Chevrons, Crusaders, Sea People?

Before you go any further I suggest you give William Occham a call.


Currently I have no idea where this is going.

Ron, I'm familiar with the with the carvings you refer to, are you sure that your not looking at an Egyptian artists convention or "device".  It could be artistic license for depicting a certain type of armor or similar.  I was more interested in the depictions of "Horned Helmets".

Yes, I may well "be tilting at windmills!" But, unless you give this a chance, you will not see the other connections that exist!

So, if you please, just "humor" me?

Redclay wrote;

"I was more interested in the depictions of 'Horned Helmets'."

I think that I. Velikovsky also spent a lot of time determining the correct period for the helments, swords, and shields of this period and earlier! I believe he made a very good case! And, I am, to some extent extending his thoughts, but based upon differing circumstances!

You will note that you have only perused part one! Some things may well become more apparent as I post more of my work?

Thanks,

Part two!

The common subdivision into Early, High, and Late Middle Ages came into use after World War I. It was caused by the works of Henri Pirenne (in particular the article "Les periodes de l'historie du capitalism" in Academie Royale de Belgique. Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres, 1914) and Johan Huizinga (The Autumn of the Middle Ages, 1919).

Dorothy Sayers, a noted scholar in medieval literature as well as a famous writer of detective books, strongly objected to the term. In the foreword to her translation of The Song of Roland, she writes "That new-washed world of clear sun and glittering colour, which we call the Middle Age (as though it were middle-aged), has perhaps a better right than the blown summer of the Renaissance to be called the Age of Re-Birth."

Please remember that all of the kings, dukes, emperors that existed during these times were interested in the "heir"/ “hier?”, to the position of power! (To “ere” is human to forgive divine!)

Are we all clear about the situation now?

Here is a representation of the Mediterranean Area before the final fall of the Western Roman Empire;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_map_450.PNG

Please take the time to note the position of all of the sub-divisions that our consensual history place in Mediterranean area, circa 450 CE! Please note that Egypt is a part of the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman (Roumanian) Empire! Please note the position of "Iberia!", as it relates to the Eastern Empire?, and then look at the better known? "Iberian Peninsula?", where we now know it as called, Spain / Ispania, etc.!

Then examine the lands of the "Franks" and the "Friesians!"

And, as a last point, note the location of the Vandals and the Visigoths!
                                                  
EGYPT, the bread-basket of the Roman Empire!

Since Egypt was “reportedly” the "breadbasket of Rome”, did the Eastern Empire consider it necessary to continue the supply of grain to the Western Empire at all times?

Did it (Constantinople / New Rome) transport / export grain to Italy (Rome / Ravenna?) after the fall of the West? Is there any information to even, consider?

If so, would not the grain go to places in the Italian peninsula and including Sicily, that Eastern Romans still had access? And, the ultimate question is, “just why would they send grain to a place that had become an enemy?”

Can we even consider that Egypt, at least as we see it today, was ever a "breadbasket" to any part of the world? In modern times, it cannot feed even its own people, can we really consider that it (Egypt) fed an Empire in earlier times?

In fact, in latter times (IE, the middle ages and later), the only part of the Med. / European area, that was considered a "bread-basket," was, and is, located in what we today refer to as either "Poland" / Russia or "Ukraine", and surrounding areas!

Since our consensual history is based upon a combination of accounts (some of dubious value) and conclusions made by historians (based upon these dubious accounts) also vary in considerable degrees, we then come to an example whereby the view of the past, placed upon a map, might show just how "considerable" those conclusions might become.

See;

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

Note the dates accorded to this kingdom and compare to the view of the earlier map concerning 450 CE? Quite a difference of opinion isn't it?

I am sure that each of you, with a little bit of research, might well uncover other examples, which might disagree to a greater or lessor degree! That is, you should easily find other examples of maps made by historians and chronologists of later times (including the recent past) which try to contain the places described by historians from the past into our modern world!

