Talk:Sea Peoples/Archive 1

Defining the article

This needs way more links. If there's a theory that their sea routes were inherited by the Islamic caliphate, which seems more or less a tautology given the co-extent of trade, and the way Islam spread through trade, that should be linked both ways as an explanation for how Islam spread so fast and far. Among other things that helps back the sea power thesis for how empires spread, mentioned in rise of Rome.

Also the confrontation with Egypt should be mentioned, if nothing else because it was so much later, and suggests that there were later people who were called Sea Peoples.

There really was a group called the "sea peoples" whose migrations and raids disrupted the Eastern Meditrranean and Near east, ca 1200 BCE. Why not start fresh with some real history?

Thank you. I was wondering what this had to do with the Sea Peoples whose history I know about. Is there really such a group as this? RickK 01:12, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

(removed my former remark, now that Llywrch has given us a sound fresh start) Thank you Llywrch. User:Wetman

If that be the case why not correct the mistakes which you can and delete the things you feel are unsubstanciatable. Isn't that the wiki way? I think I am going to label this a stub to get some constructive input on the theory. The way I see it, it is better to put a stub down to allow it to grow with input from others than to never give it the opportunity by planting it for fear of criticism. Wikipedia cannot be THE reference center over night, it needs many years of input and growing stubs but will in the end be the best reference encyclopaedia on the planet. I think this kind of entry needs encouragement. Well done 202.30.144.91 :)

Oh Wetman, I checked up the tribes mentioned in the article and they are the same tribes associated with the 12thC.BC people you mentioned. Why don't you correct as much as you think you can? :)

Kaz

---

Sorry for my outburst. I hate to delete other people's work. I feel high-handed. Historical entries just do need some research first, even thru google. A date, at least mentioning the 12th century BCE-- stuff like that. I promise to come work here. Yes, good start 2202.30.144.91. User:Wetman

The enigma, the enigma

---

Removed the following text. I'm leaving it here if someone can attribute these speculations to a published writer. Otherwise, in our contributions to Wikipedia, let's focus just on facts that come from peer-reviewed works. -- llywrch 00:42, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Sea Peoples are one of the enigmas of ancient history,

There is no enigma in them.The Pelasgians are the sea people since Pelasgians means exactly this, Sea People.Learn some foreign language (other than English) and stop believing what american universities tell you as devine truth!

Do you have a quotation/source for your translation of Pelasgians? The only reflection in the article linked above is in a discussion of academic alternative opinions. The Bulgarian linguist Vladimir Georgiev claimed that the Pelasgians were Indo-Europeans, with an Indo-European etymology of pelasgoi from pelagos, "sea" as the Sea-People, the PRŚT of Egyptian inscriptions..... Do you agree with the source on this quote? If you have another source which concurs, I would agree you should add the definition to this article and the Pelasgians article. WBardwin 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Stuff pulled from article

though their culture has perhaps been the single most influencial legacy in the evolution of civilization. Pirates, noted for their advanced weaponry most commonly identified as Phoenicians (Puntians/Puntites), they are said to have first appeared ruling Tylos/Dilmun (Bahrain) in the Arabian Gulf as early as the end of the 4th millennium BC perhaps stranded there following severe flooding in Mesopotamia. They maintained trade routes on the coasts around the Arabian peninsula from that time until the Islamic period but are most famous for over-running Egypt & the eastern Mediterranean around 900 BC (Revised Chronology) or 1200 BC (Traditional Chronology). The collection of port city kingdoms they occupied was known as Phoenicia or Sidonia from the name of the most importan conquest Sidon.

the traditional date you gave doesn't seem to be correct, since it says in the tanakh that solomon built the temple about 480 years after the exodus, and the philistines were already in cna'an at the time. that would put traditional date to be no later than -1440 IMO. Y man 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories on their origin include a "Kult-Bund" i.e. groups from different nations partak ing in a common culture/way-of-life some originating in Greece and others Crete, Asia Minor (Anatolia), Libya and Asia, moving through the mediterranean and Arabian islands and coasts though never venturing far inland. They were certainly closely connected with coastal Arabs and the extent of Islam from Morocco to Indonesia may be a reflection of the trade routes they controlled/frequented. They were a curly-haired people who wore feathered head dresses similar to those used by the Iban in Sarawak and used high-prowed "Serpent" ships, later adopted by the Nordics and may have been the source for the "Fomor" in Hiberian (Irish) myth. Little is known of their original language, though Aku/Ego may have been the original term for self-reference. Ancestrally, the Maltese & Lebanese both have connections to them.

They are supposed to have called their own homeland Ahhiyawa while the Bible has been interpreted as saying they hailed from Caphtor.

Nations which have been grouped with Sea-peoples include:

• Danuna
• Sherden
• Tutsha
• Lukka
• Sheklesh
• Tjekker
• Palistines (subjected)
• Calushites (subjected)
• Zidonians (subjected)

Their influence in Uruk period (Sumeria) and Nakada II (Egypt) has been established. It has also been suggested that The Olmec & Mayan civilisations of Meso-America may have been founded by them (the start of the Mayan chronology at 3114 BC follows on closely from the archaeological Uruk flood), and that they are the source of myths about people of Atlantis.

More stuff pulled from this article

Chronology

• References to ``Old Chronology`` vs. ``New Chronology``. I'm unaware that anyone inside the academic community seriously thinks that the traditional dates for Egyptian history -- based on an astronomical record in the 9th year of Amenophis I -- vary more than 50 years. And there are synchronicities between the Egyptian New Kingdom & neighboring Mesopotamia that confirm the traditional dates.
• This passage: "Also the recently discovered discrepancy of upto as much as 300 years between Egyptian accounts and events recorded in other chronologies prior to the sacking of thebes in 664BCE brings the otherwise floating chronologies of the Mycaeans, Hittites, Minoans, and late Bronze-age Levant city-states down with Egypt's." -- This is frankly irrelevant to the article, & Thebes is neither properly identified nor capitalized.

As I said above, "let's focus just on facts that come from peer-reviewed works." If students & researchers find our dates 300 years off from the other encyclopedias & the reference works they consult, it can only hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. -- llywrch 05:14, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thebes was a minor edit indeed. As an alternative encyclopaedia Wikipaedia is not looking to repeat what all the popular conventional encyclopaedias offer but rather it is the opportunity for everyday people to add their two cents. The new chronology of Egypt is no whimsicle half hearted theory but a powerful challenge to conventional Egyptology and the only reason it has not been accepted in the orthodox circles yet is because of misplaced and dogged loyalty to geriatric traditions. Hence Egyptology is now divided in two schools the traditionalist and the revisionist. It is vital to NPOV on any entry concerning Egypt to mention both sides of the coin. As the article was, it showed the NPOV by avoiding dates and restricting the dating to the reigns of the Pharoes. It also mentioned the dates of both views. The info about the floating Mycaeans, Hittites, Minoans, and late Bronze-age Levant city-stateschronologies is also important since they are mentioned in the article to show that their dating will also be affected while Greece and anything after 664BC will not be. Also people (like Llywrch in her mention above of "synchronicities between the Egyptian New Kingdom & neighboring Mesopotamia") might believe that their synchronisation with the old chronology was some kind of proof of its established trustworthiness. Llywrch's opinion is to only repeat what others have written while mine is to include all relevant data and allow the readers to come to their own conclusions. One is purely regurgitative and hegemonistic and the other is regurgative only as much as is neccessary but also generative (a major principle of wikiness) and therefore does not impoose a standard way of thinking on the reader.

Since people who are concerned with ancient history may not be aware of any "new-age" alternative New Age Ancient Near East Chronology (there! that's a good link to my just-now-created stub!), let me offer a link to the ISIS website, which gives some of the "whimsicle" flava: ISIS site. ...A better way for 'everyday people' (that is, well-read non-professionals, such as all of us) to put our two cents in, is by carefully reading fresh genuine archaeological material, editing a condensed version and adding it to Wikipedia entries. Often Wikipedia is already better than the Columbia Encyclopedia etc. There's room too for all new-age interconnections of Sea People, Atlantis and Olmecs etc.

New age and Rohl

As a general rule, Religion and occultism may not provide reliable models for studying history.

But I'm copying the text above, zany as I consider it (privately) into a new entry (see above). See? No problemo! Wetman 21:42, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well-read non-professional does not actually apply to myself (I can't really say I am well read considering, though I am professional :-P ). There is already a wiki entry about revisions in chronology in existence but maybe your page can be merged with it later (to include the new age perspective). I couldn't agree more about the advice on reading fresh genuine archaeological material etc.. I think I am going to take some of that sea-people info and work it into the appropriate sea people article here and also include some of Llywrch's ideas from the previous edit.

