Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

  1. #1

    Default The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    I'm recycling a bit from my old posts, but this subject is due for an update.

    The Sea Peoples Hypothesis:

    There is a narrative regarding the “Sea Peoples” that you're all no doubt familiar with. Oda recently mentioned the flimsy Sherden/Sardinia connection. The evidence being that since some “Sea Peoples” are depicted as having horned helmets and there are bronze sculptures from Sardinia of warriors who have horned helmets, the Sherden must be from Sardinia because the two words have similar consonants. Although those bronze sculptures aren't well dated, and are most likely from centuries later.

    Another example of how tenuous all this is. The Shekelesh are never mentioned as being from the sea. The way Shelekesh is spelled (transliterated) in the few Egyptian inscriptions it occurs is šꜣkrš. So where did the L come from when it's clearly R? Well, sometimes that shift happens in Egyptian, but there is no reason to assume it other than to make the grand hypothesis work. There is a letter from Ugarit that refers to "people of the land of šikalayū" who are living on ships, thus the šꜣkrš must be from the land of šikalayū and now we have them living on ships. It's the Medinet Habu text that originally prompted the hypothesis, but there you have a different spelling of Shelekesh, there it's just š... That's right, it's not really there, the text is damaged. So why assume it's Shelekesh and not Shasu or something? Well, because the Shelekesh are mentioned with a few of those other names elsewhere, and also that's what it needs to be in order to make the hypothesis work. Are there any other people names that begin with š that are mentioned with those others elsewhere? That's probably too much to ask when we already think we have the answer. Anyway, all those proposed connections are plausible, even reasonable, but are still a stack of assumptions. Moving on...

    How about the Ekwesh? We know they're said to be "from the countries of the sea", but also said to be circumcised, so hmm... and so forth...

    Then there are the destructions. Hazor looks like an inside job. At least that's one way to plausibly reconstruct the evidence. There was a period of decline, over which people looked like they were fortifying their homes inside the city, filling in windows, etc. Not like an acute event, like things turned bad and got worse, and people had to start defending their homes from their neighbors. In the lower city that is. Things weren't too bad on the acropolis, in the big temple/palace. That is until people from the lower city broke in, beheaded the deity, and burned the place down. Then it was a poor ruin where a significantly decreased population just scraped out a living for awhile.

    For certain, there were ethnic groups causing problems for the major powers during the Bronze Age Collapse, certainly this involved some migration, but the “Sea Peoples” term is a modern invention and a speculative phenomenon. That being said, one of the ethnic groups mentioned, we do know a bit about...

    The Philistine Material Culture:

    Until recently, the most important evidence potentially connecting the Philistines to the Aegean is the Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery. It first appears in coastal Cilicia, Syria, and Philistia in the Twelfth Century. Arguably, not before 1125 in Philistia. It was being manufactured locally in Philistia and Cyprus. Otherwise, most of the Philistine material culture shows continuity with pre-existing Canaanite traditions. Philistia is defined archaeologically as the coastal region from Wadi Gaza in the south to the Yarkon River (Tel Aviv) in the north. It encompasses the five major urban centers Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath, portrayed in the Hebrew Bible as independent city-states ruled by the five “lords of the Philistines”.

    Mycenaean IIIC:1 was also locally manufactured in Cyprus. Most likely earlier than in Philistia. North of Philistia at Akko (Acre), there was a somewhat different form of Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery being manufactured. Other Mycenaean IIIC:1 finds along the coast of modern Syria and Lebanon were also likely locally manufactured, but most of these finds are not yet published, and in these cases the assumption of local manufacture is based on the finds’ proximity to kilns rather than the more solid petrographic analysis we have from Philistia and Cyprus. Finds of this type of pottery are almost completely absent from inland Anatolia and Syria. Imported Mycenaean IIIC:1 pottery of Aegean manufacture is also found at coastal Eastern Mediterranean sites.

    The locally manufactured Mycenaean IIIC:1 finds are exact enough that local imitation of imports can probably be ruled out. Although local manufacture doesn’t necessitate an assumption of invasion, since it could as easily be the result of the migration of skilled craftsmen. Furthermore, many of the Mycenaean IIIC:1 forms found in the Aegean are completely absent among Eastern Mediterranean assemblages. In fact, those assemblages argued to be associated with the Sea Peoples have the most in common with Cypriot assemblages. For this reason, Late Helladic IIIC.1 has become the preferred term, so that the Cypriot, Cilician, and Levantine finds can be argued to be a distinct Eastern Mediterranean branch of the Late Helladic IIIC.1 tradition parallel to a regionally specific Mycenaean IIIC:1 tradition.



    The Language of the Philistines:

    Most of the Philistine language we know is Canaanite with a few foreign loan words and names, likely from their original language. Luwic, if not Luwian shows promise, particularly Carian. For example, there is a Carian name Wljat/Wliat, that appears in three Carian texts found in Egypt and some Greek sources as well. It’s probably a cognate of walli in Hittite and wallant in CLuwian. The meaning is something like “strong” in the physical and/or mental sense, and it’s been connected to PIE root with identified cognates in several Indo-European languages.

    At Tell eṣ-Ṣâfi, which was Philistine Gath, a pot sherd was found in a solid Tenth to mid-Ninth Century Philistine context with a name Wlt written on it in the Canaanite script. The script records no vowels, but the consonants are identical. This is likely the same name that is recorded in Masoretic pronunciation as Gāləyāt, which you know as Goliath.

    Without some particular linguistic background knowledge, it might not be apparent that the Goliath connection reinforces the Carian identity of the name, but Gāləyāt is pretty much exactly what you’d expect from Wliat being Hebrew-ized. In Hebrew, every consonant other than the last must carry a vowel and be its own syllable. For Hebrew, W is an uncomfortable sound to begin a word with except in certain contexts. W and G are both voiced velar phonemes. They only differ in articulation. That’s why you see shifting between them common in many languages. For example, Guillaume > William.

