far from the truth to say that throughout history the only people that lived in Minor Asia and had an important navy (and not just 1-2 boats) were the Greeks. And if that sounds strange - "how come people living so close to the sea did not end up with navies" - then what we can say about the people of Palestine and the middle east that had developed cultures dating to 4000 B.C. but took it to the Meditteranean sea only after people from the Aegean had colonised for good their whole area (the well known Philistines that gave the name to the area)! But then even in the Aegean, if anyone thinks that all tribes living there were expert mariners he is wrong: actually half the Greek tribes had never developed
any serious navy (including important ones such as the Macedonians, Thessalians, Achaians, Aitolians, Akarnanians, Helians, Epirots etc.).
The truth is that there are many many factors that aid a tribe, nation, state, culture etc. to get busy with the sea. Who knows what factors were there and made Hittites to remain onshore. Had they taken it to the sea - such a powerful kingdom - they would at least have some presence on Cyprus. However, Cyprus was habitated by Greek coloners officially by 14th century (obviously that means we must think 16th at last!) and by some Phoenician coloners after the 13th century. Hittites are nowhere to be seen there, just some kms south of their mighty kingdom. No we have no evidance that these people had not any navy. But common sense says they had not any serious navy and that they were not at all interested in developping one.
Now, say that behind all these Sea people wars, the responsibles were the Hittites. For Hittites the most natural way to attack Egypt would be to march and conquer first Palestine (the land for which they competed with Egyptians) and then proceed up to the Nile. Of course that might had some difficulties as the people of Palestine always being between squeezed between giants they were simply choosing sides on the style "who gives more", and that meant a lot of troubles for Hittites (many cities would obiously resist), the the Hittites might had not armies capable of operating in prolonged campaigns. In that case they would certainly be attracted by an attack directly on Nile by arriving there on ships. But they had no huge navy to do something like that. You realise that to do such a campaign you need a minimum of some 500 ships to carry a minimum of 30,000 people out of which a minimum of 25,000 would be fit to fight, i.e. the sailors had to be fighters too - if not then the campaign would need a disproportionate amount of ships (more than 1000). For me it is pretty much clear that the Hittites would be able to gather even 300 ships, not 1000! Others would say that they could not be able to sail coast to coast down there (hehe!). It is true that even if they built basic boats and sailed coast to coast, by the time they would had taken the corner of the mediterranean (where Sytia is now), some small local navy there working for the Egyptians would had sank them to oblivion! To attack Egypt by coast you just have to cross the sea and get into the Nile directly.
Hence, if the Hittites wanted to do so, they would had to sub-contract the "sea thingie". There were not many options, those people in the west not only knew how to sail but were also prized warriors. Hence, 1 man counted for two, value for money - it is more than logical that Hittites would had thought of such an option.
However, from what we read on the texts about the "Sea people", it is implied that some of them actually were already in the service of Egyptians and that they turned against them. It is a known fact that mercenaries fro the Aegean served in the Egyptian army (as they did later for the Persians), and it is also much probable that a part of teh Egyptian navy was actually coming fro there. Hence, it could just be a case where Hittites decided to give a better "salary" to these people to turn against their employers, bring also some more from the north, help carry also some Hittite ones from the east north etc... anyway we know that this was not one unique war but a series of campaigns of varying scale.
Personally I do not exclude the possibility of Phoenicians (who were under development at the time) to had provided the ships for that campaign. But it is most certainly my second option. Even if it was Hittites behind these wars, Hittite ships would not be even my third one. My first and most strong option is that these armies - no matter their origins - were carried on ships from the Aegean. Also, while not necessarily the vast majority, consequently an important part of these armies were from the same region. As simple as that. -
Message 30
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Sunday, 1st June 2008
Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:57 GMT, in reply to E_Nikolaos_E in message 26
E Nik
But how can react say an amateur in physics when he finds out that a physiscist working in CERN does not know whether neutrons are positive or negative?
i'm an amateur in Physics (as well as History) but if i heard that someone at CERN thought a neutron was either +ve or -ve i'd be wondering what the EU was spending all that money on.
glen -
Message 31
Posted by JonWickerMan (U11991665) on Sunday, 1st June 2008
"Had they taken it to the sea - such a powerful kingdom - they would at least have some presence on Cyprus."