However much Rohl, et al, would like to see themselves as leading a split in Egyptology, and not being accepted because their ideas are just too radical for the hidebound geriatrics who dominate the field to accept, I think it is objectively true to state that this is simply not the case. Aside from a very tiny group, who are mostly supported by lost Velikovskians and journalists trying to rouse up a scandal, there is, so far as I am aware, no serious dispute within the academic community about whether Rohl's, et al's, theories are right. They are simply (considered to be) wrong by nearly everyone else. I suppose this doesn't mean that Rohl is necessarily wrong, but it does mean that we, as an encyclopedia, should not give him any particular credit. I'd also recommend looking at [1], where actual people who study ancient history poke massive holes in Rohl's theories. john 22:35, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I keep on comming accross people who are missing the point of Wiki. If it were meant for reportage only of popular (I refuse to endorse the word professional) academic views they there would be a very strict policy on who can join & edit and my membership would have been cancelled long before now. Obviously the job of Wikipedians is to offer all perspectives and info available on a subject from all possible ngles so that someone searching the net for info about for example Sea Peoples and their place in the New Revised Chronology of the ancient Near & Middle East can find the info they require alongside the conventional views. In order to make up their own minds. We are not trying to impose a popular view on readers nor are we custodians of a certain point of view only. There are enough encyclopaedias in the world already for that job. We must simply report all the available views for the reader to use their own brain. To be sure these are NPOV one set of dates must be labelled as Conventional and the other as Rohl's (since the term Revised cannot be NPOV). The page of links you gave is very useful for allowing experts to discern the viability of Rohl's arguments but since there are a whole bunch of factors which amateurs cannot know about in order to make judgement the latter really should refrain. The biggest problem with the human species is our tendancy to believe we are qualified to make judgements about things when we cannot really know one way or the other. We want to make everything simple and judge by what is obvious only in our limited scope and follow the majority the whole time which is why the world was flat for so long.

Wikipedia's job is not to present offbeat theories not accepted by any professionals as being of equal merit to the conventional interpretations. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I must have missed that in the join-up policy could you point that out to me please? I was under the impressionWikipaedia was an alternative encyclopaedia which would offer the best sources of info on a topic to all people regardless of what point of view they may hold. Our job is to maintain NPOV which simply means not hiding any alternative ideas no-matter how much we might hate them. e.g. I don't like the very narrow POV held by a few people that Hanukkah is based upon a babylonian festival of lights. Have you ever heard of that theory? Well I had not, and I think it is a load of rubbish but my POV is of no importance, what is important is that someone has mentioned it for the reference of others whether they want to see some fact like that or like me do not. I do not defend what they say but I do defend the value of what they say as a different POV and for the sake of NPOV then all relevant views must be presented. If I am wrong then ask someone to try and block my membership because someone like me must then be stopped if I am truely damaging wikipaedia by fighting for NPOV and promote easy access of info from whatever POV on a subject. Zestauferov

The idea that saying "revised" is not NPOV is simply ridiculous. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree Zestauferov

If we are to present Rohl's views, we should also present the many flaws in them that show why most ancient historians reject his views. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree which is why i put the links above in the Rohl article online here. Excellent links I think. Zestauferov

Much of the material in the link I discuss is readily understandable by amateurs - me, for instance. The fact that there are lengthy, complete lists of generations of hereditary officeholders which leave no room for chronological revision, for instance, is hardly difficult to understand. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually it is readily misinterpreted only by amateurs which is why Rohls ideas are spreadding these days because when one gets into the compexities of the at first glance straightforward issues mentioned in opposition like the site you mentioned turn out to have a variety of simple explainations but it is simply the way in which the evidence has been presented to amateurs that it seems to be irrefutable. But why trust me. Why not try any prof at the University of London or University College London in the Ancient History dept to explain the variety of possibilities. My personal view is that Rohl's dates are certainly not to be taken as gospel (chuckle) but that much of the old testament events certainly do seem to fit at least some kind of chronological regardless of what the dating may actually be. Zestauferov

At any rate, Wikipedia's job simply is not to present all options as equally valid. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree which is why it is important as Wetman has mentioned in the past to report the origin of a view. Thus I have never said we should call the Conventional chronological dates OC (Old Chronology) nor that we should call the Revised dates NC (New chronology) because that is not NPOV in use of language Conventional and Revisionist is much more neutral. Zestauferov

An NPOV page (or pages) on Rohl's views, presenting both his own arguments and the counterarguments of his opponents, would be worthwhile. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It exists and looks like it is growing Zestauferov

But to start introducing Rohl's ideas into other articles on ancient history is simply unacceptable. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To who? To you maybe but not to many. Anyway no-one is forcing an introduction of Rohl's ideas it was one of my own students who started this article in September and it was quickly torn to pieces making my student opposed to wiki while I was trying to spread the news of the value of Wiki. Since her ideas were deleted she has not put them back again and all I am arguing for is that alternative POVs which are relevant to any topic please not be deleted but rather treated with good reportage. As wetman mentioned why not allow anything as long as the introduction of the topic is valid. I could mention what Fiction says about Sea Peoples as long as I mention that it is from Harry Potter book if necessary, since it is relevant to the article. Thus so equally are Rohl's views. Zestauferov

I also find introducing Rohl's ideas to articles on ancient history unacceptible for one simple reason: relevance. If you want to add Rohl's take on Egyptian chronology to articles on Ramesses II or Shoshank I, then that is the proper place. I read Rohl's book Pharaohs and Kings (the American version of his Test of Time), & I failed to find where he mentioned the Sea Peoples in that work, so I'd say that his theories are irrelevant to an article such as this one, except indirectly. -- llywrch 21:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Then that makes two objections against bestselling (do you know how many satisfied readers that means?) author and Britain's highest profile archeologist. Since the book you read did not deal with the area in depth, if you are an amateur to be fair it would not be very clear to you. But if you are pretending to be an expert in the area, then the fact that you did not get the correlation between the revision of egyptian chronology & the timing of the sea-peoples is a testimony to your lack of understanding of the intricacies of dating the sea-peoples (how on earth do you think the floating chronologies of the Mycaeans, Hittites, Minoans, and late Bronze-age Levant city-states were fixed? Don't say archaeology, don't you know that it is impossible to date any strata of MB LB I1 etc. to within anything like a band of 500years without a known historical event to count from?) and to your less than required nor careful nor critical (obviously you did not know what holes one really should be looking for) reading. Since the third book has not been published yet (though you can put an order on it through amazon). I will not spoil the conclusions for anyone (unless you email me for more info) but recomend you look again carefully at pages like 17-8, 31, 72, 92, 174-5, 218, 242, 256, 285-6, 288, 299, 309-11, 345, 352, 393 and 395 which should be more than enough to a person with any real idea about the area to easily deduce the book deals specifically with Phoenecia/Caphtor/Philistines/Sea-Peoples. user:Zestauferov

"Two objections against bestselling (do you know how many satisfied readers that means?) author and Britain's highest profile archeologist" By that analogy, since there are more Americans than Iraqis, the US has the right to invade that country, QED. Arguing by counting noses is a specious argument. -- llywrch 03:58, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you might already be realising the pointlessness of this statement.

Which statement? An argument based on popularity? Or my analogy? And please sign your comments, otherwise it is not only hard to understand the context of these statements, but also who is talking. -- llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And yes, I am an amateur. I do this stuff for love (whence the word amateur comes from), not money. However, the other professional Egytpologists also look on Rohl's work with disdain; Rohl has answered these objections with a puzzling claim that because he is an amateur, he's not hindered by facts. Lastly, I found his book fraught with countless minor errors, which hindered my ability to give it a fair & objective shake & which others have noticed. llywrch

Rohl is not an amateur I suggest you start reading some published Journals and pay less attention to things you see on the internet. I do not know the date of that quote but it must be at least 10 years old if it is really his.

As for floating chronologies in the Ancient Near East, they've been fairly well anchored by synchonicities to the Assyrian royal chronologies. Further, Rohl suggests changes to the Assyrian chronology to defend his redating of Ramesses II that would result in assuming that the Hittite New Kingdom came to an end in the 9th century BC -- leaving scare enough time for the kingdoms of the Cimmerians & Phrygians to rise & fall. llywrch 21:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You will just have to read the latest book when it comes out which deals with such matters. The point that there are alternatives to the conventional chronology is now being lost sight of. I don't think you will find anywhere I have said Rohl Is Right everyone else is wrong. What I am saying is that the sequence is certainly aesthetic and the conventionally accepted dates need to be identified as only tentative with a suggested margin for upto 300 years of error. Do you have any idea about how long it has taken for all the accepted chronologies to come to their present states? And if so do you seriously expect one body of researchers to either keep quiet on all revisionist theories until they have a complete new model (and if so where will their funding come from in the mean time)? Or alternatively expect them to be finished doing it all by now since it has been a few years since the first major publication about the area was released?

If this comment is from Zestauferov, then I'd like to ask him why he doesn't simply cite sources that can be verified? He tells me that I should read Rohl's next book & be convinced; I should read what is published in Russian & Georgian journals; I should stay current in the latest secondary literatrue. My objection is simple: the arguments I have been reading from you fail my test for logic. If this failure is due to evidence not presented, then supply them in a simple manner here. Otherwise, I'll also start referring to journals in Kurdish, Hopi, & German, as well as forthcoming works by Kitchen et alia. -- llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In a nutshell, accepting every assertion & thesis Rohl makes forces too many chronologies to be rewritten when there are simpler explanations for all of his points. The principal of Occam's Razor leads us to decline Rohl's chronological thesis until further evidence is produced to support it. -- llywrch 03:58, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No not too many chronologies, rather vitrtually EVERY chronology because they were mostly all put together around the same time wehn one set of anchors were held to be true but now those anchors seem to be built up one upon another with no real foundation. Of course this is like a nightmare for the history buffs because they will all have to find new books as of yet unpublished re-written with new accuracy. But then professionals rarely consider what popular readers take as gospel. Rather we like to look at the sources. And please do not try to assign Occam's Razor to history. It works excellently for classical & Neutonian physics but not chaotic patterns of human intervention. Even withing physics string theory is taken seriously despite its failure to pass the Occam test. You are trying to fit the whole world into a nice simple explainations where the reality of human existence is much less comfortable and stable. Having said that Occam's Razor works perfectly well with Rohl's ideas. In fact neither one side is more complicated necessarily just alternate. It is the opposition to new ideas which give alternatives to accepted ones (e.g. the world is round as opposed to flat) a hard time and causes their supporters to be raged against until the persecution dies out. I really see little point in arguing, it is just a matter of time.