    The Goliath story we have is set in the very late Eleventh Century, and Goliath is said to be from Gath, but the text itself probably didn’t take its final form earlier than the Seventh Century. That said, Gath was destroyed by Hazael of Aram-Damascus in about 830 BCE, so that along with several other lines of evidence suggests the story contains some authentic historical memories. The text of 2 Samuel 21:19 suggests some other guy from Bethlehem killed Goliath, so David may have been inserted into the legend some time after his reign.

    In the biblical phrase “the lords of the Philistines”, the word translated as “lord” is sərān, spelled srn. This title is only ever used to refer to Philistine rulers. It has been argued both that the word is not Semitic and that it is a cognate of tyrannos. In fact, it may be a Northwest Semitic. Linguistically, the shift from š to s is quite common, as is the other direction. The š symbol is the “sh” sound in English, if that's not already clear. In the Canaanite languages, š is indicated by the letter shin, whereas s is indicated by the letter samekh. Even when there is a š > s pronunciation shift, Canaanite languages usually continue to represent the sound with a letter shin because this shows the relationship to its verbal root, which carries some of the nuances of the meaning. Scholars indicate a shifted shin with ś.

    The Canaanite languages have a cognate to the Akkadian šarru (king) which is śar (prince, chieftain, commander). It’s pronounced like s, but spelled with a shin indicating that it used to be šar. Apparently, the reason Philistine sərān hasn’t been connected with the same root (š-r-r) is because it’s spelled in the Biblical texts with a samekh, so it was believed to be entirely of foreign origin, and let’s be honest, connecting it to tyrannos was just more appealing.

    The use of the samekh could likewise suggest that the authors of the Biblical texts didn’t recognize it as a cognate, or at least that’s the conventional way of looking at these types of relationships, but after going looking for evidence, I now believe that it’s a reflection of how the Philistines themselves spelled it. As it turns out, the Ugaritic cognate is śrn (prince), more often spelled srn. Which fits with the fact that we now know there had been a Kingdom of Philistia just north of Ugarit prior to their arrival on the southern Levantine coast.

    The Genetic Evidence from Ashkelon

    Ancient DNA sheds light on the genetic origins of early Iron Age Philistines

    Abstract: The ancient Mediterranean port city of Ashkelon, identified as “Philistine” during the Iron Age, underwent a marked cultural change between the Late Bronze and the early Iron Age. It has been long debated whether this change was driven by a substantial movement of people, possibly linked to a larger migration of the so-called “Sea Peoples.” Here, we report genome-wide data of 10 Bronze and Iron Age individuals from Ashkelon. We find that the early Iron Age population was genetically distinct due to a European-related admixture. This genetic signal is no longer detectible in the later Iron Age population. Our results support that a migration event occurred during the Bronze to Iron Age transition in Ashkelon but did not leave a long-lasting genetic signature.
    “European-related admixture” is a little vague, and the authors never really get much more specific, so take a look at this:


    Source

    Light gray are modern populations, ancient samples are in color. One Iron Age I individual from Ashkelon isn't really any different from the local Late Bronze Age population. As you can see, another one is near to the Mycenaean samples and two are intermediate between the Levant and Mycenaeans. Although with a PCA based on admixture, there are multiple ways to arrive at the same position. Those two intermediate individuals are also within a cluster that includes Bronze Age Anatolians, Minoans, and ironically modern Ashkenazi Jews.

    This evidence is at the very least consistent with the Philistines being partially of Luwian origin.
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 19, 2020 at 05:37 AM. Reason: Revised section on Sardinian Bronze
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  2. #2
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,244

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Nice work, Sumskilz! Oda seemed convincing enough in his proposal in the other thread but this more or less seals it for me. With evidence involving linguistics, ceramics and genetics, it seems more than plausible that it was predominantly the Luwians rather than some other group primarily driving the phase of destruction and urban desolation across the Eastern Mediterranean. The Nuragic Sardinians simply seem too distant to be involved, at least on any consistent basis. I feel duped after having seen several amateur historian videos on Youtube in the past five years about this very topic, all of them misleading in the amount of attention they pour into other possible groups and the free press they give to other contending theories that now seem less plausible given the mounting evidence. I don't sit around reading academic papers about the Bronze Age all day, so even I was misled into thinking scholarship hadn't really started forming a consensus on this topic. Oda claims that Turkish academics are already mostly on board with the Luwian theory.

    Thanks for all your due diligence. I would rep you for this post, but TWC won't allow it for now. For that I also blame the Luwians.

  3. #3

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    The Nuragic Sardinians simply seem too distant to be involved, at least on any consistent basis.
    Something interesting was going on in Sardinia during the Late Bronze Age, which may or may not be relevant.

    If you're familiar with the Uluburun shipwreck, you've probably seen these:



    Modern researchers refer to them as oxhide ingots. This is how copper was transported in the East Mediterranean in the Late Bronze. The shape made them easy to carry and easy to stack on ships. Three hundred and fifty-four of them were found on the Uluburun shipwreck along with a hundred and forty-nine Canaanite storage jars, various luxury items, tools and weapons. Petrographic analysis indicates the storage jars were most likely manufactured in modern Israel, but the copper in the ingots was most likely from Cyprus. In fact, nearly all oxhide ingots found anywhere have an isotopic signature consistent with having been from Cyprus.

    Here is a map of the distribution of oxhide ingot finds:



    Sardinia has its own source of copper. Presumably they didn't know how to extract it, otherwise why would they have needed to trade for Cypriot copper. The plot thickens...

    Nuraghe Arrubiu:





    Typical Nuragic construction, one of the largest of its type. It is said to be dated to the Fourteenth Century BCE by the fact a Mycenaean alabastron of the Late Helladic IIIA2 type was in the foundation of the central tower. Technically that can only provide the terminus post quem, the earliest possible date of its construction. Petrographic analysis indicates the alabastron was most likely from the Peloponnese. Some large pieces of copper where found in niches inside the wall of the main tower. Surprisingly, isotopic analysis indicates that the copper was from either Timna in southern modern Israel or Feynan in southern modern Jordan. The structure was abandoned at the end of the Late Bronze Age coinciding with the Bronze Age Collapse, which apparently left Sardinia isolated from trade with Eastern Mediterranean for some time. As far as I know, the only well-dated horned helmet warrior sculptures are from the Eighth Century BCE when trade was reestablished, but its not certain that they aren't from an older tradition, especially because most aren't well-dated. It's also possible that the local people didn't know how to smelt copper until the Phoenicians set up mining there.

