Sea People

The late Imanuel Velikovsky, who wrote numerous books concerning the revision of ancient events, wrote a couple of them that concerning the so called "People of the Sea", or "Sea People" or "People of the Isles!"

You may read about the above books at;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_in_Chaos

And especially these points;

"Rameses II and His Time

Statue of Rameses III in Luxor.In Rameses II and His Time, Velikovsky identified each of the major 19th dynasty pharaohs with a corresponding pharaoh of the 26th dynasty. Thus, Rameses I becomes Necho I, Seti I becomes Psamtik I, Rameses II is Necho II, and Merneptah is Apries. In order to make these identifications work, Velikovsky claims that the Hittite Empire is an invention of modern historians, and the supposedly Hittite archaeological remains in modern Turkey are actually Chaldean i.e. Neo-Babylonian. The Hittite kings are held to be "ghost doubles" of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and therefore Rameses II's battle with the Hittites at Kadesh is identical to Necho's fight against Nebuchadrezzar II at Carchemish, Nabopolassar is Mursili II, Neriglissar is Muwatalli, Labashi-Marduk is Urhi-Teshup, and Nebuchadrezzar II is Hattusili III.

Peoples of the Sea
Having arrived at the Persian conquest, Velikovsky now has the problem of fitting in Manetho's 20th and 21st dynasties. The 20th dynasty here becomes identified with the dynasties which ruled a newly independent Egypt in the early 4th century BCE, and Nectanebo I is a "ghost double" of Rameses III. Rameses fought invasions by Sea Peoples, including the "Peleset", conventionally identified with the Philistines. According to Velikovsky, the "Peleset" are actually the Persians and the other Sea Peoples are their Greek mercenaries. The 21st dynasty then becomes a line of priest-kings who ruled in the oases simultaneously with the Persians."


Accepting the above revisions, Velikovsky removes about 800 years from the Egyptian chronology! And, of course, modern historians and chronologists have totally eviserated his ideas or his suggestions!

I have, on the other hand, read the materials and accepted the possibility that he made some very good connections, but of course, I am not a trained archaeologist, nor a noted historian!
To me, it seems that if his proposal was ever accepted, then the entire course of History, related to Egyptian history, would be exposed as a fraud, and thousands of authors, experts, as well as hundreds of thousands of books, and papers would have to be consigned to the trash bin! Of course, modern historians cannot even conceive of such an act ever taking place, and thus Velikovsky is for the forseeable future marked as a "kook", and his ideas are classified as "pseudo-science!"

My idea is that he was villified mostly because of his earlier books concerning celestial mechanics (see; Earth in Upheaval", and "Worlds in Collision!"), which were also "toasted!" by the experts! Thus his reputation, when he turned to the disection of Egyptian history, was already tarnished, and further more, he was not a recognized "expert", or "specialist" in the subject matter.

But, you see, I am even more of a "pseudo-historian", than was Dr. Velikovsky!, for, you see, I would go much further that Velikovsky could even imagine!

I would present my allegation that the events spoken of in Rameses II's time, and especially the reliefs found in the temple depicting the battle between Rameses III and the invaders, we now ususally refer to as the "people of the sea", or "peoples of the isles", occured in the Current Era! And especially during the period of time that we now refer to as the Crusader Period!

I have performed this alleged connection via some of the same methods used by Velikovsky, as well as information not known to him during his lifetime!

My work is entirely based upon material found within the works of another "pseudo-scientist", A. T. Fomenko, and the works of his team! Although, I feel I may have made a connection that cannot be (as yet) found in the English translations of his "History; Fiction or Science" series! I would not, however be sure, that my idea is not mentioned or at least theorized in the works of his team, that I have yet to read!

So, there is my premise, and my introduction to my "alternative history" proposal!

Regards,

I would refer people to read the remarks, and view the examples of "horned helments", by Cyrus, in another section of this site!