Nik, let me quote one particular text:
"My father, I mobilized and I, Suppiluliuma, the Great King, immediately crossed/reached? the sea. The ships of Alishaya met me in the sea three times for battle, and I smote them; and I seized the ships and set fire to them in the sea..." (CTH 121).
We don't have an abundance of Hittite texts concerning ships, but we can't say the Hittites did not use ships, obviously, from the quote above, they did.
You also write:
"Now, say that behind all these Sea people wars, the responsibles were the Hittites. For Hittites the most natural way to attack Egypt would be to march and conquer first Palestine (the land for which they competed with Egyptians) and then proceed up to the Nile."
This argument is actually based on a false premise, there's no suggestion that the Hittites ever intended to invade Egypt in any period.
Scholars have disagreed on whether any of the Asiatic wars of Ramesses III were conducted in Egypt at all. The texts most certainly do not say they fought in Egypt, they do say they fought in Amor and Djahy.
The idea that any of the battles were conducted in Egypt only comes from one particular interpretation of a word, "r3-h3wt" = river mouths, harbor mouths, harbor.
Because 'r3-h3wt' is used in other texts with reference to harbors in the delta it is assumed by some that the use of this word in the Medinet-Habu texts also refers to harbors in the delta. This, even though Ramesses III already made it clear he is in Djahy & Amor at this time.
The correct conclusion then should be that r3-h3wt must mean a harbor, or harbors, on the Asiatic coast, not, in the delta. Hence, there was no fighting in Egypt. -
Message 32
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 1st June 2008
Jon WickerMan, you seem to have a thorough and informed opinion on the subject to hand (such a welcome contrast to the nonsense you are dignifying with your replies to it). Given that I'm living in a country where my only decent access to English language books is via Amazon et al., have you any recommendations for further reading on both the Hittite empire and the Sea Peoples controversy?
My only source to hand is a rather dog-eared (my fault) ancient copy of Cottrell's "The Anvil Of Civilization" which, though informative, is based on archaeological knowledge and theory now 50 years old. Have you perhaps something more recent you can recommend? -
Message 33
Posted by JonWickerMan (U11991665) on Sunday, 1st June 2008
"...have you any recommendations for further reading on both the Hittite empire and the Sea Peoples controversy?"
Nordmann.
One of the best of the latest publications on the Hittites is:
One excellent overview of the Sea Peoples controversy, a collection of scholarly monographs covering a wide range of subjects is:
There are also a good number of books which are also scholarly publications of limited circulation which by now are best available through an interlibrary loan from a major library in your area. Two which I highly recommend are:
The Crisis Years, edited by Ward & Joukowsky, 1992, and, Mediterranean Peoples in Transition, edited by Gitin, Mazar & Stern, 1998.
These both deal with new thinking on events in the east Mediterranean at the end of the Late Bronze Age.
Here's an excellent little book which summarizes how the Sea Peoples hypothesis began, how it failed and why today it's in disarray:
One link I use often to obtain books from all over the world is: -
Message 34
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 2nd June 2008
Thanks for that, JonWickerMan. A more comprehensive list than I had a right to expect and I am very grateful.
I saw a Danish documentary only recently on the "demise" of the Sea Peoples theory and it whetted my appetite - but depending on Amazon reviews alone is a sure way I have found of spending money, but not necessarily of getting quite the book you expected. Thanks for the tips! -
Message 35
Posted by JonWickerMan (U11991665) on Monday, 2nd June 2008
Nordman.
I posted the wrong link about Trevor Bryce's book, what I posted was the older version. His book was updated in 2005 or 06, this is it, sorry.
-
Message 36
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 5th August 2009
Re: Message 2 from Nordmann and message 3 from henvell.
Saw this morning partly a German documentary from 2007 on Arte (the French-German channel): (translated in English) Goliath and the sea peoples- Razzia on the East Mediterranean.