    Oxhide ingot depictions from the Tomb of Rekhmire:



    Top row: tribute from the Keftiu (Cypriots)
    Middle row: tribute from the lands of the south
    Bottom row: tribute from the Retenu (Canaanites)

    Keftiu may likewise refer to Minoans.
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 18, 2020 at 03:28 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  4. #4
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Nice work sumskilz!

    For the linguistics of the term "Sharrukinu", the Hittites and Luwians had an equivalent term which is "Sarruken" or "Sarruma". But the Hittites used it only as a title for the gods and did not use it to denote their own rulers. I am not sure if it was the same for the Luwians but I assume that it was, especially since the Luwian peoples never produced a "Great King" or Imperial ruler that was comparable to the legendary Sharrukinu or even to the Hittite rulers. So I assume that the Luwians were familiar with the term "Sarruken" but they adopted its use from Ugarit.

    Onto the pottery! Can't really comment too much on that but I do know that the original areas associated with that style of Late Bronze pottery are the Aegean islands and the city of Millawanda (Miletus), later with Cyprus. I would also assume that it found its way to Crete and other parts of Western Anatolia. Millawanda was often mentioned as a battleground between the Hittites and the "Ahhiyawans" and it is known as the gateway into areas like the Seha River Land and Arzawa. In fact Millawanda was mentioned in the reigns of Mursili II and his sons Muwatallis II and Hattusili II (I refuse to refer to him as "III") as a city which opposed the Hittites and which had an Ahhiyawan presence. Interestingly there is no mention of the Ahhiyawans in the reign of Suppiluliumas. Although Luwian coalitions fought the Hittites in that time... perhaps they only received meager Ahhiyawan support? Only other reference I know of is from a century prior. With the pottery I would assume that it spread from Millawanda to other areas. Although it very well could be possible that the so called "Sea People" included peoples from mainland Greece and Crete, as well as Cyprus. Although due to the lack of such pottery in the rest of Anatolia it is hard to actually make any connection.

    The two names in particular which are suggested to be Greek are the "Ekwesh" and the "Denyen". Naturally scholars found a way to connect these terms with "Ahhiyawa" and "Denyen" respectively. Sure it isn't too far-fetched, only issue I see is that "Ekwesh" and "Danae" can be identified with tribes mentioned in Anatolia. Oddly enough they are mentioned as residing in Cilicia by the Hittites. The land of Danuna which is to the north of Ugarit was mentioned in the Amarna Letters. So lets say that the land of Danuna, the Denyen and the Danaoi are all the same, does that mean that Mycenaean Greeks migrated and settled to Cilicia in the 1300's BC or earlier? I doubt it, but the "Ahhiyawans" were operating in the Aegean and west Anatolia since about the 1400's BC as first mentioned by the Hittites when they refer to "Attarsiya man of Ahhiya". Cilicia (and Cyprus) would be a great starting position for attacking the Levant. As for the Ekwesh I am not really sure what to make of those, I mean maybe it is "Ahhiyawa", since both of them are allegedly the same as "Achaea". But for a long time the "Sea People" hypothesis hinged on Mycenaean attacks, you would think there would be a lot more tribes that could be associated with Greece rather than the Anatolians. Maybe the "Ekwesh" were only those "Ahhiyawans" that remained in Anatolia around Millawanda? Although the Ekwesh are mentioned as following the same migration route as the others so they inevitably went to Cilicia and ended up in the Levant.

    Now in Cilicia (or Kizzuwatna as the called it) they also spoke Luwian, in addition to another language which may have been Hurrian or some local Caucasic dialect. But Kizzuwatna was much more directly administered by the Hittites than other places like west Anatolia. As such there was a huge Hittite presence, and unsurprisingly when the Hittite Empire collapsed the cities in Kizzuwatna were a major part of the "Neo-Hittite" culture. But the lack of destruction in Kizzuwatna and the lack of Mycenaean wares in the rest of Anatolia I think is definitive proof that the "Sea People" did not actually destroy the Hittite Empire. If there was a foreign attack it would have been from the Luwians moving west into Hatti. If the Luwians formed their greatest and last coalition to topple the Hittite Empire, then either not all Sea People were Mycenaean, or the Luwians didn't destroy Hatti either. Actually I think both statements can be true. Since we can ascertain fairly well that a lot of the Sea People are actually known tribes from Anatolia. But also the fact that a lot of Hittite cities were still intact and still ruled by Hittites. The fall of the Hittite Empire, much like the "Bronze Age Collapse" was actually a gradual process and not one that happened in 1187 or what have you.

    Finally with regards to Turkish academia. You know for some strange reason everyone always goes to some other explanation for the Sea People. Were they Mycenaean conquerors? Were they migratory tribes that came down all the way from Central Europe? Were they raiders all the way from the Western Mediterranean? Why don't they just look in the most obvious place? The Aegean is home to sea faring people. We know from Hittite records that people from west Anatolia were warriors and raiders that not only attacked the Aegean, they frequently made war on the Hittites, and between one another. Turkey being home to the archaeological sites of both the Luwians and the Hittite Empire it would be the Turkish academics who benefit the most (although the field has been dominated by Germans ever since Schliemann, a nice counter balance to the British and French dominated Egyptology don't you think). In Turkey the field of Luwian Studies is extremely popular and many academics would tell you that the "Sea People" must have been Luwian. They have written papers on the linguistic connections between the Philistine language and the Luwian dialects for example.

