Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Arthur-Robin
General
Joined: 23-Feb-2006
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 937
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Sea Peoples Posted: 20-Feb-2018 at 00:09 |
It is problematic using orthodox ascribed dates because they are out by some hundreds of years. For example evidences suggest that the 19th dynasty of Egypt is not "1300s/1200s" bc but is rather about the time of Shishak and Zerah in the bible (which is ca 1000s/900s). Its better to use dynasties etc. Sea Peoples were 19th & 20th dynasty.
Regarding Atlantis mentioned in several posts new evidences are very strong that Atlantis city is Tiahuanaco/Tiwanaku, with matches for all the details of the Atlantis Account without bending etc.
Orthodox books admit they don't know where the Sea Peoples
came from, and they mention evidence of links with Sardinia.
Egyptian
accounts of "(north) sea people(s)" [N-pa-iam / Haunebu(t)
also used for "Greeks/Hellenes"] say they came "from the ends of the world/earth", "great
darkness", "9th bow/arc", "the isles and mainland of the outer circle of
water" / "the great water circle [sin-wur]", "from the pillars/pillar
of heaven", and they had "a great fleet of sailed-ships with arching prows at
each end, in the shape of bird-heads.... ... the sailed ships of the
Peleset were overwhelmed by the slave-oared Egyptian river craft....",
and that their "islands are uprooted and carried away .... The might of Nun (the
Ocean) broke forth and fell in a great wave upon their towns and
villages" (also that the head of their cities was submerged). ("Their
forests and fields are burnt with fire." "The heat of him has burnt
their countries." "The fire of Sekhmet has burnt the lands of the 9
bows/arcs." "As mighty fire was prepared before them." "They had before
them a sea of flame.")
Sea Peoples were 19th & 20th dyn. [American] c0caine and tobacco was found in 19th & 21st dyn mummies. Fitzgerald-Lee
in 'Great Migration' said Assyrian pictures of Toakkari [or
Tjekker] 'Sea Peoples' bearing South American fan
palm.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36769
The Sea Peoples of 19th/20th dyn seemingly might be contemporary of Pelasgians of Thalassocracies just after the Trojan war?
|
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.
|
|
rondak46
Janissary
Joined: 09-Apr-2014
Location: new york
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Feb-2018 at 17:31 |
Cedric, The timing of your revival of this thread is fortuitous. I have recently become interested in the Sea Peoples, as I often come across them in my ancillary studies. With regard to the Wikipedia entries I have searched, I found something quite curious.
I converted the Wiki entries to PDFs, to make them more easily searchable, and this is what I noticed:
In my 53 page PDF on the “Sea Peoples” there is no mention of Phoenecia.
In my 54 page PDF on “Phoenicia”, there is no mention o “Sea Peoples”
Yet, regarding the Sea Peoples, they are given a time-frame for their exploits of between 1200 and 900 B.C.; whilst the Phoenicians are credited for enjoying their prime between 1200 and 800 B.C.. How can the two cultures be treated properly in isolation; describing one with no mention made of the other?
Are we not talking about the consolidation, in the Eastern Mediterranean, of a group, a culture, a way of life that had spread across the sea and become cosmopolitan to the Mediterranean? Are we not seeing, in the descriptions made by the Egyptians, Anatolia, Syrians and Hitites, the ascendency of an empire that had arose, under their noses, to dominate the full range of the Mediterranean, and were only now being noticed as the power player of the frontier between each of them and encroaching upon what they had understood to be their territory?
The Wikipedia has a chart which uses various ancient words for the Sea Peoples and their origins. Indeed the the assertions therein span the Length and breadth of the Mediterranean, from Sardinia, Sicily, The Tyrrhenian Sea, Mycenae, Greece and Anatolia. Could it not be all of these places? Could it be that Phoenicia had come of age and simply began to dominate all who resisted, and indeed, reasserted hegemony over what is often, possibly falsely, considered their homeland.
It has been argued that the word Phoenician is a construct of later times, referring to the empire that plied in the trade of purple dies and textiles, and that it is not a term that they would have called themselves.
Are the Sea Peoples simply the Phoenicians, in ascendency?
Regards,
Michael
Edited by rondak46 - 18-Feb-2018 at 17:34
|
|
rondak46
Janissary
Joined: 09-Apr-2014
Location: new york
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Feb-2018 at 16:33 |
Originally posted by Hellinas
An abstract of AAPA 2004 Meeting notes that: The proto-Phoenicians were Greek colonists,their leader was named Phoenix and they went in Syria during 3000-4000 bc.Later they lost their power and assimilated by the Assyrians,Haldaeans and other Semite people.Other thing the first Helleno-Phoenicians and other thing the late Semito-Phoenicians.