Did some research for it on internet, while I didn't find even at the time of this thread any worthwhile book in the local library, except some von Däniken type one. Will ask now to buy the ones that Jon mentioned.
Started in French but later changed to English:
Found in English the wikipedia link that Nordmann mentioned.
As I reread the thread I don't see quite new items on internet, but as I did now the research I mention the links I found.
A Greek link:
An Adventist university link:
If I understand it well and that was also the trend of the German ZDF/ARTE documentary the sea peoples came from the Eastern Aegean? I found the documentary a bit "tendentious" as the found of the "Goliath" name on some pottery. I found even a mentoning of the Israelian who showed the item to the ZDF team on visit in Israel for the documentary in 2007.
If the erudite people have some comments on my internet links? Wickerman? I have a summary of the documentary on Arte but sadely it is in French or German.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 37
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 5th August 2009
Correction previous message:
OOPS and the Greek link is after further reading an Italian link. Sorry but in my haste...
Warm regards to all the contributors,
Paul. -
Message 38
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 5th August 2009
Other correction:
And the "Adventist" link is not a "university" link. Excuse again for my quick research and haste.
But it gives the link on the Goliath pottery from the ZDF/Arte documentary that I mentioned.
Cheers, Paul. -
Message 39
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 6th August 2009
That was a very interesting link in the sense that it provides quite a lot of comments for each of the people mentioned as Sea People in the Egyptian texts.
However, I still do find bits and parts that puzzle me as for example the reference to "Pelasgoi" as if this was some short of tribe that descended from Thrace and such. Ok it says one group, but the fact is that as many ancient writers have pinpointed, Pelasgians were not a specific tribe but rather the more ancient name for a rather larger group of Greek tribes habitating the whole Aegean area (west, north and east including the islands in the middle).
Name spotting is can be really tricky - when we see even failing to spot the Hellenes among the Greeks (in other words, the most studied and best recorded nation ever in the world)... how can we go on and spot obscure tribes like the Weshesh? We can still try on of course.
For me it is simpler, up to 1200 B.C. there was no other naval power of large size in the Mediterranean that we know apart the Minoans and Mycenaeans. It is not a super-statement, it is just the truth when we find their items all around the Mediterranean. All the other strong kingdoms of the time seemed to abstain from this sport, Egyptians where nowhere to be seen, Hittites restricted themselves in eastern, central and marginally in parts of western Minor Asia, and Middle Easterners simply abstain apart Phoenicians that were starting getting interested, not accidentally after the arrival and installation of important numbers of Minoans/Mycenaeans in the region - Philistines were interchangeable calledd Cretans in the Bible, later to be used the term Greek for the subsequent cities in the south coastline.
It is not to call it all Greek. Most obviously such a multi-tribal campaign that passed from all eastern Mediterranean must had had tons of whatever tribes circulated. But then one has to remember that some millenia later it was not the Franks that built ships and navigated their way to the Holy Lands but it was the Italians, and then it was not so much the Italians that fought the Holy wars but the Franks. See what possibilities exist? -
Message 40
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Friday, 7th August 2009
"For me it is simpler, up to 1200 B.C. there was no other naval power of large size in the Mediterranean that we know apart the Minoans and Mycenaeans."
Then don't you think it strange that no ancient record exists for such an endeavor against Egypt?
This vast coalition of Mid-Mediterranean forces in a grand alliance seems to have gone completely unnoticed in Hellenic traditions.
Few realize that all the great Greek writers, Herodotus, Diodorus, and even Manetho make no mention of this 'so-called' grand alliance.
I think it was Thucydides who claimed the first alliance of Greeks was the attack against Troy.
The Trojan war was a small campaign compared to the 'so-called' Sea Peoples invasion of the east Mediterranean & Egypt. Yet we know nothing about it from Greek sources.