See; http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28252

And especially the site address I provided;

http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/sea.htm

The above is just one section in this very informative and well written site! And the address of the Home Page is; http://www.salimbeti.com/micenei/index.htm Where you can make your choices!

So, why am I making this post here at the "alternative history" section?

Because it is one of the entry points that easily shows how items of warfare, that supposedly were first manifested in the 13th - 12th century BCE in stone engravings found upon the monuments attesting to the conquests, etc., of two kings, one was Rameses II, and the other Rameses III.

The first person to recognize the possibility that something might be wrong with the dating of both the times of Rameses II and III, was Imanuel Velikovsky, who reduced the time period to the times of the Persian domination of Egypt, thus removing about 800 years from Egyptian history!

But, as Velikovsky most aptly mentioned in his books, then history would face a catastrophe of monsterous proportions! Evey link that had been so carefully established by archaeologists, historians, and chronographers, etc., would also have to be either "Un-linked" or moved closer to the present also! And the linkages are extensive! Literally tens of thousands of books, and treatise, cartographhic reproductions, graduate papers, etc., etc., would have to be carried to the trash bin and destroyed! Reputations of generations scholars would basically be destroyed! "Oh!, the horrow, the humanity!"

Is there any wonder that Velikovsky was touted as a fraud, a sham, and a pseudo-historian? Why, he was not even trained in Egyptian or Persian or Greek studies! He was merely a Dr. of Psychiatry!

Others have essentially written Velikovsky's theories out of existance as anything to be believed at any level. But, perhaps, they did so not out of malice but out of the perception of time that also existed for the so called Persian and Assyrian Periods in Egypt as well as Greek existance in Egypts past? And, the periods of rule by dynastic kings, has also been written in concrete for so long, that no movement over a few years can even be considered by the most liberal of Egyptian experts! There seem to be too many firmly anchored linkages to other dynasties and kingdoms within (as well as around) the Mediteranean area!

So, what am I offering that could consolidate the two accounts allegedly connected by Velikovsky, and seperated by our consensual history with some finality!

What I would suggest, and based upon the set-back theories of A. T. Fomenko, etal., is that the placement of both of these somewhat similar dynasties, as asserted by Velikiovsky, are both "false!"

I assert that they are artifical creations of 17th to 19th century archaeologists, chronologists and historians, etc., which are either accidentally or deliberately "set-back" into antiquity, and which have been so intertwined with other civilizations of the same assumed antiquity, that they have become "set as in cement" into the period(s) now reserved to them!

On the other hand, I would be glad to presume to state, that the real accounts (If indeed they are really real?) occured within a period we now consider to have existed in the consensually approved 9th to 13th century of the "Current Era!" In other words, approximately only 1,000 (or so)years prior to our current time!

E.g.,they occured during the times that we now regard as the Crusader Period! Especially the numerous accounts of crusader forces into the sphere of influence considered to be within Egypt!

Thus, most of Egypt's ancient history is mostly debunked, and with it all of the connections it reportedly had to the rest of the antique times, and as well, that period of time immediately both following the so called Muslim conquest of Egypt, and preceeding the fall of the rest of the Levant to Islam!

Regards,

PS, this is also related to my position concerning the use of "chevrons" upon the tunics or armour seen worn by the "Peoples of the Sea", as depicted upon the walls of Medinet Habu in Egypt, that is said to reflect the wars fought by the king Rameses III!

Edited by opuslola - 30-Mar-2010 at 13:03

There is an ancient city named Phoenice in today's Albania. Some guys say it could be related to the Phoenicians. A possible Balkan origin for them, perhaps?

Edited by Shield-of-Dardania - 24-May-2010 at 04:40

SoD, wrote above;

"There is an ancient city named Phoenice in today's Albania. Some guys say it could be related to the Phoenicians. A possible Balkan origin for them, perhaps?"