Another very interesting conection is the hero Heracles, his Phoenician/Phillistine equivalent was "Melkart" if spelled from right to left we find obvious similarities.
|
I have read that the consensus is that the word Phonecia referred, more probably, those who plied in the trade of purple dies.
|
|
rondak46
Janissary
Joined: 09-Apr-2014
Location: new york
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 23
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Feb-2018 at 16:28 |
Originally posted by J.M.Finegold
Originally posted by Herodotus II
Good evening
Perhaps it was the Vikings, they did sail in to Palestine in the 1000s-1200s.
Feel free to ask me for proof. |
1000 A.D.? Sea People's invaded the Middle East ca. 2500 B.C.
| A more accurate time frame has the Sea People's showing-up around 1200 B.C.
|
|
CedricEmrys
Janissary
Joined: 12-Feb-2018
Location: Connecticut
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Feb-2018 at 08:49 |
Some think the survivors of Atlanta’s, And there were survivors, were the Celts of Wales since the welsh Celts had a slightly different culture than the rest of the isles.
|
Buaidh no bàs
|
|
CedricEmrys
Janissary
Joined: 12-Feb-2018
Location: Connecticut
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 26
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Feb-2018 at 08:37 |
I do believe they fought the Hittites, I’m not sure they won. They were slaves to the egyptians, and the egyptians later attacked a Israelite city but Israel’s King was killed in that battle.
|
Buaidh no bàs
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jul-2015 at 10:33 |
no but I have begun to reread an original contributor to the concept.
Gaston Maspero.
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
tudhaliaIV
Immortal Guard
Joined: 18-Jul-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jul-2015 at 07:52 |
Has the book "The Sea Peoples" by Sandars been discussed here?
|
|
tudhaliaIV
Immortal Guard
Joined: 18-Jul-2015
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jul-2015 at 07:50 |
"Democracy is the theory that collective wisdom derives from individual ignorance." -- H.L. Mencken
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 25-Jul-2005 at 09:14 |
Yes, Hurrians were pre IE inhabitants of the Zagros area, I believe Hurrians were Caucasian speakers; the Kurdish town of Awriman (Hurrian) still bears their name.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 19:24 |
Originally posted by Oguzoglu
We know that pre-Hittite dwellers of the
area (Hatti) were pre-IE (following the Hittite records that also
include some Hatti language), so doesn't seem like Phrygians and Hatti
are related (unless they are Hellenized Hatti - ???) |
Hatti belonged to the Caucasian group, not IE. hittite language was just assimilated by IE, they were originally Caucasian. |
That's what I said: pre-IE.
I have long assumed that pre-IEs of Anatolia and the Zagros were
Caucasic speakers but I didn't want to go further in detail.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 17:39 |
We know that pre-Hittite dwellers of the area (Hatti) were pre-IE (following the Hittite records that also include some Hatti language), so doesn't seem like Phrygians and Hatti are related (unless they are Hellenized Hatti - ???) |
Hatti belonged to the Caucasian group, not IE. hittite language was just assimilated by IE, they were originally Caucasian.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 16:01 |
Most of the time invasions (that don't usually mean genocide but
subjugation and aculturization) are the answer. When the locals are
still separated from former invaders, they show cultural differences
that are reflected in archaeological findings that would allow us to
trace such reversal of the situation.
It doesn't seem to be the case of the Phrygians, or at least what I've found on them:
Wikipedia says on their language:
It is believed that it was close to Thracian and maybe Armenian, mostly on grounds of classical sources. Herodotus recorded the Macedonian account that Phrygians emigrated into Asia Minor from Thrace (7.73). Later in the text (7.73), Herodotus states that the Armenians were colonists of the Phrygians, still considered the same ethnos in the time of Xerxes I. Judging from linguistics, Phrygian appears closest to Greek, a language with which it was for some time in contact.
We know that pre-Hittite dwellers of the area (Hatti) were
pre-IE (following the Hittite records that also include some Hatti
language), so doesn't seem like Phrygians and Hatti are related (unless
they are Hellenized Hatti - ???).
What seems very curious is to find out that Armenians were Phrygians in origin. Something I didn't know at all.
Other links: Phrygians.com.
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 14:51 |
1. I don't rule anything out.
2. You know they could just have been indigenous tribes that became dominant with the fall of their predecessors, not everything should be explained with an invasion theory.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 12:43 |
Originally posted by Zagros Purya
I don't see the correlation, it all seems a little
fantastic to me. I would be more inclined to agree with Phalanx's
"Hellenic Viking" theory. |
Fine but one thing doesn't exclude the other. Most likely Sea Peoples
were Greeks (+ ???) but that can't deny the Urnfield culture expansion
in other well documented areas, even if they had no relationship at all
with Sea Peoples and/or Dorians.