    More recently some people, I believe that it was a British and a Dutch scholar, tried to pull off some sort of scam where they supposedly translated some tablets and managed to "prove" that the Sea People were Luwians. Around 2018 it was proven that they forged this evidence and maybe for some people who follow the intellectual hype train of academia this is discouraging, or might even put a permanent hole in the Luwian theory. But in all honesty I don't see how this changes anything one way or the other. I mean really if you were going to look for "Sea People" anywhere it would be in west Anatolia and the Aegean, Greece isn't too bad of a guess either. Although I would stress that "Sea People" is basically a made up term, which comes from the Ramesses III inscriptions, and was clearly never intended to refer to one group of people as a single ethnic group. I am fairly certain that "Sea People" refers to the "Countries of the Sea" which is a term that the Egyptians use to refer to places like coastal Anatolia and Cyprus, that general area. You would be surprised how many people argue this and all sorts of semantics about the wording of "Sea People" or "People of the Sea" or if it is just a term for pirates, and whether it actually refers to "Countries of the Sea". But if you look at the people mentioned by Ramesses III, many of these include Berber tribes from the Western Desert and Levantine people. The actual pirates or raiders would be considered the "Sea People" and most of the names mentioned there could be identified with the actual "Countries of the Sea".
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; July 19, 2020 at 11:56 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  5. #5
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,244

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Something interesting was going on in Sardinia during the Late Bronze Age, which may or may not be relevant.

    If you're familiar with the Uluburun shipwreck, you've probably seen these:
    This is a fascinating tangent you've led me towards and while probably not related to the 'Sea Peoples' it nevertheless demonstrates the interconnected nature of the Mediterranean at this point. It obviously shows the far-reaching consequences of the sacking of cities from one end of the the eastern Mediterranean basin to the other, noticeably the collapse of entire trade networks but also the subsequent abandonment of sites like these Nuraghi. If anything it would appear that the Nuragic Sardinians, rather than instigators of the destruction, proved to be indirect victims who suffered the blow back of whole civilizations to the east falling or sharply declining.

    Also, I can understand some of the oxhide ingots making it as far north as modern-day Bavaria, but Sweden? Really? That's random, especially considering the amount of terrain between Scandinavia and that cluster seen in the Balkans. Any particular reason why the oxhide ingots would be found in Sicily but not mainland Italy? That's especially considering the seemingly steady amount of trade conducted by the Castellieri, Terramare and proto-Villanovan cultures that stretched towards the east. Was it because, perhaps unlike the Sardians, these mainland Italian cultures were capable enough of reaping copper and producing their own bronze without requiring such imports?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    More recently some people, I believe that it was a British and a Dutch scholar, tried to pull off some sort of scam where they supposedly translated some tablets and managed to "prove" that the Sea People were Luwians. Around 2018 it was proven that they forged this evidence and maybe for some people who follow the intellectual hype train of academia this is discouraging, or might even put a permanent hole in the Luwian theory. But in all honesty I don't see how this changes anything one way or the other. I mean really if you were going to look for "Sea People" anywhere it would be in west Anatolia and the Aegean, Greece isn't too bad of a guess either. Although I would stress that "Sea People" is basically a made up term, which comes from the Ramesses III inscriptions, and was clearly never intended to refer to one group of people as a single ethnic group. I am fairly certain that "Sea People" refers to the "Countries of the Sea" which is a term that the Egyptians use to refer to places like coastal Anatolia and Cyprus, that general area. You would be surprised how many people argue this and all sorts of semantics about the wording of "Sea People" or "People of the Sea" or if it is just a term for pirates, and whether it actually refers to "Countries of the Sea". But if you look at the people mentioned by Ramesses III, many of these include Berber tribes from the Western Desert and Levantine people. The actual pirates or raiders would be considered the "Sea People" and most of the names mentioned there could be identified with the actual "Countries of the Sea".
    The vagueness of that term in Egyptian has certainly spawned a lot of problematic interpretations, that's for sure. It's a shame that more cannot be gleaned from existing Mycenaean written sources or other nearby civilizations explaining exactly who was busy kicking the crap out of them. The peoples attacking the Hittite Empire and forcing it into decline were undoubtedly the Luwians as you've mentioned. You're also right about a gradual collapse if not a transition considering the Syro-Hittite states that could be considered a direct continuation of that civilization. They were at least as organized as the sub-Roman Britons of late antiquity and Early Middle Ages fending off Angles and Saxons, as evidenced by the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae of Gildas. For that matter, much like the Latin-based scholarly culture that still survived in sub-Roman Britain, there was clear cultural continuity between the fallen Hittite Empire and the subsequent Syro-Hittite states despite their multilingual nature. Putting the Kaskians aside, if the Luwians were chiefly responsible for the collapse of the Hittite Empire, then they were ironically at least partly responsible for continuing that civilization by leading some of the Syro-Hittite states among Aramaeans and Phoenicians.

  6. #6
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Although... I hesitate to suggest that the Luwians actually played a direct role in toppling the Hittite Empire. For one because the later inhabitants of Hatti are not Luwian speakers. Second because it does appear that all of the ruling families of the "Neo-Hittite" states are Hittites and not only that but members of the royal family in many cases (as in the descendants of Suppiluliumas). Third because there are no actual mentions of large scale Luwian activity in the latter part of the Hittite Empire.

    For the last two or three Hittite rulers we have a lot of records of internal upheaval. That being conflicts between the descendants of Muwatallis II (specifically the sons of his second son Kurunta), and the descendants of his brother Hattusili II (who usurped the throne from his older nephew Mursili III, he installed the second son Kurunta in Tarhuntassa).

    Potentially other internal conflicts, as well as warfare with the Assyrians on the eastern side of the Euphrates. We can certainly rule out the Assyrians as the cause since they do not cross the Euphrates until the end of the 1100's BC. When the Assyrians do go as far as Cappadocia they make no mention of a Hittite Empire or Hittite states beyond a certain point. Eventually that area of Hatti becomes Phrygia and Cappadocia. Not sure about the Cappadocians, but the Phrygians migrated from the Balkans at some point after the Bronze Age Collapse. But I would not say that these were the cause for the destruction of the Hittite Empire and they are not even mentioned by the Hittites at all.

    It isn't clear if Ramesses III's campaign into the Levant is due to the Sea People or if he is merely taking advantage of conflicts in Hatti to grab more land. But the Sea People are mentioned as some of his opponents, and we know that he forcefully resettled some of these in Canaan. Although there is no evidence what so ever of a break in kingship of the existing Hittite royal houses in Amurru. So it is quite likely that the Sea People were a nuisance but caused no lasting damage in Amurru. Moreover some of the Ramesses III inscriptions seem to imply that he may have even fought Hittites but most likely not the actual Royal Army of the Great King.