In fact if we check our history books there's no mention not even a hint of anything like a vast Aegean campaign against Egypt & the Levant until the 'idea' was created (invented?) by Chabas & Maspero in the late 19th century of our time. -
Message 41
Posted by Mishamish (U14095943) on Friday, 7th August 2009
relating to your question concerning sources for the sea peoples, I have written an essay on the emergence on the sea peoples and particularly good sources include:
Cline E.H, O’Connor D.B ‘The Mystery of the Sea Peoples’ in Mysterious Lands. Encounters with Ancient Egypt ed. D.B O’Connor and S Quirke London (2003)
Drews, Robert ‘Medinet Habu: Oxcarts, Ships and Migration Theories’ in Journal of Near Eastern Studies 59 (2000)
Dothan, Trude ‘The “Sea Peoples” and the Philistines of Ancient Palestine’ in Civilisations of the Ancient Near East ed. Jack M Sasson Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers (2000)
and especially:
Oren E.D (ed) The Sea Peoples and their World: A Reassessment University Museum Monography 108, Philadelphia (2000)
the thing to remember is no one quite knows whats going on with them and at the moment there is a wide-ranging re-appraisal of their role at the end of the international age (1200BCE) in the Near East. so take everything you read with a pinch of salt
to put in my 2 cents:
the 'sea peoples' movement refers to a movement of a number of different groups no just over sea but predominently over land. There are only 3 texts referring to the sea peoples, and all these are Egyptian, and a few letters from Ugarit, but these lack dates so aren't reliable. The sea people constituted the following groups (as designated by the Egyptians): šrdn, škrwš, trš and rwkw (or Shardana, Shekelesh, Eqwosh and Teresh). However these groups are mentioned in accordance with the libu (libyan) attack on Egypt, so are considered to be mercenary goups hired by the libyans to fight the Egyptians.
The medinet habu inscription from the 8th regnal year of Ramesses III is the one which mentions the 'plst' or Philistine group.
The Great Papyrus Harris gives a more subjective view of the battle though than the propagandistic rendering from medinet habu. Amelie Kuhrt actually argues the sea peoples were used as mercenaries and were garrisoned in the Egyptian army and when Egyptian imperial control in the Levant crumbled these garrisons would have been left to their own devices and in such circumstances re-organised themselves as independent cities and became known as the Philistines of the Old Testament.
The sea peoples cannot be blamed for the downfall of the imperial powers of the ancient Near East but coupled with famine in Hattusa (the hittite king was sending letters to Ugarit begging for grain), and a very fragile administrative base for the Egyptian and Hittite empires and Mycenaean Greece all contributed, especially when coupled with population movements - a very common trend throughout Near Eastern history, this is also around the same time as the Israelites are first mentioned by Merenptah.
Just something extra to add into the mix! -
Message 42
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Friday, 7th August 2009
One of the biggest obstacles in understanding the Sea Peoples phenomenon is the classification of the monochrome/bichrome pottery as 'Philistine'.
This ethnic label should be dropped.
Bichrome wares first appeared in the Levant, strongly associated with Cyprus, a good 400 years before it re-appeared in the Levant in the 12th century BCE.
Rather than view 12th century bichrome as descended from a Mycenaean provenance, it should be seen as entirely independent.
12th century 'Philistine' bichrome was preceded by 16th century 'Palestinian' bichrome, which itself appeared long before the Mycenaean IIIC wares which 'Philistine' bichrome is reputed to have evolved from.
All very confusing and greatly in need of a complete re-evaluation.
Once the 12th century bichrome is detached from its 'presumed' Mycenaean heritage the way is open to see those Philistines, Sikel, Tursha, Sharden, Shekelesh, etc,. as Asiatic city-states.
There never has been any tangible 'Greek' evidence for a Sea Peoples origin, only in the minds of the academic romantics. -
Message 43
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 8th August 2009
Re: Message 41.
Mishamish,
thank you for your interesting contribution. May I ask if you could make a "résumé" from your "particularly good sources" because it is not that easy to have access to these sources I suppose.
Or was your "two pence" that "résumé"?
Warm regards,
Paul.