Anyhow... can anyone shed light on who were the Phrygians (who
obviously were the one that benefitted from Hittite destruction) and
Thracians (who were around since more or less that time)?
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 11:28 |
I don't see the correlation, it all seems a little fantastic to me. I would be more inclined to agree with Phalanx's "Hellenic Viking" theory.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 10:34 |
Originally posted by Zagros Purya
I wasn't directing it at you, rather the theory you present. I
don't see how an ancient tribal people could be so widespread and
powerful as to be able to usurp civilizations on either end of Southern
Europe and the Middle East simultaneously, the logic that they invaded
Iberia and must therefore have been the same people that took out
Greece, Egypt and other ME places is, for lack of a better word,
ridiculous. |
Well, if you follow the discussion that Phallanx and I had, and the
links posted here on Sea Peoples, it doesn't seem so evident that the
Urnfields actually took out anyone but in some "nearby" regions. After
reading some stuff posted here and in other topics I'm strongly
reconsidering my former opinion of Sea Peoples and Urnfiled peoples
being the same. Instead the only thing for sure we can say of the
Urnfields peoples is that they experimented an expansion very simmilar
to the one that La Tne Celts would make 900 years after them, bringing
them to the western Balcans (Illyrians), to Northern Italy (Italics and
some Illyrians too) and to some specific areas of Western Europe
(Celts). Wether Illyrians and Thracians (which seem non-Urnfield
but are influenced and contemporary) took part in the Sea Peoples and
the destruction of the Hittite empire or if this was a mainly Greek
adventure, with some local allies like Lybians and Lycians and maybe
even Etruscans, is another story.
At this moment I'm leaning for Phallanx' and others' theory that it
was a mainly Greek "Viking-like" phenomenon (but with many incongnites).
Anyhow, History shows several cases of pre-gunpowder peoples expanding at fast speed even over apparently solid empires:
- Germanic invasions of the 5th century, that destroyed the Western Roman Empire;
- Arab/Muslim expansion of the 7th century, that destroyed the Sassanid
Empire and took large pieces of the Eastern Roman Empire;
- Mongol expansion of the 13th century, that took over China and Persia and even the Caliph of Baghdad eventually.
Other examples can also be considered as well. I find no reason to
doubt that a "horde" of Illyrian, Italic and Celtic tribes could expand
easily into those rather undeveloped and rather nearby areas in the
13th century BCE, specially as archaeology supports strongly this
phenomenon. A quasi-repetition of the phenomenon took part in the
4th-3rd centuries BCE this time including only Celts (in this case not
just archaeology but also written documents prove it: La Tne Celts
were found from Britain and Ireland to Galatia in Anatolia and Northern Italy, having sacked Rome once).
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2005 at 07:33 |
I wasn't directing it at you, rather the theory you present. I don't see how an ancient tribal people could be so widespread and powerful as to be able to usurp civilizations on either end of Southern Europe and the Middle East simultaneously, the logic that they invaded Iberia and must therefore have been the same people that took out Greece, Egypt and other ME places is, for lack of a better word, ridiculous.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jul-2005 at 21:38 |
Originally posted by Zagros Purya
Sounds more like, to coin a new
phrase, Celticism; ethnocentric nonsense laying claims
to an otherwise non-existent classical prominence. |
I'm not Celtic nor have any particular likehood for that people. In
fact I like to believe that the term Keltoi may be an
Ibero/Basque/Ligurian loan meaning "dirty" or "worthless" - and not
just a mere deformation of Gaul/Gaelic. So I'm not particularly fond of
Celts, who I tend to consider invaders of ancient times. The
avant-guard of IE invasion of Western Europe.
At least I'm not suspicious of Celtic ethnocentrism. But I've taken a
good look at the facts and I'm as possitive as one can be that Urnfield
culture included several IE groups, among them were Celts. I also give
a very good level of certainty to Italics and Illyrians being there as
well.
I am also sure that Germans (Nordic Bronze) weren't in that group but
rather suffered their influence, as did the probably Slavic peoples of
Lausitz culture in Poland.
But I don't think that IEs originated in Europe but in Central Asia.
These IE nations are just a product of at least three succesive
migrations/expansions (and the corresponding mixture with much larger
local populations) along several milennia. They had been quiet beyond
the Rhin and the Alps for about 1100 years (all Late Calcolithic, and
Early and Middle Bronze ages) but with the Urnfields culture they
exploded again.
I think that nowadays those theories on "Aryan" supremacy are
(fortunately) restricted to a bunch of fanatics with one or two
neurones at most, who need something like that to justify their
otherwise pathetic existence.
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 23-Jul-2005 at 19:24 |
Sounds more like, to coin a new phrase, Celticism; ethnocentric nonsense laying claims to an otherwise non-existent classical prominence.
|
|