    Only other culprits are the Kaska tribes in the north. These had been causing trouble since the mid-1400's BC. In fact by about 1350 BC Suppiluliumas' father, Tudhaliya II, temporarily relocated the capital from Hattusa slightly south to Samuha due to Kaska incursions. Suppiluliumas I also went on frequent campaigns to the north, both carrying out defensive and offensive operations. In Mursili II's time the Kaskans did something unprecedented by uniting under a single king. However Mursili II defeated them and executed this king. Muwatallis II and Hattusili II also are recorded as campaigning against the Kaska tribes. Actually Muwatallis II appointed his brother as vassal ruler of Hakpish for the purpose of defending the northern border. Muwatallis II simultaneously moved the capital from Hattusa all the way to western Cilicia, in a newly constructed city known as "Tarhuntassa". For whatever reason his son Mursili III, or perhaps his brother Hattusili II, moved the capital back to Hattusa. But it is clear that the Kaska threat was not over. Most likely a multitude of factors caused the collapse of the Hittite Empire, and the Kaskan barbarians are only one of them.

    Ramesses III claims that he lost contact with Hatti, it is possible that this indicates the actual collapse of the Empire but it could just mean that the Sea People attacks in the Levant caused them to lose contact. So Kaska attacks in the north, perhaps Luwian attacks from the west, "Sea People" attacks to the south, and civil wars within the Empire are what fractured the Hittite regime. Suppiluliuma II is the last Hittite King recorded or for which we have any evidence of, but in all likelihood the actual collapse of the Hittite Empire was gradual. Since we have the continuity of the Hittites in the form of the "Neo-Hittite" states, and these were mostly unbroken lines of rulers. There is also no evidence that Hattusa was actually attacked or destroyed since the city looks largely intact. Looks more like they abandoned Hattusa, but there is evidence that they were fortifying the city and were constantly on high alert. At best what evidence of damage we do have is probably more consistent with rioting. Incidentally there were frequent famines and plagues starting in the reign of Mursili II (ruled approximately 1320 BC to 1290 BC).

    What is recorded: Tudhaliya IV succeeded his father Hattusili II. During his near 30 year reign he struggled to hold the Empire together. Dealing with the Kaska tribes, revolts by vassal kings, civil war with the Royal line of Kurunta the ruler of Tarhuntassa, wars with the Assyrians over control of the eastern bank of the Euphrates, maybe even Luwian revolts, and attacks by the Sea People. He was succeeded by his son Arnuwanda III who had an extremely short reign and somehow was succeeded by his younger brother Suppuliumas II (a questionable succession?). The latter also ruled for about 30 years (1208 BC to 1178 BC). Apparently Suppiluliumas II invaded Cyprus and fought a naval battle (maybe Sea People or the Cypriote vassals rebelled... maybe with help from the Sea People?). Next thing we know he is fighting the vassal ruler of Tarhuntassa (the sons of Kurunta who call themselves Great King of Hatti, they also fought his father), and presumably winning the fight because he managed to sack the city. Then there is some sort of chaos, Ramesses III invades Amurru (Sea People again?). Suppiliumas II disappears from the record and the Hittite King of Carchemish, Kuzi Teshub starts calling himself Great King of Hatti (great great grandson of Piyashili who was first made ruler of Carchemish, son of Suppiluliuma I). Although at this point the Empire is fractured and it does not appear that Kuzi Teshub exercised direct rule over most of the Hittite territories. There was also a "Great King of Hatti" at Tarhuntassa again (sons of Kurunta return?), strange considering that Suppiluliuma II claimed to have sacked that city.

    The interesting thing is that no actual Luwian invasion is mentioned at any point in the reign of Suppiluliumas II or his father Tudhaliya IV. Nor is an actual Sea People invasion of Hatti ever mentioned, with the exception that the Sea People invaded the Levant and possibly sacked Ugarit. But the invasion was cut short since Ramesses III invaded Amurru and defeated the Sea People and what may have been some local Amorite and Hittite allies of theirs. Without any signs of a Hittite central authority being present by around that point.

    The Sea People attacks probably exacerbated ongoing issues by cutting off the access to copper on Cyprus, and imported grain from Egypt. The Hittite Empire was overstretched and overpopulated, situated in an untenable mountainous region. Dynastic wars, famines, plagues, raiders from every side, rebellious vassals and subjects, foreign empires encroaching on their territory, would all have been factors in the actual collapse. But I suggest that the reasons for the actual and final collapse were internal.
    Last edited by Lord Oda Nobunaga; August 07, 2020 at 01:35 PM.

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  7. #7

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    With the pottery I would assume that it spread from Millawanda to other areas. Although it very well could be possible that the so called "Sea People" included peoples from mainland Greece and Crete, as well as Cyprus.
    It's difficult to sort out. Some Mycenaeans seem to have settled on Cyprus, some had probably been there for awhile.

    Here's an interesting piece of evidence, the King of Alashiya (Cyprus) wrote to the King of Egypt (EA 38):