PS: as I understand you we are back to square one? Nobody knows that much about them? Sigh... -
Message 44
Posted by Mishamish (U14095943) on Saturday, 8th August 2009
Hello Paul,
My previous post was a very over-arching resume of the sources, to be more in-depth, some of the points the sources make are that:
1) The sea peoples' presence was certainly not sudden in the region as they are mentioned in the inscriptions of Merenptah (šrdn and škrš), although other groups are also now evident in Ramesses’ inscriptions, and it is possible that there were many more such groups and Ramesses had simply chosen to include the names of the most powerful so as to portray himself in the best light. But why were the two lists so different? Cline and O'Connor have suggested that these two sets of peoples were geographically remote from each other or possibly political relations amongst the groups were at work (2003:118). Selectivity certainly seems to have played a role. Scepticism of scholars to accept Ramesses’ inscriptions at face value is evident and provided by Cifola who argued that the sea peoples in the time of Ramesses III were not a coherent fighting body but consisted of many small groups migrating over different periods of times and clashing with Egyptian troops in small skirmishes and these skirmishes were transformed into two major battles in the inscriptions at Medinet Habu (Cline and O’Connor 2003:120).
2) Betancourt supports the theory that the origins of the sea people has been associated with an economic depression in the Aegean (Oren, 2000:297) and an eastern migration of these people. Archaeological evidence for such migration comes from the similarities between Philistine (plst) and late Mycenaean pottery (Ibid). Especially as Mycenaean Greece relied heavily on foreign trade and commerce and if this became disrupted, especially with Anatolia or Egypt, then the palace bureaucracy would crumble and those dependant on the Mycenaean nobility such as former seamen, merchants or traders in international commerce could readily turn to piracy.
this agrees with the revious poster's post regarding issues interpreting philistine pottery.
But i'd like to say not all of the work accorded to the 'sea poeples' would have been a result of this - in fact maybe only a few skirmishes may have occured. and by this i mean individual or small groups of boats attacking imperial boats or harbours etc.
3) Concering attacks on Hattusa and into the eastern branch of the Nile delta, Tjeker and Eqwesh groups targeted the eastern Nile delta in their sea and land battle against Ramesses III with a probable target being the palace of Pi-Ramesses built by Ramesses the Great and still is use through the 20th dynasty (Drews:184), concerning Hattusa only royal palaces and some public buildings were destroyed. Suggesting these people were after the wealth not after bringing down the imperial powers.
Hope this adds a little extra - all conjecture on the basis of the authors of course!! as you said - we are back to the beginning, but i'm not sure we can ever definitively say who the sea peoples were, except that they didn't exist - a misnomer if ever I heard one!
best -
Message 45
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Sunday, 9th August 2009
Rather than selectively respond to each of the three points made in post #44, I'd just like to give a brief outline of considerations not normally taken.
On the question of 'who were the Sea Peoples?'.
Take a step back about a hundred years from the date of the Asiatic wars of Ramesses III, to the battle at Kadesh between Ramesses II and Muwatalli.
Do you recall any of the allied city-states who fought alongside the Hittites?
Yes, there were the Pedes and the Derdeny but also fighting alongside the Hittites were Carchemish, Kode & Arvad. Do those names ring a bell?
A generation after Muwatalli, Tudhaliyash brought Alishaya, by conquest, into the Hittite fold. If Alishaya had been under Hittite rule previously in the time of Muwatalli we would probably have read, Carchemish, Kode, Arvad & Alishaya...now they must sound familiar?
The Asiatic wars of Ramesses III, circa 1175 BCE, were a smaller version of the earlier encounter between Ramesses II & Muwatalli at Kadesh.
Ramesses III did not face a migrating hoard of Aegeans, the Medinet-habu text specifically states that Ramesses moved "against that land of Hatti", ie; the Syrian Hittites and their allied city-states.
The so-called Sea Peoples then were Asiatic city-states who, as the text already tells us, were the confederates of the Hittite alliance of Carchemish, Kode, Arvad & Alishaya.
[..no-one could stand before the arms of Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arvad & Alishaya...]
One of the principal regions under Hittite control was a region we refer to as Cilicia, which comprised of the city-states of Tarsus (Tursha), Adana (Denyen), and Issus (Weshwesh).
In the name Cilicia (Kilakua), we can read Kil-akua, (akuwa), which the Assyrians called Kawa, or Akawa, where no doubt the origin of the term Ekwesh came from, - Cilicia.