Occam's Razor is a tool applied to logical arguments. The topics you have mentioned -- history & physics -- use logic to determine their conclusions. use of logic & her tools especially applies to chronology, which is perhaps the most scientific portion of historical studies. Or are you implying that we should forego logic when studying history? llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That being said, you assert that Rohl does not introduce unneeded complexity into the chronology of the ancient Near East. I'm not sure that rewriting the history of Anatolia, & reworking a chronology of Assyria that has stood the test of about 100 years of criticism all to favor one set of conclusions from archeological findings (which are subject to alternative conclusions of equal plausibility that do not require these revisions) doesn't meet the criteria for applying Occam's Razor. -- llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If that doesn't convince you, then maybe I should start incorporating Samuel Kramer's views on Sumerian history into every article about Mesopotamia, Iraq, Egypt, Persia/Iran (the next nation over from Sumeria), farming (the Sumerians are the earliest documented farmer) and writing (they invented the cuneiform writing system). It's the same thing. -- llywrch 21:26, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I see what you are thinking. But as far as I know about Kramer, Rohl is not like him a specialist in one narrow cultural area from one specific time. Rohl's area of specialism is Egyptian Chronology (in which the only other -albeit old school- specialist alive now is the evangelical Kenneth Kitchen -Rohl's opponent) which happens to be the foundation of for the chronologies of almost all adjacent peoples and thus by its very nature must be interdisciplinary in that one must look for synchronisations with in other chronologies, geology & astronomy at the very least. Now if Kramer was a specialist in agricultural developments, then I would expect to see his views in almost every article which touched upon agriculture be it Egypt, Mesopotamia/Iraq, Susa, farming etc.. user:Zestauferov

And chronology is a cross-cultural discipline? I feel that you are like the Red Queen, deciding that words mean exactly what you wish, & nothing more or less. -- llywrch 03:58, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Didn't you realising that investigating chronologies needs more than just blind acceptance? That is the main reason why there is opposition ot Rohls ideas because they require us to drop blind acceptance of the Biblical dates.

That is supposed to mean that the study of chronology is a single discipline, like the history of farming or paleography. Knowledge of related fields (e.g., economics, genetics, law, biography) can be useful -- & the leaders in any discipline will familiarize themselves with those relevant disciplines -- but chronology of any one country is not cross-cultural. And if it was, Rohl then fails that requirement. In his book Rohl demonstrates:

1. Ignorance of Hittite chronology, as well as of its culture (for example, he makes an obvious, elementary error concerning the Hittite use of cuneiform);
2. He is not conversant with current thought about the history of Ancient Israel (for example, there is a group of credentialized scholars who argue plausibly that the united Kingdom of Saul, David & Solomon did not exist; whether or not they are right, he must respond to their arguments in order to construct his own model of the chronology of ancient Israel);
3. He admits that "the subject of Mesopotamian chronology lies outside my competence" (Pharaohs and Kings, pg. 394).

I am skeptical towards all conclusions. I want to understand the arguments, & then report them here under the relevant articles. -- llywrch 18:49, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, to satisfy you, we should say something like "traditionally/conventionally dated ca.whatever" instead of just giving the conventional account dates as being facts. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

not perhaps but certainly. And not just to please people like me but because it is our duty as reporters. Zestauferov

But we should not give out Rohl's dates as though they are equally valid alternatives. john 06:38, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

agreed but we should give out Rohl's dates as well as anything mentioned about them inHarry Potter if they appear there for the sake of providing the full account of all existing ideas surrounding the topic. as long as they are introduced properly first i.e. something like Conventional dates 1200BCE Revisionist dates (se David Rohl) 1200BCE&900BCE. Zestauferov

Habiru question

Do the habiru refer to the Hebrews, ie the ancestors of the modern Jewish people?-jsonitsac

If the Habiru were (as it most likely seems to be the case) the original Hebrews then they eventually lost whatever language/languages they spoke in favour of the local Canaanite dialects. Some Argue thatthey formed an ethnic group in a similar way to the way the Cossacks were formed on the steppes ofeastern Europe. Others argue that the word must be transated to mean nothing more than outlaws/mercenaries/freemen in general and refered to no particular group. Discourses in the available records along with lists of their names indicate however that they were indeed at least at some point a Hetto-Iberian groupwhich filtered down into messopotamia & the levant. You can take your stand either way. They were Hthe original Hebrews or they are only coincidentallyrelated.Zestauferov 14:36, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Read the following. The consensus in the Meyers article is that there is no religious or ethnic identity between Hapiru and Hebrew. Meyers, Eric M. ed. “Hapiru,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, New York : Oxford University Press, 1997. Campbell, Edward F. “The Amarna Letters and The Amarna Period.” Biblical Archaeologist, Volume 23, No. 1, February, 1960. Mendenhall, George. “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine.” Biblical Archaeologist, Volume 25, No. 3, September, 1962. Merrillees, Robert S. “Political Conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age,” The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 49, No. 1. (Mar., 1986), pp. 42-50. Harrelson, Walter. “Part I. Shechem in Extra-Biblical References,” Biblical Archaeologist Volume 20 1957. Wright, G. Ernest “Epic of Conquest.” Biblical Archaeologist, Volume 3, 1940 Ginsberg, H. “Ugaritic Studies and the Bible,” Biblical Archaeologist, Volume 8, 4.249.63.12 (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I hadn't seen it when I edited the article a few minutes ago to make sure it was clear that the consensus is as you say no identity between Hapiru and Hebrew. Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hapiru was a social class distinction. Habiru where known to protect places/temples (Ebla?) as mercenaries. What they did when not hired is a different matter. So there might be a social class-distinction that they have in common, and mayhap a philologic link. Just as the codex sinaiticus and vaticanus might use IUXU and XUIU or even XAIA to denote simple man only convinced by what the eye can see, handworker or soldier. (This was before any jesus or Christ was interpolated, but millions will tell you that the name and title have always been in the bible! Even though it's a lot harder to go from those greek terms to |jesus christ|) Sorry no link, I took it for granted that everybody had read that particular distinction! I'm in the middle of a 700 page book on archeology and was just looking for a bit of background on the Phelesht. regards. 94.211.196.61 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)@oneworld94.211.196.61 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. And if you might think that link likely than you still have to prove that the ha-ivri are the same as the ivri, and indeed they soldiered for Egyptians, and to be found also in Shashu territory (Midianite so that is not a hard one to proof if they shared a covenent as stated in the bible, and if you can make that bit historic. 94.211.196.61 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)@oneworld94.211.196.61 (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Haibru can be read as Ha (semitic definitive article) ibr (horsemen)[also in the form apiru or biru interchanging b and p as with modern arabic pepsi and bebsi] u (plural) and would refer to the Canaanite light cavalry (horses ridden bareback by messengers) illustrated in the images of the battle of Kadesh at Karnak and used by the Egyptians during the Hyksos period along with chariots. 12.187.94.99 (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Minoans

I saw a documentary last night which made a very convincing case (they even had Leonard Nimoy doing the narration ;) that the Philistines were synonymous w the sea peoples, and that the sea peoples were synonymous with the Minoans, and finially, that the atlanteans were actually the minoans! Pretty exciting stuff, and I don't see it in this article. I'm no expert, and I don't know if Nimoy is or not (lol), but they had various talking heads suggesting that this might be a workable theory. Thoughts? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 23:40, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure you got this right? The Pilistines are indeed commonly associated with the Sea Peoples, and with the Mycenaeans. The Minoans had been replaced by Greeks for some 300 years when the Sea peoples appeared. As for "Atlanteans", as you may imagine, what they were is anybody's guess (this particular theory probably assiciated the myth of Atlantis with the Santorini eruption, which happened in Minoan times. dab (ᛏ) 13:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, I´m sure I got it right. Minoans not Mycenaeans. The idea is the minoans-atlanteans were warlike at the time they were driven off their island, and thus went on to be the warlike philistines-sea peoples for sometime thereafter. It was a very long documentary, and this was their theory they were promoting. I´m not saying its true, I´m just saying it´s a theory, and one not currently present here. Does wrap alot of lose ends up pretty neatly tho, assuming these guys could stay "sea peoples" for all those hundreds of years. Maybe unlikely, but it seems possible to me. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 12:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

well, sure. dig up the references. I am less than thrilled by the theory. It seems to say, "the enigmatic Minoans were displaced by the Greeks. They roamed the Mediterranean for 300 years, and then resurfaced as the enigmatic Philistines and the enigmatic Sea peoples". But of course we can state the theory here, we just need to find the relevant publications. dab (ᛏ) 13:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK the only "publication" is the documentary I have right here. If your interested, I'll copy the title and whatever else down, but I'm not real sure how to go about referencing a video (I'm only 1/2 way confident w citing a book ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 17:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

speculation

Removed the following. Questions needing answering are interpolated, in italics:

The most likely implications sez who? consequently become prehistoric Romans to the north of Greece? um. . . and prehistoric West African Saharans to the west. Just as the Romans are reknown for their military prowess (see Military history of the Roman Empire) not during the Etruscan period, they weren't; and the Romans were not the only people in Italy. Did "Romans" even exist as a distinct entity at the time?, the West African Saharans are reknown for their advanced shipbuilding (see West Africa: Prehistory) early, yes; advanced, though?.