    Why, my brother, do you say this thing to me? As for that, does my brother not know it? I did not do this thing! Now the men of the land of Lukka, year by year, are taking a small town in my land. My brother, you say to me, “Men of your country are with them.” But I, my brother, did not know that they are with them. If there are men of my country with them, then you write to me and I will do what I will (with them).
    Lukka is probably Lycia. So that would be Lycians occupying towns in Cyprus, and subject Cypriots allegedly joining them in some malfeasance committed against Egypt or its subjects in Canaan.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    As for the Ekwesh I am not really sure what to make of those, I mean maybe it is "Ahhiyawa", since both of them are allegedly the same as "Achaea". But for a long time the "Sea People" hypothesis hinged on Mycenaean attacks, you would think there would be a lot more tribes that could be associated with Greece rather than the Anatolians. Maybe the "Ekwesh" were only those "Ahhiyawans" that remained in Anatolia around Millawanda? Although the Ekwesh are mentioned as following the same migration route as the others so they inevitably went to Cilicia and ended up in the Levant.
    Them following the same path is possible, but it's something inferred in secondary sources, because of the translation everyone is reading. The Ekwesh are only ever mentioned in the context of Merenptah’s campaign against the Lybians (the Merneptah Stele and the Athribis Stele). The part about them being northerners isn’t actually in either text, that’s a speculative restoration of the Merneptah Stele, mḥw ḫt-t3 m is inferred from mḥ[-- ---]n. Plausible, but the lacuna doesn't look the right size, and it’s just another assumption in the huge stack of assumptions required to make the Sea Peoples narrative work. Also, there is the weird thing about them being circumcised.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    The actual pirates or raiders would be considered the "Sea People" and most of the names mentioned there could be identified with the actual "Countries of the Sea".
    Yeah, exactly. You can also translate it as "foreigners of the sea" - nḫꜣs.wt n.<t> pꜣ ym. Now that's a transliteration that really rolls off the tongue. The word for sea is the same as in Hebrew - yām, which you probably know from the Canaanite deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Also, I can understand some of the oxhide ingots making it as far north as modern-day Bavaria, but Sweden? Really? That's random, especially considering the amount of terrain between Scandinavia and that cluster seen in the Balkans. Any particular reason why the oxhide ingots would be found in Sicily but not mainland Italy? That's especially considering the seemingly steady amount of trade conducted by the Castellieri, Terramare and proto-Villanovan cultures that stretched towards the east. Was it because, perhaps unlike the Sardians, these mainland Italian cultures were capable enough of reaping copper and producing their own bronze without requiring such imports?
    Under normal circumstances, you wouldn't really expect to find any, because they aren't an end product, they're meant to be melted down and made into stuff. So the vast majority have been found in shipwrecks, but then there are other scattered finds, an example being from under the rubble of a collapsed building. The Nuragic people apparently had a different approach, rather than making stuff out of them, they liked to break them and throw them down wells or bury them in buckets. They also did this with imported swords, real pacifists I guess. Although later they made cool stuff out of bronze, which they either tossed down wells or buried in buckets.

    About Sweden, I didn't make that map, because I would have differentiated this. A few of those finds are depictions of oxhide ingots rather than the actual ingots, that would be a few in Egypt (one of which I posted) and the ones in Sweden. What I've seen from Sweden looks like oxhide ingots being unloaded from a boat or a giant erection. Now you might think, maybe those are just animal hides, I mean this is not the greatest artist judging by the boat, but isotopic analysis has confirmed that local weapons were being made with Mediterranean copper.
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 22, 2020 at 12:16 AM. Reason: I had written "Karnak Inscription" where I meant "Merneptah Stele"
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  8. #8
    Lord Oda Nobunaga's Avatar 大信皇帝
    Patrician

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Azuchi-jō Tenshu
    Posts
    23,463

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    It's difficult to sort out. Some Mycenaeans seem to have settled on Cyprus, some had probably been there for awhile.

    Here's an interesting piece of evidence, the King of Alashiya (Cyprus) wrote to the King of Egypt (EA 38):

    Lukka is probably Lycia. So that would be Lycians occupying towns in Cyprus, and subject Cypriots allegedly joining them in some malfeasance committed against Egypt or its subjects in Canaan.
    Attarsiya "man of Ahhiya" is mentioned as having attacked Cyprus with Luwian help in the 1400s BC.
    Suppiluliuma II is also recorded as campaigning against Cyprus and winning a naval battle in the 1200s BC. It isn't clear if the latter case involved the Sea People or why it really was that the Hittites attacked Cyprus. But in the earlier scenario with Attarsiya, there isn't really any reason to suggest that the Ahhiyawans left any sort of presence and we would assume that the Hittites retook the island. But for all we know these local states kept Ahhiyawans and Luwians as a source of manpower. At least in the case of Piyama Radu the pirate from Lazpa (Lesbos), he was known to have made alliances with local Luwian rulers and received asylum from the Great King of Ahhiyawa when the Hittites chased him out of Anatolia.

    Lukka has been identified as Lycia since the 1800s and I see no reason to question that. The Lycians were an extremely problematic group of people because their area was backwater and they were largely tribal. The Hittites controlled Lycia very loosely because they could only take key positions and forts and then "encourage" the locals to comply with Hittite authority. For example Kurunta is mentioned as campaigning in that area in the 1200s BC. The Lukka people were well known as raiders and pirates and quite likely served as mercenaries in many armies. For instance Ramesses II quite likely employed Sherden and Lukka mercenaries. The Sherden, Lukka and Shekelesh were the people which Ramesses II did battle with in that area of the Nile delta, early in his reign. Although this is not considered a "Sea People" invasion I think it ought to be considered as the first wave of invasions (the second being in the time of Merneptah and the third in the time of Ramesses III).

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Them following the same path is possible, but it's something inferred in secondary sources, because of the translation everyone is reading. The Ekwesh are only ever mentioned in the context of Merenptah’s campaign against the Lybians (the Great Karnak Inscription and the Athribis Stele). The part about them being northerners isn’t actually in either text, that’s a speculative restoration of the Karnak Inscription, mḥw ḫt-t3 m is inferred from mḥ[-- ---]n. Plausible, but the lacuna doesn't look the right size, and it’s just another assumption in the huge stack of assumptions required to make the Sea Peoples narrative work. Also, there is the weird thing about them being circumcised.

    Yeah, exactly. You can also translate it as "foreigners of the sea" - nḫꜣs.wt n.<t> pꜣ ym. Now that's a transliteration that really rolls off the tongue. The word for sea is the same as in Hebrew - yām, which you probably know from the Canaanite deity.
    That is an excellent point. At least textually the Mycenaean connection has always been quite tenuous because the whole thing requires that "Denyen" and "Ekwesh" be interpreted as "Danaoi" and "Ahhiyawa/Achaea". The Denyen have been identified as a tribe that inhabited coastal Anatolia (a place called Danuna), but I am under the impression that the Egyptians referred to them as being "of the isles". No idea about the Ekwesh, maybe there are other clues with regards to how they are described or depicted. I thought that the Ekwesh were referred to as being "of the Sea".