At this site, you can read about a great general of the Byzantine Empire;

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

You will notice that he is given credit for a partial re-conquest of parts of the Iberian Pennisula (H-E(I)spania) from the Visigoths / or maybe the Bisi-goths?.   Belisarius (Velisarius?) reportedly operated under the great Justinian. You might well notice that the last part of his assumed named is “arius!”

At the site there is a representation of a painting found in Ravenna, Italy. It is suggested that the central figure is Justinian and the man upon his right side is Belis-arius. Please note the insignia seen upon this figure's right shoulder? Could this be a version of the so called "star of David?"

Also note the young attendants to the right of Belis-arius? (Velisarius?), they might well be termed either, "pages" or "squires" or "esquires", or probably most correctly "Shield Bearers" or "Armour / Armor Bearers" and even "water / wine bearers?") since they carry both shields and spears.

Please note their hair cuts / styles!

They certainly have what we today would called "Page-Boy" cuts! Note; some historians have been forced to consider that Belisarius might well have been considered as a "Eunuch", as well as his successor / replacement! One might well consider that the Jews, who were considered amongst the first to demand "circumcision" of its males, may have led others to a mis-interpretation of the word "Eunuch", or "castrated one?" Or it may be that in the early days the Hebrew priests were castrated and eventually a "ritual" castration was substituted and called later called, "circumcision?"

One might well also note that the "Crescent", as a symbol of an Empire, is regarded as correct for both the Byzantine (Latin? / Rum / Roum? / Romanian) Empire as well as the Ottoman (Othoman / Attaman?) Empire!


And please take note of this site;

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_Spartaria&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=3&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dcarthago%2Bspartaria%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4GGLG_enUS308US308

Please make note (from the above site) of the name, of the Byzantine city "Carthago Spartaria!"

Just how would any of you translate those two words? Could “Spartan Carthage” be a possibility?

Maybe a study of the Frankish / Flemish kingdoms / and their duchies in Greece and the surrounding area, after the taking of Constantinople by the Frankish / Flemish / "Freisian" / free?, crusaders might be in order?

Pay particular attention to the group of mercenaries known to us now as "The Catalan Company!"

But, you might well be asking right now, just what does all of the above have to do with "Chevrons?"

Well it is all connected in a manner that should not obvious to most, but that is not their fault. It is perhaps my weakness that I tend to wander around in the past, making connections that seem most obvious to me but less so to others as well as being wildly out of time and place and I shall waste no more time going in all directions at once.

So! Chevrons are found in the mortuary temple of Ramesses III,
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_III) , depicting the great Sea Battle either on a river or near a port city, etc., and one good example of a reproduction of it can be found here;

http://samilitaryhistory.org/vol074ic.html

Please look at example number 4!

There you will obviously see the chevrons upon the vestments of these warriors / sailors!

Note that they wear both a "tunic" and what can only be called a "kilt!" / skirt, or maybe it was a one piece outfit? Please remember the family "chrest?" / christ? / krest / crest, of Cardinal Richelieu!

You will notice that the above site is reportedly written by persons involved in military actions!

So, why is it that they (the military historians), who should best know about the use of chevrons, not even mention the occurrence of obvious military depictions in the panels?

Simply put, it is the 12th to 13th century BCE date which is assigned to Ramesses (Lamesses?) III that stops them!

These men obviously knew that the use of chevrons to denote rank, etc., was not in common usage until over 1,000 years later, at best (i.e. 12th cent. CE)!

See also;

http://txspace.tamu.edu/bitstream/handle/1969/126/etd-tamu-2003C-ANTH-Romey-1.pdf?sequence=1


At the above site you will also be introduced to the word "Vogelbark", or "Duck headed boats", which to me at least, reminds me of the vessels that still ply the lagoons of Venice to this day.