Unsubstantiated speculation

The mainstream view is that the Sea Peoples came from the Northern Mediterranean; primarily the Aegean, with possible components from Italy or Central Europe.

The speculation connecting the Sea Peoples to the Israelites does not belong here, as it is unsubstantiated and is not backed by any scholarly research, so far as I know. It seems very much like original research to me. I suggest we delete it.--Rob117 22:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Connecting the Denyan subtribe of the Sea Peoples with the Tribe of Dan is found in many scholarly works. I believe Redford discusses the issue in Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. See also, e.g., N. K. Sanders, The Sea Peoples: Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1985. p. 163-164.

Looks like I had forgotten about Denyen/Dan, as I had seen that before. But the other ones- connecting the Uashesh with Asher, the Shekelesh with Issachar, and the Tjekker with Manasseh, all seems like folk etymology, at best. The big problem with connecting the Sea Peoples to the Israelites is that it just doesn't fit the material and archaeological evidence. The earliest Israelite settlements appear ca.1230 BC, and the material culture of these settlements is of standard West Semitic derivation, little different from the pottery of the Canaanites. The Sea Peoples appear to have their first permanent settlements in Canaan shortly after their battle with Rameses III in 1176 BC. Sea People pottery, particularly Philistine pottery, is primarily of Mycenaean Greek derivation.--Rob117 03:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

No argument here, as long as we have the admittedly speculative Denyen/Dan connection in there. --Briangotts (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

From what I can gather, much of this article was written by Zestauferov, who is a nut. It probably needs a good going over... john k

You've also forgotten about the Meshwesh, who are almost universally identified as Libyan. So basically you have

• Denyen - seen before as possibly the tribe of Dan
• Peleset, almost universally identified as Philistine
• Meshwesh - Libyan (almost universal)
• So some general coast of eastern mediterranian thing going on, including Canaan.
• Appearance of sea peoples after Rameses III
• Apparantly Ramases III is the pharaoh of exodus, so the Israelites appear in Canaan after him as well

Important points to remember:

• The question is not where they originated, but where they eventually settled.
• A confederation does not require all tribes involved to have the same origin in the same location.

--Victim of signature fascism 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

in the tanakh they are called Plishtim. the area they controlled is Plashet. the tribe of dan used to live by the sea shore near the plishtim, but they left and migrated to the north. it seems pussible they are the denyans from what is said by debora: "vedan lama yagur oniot" ודן למה יגור אוניות (thats what I read in the hebrew wikipedia about the tribe of dan) which seems to mean that they lived in ships or something of the sort. Y man 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Phoenicians?

Scholars, if any are reading this page: Having read a lot of the source material, I'm puzzled by the absence of speculation that some of the "Sea People raids" might have been Phoenecians, having given up trade and turned to piracy. There seems a lot of circumstantial evidence of this; the Phoenecians had superior ship-building technology which would have made them potent raiders, their cities (Tyre, Byblos, etc.) were untouched by the Sea Peoples, and they seemed to come through the period pretty much intact, declining only with the rise of Athens.

There's probably a good reason to reject the idea of the Phoenecians as the Sea Peoples, but I've not read it yet. Anyone know? Jberkus 06:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Its connected to the Philistines I think. The Peleset, one of the groups of Sea Peoples, are almost universally identified as later settling and becoming the Philistines. The Phoenecians occupied the same location as the Philistines, possibly inheriting their culture and peoples, hence theories involving the Phoenecians probably originate in the Philistine connection. --Victim of signature fascism 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

from what I know, the phoenicians only lived in Lebanon and philistines in southern canaan, so I can't see how they occupied the same location. Y man 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Genetic studies show that the Phoenicians were the Canaanites and their descendants are the Maronite Christians and Shiite Muslims of modern Lebanon. The so-called “Canaanite gene” has been found in populations around the Mediterranean where the Phoenicians are known to have placed colonies. The Canaanites lived there before the Sea People invasions so predated the Philistines. "Coming through intact" doesn't really mean much as it was a common practice to protect (some) city states belonging to another culture even if they were otherwise an enemy in order for them to be "buffer" states. This was a reason that Ramses settled the Sea Peoples (Philistines) there and paid their upkeep until they were self supporting instead of absorbing them. Wayne 05:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, seriously, I probably am, however I thought that Canaan was a region. So wouldn't all of the seperate tribes of each individual group be correctly referred to as Canaanites? Similarly to the classification of seperate "indian" nations as Native Americans? Also, couldn't it be hypothisized that all the original nations in Canaan were already related, only seperated by ideology, politics, and seperate histories. That would explain the “Canaanite gene” being so far-flung around the Mediterranean, since logic dictates that if all people in a specific area are related genetically, only seperated by mental differences, their ancestors would be genetically related as well. Caleb Moore 9/2/2010 1530hrs Central Time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.33.104 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I input the proper 94.211.196.61 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC) before and aft and still! I feel with the other victim of signature fascism. The new theory is that they where mercenaries or soldier/slaves no longer employed and looking for new land. So not all went by sea, the tjeker are however known to have done so as in living on their boats. There dress-code attire points to certain tribes. They had it in for just about all big seaports and communities, who lived higher up the mountains or moved inland for about 50 years, like on Crete. But we might never be able to distinguish between trade with Omri/Israel/Samaria and an influx of greek pottery-ware in judea post 1230 BC. Things might have coincided with a drought, bad living conditions. And phenomena like large groups of people on the move have been usual in the Levant. According to John Crow the history and geographical location of the Traaiu Hit. (Trooans Gr.) is also wrong and also the dating. But the same Acheans statet that their forebares had fought their before the Atheneans wanted more land and falsified Homer. Ugarit destroyed 1200 BC (arbitrary date) Tyre abandoned for a while when the Assyrians invaded. And Troy destroyed 677 BC. Well that gives Phelesht a rather stout longevity, but it could be. Nimoy is jewish, so he would know what pheleshet is (the very origin of the term). Minoan is an arbitrary term. In culture they were not so different from MYceneans or from mesopotamians since the finds of ablution and toilet rooms under stairs of second millenia buildings and water-distribution, use of pilared buildings. Furthermore their seems to be a link between hitti, hyksos and Amorites and Mycenean culture plus Israel that had the amorite connection allready longer, as can be deduced from the story and one hittie word found. The more speculation the better. I'm going to continue my book. Thanks. 94.211.196.61 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)oneworld94.211.196.61 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Identifications of Sea Peoples

Perhaps, the peoples of Sea Peoples Group have the below identifications):

1. Peleset ( = Pelasgians, the known Philistines),
2. Tjeker ( = Teucrians, a Thraco-Trojan tribe) ,
3. Shekelesh ( = Scolotians or Scolotoi, or Scoloti), a Scythian tribe, in classical period.
4. Denyen ( = Danaeans (or Danaoi or Danai), a Greek/Achaean tribe, the posterior Danites) and
5. Weshesh ( = Bessians (or Bessoi or Bessi), a Thracian tribe, in classical period.

--IonnKorr 14:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've not seen the Bessian or Scolotian connections being made before, but I have seen the others. The Danaean connection is highly controversial, since it implies the Danaeans (and by extension the other hellenes) are part of the group that destroyed pre-hellenic culture (a theory that does exist, but is nonetheless very controversial). Scythia also seems a bit out of the way to me for them to have been involved as sea people, rather than a land army. Thrace seems geographically plausible though, except that I can't think of a linguistically plausible reason for the B to be dropped (Weshesh is how the name is usually referred to, but the name is actually ueshesh in the inscriptions), and the doubling of the ss into ss-ss also seems a bit odd. --Victim of signature fascism 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Are Bessians identified with Weshesh of Sea Peoples Group?

In Classical Era (8th-1st centuries BC), Bessians (or Bessi, Bessoi, Βησσοί) were an independent Thracian tribe who lived in a territory ranging from Moesia to mount Rhodope in southern Thrace (according to Herodotus), but are often mentioned as dwelling about mount Haemus, the mountain range that separates Moesia from Thrace (according to Strabon).

However, classical Bessians should were simply the remains of a people of numerous population that, lived in the whole Thrace (and its coastal region, as well), in previous time period (15th-10th centuries). Very probably, Byzantium, that in the classic era was a colony of Greeks of Megara, in strait of Bosporus, was previously a city of Bessians (etymologically, the root *Byz- is resembling with the root *Bes-).

Obviously, the name “Byzas” was not the real name of the Megaran settler of this colony (furthermore, it is not a Greek name) but an agnomen, which was ascribed to him, after the foundation of colony (as respectively, Scipio the “Africanus”).

Another city of Thrace, emanating etymologically from the same root, was the Bizya (or Bizye, Bizyê, Βιζύη). The same is the case with the city Bisa ( or Βίσα).

But, the naming of the strait of Bosporus proceed from the same root, as well (i.e. Bos+porus = the porus (channel, in Greek) of Bessians). This means that the pre-classical Bessians exercised control over the strait of Bosporus (as respectively, their neighbours Ilians (the known Troyans) did over Hellespont (i.e. Helles+ pontus = the pontus (sea, in Greek) of Ilians).