    "Famous general without peer in any age, most superior in valor and inspired by the Way of Heaven; since the provinces are now subject to your will it is certain that you will increasingly mount in victory." - Ōgimachi-tennō

  9. #9

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Oda Nobunaga View Post
    I thought that the Ekwesh were referred to as being "of the Sea".
    Yeah, they are described as "of the countries of the sea" on the Merneptah Stele and Athribis Stele (the only two places they are ever mentioned), but the Teresh, Luka, Sherden, and Shekelesh aren’t. Breasted commented on this in his 1906 translation of the Merneptah Stele:

    It is noticeable that this designation, both here and in the Athribis Stela (1. 13), is inserted only after the Ekwesh. In the Athribis Stela Ekwesh is cut off by a numeral from the preceding, showing that the designation there belongs only to them.
    Which over a century of authors citing him tended to ignore.

    The Ekwesh, Teresh, Luka, Sherden, and Shekelesh are described as "[something illegible] who came from all lands". They are all part of an army led by Merey the "wretched chief of Libya" who invaded Egypt from the west. Judging by the casualties and loot, the bulk of the force were Meshwesh of Libya. The Shekelesh and Teresh are also said to be "of Libya", but the context suggests they may have been mercenaries, literally they "came as enemies of Lybia", with "of" being in the sense of "belong to" rather than "against" as you'd understand it in English. Merey the wretched chief himself was also an "enemy of Lybia", so in English we should understand that he was an enemy of Egypt, the only kind of enemy that matters. These enemies are "crawling things" who "love death and hate life, their hearts are different than those of the people".

    While not referred to in this context as such, the Sherden are elsewhere referred to as being "of the sea", but most of the "Sea Peoples" are never referred to as being "of the countries of the sea" whereas "all countries from the ends of the sea" were said to be among the enemy coalition at the Battle of Qadesh. Which is kind of a variation, and includes the Luka as you no doubt know.
    Last edited by sumskilz; July 21, 2020 at 12:35 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  10. #10

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Something interesting was going on in Sardinia during the Late Bronze Age, which may or may not be relevant.


    Modern researchers refer to them as oxhide ingots. This is how copper was transported in the East Mediterranean in the Late Bronze. The shape made them easy to carry and easy to stack on ships. Three hundred and fifty-four of them were found on the Uluburun shipwreck along with a hundred and forty-nine Canaanite storage jars, various luxury items, tools and weapons. Petrographic analysis indicates the storage jars were most likely manufactured in modern Israel, but the copper in the ingots was most likely from Cyprus. In fact, nearly all oxhide ingots found anywhere have an isotopic signature consistent with having been from Cyprus.

    Here is a map of the distribution of oxhide ingot finds:



    Sardinia has its own source of copper. Presumably they didn't know how to extract it, otherwise why would they have needed to trade for Cypriot copper. The plot thickens...



    Typical Nuragic construction, one of the largest of its type. It is said to be dated to the Fourteenth Century BCE by the fact a Mycenaean alabastron of the Late Helladic IIIA2 type was in the foundation of the central tower. Technically that can only provide the terminus post quem, the earliest possible date of its construction. Petrographic analysis indicates the alabastron was most likely from the Peloponnese. Some large pieces of copper where found in niches inside the wall of the main tower. Surprisingly, isotopic analysis indicates that the copper was from either Timna in southern modern Israel or Feynan in southern modern Jordan. The structure was abandoned at the end of the Late Bronze Age coinciding with the Bronze Age Collapse, which apparently left Sardinia isolated from trade with Eastern Mediterranean for some time. As far as I know, the only well-dated horned helmet warrior sculptures are from the Eighth Century BCE when trade was reestablished, but its not certain that they aren't from an older tradition, especially because most aren't well-dated. It's also possible that the local people didn't know how to smelt copper until the Phoenicians set up mining there.
    Forgive my ignorance, but the Cypriot copper was the purest copper mined/produced it the Med. Other places had deposits but because of their lack of purity they were used in bronze smithing. So sacking Cyprus would have greatly disrupted the money supply in the eastern Med.

  11. #11

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthernXY View Post
    Forgive my ignorance, but the Cypriot copper was the purest copper mined/produced it the Med. Other places had deposits but because of their lack of purity they were used in bronze smithing. So sacking Cyprus would have greatly disrupted the money supply in the eastern Med.
    There is only archaeological evidence for one town in Cyprus having been destroyed during the Bronze Age Collapse, and that’s Maa Palaeokastro. Two buildings were partially burnt in Enkomi, although most of the rooms in them were without any damage. Some ash without any other signs of destruction was found at Sinda. That’s it. Other than at Maa Palaeokastro, these things could have been accidents or civil unrest. A few settlements were abandoned. On the other hand, towns like Paphos and Kition were doing quite well. I’d say that taken together, the evidence points to insecurity and disruption, but without any evidence of a major invasion. It’s similar to the archaeological evidence in Philistia, where there is no evidence of any major destruction.

    See also: The Fall of the Bronze Age and the Destruction that Wasn’t

    Regarding Cypriot copper, it’s true that the analyzed oxhide ingots are relatively pure (~99%), but that is a product of both the source quality and the smelting process. It’s my understanding that copper ore from Feynan in the Wadi Arabah has the potential to produce purer copper. Cuneiform texts refer to three different quality levels of copper produced in Cyprus. The issue isn’t just about purity. The oxhide ingots have slag, cuprite, and copper sulfide inclusions, none of which are desirable in terms of quality. Copper from the Wadi Arabah tends to have a bit more trace lead, but this is desirable for some applications, and was often deliberately added beyond what occurs naturally.

    According to an analysis of forty-four Middle Bronze Age weapons from Byblos and Tell Arqa, it was actually the purer copper that was used to make tin bronze. Most of the weapons were made from so-called “dirty” copper, the kind you might buy from Ea-nāṣir. It’s notable that none of the copper used to make these weapons came from Cyprus. Rather, the lead isotope ratios are consistent with the copper having come from Iran and/or Oman.