But SoD, one could well attach the word "Phoenice" or "Fonice" to "Venice!", which is a well attested sea faring nation state! Surely these same people could well be called "People of the Isles" which is just what Venice consists of?

It is merely the "timespan" of modern chronology that keeps them apart! Both the Phoenicians and Venicians produced and protected their supplies of "red dye", as well as "salt deposits" / supplies, and fishing areas, etc.!

Edited by opuslola - 28-Aug-2010 at 20:29

Sea Peoples (Haunebut) are in Egyptian inscriptions (Medinet Habu) so are history not myth.

Comparing chronologies of different sources they seem to be same time as "Pelasgians" in Sea Powers/Thalassocracies, & return of Heraclidae/Dorians, which seems to fit with Rohl's Trojan war/Asia Minor theory. (See table below.)

SC Compton in Exodus lost also mentions the cociane [nepenthe?] and tobacco in Egypt mummies in [19th dyn?] (which Tazjet greatly mentioned above) which is one of the evidences for Atlantis = SouthAmerica/Tiahuanaco, and Fitzgerald-Lee also said Assyrian depictions of Toakkari sea people bearing South American fanpalm.
Spanuth (& J Jewell) suggested a connection of the 19th/20th dyn Sea Peoples with the Atlanteans.
(Some suggest that the Phoenicians came from a combination of Sea Peoples and Canaanites/Amorites. "Phoenicians from the Erythrean sea" could be seen as from Atlantic (Strabo's Erythrea)? Some see Baal versus Yamm as connected with sea peoples.)
However Atlantis war &/or sinking was at end of 12th dynasty (eg Atlantis 900 years matches Moeris 900 years). Working out the picture between the 12th & 19th/20th dyn is a challenge.

Table, tentative correspondences between sources:

bible: 1 exodus/joshua -> 2 hyksos -> 3-4 samson/philistines/kreti/pleti/zerah -> 5 persians
plato: 1 atlantis/900 -> 1/2 sais/800 -> 5 persians
herodotus: 1 [atlantis?]/redsea -> 2 argos/phoenicians -> colchis -> 3 trojan -> 5 persians
rohl: 1 moses/12-13th -> 2 inachus/hyksos -> 3 trojan -> 4 seapeoples -> 5 persians
spanish: 1 antaeus -> 2 apher -> 3 trojanwar -> 4 pelasgians/thalassocracies -> 5 persians
greek/aspin: [0 ogyges] -> 1 atlantis/deucalion -> 2 minoan/theseus -> 3 trojan/menestheus/[mycenae] -> 4 heraclidae/dorians -> 5 persians
egyptology: 1 12th/moeris -> 2 hyksos -> 3 18th -> 4 seapeoples -> 5 persians
jerome: 1 cecrops/moses -> 3 trojan/samson -> 5 persia
herodotus: 1 moeris/900 -> 2 anysis/700 -> 5 persian.

if you google/other search on coc(o)a/(chocolate)/cocaine &/or tobacco/tobacco beetle in ancient egyptian mummy/burial 21st/19th dynasty (without quotemarks) you will find various articles on it. Steven Compton 'Exodus Lost' book is one source that mentions it.

there is also "american cotton in Africa"? "african plants in Americas"?

i'm in nz too but prefer to say Australia for various reasons (and would prefer to not be here but in uk)


Edited by Arthur-Robin - 31-Jan-2014 at 02:21

Thanks Ron. No i'm not banned from uk. Problem is i have illness (ocd, aspergers, misophonia), combined with my studies, and i can't move to uk unless i have a secure income (social security or able to work/study), and they only go by father not mother for citizenship [mother was born in Notts, paternal grandfather in Durham] (tho i can apply to "register as a uk citizen" but need 2 referees who have known me for 3+ yrs to vouch of good character, and takes 6 months to find out if accepted or not, and even if i were things there are now so hard on beneficiaries/sick (as has already started happening here too)....)

Sorry for off topic, had to answer. (Better pm me if discussing/replying offtopic.)