Finally, Bithynians (or Bithyni, Bithynoi, Βιθυνοί), in northeastern Anatolia, emanate etymologically from the same root. That means that there was an settlement of Bessians in the Asiatic side.

So, Bessians were not a mountainous race (as they were in the classic era) but lived at the coast, as well. This means that there is a strong possibility that Bessians of coast were Weshesh that took part in group of Sea Peaples with their neithboors, Teucrians and Pelasgians.

--IonnKorr 15:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

That strikes me as original research. You appear to be presenting your own argument. There are several etymological difficulties in the association, one of which is the presence of the completely different roots, hard s rather than sh in a position where a transition to sh is extremely unlikely, and the letter b which is unlikely to be dropped so completely as to be not present in the egyptian inscriptions. Please present an academic argument, and provide references. --Victim of signature fascism 18:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Strikes me as well. As already pointed out to another contributor further below, superficial similarities of one morpheme to another do not yet make the slightest case for etymological connections. "b + some vowel + some dental sound" does not exactly pin it down, now, does it? Trigaranus 18:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Origin

Has anyone ever heard of the Atlantic and in particular Western Europe as possible origin of the Sea Peoples as Iman Wilkens claims and is it possible that they were proto-Celts? --Antiphus 14:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How sure are we that the Sea Peoples existed?

Hey, I've been reading up some on this since I first posted. It's seeming more and more plausible to me that there were no "Sea Peoples" per se, and that the raids, destruction, and collapse of trade and Mycenean civilization was caused by an outbreak of escalating warfare in the Eastern Mediterranean. Is there a reason why a "world war" hypothesis is not more plausible than some enigmatic invasion? Jberkus 19:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is Beyond Doubt

Hmmm .... can we have a citation for this paragraph? One thing about the Sea Peoples is beyond doubt: following violent conquest, the Sea Peoples always burnt rich cities to the ground. They made no attempt to retain this wealth, but instead built new settlements of a lower cultural and economic level atop the ruins. This demonstrates a cultural discontinuity. It is unlikely that the traditional Helladic warrior classes would have so discarded the spoils of victory, if the writings of Homer are to be considered a guide. ... beyond doubt? I wasn't aware that anything in ancient history was "beyond doubt". Given the lack of a citation, I'm revising the paragraph to be more equivocal.Jberkus 20:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The term "Sea People"

I've read the Merneptah Stele (the one from the Israel Stele link on the Merneptah Stele page), and nowhere does it say "peoples of the sea." It talks about Libyans and Meshwesh (two people associated with the Sea People) but not other groups of Sea People.

Perhaps the opening is refering to some Kenneth Kitchen translation when it says "The Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah explicitly refers to them by the term "the Peoples of the Sea" in his c.1209/1208 BC Merneptah Stele."

I would hate to delete anyone's entry here, but if anyone else reads the "Israel Stele," and doesn't find the term "peoples of the sea," please change it.

btw, I'm pretty sure I've read that the term "Sea Peoples" didn't come about until the 19th century, as it said in the opening of this article before, but since I don't remember where, it's hardly worth mentioning. Jus Tinpace 05:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• the term exists in Egyptian. It didn't occur in English translations before the 19th century because no-one could read Egyptian before the 19th century. "Sea Peoples" is an easier way of saying "Foreign-peoples of the Sea" when speaking English. Therefore, I fail to see what the importance of pointing this out is. "Mitanni" didn't occur in English before the 19th century as well and for the same reasons. —Flembles 06:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The Merneptah stele has a number of references to the tribes of the Nine Bows to include the Meshwesh from Pe Buto located just west of Alexandria. Pe Buto was a walled village defended by Meshwesh (line 14) bowmen where Apis bulls were raised. In the Merneptah stele they are described as starving and apparently were provisioned by Merneptah so as to avoid their raiding Egyptian cities for food. A;so mentioned are the Tjhenu,(Tjenen line 6 Tjemah line 13 Tjhenu Line 50) Hatti, and Canaan. Other sea peoples and Libyans (line16) in the delta at that time included Mery (line 39)"Merey the vile foe, the Libyan foe Had come to attack the walls of Ta-tenen",(the land of tenen) "Medjai are stretched out asleep,Nau and Tekten are in the fields they love","Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace, Canaan is captive". Weshesh, Peleset, Tjecker,Danae,and Haibru were in the delta at that time. Ashkelon, Gezer, Yenoam Israel and Khor were not mentioned on Line 27 which talked about feeding the starving Meshwesh to prevent their raiding Ta-tenen. "ini u (fetch) isk(gifts tributes)[ist](property belongings) k3 pdty (bowmen) thmi (foreign) hu (military encampment or walled village) mt det.dm G42 fatted duck (provisions) dmr (abode) tmhi y (foreigners) military camp, (get them) provisions and quarters fetch bring gifts provide tribute to the bowmen whose abode is the walled village or military camp" 12.187.94.99 (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Cultural discontinuity?!

"One thing about this period which demands explanation is that many "Sea Peoples" sites involve the violent conquest and destruction of rich cities. The invaders apparently made no attempt to retain the cities' wealth, but instead built new settlements of a lower cultural and economic level atop the ruins. This demonstrates a cultural discontinuity, and is somewhat inconsistent with the theory of Mycenean warfare. It seems unlikely that the traditional Helladic warrior classes would have so discarded the spoils of victory, if the writings of Homer are to be considered a guide."

This statement doesn't make much sence. There is no discontinuity, what of Homer's Troy? Or the homeric epithet "sacker-of-cities"? Rather than this behavior being out of character it seems to have been a common atrocity for raiders to loot a palace of valuables, enslave its inhabitants and then burn the place, leaving a depopulated and wasted land as a monument to the ferocity of its attackers.

Considering the scope of the destructions at the end of the bronze age it is worth considering that of all of the myriad of sites what few artifacts or valuables that are found in the destruction levels of what in many cases were very wealth palatial states, are scattered randomly or hidden in small caches. This seems to indicate that the people of these destroyed cities either took their wealth with them as they fled from the city-sackers, or had it taken from them after their city was captured.

As to why these raiders would've destroyed cities that they themselves might obstensively have wanted to live in; many cities were razed in antiquity, usually by men who had homes of their own to which they intended to return. In the case of the Philistines, a possible hypothisis might be that after the destruction of the mycenaean palace states, a dispossesed helladic warrior/aristocratic class takes to raiding the levantine coast, destroying many of the cities there. Later they engaged the egyptians in a series of battles which they ultimatly lost. In defeat, after being relieved of their captured booty, they were placed in military concentration camps in modern Palestine by Ramesses III. Ramesses says that he "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". After Egyptian authority in the area collapsed during the 21st dynasty, these Philistine settlements now independent, would have later become the five famous Philistine cities.-75.3.238.32 02:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.238.32 (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

The statement might not make sense, either.69.216.97.240 01:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Various Items

I remember from when I was studying the Ancient Near East that my professor had said the following: The Sea Peoples originated in the Balkans, discovered iron-working earlier than any contemporary cultures, conquered Macedon but, because Macedon was a command economy at the time, could no longer support the current population. The original Sea Peoples, along with Greeks from the failing Macedonian state, combined and moved into the Near East. Also, after the defeat at the hands of the Egyptians, remaining Sea Peoples and Jewish slaves combined to form the nascent Jewish state in the Levant. The latter was supported, as I was told, by linguistic similarities between the two names for 'God' found in the Torah (YHWH and Elohim). I'm placing this all here because, as anyone can see, I have none of the necessary citations to back any of this up. Still, it might jog somebody's memory. Elijahmeeks 02:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Quite some imagination! --Warpalawas 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just edited your work on the introduction. There isn't much support for your sentiment about Israel and, considering how many people would view it as vitriolic, I removed it. I also reworded your one-sided condemnation of 'far-fetched' hypotheses. The Sea Peoples and Their World: a Reassessment is a collection of essays with diverse views on the phenomenon, and your vague claims of support are overwhelmed by the majority of research in this area. Let's try to keep this article about a three millenia-old culture as NPOV as it should be.Elijahmeeks 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View? Give me a break. I still think that this is a showcase, a spectacle arena for Israeli scholarly fanaticism, which has little tolerance to other points of view (good example: yourself).

This article suggests the Sea Peoples be one of the following:

• a) settlers in Palestine in the Late Bronze Age,
• b) Both founders and destroyers of the Mycenaean state, (nice piece! Need to congratulate those who wrote that!)
• c) Possible immigrants from Italy, southern Europe
• d) Possible immigrants from Cilicia, southern Anatolia
• e) Possible immigrants from Lydia
• f) Possible immigrants from Black Sea
• g) distributers of iron, getting iron from the Hittites (!) -remember, Hittites whom they have supposedly destroyed!!) and distributing to the Middle East and therefore initiating the beginning of Iron Age (my goodness!!)
• h) Possible immigrants from Crete

I am speechless! This is some comedy or what? --Warpalawas 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm an Israeli Scholarly Fanatic? Can I get a badge with that embossed on it? I'm pursuing my PhD in Ancient Chinese History, so my interest in the Sea Peoples was only in passing, as an undergraduate, and I can't speak to the veracity of this article. But what I was exposed to (At a Jesuit university, mind you, and not the Zionist Institute) seemed to indicate that the timing of this group corresponds with a number of historic events and hasn't reached a consensus view. Your vague reference to the new collection of essays doesn't refute this position and your focus on Israel is going to undermine your argument. All that I edited out of your contribution were the heavy-handed and dismissive comments, that treat the Sea Peoples like they're of the scholarly level of Ancient Astronauts or something. That's not scholarship that you're contributing, it's just your own overly emotional viewpoint. I'll bet, though, that if you included cited facts from the various essays in Sea Peoples: A Reassessment, that they'd improve the article. I can promise you that I, for one, would support such new research and make sure that any information you brought in was not subverted by Israeli Scholarly Fanatics. Olive Branch offered. Elijahmeeks 20:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusing tag

Dec 20th by User:Fabartus

This is impressively learned, perhaps, but fails of sense to the lay-customer. Dumb it down and eliminate references like:

Although some scholars (e.g. S. Sherratt, Drews, etc.) have challenged the theory that the Philistine culture is an immigrant culture, claiming instead that they are an in situ development of the Canaanite culture, the overall evidence argues strongly for the immigrant hypothesis, as argued, for example, by T. Dothan, Barako, and others. For instance, the Denyen or Danuna are known to be associated with Cilicia in Southern Anatolia because Hittite records refer to them as the "People of Adana".