Here are some important words from the above;

"THE EUROPEAN PRESENCE IN LATE HELLADIC GREECE

The archaeological evidence certainly points to a Central European presence in
Late Helladic Greece, but to what degree, and what was its nature? Previous arguments,
most recently by Schachermeyr89 and Bouzek90 have argued for an invasion of
Mycenaean Greece by Central European populations, resulting in the palatial
destructions that occurred in the LH IIIB/C period. Other scholars, most notably
Sandars91 and Drews,92 have seen in the archaeological record evidence for a Central
European mercenary population present in Mycenaean Greece during the period that the
first Sea Peoples raids were being launched in the 14th century B.C.E.
Archaeological evidence for the presence of a Central European population in
Late Helladic Greece is found most frequently in the form of weapons and ceramics.

Weaponry

The most significant Central European import into the Aegean during the Bronze
Age was the flange-hilted, ‘cut-and-thrust’ sword (generally referred to as the

89 Schachermeyr 1980.
90 Bouzek 1985, 202-5.
91 Sandars 1978.
92 Drews 1993.
44

Sprockhoff IIa or simply the IIa sword).93 It first appears, in a burial along with
Mycenaean pottery and a Central European socketed spearhead, on the island of Cos in
the Late Helladic IIIB:2 period.94 The cut-and-thrust sword was not simply a new
addition to the array of weapons that the Mycenaean Greeks already had at their
disposal—spears, daggers, dirks, and narrow rapiers—it introduced a new and more
deadly form of warfare. Its long reach and slashing blow proved more effective than an
opponent’s stabbing rapier. By the 11th century the IIa sword was “virtually the only
sword in use in the Aegean,” and it became the standard sword of the early Iron Age
cultures of the Near East.95 Thirty-eight IIa swords have been found in Late Helladic
contexts.96 Figure 23 shows their distribution.


93Snodgrass 1967, 29; 1974, 211; Sandars 1983; Drews 1993, 192-208.
94Sandars 1983, 53; Muhly 1984.
95 Drews 1993, 194.
96 Drews 1993, 203
45

Fig. 23. Distribution of IIa swords in the Late Helladic Aegean. After Bouzek 1985,
121, fig. 57.

Interestingly, although versions of the cut-and-thrust sword first appear in
Central Europe in the mid-fifteenth century (Bz C1),97 they are not found in the Aegean
until suddenly in the midst of the crisis of the LH IIIB/C period.

In addition, the European style spearhead appears in the Aegean in this period.
Cast rather than forged, its continuous form proved superior to the Greek version and

97 See Drews 1993, 194-5 for discussion and bibliography.

46
was, like the IIa sword, quickly adopted.98

Since Mycenaean metal-smiths were forgers, not casters, there is reason to believe
that the importers of the IIa swords brought their craftsmen with them, either from the
northern Italian reaches of the Urnfield periphery,99 or from the Balkans.100 There is
evidence that Mycenaean craftsmen attempted to forge, rather than cast, the IIa sword in
the period around 1200 B.C.E. The results tended to be “most unwieldy and eccentric,”
and the enterprise was quickly given up.101

The round shields carried by the Sea People in the Medinet Habu naval battle
relief, and earlier 13th century Battle of Kadesh (fig. 24),102 appeared in the Aegean only
around 1200 B.C.E. Evidence points to its introduction from Central Europe.103 Unlike
the larger shields favored by Mycenaean warriors employing longer-range weapons such
as javelins and spears (seen carried by the crew of the Kynos A ship, fig. 17a), the round
shield provided the mobility and agility necessary for the close-quarters combat required
by the IIa sword.


98 Harding 1984, 162-73; Bouzek 1985, 119-42. It appears that in the case of European fibulae and pins, like weapons, their design was so effective that they were quickly adopted throughout the Aegean.
Therefore, actual “European” imports of such objects are very rare. See Kilian 1985.
99 Harding 1984, 165.
100 Sandars 1978, 91-92. Sandars, the preeminent specialist on Late Bronze Age European weapons, does
not see an Italian influence on the first-generation IIa swords in the Aegean.
101 Sandars 1983, 39.
102 See Sandars 1983, 44-5 for discussion.
103 Harding 1984, 177; Schachermeyr 1980, 154-7."