There is no true mystique to the identity of the Sea Peoples, provided we recognise that the principal players were not any hypothetical marauding Aegeans but the Syrian political state of the Hittites, assisted by south Anatolian satellite city-states.
p.s., Hattushas seems to have fallen due to internal strife, civil war, rather than any foreign invasion. -
Message 46
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 9th August 2009
Re: Message 44.
Mishamish,
thank you very much for expanding on your previous post. I learned a lot from it.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 47
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 9th August 2009
Re: Message 45.
Jon Wickerman,
thank you very much for your point of view.
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 48
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Sunday, 9th August 2009
"...concerning Hattusa only royal palaces and some public buildings were destroyed. Suggesting these people were after the wealth not after bringing down the imperial powers."
Trevor Bryce puts the evidence concerning the fall of Hattushas in perspective by bringing up the Sudberg inscription.
Prior to the fall of the principal royal seat at Hattushas the kingdom of Hatti had been divided into three realms.
Suppiluliuma I, ruled from Hattushas but created a second royal seat at Carchemish.
Hattusili III, who removed his nephew Urhi-Teshub from the throne at Hattushas, installed him in the south at the third royal seat, Tarhuntassa.
The Sudberg inscription appears to suggest that Hattushas & Tarhuntassa were embroiled in civil war. The Urhi-Teshub line may have been claiming its rightfull hold on the principal royal seat at Hattushas. There exists a seal(?) of Urhi-Teshub where he calls himself "Great King", something not possible under normal circumstances.
Either Hattushas has already fallen or, Urhi-Teshub is now ruling from Hattushas or, Urhi-Teshub, still ruling from Tarhuntassa, is defying his 'superior' at Hattushas and claiming his righfull title, essentially, throwing down the gauntlet.
Regardless, Hattushas may have been severely weakened and fallen victim to those longtime northern enemies the Kaska.
Either way, there is no evidence (pottery?) of the presence of Aegeans before, during or after the fall of Hattushas.
Regards... -
Message 49
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 9th August 2009
Jon, naturally Aegean cultures had little to do with Hattusa and the Hittite for the very simple reason that Hittites ruled over much of the eastern and central Minor Asia while their power was waning as you approaches the western coast already by then heavily visited (if not already colonised) by Aegean cultures (unless we are so naif to belief that those ship-based cultures would be drawn more to the western side of that little sea - that happened to be more mountainous and less rich anyway...). Greek tribes therefore had little to do with the Hittites who however were in some contact with some of them, probably using their navies (I do not know but I have a difficulty to believe that the guy called Alaksandu, coming from the west, was not any Greek called Alexandros). Hittites afterall seemed to lack navies of their own for the very simple fact that such a powerful kingdom had virtually no presence in nearby Cyprus that was hugely colonised by the Greek tribes of the Aegean.
Again I will repeat it. I have never claimed tha those Sea people were all Greek or something. I just noted that had they been a very important event including 1000s of ships, it would most possibly had to do with the only known heavy shipping industry in those times - Phoenicians were still early in their learning curve and others were small players in terms of ships. Had it been a small event inflated by Egyptians, then it could be whoever. Note though that the owner of the ships did not necessarily be of the same tribe as the mercenaries that landed to fight the Egpytians. Evidently as the Egyptians mention that was a highly multinational campaign against them. -
Message 50
Posted by Noggin the Nog (U195809) on Wednesday, 12th August 2009
Doesn't anybody find it the least bit strange that despite all the effort and ingenuity that have been expended over the years that not a single point of contact, no person or event, has been found that connects the Egypt of the 12th century BC and the rest of the Near East of the same time - a lack so profound that some historians, if I am to believe what I've read above, have concluded tht Ramses III "made it all up"? Moreover, on this very thread, it's own supporters have admitted that the stratigraphy derived from the standard chronology is "in need of re-appraisal"!
And is their anybody here who can tell me when and why Ramses III to XI were assigned to the 12th century in the first place (I can answer the when at least to the extent that it predates the translation of heiroglyphics and any serious archaeology)?
Noggin
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.