May make sense to a specialist or student of the subject, but write for the Junior high

Copied from article body to here. Markh 19:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not 'dumb this down'. It's a very good condensed read, extremely informative! There is no way of 'dumbing it down' without losing information. If only there was more like this in Wikipedia! The 'confusing' tag should really be removed. If you find this too complicated consider writing a version for the Simple English Wikipedia. Hey I'm not even a native english speaker nor a historian... But I love this section. --Boo 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Boo. Boo! The idea is not to dumb anything down but to smarten it up. It looks confusing because it is confusing. Material can look smart and say nothing, really. Good articles are clear because made so by good writing, nice layout, proper organization, accurate material adequately described and referenced. Eventually we'll get there, but not by dumbing down.Dave 13:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical Recods Section

I added the text of Merneptah's inscription and moved some of the portions I interrupted to do that. I don't think that the portion of this section which describes as a fact a cretan origin and migration path belongs in this section- should be in hypotheses, and should be better written and referenced.

Tim Callahan 03:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Stela

Convention leaves us two choices, the Latin system: Singular stela, plural stelae, or the Attic Greek system: stele (long e), plural stelai. I've been trying to go with the Attic Greek system.Dave 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Beth Shan etc

" Mention of The Sea Peoples appears in documents from Canaanite Megiddo, and Beit Shean, related to the Egyptian dynasty over Canaan, referring to the "People of the Sea" as settlers of Kafftor (considered the island of Crete) as mercenaries for the Egyptian guard in the days of Rameses II."

There are three Beth Shan stelae, a first and a second of Seti I, and one of Ramses II. None of the inscriptions are relevant unless you want to argue that the Tyaru operating with the Habiru of Seti I stele 2 are the Tjeker, which most people do not. The lack of a k in the Tayaru is problematic. I can't find anything at all relating to Mediddo and Ramses II. But if any of you know something and can put a proper reference to it in, please rewrite this and put it back. Thanks.Dave 16:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

More removed text

I attempted to revise and then removed this text as being incomprehensible. I don't see any logic there at all; perhaps the arguments need to be presented better or filled in better; meanwhile, the topic of spurious inscriptions seemed marginal so I am going with the genuine ones.

"Concerning the authenticity of the inscriptions, Nicolas Grimal notes that the walls of the temple

“ were decorated with genre scenes copied from the walls of the Ramesseum (temple of Ramses II), in which the Egyptians are shown engaged in fictional battles with Hittites, Syrians and Nubians. ”

He nevertheless affirms that the entries about the Sea Peoples are genuine. Grimal specifies the Sea Peoples tried to invade Egypt by land — via Canaan/Palestine — and sea. Both attempts were repelled by Egyptian garrisons stationed in Palestine and in a great naval battle along the Eastern mouth of the Nile. The final evidence that Ramesses III's scenes are genuine — and not fiction — is the fact that Egyptian sources reveal that Merneptah supplied grain to Anatolian peoples who were suffering from famine; In contrast, Ramesses III makes it clear that the Hittites were destroyed by Year 8 of his reign, if not earlier, since the Sea Peoples may have felt the need to consolidate their gains in the Levant for a year or two before attacking Egypt. It is very possible that the famine continued after Egypt became unable or unwilling to keep on sending famine relief, so the affected Anatolian peoples decided to attack Egypt to procure food for themselves."

Adana

Removed from article:

"For instance, the Denyen or Danuna are known to be associated with Cilicia in Southern Anatolia because Hittite records refer to them as the "People of Adana"."

No such association between Adana and Denyen is known at all. This is a speculation and cannot be used as evidence for another speculation. This thesis would need to be developed but not in this article. Rather, the identities of the various sea peoples have their own articles, including the Denyen, and that is where the development belongs. Then you would have to say, "in one theory ... (cite)"

In any case this section is about the theory that the Philistines were sea peoples, which is pretty strong at this point, based on archaeological evidence. So, I'm cutting this section down to an introduction to that. Fuller details would be given under Philistines, so I probably will put in a template for that, either main or details, as soon as I check it out. This sea peoples article has to be a recap and contain pointers to the details; otherwise, it could be a whole book. As you can see, many books have been written.Dave 14:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Crete

Removed the following rambling collection of unrelated assertions probably surviving from an earlier version of the article. Many ideas are wrong, some ideas are covered elsewhere, some information is fantastical, and none if it is supported by citations.Dave 18:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Sea Peoples apparently came from Crete and were possibly related to the early settlers of Knossos, they left the island and invaded southeastern Asia Minor, then south along the shores of Canaan as far as Egypt, their destination of conquest, but due to the rough defence on behalf of Merneptah and the Egyptian fleet, several groups of them settled on the southern shores of Canaan, subsequently conquering Gaza and Askelon and bringing an end to the Egyptian hegemony over Canaan. These groups were later commonly known as the Philistines, biblical Plishtim, but they were actually divided into multiple groups, the Cretes, the Pletes (at the south), the classical "Plishtim" (at Gaza) and the D'acarians at (the north). In later times they were also commonly known as Ashdodians, named for Ashdod, one of their capital cities. The invasion of "sea peoples" caused multiple changes and shifts of power in the Middle East, and the final end of the Egyptian hegemony over Canaan, resulting in the independence of the Canaanites and Hebrews, the fall of the Hittite Empire, and the conquest of Aram and Mithene by Assyria. The "sea peoples" also distributed Hittite iron, which then became familiar in the Middle East, bringing the beginning of the Iron Age."

Zangger and the Greek

I don't have Zangger's book but if he really said all that stuff in the book - which I question because there are no page- or chapter-specific citations - he was completely reversing his stand of the earlier article, in which they are Trojans. Moreover I am leaving the etymologies and questions of identification to the specific articles. Also the author makes it seem as though those identifications originated with Zangger when actually they are long-standing questions preceding the lifetimes of any of us. And lastly I would like to use Zangger's article for a Trojan hypothesis subsection and I don't want to use him twice as that exaggerates his importance in the whole field. So here is the passage and you will find it replaced by one using Grant and as soon as I have time (soon) the Trojan hypothesis will appear in the article (unless someone beats me to it).Dave 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Eberhard Zangger revives a hypothesis that the Sea Peoples were involved in the Greek migrations of this period, based in part on their recorded names, and on the fact that the pottery at sites associated with Sea Peoples, such as the Philistines and Tjekker in the Levant, is of Mycenaean derivation. Zangger identifies the "Ekwesh" or "Aqaiwasha" with the Achaeans (Αχαιοί) and the "Denyen" with the Danaoi (Δαναοί)— alternate names for the Hellenes familiar from Homer, with the further suggestion that the term "Achaeans" derives from a hypothesized ancient Pelasgian word "*acha", which would mean water. This theory implies that the Philistines were part of this Greek-speaking confederacy."

PS the specific articles mainly need just as much work as the original sea peoples article. Typically they do not present the whole picture but try to focus in on one theory, often marginal or unlikely, endeared to the author. The name of this game is multiple hypotheses, which is why it is an enigma.Dave 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Italian peoples hypotheses

"In addition to the interpretation of relevant textual records, the archaeological record provides a substantial basis to believe that peoples from Southern Europe and the Italian peninsula may have contributed to the Sea Peoples phenomenon. Pottery and bronze weapons of distinctly Italian types have been found in quantity at excavations of structures built atop the charred ruins of cities believed to have been burnt to the ground by the Sea Peoples. Attempts have been made to identify certain Sea Peoples with Italian peoples; for example, some scholars have speculated that the Shekelesh can be identified with the Sicels of Sicily. There is a theory that after being repulsed from Egypt, many of the Sea Peoples settled elsewhere around the Mediterranean in lands which they then renamed after themselves: the Shekelesh in Sicily, the Tursha in Etruria, the Sherden in Sardinia; this does not contradict a theory that before the war the Sherden came from the Sardis area."