If you actually go to the site (Fig. 23. Distribution of IIa swords in the Late Helladic Aegean. After Bouzek 1985, 121, fig. 57.), and if I am not looking correctly at it, then it seems that the great majority of such weapons would have occured in the area of the world which we today call Denmark, ie., the home of the Danes (Dannae?), or as one might well have described them before the time of William the Conqueror (the Bastard), the North-men / Norse / Vikings!

As concerns the "Round Shields", Imanuel Velikovsky made a good deal to do about this same subject in his book, "The Peoples of the Sea", for more see below.

In other sites I have shown to you (above), there was a mention of the Pharoah's (of this period) that were of the band or organization (which was against Egypt), which the Egyptians called "The Nine Bows!", and as (almost) always, these Egyptians called them as, peoples from "the Isles!"

Just why would these Egyptians have reason to consider these foreign invaders as being from "Isles?" Could it be that the real Egypt only existed North of Memphis / Cairo? Could it not describe the area called the “Delta” where there existed “isles” in numbers not countable?

Thus any group, or a conglomeration of peoples united in a "common cause", who might travel to Egypt from any of the various "Isles" that occur in the Mediterranean area might well be "Peoples of the Isles?" Thus any invading fleet / army (armies?) that was / were transported from Cyprus, or Crete, or Sicily, or Rhodes, etc., across the sea to Egypt might well self describe themselves as "from the Isles?" You might well note that all of the above islands have been reportedly used for centuries as “staging” points for invasions, not only of Egypt but the rest of the Levant!

Numerous scholars have attempted to classify the named groups of the Egyptian invaders from similarities of their names with islands found in the Mediterranean area, mostly with limited success.

Imanuel Velikovsky attempted to correlate this invasion of Egypt with the Persians, i.e. the "Peleset!", rather than the Philistines (File-s-tines?), and thus move, up in time, closer to our age, to the times of the Persian (PRS) invasion(s) of Egypt, especially during the times of the Egyptian king Nectanebo II! (ruled 360 - 343 BCE), which is very close to the times of Alexander the Great (356 BC – 323 BCE.   

So, just who were these “peoples of the sea” who decided to attack Egypt during the lifetime of Phillip II and his son Alexander (defender of man!)

Whilst I do not totally agree with Velikovsky's determination(s), he did a wonderful job in his arguments and explanations.

And, his view of PRST, or PLST, or ?, as Persian was wonderful, but perhaps his view of Persian was somewhat distorted? You see Velikovsky could not see beyond this “event horizon!”

By the way you can read about Nectanebo II at;

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

Or you might well want to read Velikovsky's "Peoples of the Sea"?, for a better understanding as to why he proposed the removable of about 800 years from the history of Egypt! His connection of Ramesses the II and III (As well as Merneptah) with Greece or the Greek world, was truly marvelous.

Velikovsky was not one to give a lot of credit to others, or he might well have credited Sir Isaac Newton, and a few others for giving him the desire to correct, what many people consider, a discredited chronology, i.e, that of Egypt! (for example note the similarities of the 11th, 12th and 18th dynasty).

But Velikovsky did open up the "playing field" so to speak! And he was maligned viciously by the ruling class of chronologists and historians, just as was Sir Newton! Newton also reduced the chronologies of Egypt and, as a result, the age of Greece and Rome, by large amounts. RIP

So, one might ask, just what do I have to offer as an explanation for those so called ancient attacks upon Egypt, that have enthraled historians for years? What I suggest is that you should throw away all ideas you have ever entertained about the past (especially what you have been taught or told) and clear your mind, at least for a while!

The major question you must try to answer is just why modern historians and experts in military history do not grant the use of the chevron to much of history before the 12th or 13th century CE?

End of part two.