Specific information belongs in the specific people articles and besides this does not cite any references.Dave 18:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(Please excuse the rant:) I have removed the rather un-scholarly rhetoric question catalogue on sardines and sardonic laughter, which certainly does not belong in an article like this. As far as the sections on hypotheses of origin are concerned, I've only had a closer look at the one dealing with Italian peoples hypotheses and felt that it was trying to make up in zeal and, to some degree, snideness what it lacked in clarity. The section's overall tone is fully aimed at implying that the hypothesis in question is absurd from the beginning. However, all the author does is making a somewhat exerted point of the fact that the hypothesis is, in fact, a hypothesis (which certainly comes as a surprise to the reader). Even though a hypothesis only describes the likely shadow of a fact, this does not automatically require it labelled "enigmatic" in every other paragraph. So I guess this means the section ought to go into revision. Trigaranus 11:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples for an attempted reductio ad absurdum a) "The entire Etruscan civilization can scarcely be explained by a few ships of Teresh or even a whole fleet.", with the implied conclusion: ergo the Etruscians could not have belonged to the Sea Peoples. - Could be applied to England, too: "Hengist and Horsa's boats are not enough to explain the raids on sub-Roman Britain; ergo the British Anglo-Saxons cannot conclusively be linked with the Angles and Saxons on the continent." b) "The pre-Roman Sicels are known from a number of locations, including Sicily, presumed named after them." is used to imply in the further course of argument: "Their name and origin are far too diffuse to have them pinned down with any certainty, let alone to tentatively identify them with another ethnon." Of course, you could safely bet your beloved doggie-wog on the fact that "Sicilia" is derived from Siculi; the sad fact about it is just that it cannot be proved anymore. The "number of locations", by the way, is southern Italy and Sicily. Trigaranus 11:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Slave Classes

Removed text: "Textual and archaeological records show that Greek and Egyptian state structures used mercenaries from the north and west. It is possible that these mercenary groups eventually allied themselves with indigenous slave classes to bring down a number of complex but ossified state structures in Greece and the Near East."

No references are given for this and I do not believe any existed or will be found, as it is pretty much off the wall, attributing crusader or revolutionary motives to the sea peoples. But of course their purposes were predatory, and that was the problem with them. They plundered villages and sacked towns wherever they went or else took the land for settlements of their own. They also sold people into slavery so they were not interested in freeing any oppressed classes. It was not the Philistines, for example, that set the year of the Jubilee. There was no bandit leader at the stern of his vessel saying "hmm, this state appears ossified, so I think I will bring it down by disrupting its villages." No, that insane idea is reserved for Von Clausewitz and the concept of total war and the concepts coming out of the Paris terror and ideological struggle by terror. The sea peoples were interested in cash, goods or lands and there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Find some, prove me wrong, and put this section back.Dave 13:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Unconfused

Well I believe I addressed the confusion problems so I took the confusion template off. If anyone finds the whole thing confusing still be sure to let us know. Most of this is pretty solid now and offers the reader specific sources in a comprehensible order as well as a definition of the major terms and links into some pretty substantial literature as well as some good Internet articles. Also very importantly it gives links to lots of Wikipedia related articles. There are two hypotheses I did not address as these seem to need more digging. They are not OK as they are but I sense that back there somewhere, I don't know where, the topic is of interest and has been covered. Perhaps the author heard it in class. I left the citations on those. For the resources available to me, my effort has reached the point of diminishing returns but if anything else turns up I will get back to it. There are quite a few more passing suggestions on the sea peoples but I chose to put in only substantial theories and also many suggestions are related and belong under one heading. I'll be going on to related Bronze Age articles for now but I'm still in the background here.Dave 18:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be under the en:Category:Piracy?

See Talk:Wokou#Are wokou pirates?The similarity pattern between Wokou,Viking,and Sea People,onshore raids.--Ksyrie 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A Theory

The Egyptians under Merenptah referred to the invaders as "foreign nations", or "peoples of the sea". The origin of this term is rarely considered, but it is interesting that it may be a literal translation of the name they gave themselves.

The Greek word for "Sea" (Thalassa) comes from the earlier pre-Indo-European word Thalatta meaning "sea". Etruscans, we are told called themselves Rasena, Greeks called them Tyrrhenoi. Glen Gordon, the linguist, has hypothesised that the original name of these people was Tarassena, or Talassena, similar to the Tursha, Teresh, TRSh, or TLSh of the Egyptian monuments. It also seems cognate with Greek Troas and Hittite Taruissa.

Similarly the Greek word Atlas, seems to have come from the same root-word TLS meaning "Sea". In this way the word Atlantis, seems to be "the place of Atlas" (using the pre-Greek suffix *antis, *intis, *inthos or *andas. (the suffix according to James Mellaart is found from the area of the Caucasas to Southern Italy, and he proposes it reflects the neolithic substratum of the region).

Plato in his Critias and Timaeus describes how the story of Atlantis came from the Athenian law-giver, Solon, during his visit to the priest of Sais in Egypt. The story tells how the Atlanteans came to rule all nations within the Pillars of Hercules, including Tyrrhenia and Libya. It goes on to describe how there were only two nations who withstood their attack - Egypt and Athens.

But there are serious problems with the dating of these events. Plato says that they occurred 9000 years perior to the present, but this date is wrong. Some have suggested that it stems from a confusion of the Egyptian hieratic symbol for "hundred" and "thousand". If this is the case then the events described by Plato would have occurred about 1200 BCE.

There is no event of any invasion of Atlanteans of Egypt, anywhere in Egyptian history. But in the Late Bronze Age Collapse, Athens, alone of the Mycenaean citadels is supposed to have resisted and survived. The only event that comes remotely close to the Atlantean invasion comes from the stories of the Peoples of the Sea.

Egyptian sources spell out that the Peoples of the Sea came from the islands to the north, between Asia and Libya. They called the Mediterranean "the Great Green" and did not know during the Bronze Age that it was a land-locked sea. This ocean was believed to encircle the world. To them Greece and Southern Italy resembled the Islands, which from Cyprus to Sicily, seemed to be an archipelago stretching from Asia to Africa.

Plato, when he transmitted the story, knew that the Mediterranean was land-locked, and for him Oceanus was "the World Ocean" that surrounded the known world. In locating the homeland of the Atlanteans, he located them in accordance with the Greek myth of Atlantidae, the daughters of Atlas, who were found in the direction of the setting sun.

The theory that the Peoples of the Sea was passed, in a garbelled form, to Plato, who used the story as a metaphor for the corruption and collapse of a once great people (as happened with Athens during his lifetime), seems to have considerable credibility. In this case what Solon may have seen at Sais, was a version of the description of the same events as are recorded in the Harris Papyrus. John D. Croft 06:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey John, I've just checked out some of Glen Gordon's work on [2], and actually it confirmed the suspicions I had after reading his etymological potpourri in your summary. From what I've seen I'd warn you not to take his linguistic assertions too seriously. He has a tendency (and actually seems to enjoy that quite a lot, so it's good fun to read, anyhow) to overthrow accepted linguistic conventions based on very (VERY) superficial counter-evidence. Careful with all those "etymological" derivations you quote from him. The method of ignoring those phonological components that don't fit into one's proposed etymology and of stressing those that seemingly make sense is a very common and rather annoying trait of pseudo-scholarship. Trigaranus 12:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. John D. Croft (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing the Mereptah section

The article seemed to read that Syrians (the Kheta) and Israel were operating in the western delta. There is no evidence for this. The Merenptah stele seems to refer to two sets of difficulties - the Libyans and their allies operating in the Western Delta, and a near simultaneous Canaanite revolt. Putting the two together as the article does in sonfusing. John D. Croft (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In Merneptah most of the stele is about the Nine Bows operating in the delta around Buto to include the Libyans, Meshwesh, and Tjunun, who were suffering from a famine and raiding cities for food. It appears that Merneptah fed them after they laid down their arms. The Meshwesh lived west of Alexandria in the Delta and were famous for their walled village in which they raised the Apris bulls. With them ion the delta were some of the Hyksos located at emporia such as Sais and Avaris where international foreign trade was encouraged. At the time the Capital of Egypt was at Thebes which traded across the Red Sea for mortuary goods for the mummification industry. There was a difference between sea peoples and landfolk. The sea peoples tended to be loosely organized by gene, oinkos, and phratra and to both raid and trade by crew rather than nation. Some groups such as the Peleset and the Tjker, the Shardana, Danae, Weshesh, Lukka, and Meshwesh were employed by the Egyptians as mercenaries and settled in the delta as a buffer against future incursions after attackng Egypt. There are references on the stele to Hatti and Canaan but not to Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoam, Israel or Khor. Lines 26-28 refer to the youth of the princes of the Nine Bows, the weakness of their foreign arms, how they are not established as one people like Hatti or Canaan, how their seed will not be allowed to become established in the red lands or delta of Egypt. 12.187.94.106 (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of that indeed sounds like authentic information, but no uncited bald assertions get very far around here without a source saying the same thing you are, particularly when they all seem to concur that Israel and the other places are certainly referenced on the Merneptah Stele. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Shekelsh is a circular reference

Shekelsh is currently a circular reference. Either they need an article of their own or it should be depeted as a reference if it is just going to come back to the article. There is a good web-based reference at http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_aek11/www/shekelesh.htm John D. Croft (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Serbonian Bog

Perhaps the introduction just needs a little proofreading, but it's not entirely clear what the Serbonian Bog has to do with the Sea Peoples, and why the Serbians are involved. Is someone trying to explain that the Sea Peoples were the ancestors of the Serbians? 69.95.233.179 (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This bit definitely does not belong in the lead of the article. I doubt it belongs here at all, but to be charitable I just moved it to the end of the article and cleaned up the grammar a bit. I suspect that a separate stub article should be created from the content and a single short reference to that article made at an appropriate place in this article. But I leave that to someone who knows more about the subject than I do. In any event, the bit about Serbians was removed by another editor, which is just as well, because that sounds more like the "science fiction" that passes for scholarship in Eastern European nationalist debates than anything else. -Fenevad (talk) 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sikils

I am reading Amos Nur's 'Apocalypse', about earthquakes and archaeology, and came across a reference to the Sikils as one of the peoples who had controlled the City of Dor. Having never heard of the Sikils I looked it up in Wikipedia, and was surprised to find that they are apparently never mentioned. A google search throws up several references. According to the Oxford History of the Biblical World at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zFhvECwNQD0C&pg=RA1-PA119&lpg=RA1-PA119&dq=sikils+dor&source=web&ots=-siNZtGv6t&sig=DGSlUT95vRpuZT8gFObXosc3WXY&hl=en&ei=CiqYSeDMLJid-gbP9sHvCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result, they were part of the Sea Peoples confereration who conquered Dor in about 1185 BCE and rebuilt the city on a larger scale. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me on this subject should write an article about them.Dudley Miles (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have an article about them that doesn't mention them. These are the "ikr/skl (transliterated in various ways: Tjekru, Tjekker, ski, Sikil. etc.)". We have a really bad article about the Tjeker - I suspect I will need help reducing this to a short article (short because we know so little) about the Tjekker/Sikils. dougweller (talk) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put Tjeker on watch. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sardinian hypothesis

I would want to cite some indications on the identity between Shardana and Sardinian peolple: 1) sword: http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=immagine336pn0sp1.jpg this ship is defined from the archeologi Sardinian: with Figurehead

At the line 10 and forward, page 255, in the book "L'alba dei nuraghi"by G.Ugas -2005, you can read: "and they clasp wide triangular swords to double-bladed with hollow-hilt and lunar-knob, (tav XVI, 4), identical to those of the Shardana swordsman engaged to Kadesh and above all of the menhir of Filitosa and the warrior of S.Iroxi" 2)warship: from Nurak Mulinu http://img30.imageshack.us/content.php?page=done&l=img30/5108/img1839t.jpg http://img31.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nave.jpg this ship is defined from the archaeologists Sardinian: "Ornitho-Figurehead", as perhaps they were those of the sea people (from Mulinu Nurak): http://img10.imageshack.us/my.php?image=img1834o.jpg

3 a Sardinian bronze statuette, with helm much similar one to that of the pheleset: http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sardus20pater20giratocu2.jpg the same one plumed-helm appears in the Sardus Pater representations 4) http://www.orientalisti.net/atti2004_suppl.pdf http://www.orientalisti.net/atti2004.htm (italian language)

<<About the Shekelesh we have in general few historic data, such as their two raids in Egypt (in 1207 and 1174 BCE); few cuneiform data from Ugarit archives; owing to two later Egyptian records (the “Onomasticon of Amenope” and the “The Report of Wenamun”), we became acquainted with their settlement in Palestine and, finally, we discovered that by the end of the II millennium BCE the Shekelesh suffered a massive invasion – mainly affecting Dor (the capital of the area under their control) – carried out by the Cananean-Phoenician people coming from the North. Ever since then no more archeological traces have been found. The aim of this work is to try and broaden our knowledge. After outlining a historical and iconographical profile, typological comparisons will be made in order to highlight the architecture (the naval architecture in particular), the typology of burials, the ceramics, the worship objects and anything that might give us any kind of information on whom exactly these people were.>>

In Sardinia we find the same techniques and traditions that the author attributes to the shekelesh: 1) great masses carved in perfect way, for example: Nurak Alvu http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1238078701o.jpg http://img150.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1238078077.jpg Nuarak Santu Antine ( the higher building of the age of the bronze after the pyramids) M. Hoskin cambridge) has defined it the more sophisticated building of dry stone walls of the world: http://img11.imageshack.us/my.php?image=centraltowerofthenuragh.jpg 2) the cremation and the Interment in pithoi are attested in Corsica (Pettazzoni) and Baleari (Diod. Sic.) 3)Mycenaean pottery in native place (Antigori nuragic complex), but also but Cyprus pottery

5 the commerce between Sardinia and Aegean was a lot important. It has not been found only Mycenaean pottery in Sardinia but also Nuragic pottery to Tiryns and Kommos (Crete). But the relationships trade them more important had them to the Sardinia with Cyprus , and regarded the purchase of copper in this graduation thesis you can read something on this argument a lot important (in italian) http://etd.adm.unipi.it/theses/available/etd-09232007-220236/

in particular on the distribution of the oxide ingots and on the property left at of uluburum wreck http://etd.adm.unipi.it/theses/available/etd-09232007-220236/unrestricted/02_INDICE.pdf

6 much controversial but also stimulant is the case of the sacred well of Serdika near Garlo(ancient Sofia) much similar one to that one of Ballao in Sardinia and Asclepion of Chersonesus http://www.ingegneri-ca.net/informazione/101/info101-f.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by DedaloNur (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

This tag has been on here for a long time. Surely whoever wants to copyedit has done so by this time. As I recall it is a legacy tag. Someone should do a final English language check and then get the tag off, as the issues must have been addressed long ago. Why would you put a tag like this on here? Why wouldn't you just correct the English? It must have been really bad and as I recall it was pretty bad but I don't see it being bad now. I think a skilled English speaker can polish it up in one reading and remove the tag. For final edits, no testing your English out, please. You either speak it like a native or not, and if you don't, forget it. Let someone else do it.Dave (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are sea peoples E3b haplotype carriying kushites(with characteristic seafare mixed lingua franca)who are responsible of the non ie and non nostratic component of Greek & other mediterranean languages?

Are sea peoples E3b haplotype carriying kushites(with characteristic seafare mixed lingua franca)who are responsible of the non ie and non nostratic component of Greek & other mediterranean languages?

Humanbyrace (talk) 00:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sea people=Pelasgians ?

Does anyone know if there is a relationship? Thanks Sea People~Pelasgians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.158.146.164 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Woodhuizen says not.

Woudhuizen, F. C. “The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples,” Rotterdam: Erasmus University, 2006 http://repub.eur.nl/resource/pub_7686/index.html Downloaded June 16, 2010 4.249.63.12 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

It ius some time since I checked this article. Congratulations on all who have contributed to its improvements. Have anyone any photos of the Sea Peoples from Medinet Habu. I have some of thhe Sherden if others have none.John D. Croft (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time I've taken a look at this article, but if the talk page and the revision history is any example, it appears alot of fringe (read LUNATIC) entries/vandalism had taken place several years back. It's not bad at all, now. I hope one day a site will be discovered that answers so many of the unknowns about this subject ... the same for the Etruscans, the Sumerians, et al. Here's hoping! HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Absolute age range of 1192–1190 BC for terminal destructions and cultural collapse in the northern Levant

From the abstract of "The Sea Peoples, from Cuneiform Tablets to Carbon Dating" available at [3]: The 13th century BC witnessed the zenith of the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean civilizations which declined at the end of the Bronze Age, ~3200 years ago. Weakening of this ancient flourishing Mediterranean world shifted the political and economic centres of gravity away from the Levant towards Classical Greece and Rome, and led, in the long term, to the emergence of the modern western civilizations. Textual evidence from cuneiform tablets and Egyptian reliefs from the New Kingdom relate that seafaring tribes, the Sea Peoples, were the final catalyst that put the fall of cities and states in motion. However, the lack of a stratified radiocarbon-based archaeology for the Sea People event has led to a floating historical chronology derived from a variety of sources spanning dispersed areas. Here, we report a stratified radiocarbon-based archaeology with anchor points in ancient epigraphic-literary sources, Hittite-Levantine-Egyptian kings and astronomical observations to precisely date the Sea People event. By confronting historical and science-based archaeology, we establish an absolute age range of 1192–1190 BC for terminal destructions and cultural collapse in the northern Levant. This radiocarbon-based archaeology has far-reaching implications for the wider Mediterranean, where an elaborate network of international relations and commercial activities are intertwined with the history of civilizations.

So how do we use this? Dougweller (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff! Please use this, it is right on topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

For some good insight on this see the recent online article "The Sea Peoples, from Cuneiform Tablets to Carbon Dating. PLoS ONE 6(6), 2011" I added as Note #5 in the Ugarit article, in the destruction section. Quite good. Ploversegg (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, that's the paper I'm talking about. I'm not sure where to put it and it does contradict parts of the article, so that has to be handled from a NPOV perspective. Dougweller (talk) 04:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the Iliad, in the Catalogue of Ships, mention the Sea Peoples as part of the Greek Confederation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.236.30 (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Eruptions

Who were the Sea Peoples seems to have been explored in some controversial depth. There is one part of the story that seems to be unmentioned and that is just why was there a considerable population migration at the time of the Sea Peoples.

If the eruption of Santorini caused the destruction of the Minoan civilisation there is some evidence that there was also a massive eruption of Vesuvious at about the same time. If this was the time of a considerable techtonic plate movement causing both massive eruptions and ensuing starvation, this could be the root cause of such a mass migrational movement. Perhaps also the legend of the destruction of Atlantis is based on the twin eruptions.

The Egyptian depiction of the Ramesses III battle with the Sea Peoples seems open to different interpretations. Although ultimately an Egyptian victory it doesn't seem to haave been a bitter contest as some Egyptian soldiery on their ship seem to be fishing their opponents out of the sea, or was it what is now called Lake Mariotis?AT Kunene (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)