Yes...........definately Occhams Razor time.


I find nothing of note in the above posts that can not be attributed to Occhams principal. Hurrah for the internet and the nonsense it can breed, because thats all the above currently is.


Your historical assumptions..........Egypt and it being a bread basket........Iberia....The Sea People......Crusades.....face palm...........Im not going to bother



Edited by DreamWeaver - 26-May-2010 at 15:58

So what you're trying to say is that the 'sea peoples' and the records of them are in fact just the crusades and that we've all been conned? Is that it?

Quite frankly its a load of bollocks and the entire notion is laughable.

By the way, I could relate to you a very good story concerning the loss and discovery and loss, and re-discovery of Dante'! It can be found in a series of books writen by a bunch of Russians!

The same thing can be said about the re-"mark" able discovery, loss, rediscovery of the body of St. Mark! Venice, you might understand was somewhat involved?

Regards,

Niccolo Mach! AKA

Edited by opuslola - 27-May-2010 at 15:23

Note to you both! I hope you are not thinking I am being cavalier (http://www.answers.com/topic/cavalier, in the 1st adj. sense) towards any of you or this site?

I am far beyond that! And I hope you both agree?

I do sincerely believe I have found a connection! I will have no problem, if both of you, or one of you, can actually tell me that "beyond a reasonable doubt", you can prove me wrong!

But, distainfull dismissal of my agenda (if any?) is not a part of respectfull discourse, without even seeing the amount of evidence available! And by the obvious lack of reading my material (as obvious from DW's dismissal) to avoid the time and effort involved to really see not just where I am going but to see "WHY?"

Anyway, I will probably finish my posts in any event! I am getting both old and tired of fighting a war against superior odds! (note I am not saying a winning result!) It most like a physics problem, that is an "ultimate mass" versus a "minute mass!" Physics states most explicity that "ultimate" must triumph over the "minute!" But,that of course, is real "Science", or maybe you beleive "mathematics" does not qualify as a "science?"

If so, we again have some problems, which it seems, I have mentioned before on this site!

You must see, that I have tried to exhibit my thoughts to be considered by the "least" of amongst you! In other words, I have tried to keep it within the "KISS System!!", so much, that any person with a brain can follow the "dancing ball!"

Perhaps I have under-estimated you guys? Perhaps I felt that there might well exist some where, some people, who would just not dismiss, out of hand, any viewpoint that disagreed with their own?

Perhaps, again, I was incorrect?

Regards,

Thanks for your words! But, you see, I really do not expect to "get anywhere with it!" Like a lot of writers, and historians, etc., I may expect to receive some respectful admiration, or at least some "peer review" by similar fellows!

Unfortunately, for any of you to do this, in a manner that should help my theory either make it or break it, requires the reader to do his or her own research, such as reading the works of I. Velikovsky (and other related works) that relate to the same Egyptian events!

Regarding the helments seen on the reliefs of Medinet Habu, that are sometimes refered to as "feathered!" In the annals of Egyptian history, we seem to be told, this style of headgear is almost unmistakable! Except that Velikovsky easly compares this headgear to that worn by the Immortal Guard, found on the reliefs in Persia, related to Darius the Great!

But, that is not the only place! It seems some Egyptian depictions actually show what is described as "Issus breast feeding Osirus!", in this depiciton, which is considered very ancient, Issus is depticted wearing headgear looking almost exactly like that worn by the Peleset, etc., at Medinet Habu! But, of course, it is possible that this depiction was rendered during the long Persian domination of Egypt?

But, do not be deceived by the historians and archaeologists who display anthrapod coffins, which they state "reveal the feathered headresses worn by the Sea People or the Philistines!" I have examined numerous photos of these so called "Philistine coffin", and I see little if no resemblance!

So, can we assume that such headgear, was only used by the Sea People (some of them) and the Persians? If so, just why were the Persians involved in the invasion of Egypt during the rule of Ramesses III? No, historian can mention this!

Regards,