    Copper production at Feynan was small scale during the Late Bronze Age, but then it really ramped up during the early Iron Age, presumably this was in part due to the disruption of the trade networks with the Bronze Age Collapse. Shoshenq I’s campaign in the southern Levant seems to have been largely for the purpose of taking control of the copper production in the Wadi Arabah and securing the route to Egypt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #12
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    So there was a Bronze Age Collapse, but probably it was staggered, and not a tidal wave of sword wielding dudes steamrolling the Med seaboard? This is the Fall of Rome all over again.

    The collapse thesis that elite networks sustained social systems through status markers and useful tech like bronze production is fascinating, I think bronze resource trading was the globalisation of its era.

    There was a substantial contraction of inhabited sites and the populations in many remaining sites, right? I guess raiders become conquerors when central authorities can't respond like the Carolingians and Saxons failing vs Norse raiders or Visigoths vs Arab and Berber raiders.

    My little brain is struggling to establish loose parallels in our dependence on rear earths and chips produced in a small number of locations. Will future archaeologists blame the Fall of the West on a tribal federation of MAGAs Antifas and Wagners armed with drones sacking every city in a campaign from Seattle to Syria to Kyiv? When it might turn out to be resource embargoes, Wall Street collapses and environmental degradation, with those other factors being symptoms.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  13. #13
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,244

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    So there was a Bronze Age Collapse, but probably it was staggered, and not a tidal wave of sword wielding dudes steamrolling the Med seaboard? This is the Fall of Rome all over again.
    Egypt and Assyria limped on in survival while Phoenicia began to thrive, which perhaps serves as a weak parallel to the fact that the Western Roman Empire fell but the Eastern Roman Empire lived on for many centuries afterwards, its own strength waxing and waning over time.

    The collapse thesis that elite networks sustained social systems through status markers and useful tech like bronze production is fascinating, I think bronze resource trading was the globalisation of its era.
    The tin and copper trade certainly produced an unprecedented intercontinental trade network. Neolithic peoples spread their farming cultures beforehand, but they didn't uphold a coherent trade network on this massive scale stretching from at least Afghanistan to the British Isles. The funny thing is that the Bronze Age also existed in territories further east like China, Korea, and Vietnam, but they were far more isolated from the western Eurasian and North African trade world. From what I know, however, they developed bronze tech on their own, since bronze working in China dates back to the Majiayao culture of the late 4th millennium BC (contemporaneous with Early Dynastic Egypt), long before the Indo-European chariot was spread to China. China's first unified kingdoms, the Shang dynasty and Western Zhou dynasty of the late Bronze Age, were also nothing like the post-Iron Age imperial Han dynasty that militarily dominated northern Korea, northern Vietnam, and pushed into the Tarim Basin of Central Asia, fighting battles with the Xiongnu as far as Kazakhstan. It is interesting how the Chinese developed bronze tech in isolation around the same time as others, and yet the otherwise urbanized and advanced Mesoamerican peoples like Aztecs remained in the Chalcolithic phase or early bronzeworking phase when Europeans first arrived in the 15th and 16th centuries AD. Much like Mesopotamian and Egyptian contemporaries, the Chinese also seem to have spread their bronze metallurgy to nearby regions, and then ironworking after that.

    There was a substantial contraction of inhabited sites and the populations in many remaining sites, right? I guess raiders become conquerors when central authorities can't respond like the Carolingians and Saxons failing vs Norse raiders or Visigoths vs Arab and Berber raiders.
    Yes, it is not an illusion that the Mycenaeans and Hittites went down in flames, along with many other civilizations and city-states in the Eastern Mediterranean. That being said, Sumskilz raises an interesting point about Cyprus seemingly being spared the worst of this destruction (and perhaps only being lightly affected relative to its neighbors). He also previously related an interesting fact about Judea in another thread, which ironically seems to have had worse destruction of certain sites in the early Iron Age rather than the Bronze Age. Go figure!

    My little brain is struggling to establish loose parallels in our dependence on rear earths and chips produced in a small number of locations. Will future archaeologists blame the Fall of the West on a tribal federation of MAGAs Antifas and Wagners armed with drones sacking every city in a campaign from Seattle to Syria to Kyiv? When it might turn out to be resource embargoes, Wall Street collapses and environmental degradation, with those other factors being symptoms.
    Hah! That's a fun thought exercise, except for the massive difference in available information due to technology. Even if humanity suffered another Bubonic plague or catastrophic climactic event that killed off half of humanity, it is hard to imagine something comparable happening in this hypothetical future to what happened in the Bronze Age. It literally created a Dark Age for the Mycenaean Greeks whose entire palatial use of Linear B writing was wiped out, only to be replaced by the Greek alphabet centuries later in the Iron Age. It gave birth to the oral epics of the Iliad and Odyssey, because oral tales were the only thing impoverished illiterate village dwelling Greeks of the time period could pass down. Archaeologists a hundred million years from now (if that is a thing) would only need to recover some hard drives containing terabytes of info taken from a source like Encyclopedia Britannica, and voila, they just reconstructed (or rather resurrected) vast amounts of knowledge about our so-called modern history and how our civilization operated at this time.

    For the Bronze Age, at least we have some fun surviving accounts of how daily life existed, with the legendary tales of Ea-Nasir to keep us occupied (a towering figure larger than life or Gilgamesh himself).

  14. #14

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Egypt and Assyria limped on in survival while Phoenicia began to thrive, which perhaps serves as a weak parallel to the fact that the Western Roman Empire fell but the Eastern Roman Empire lived on for many centuries afterwards, its own strength waxing and waning over time.
    Although the situation in the Bronze Age collapse is a bit different since as far as I can tell pretty much all the major imperial powers of the late Bronze Age suffered substantial territorial reduction or outright collapse in quick succession. The Mycenaean kingdom (empire?) disappeared completely with Mycenae itself being sacked, the Hittite empire crumbled and multiple smaller kingdoms emerged in Cilicia and Syria (the Neo-Hittites), Egypt's centralized monarchy weakened leading to prolonged territorial division (Third Intermediate Period), and the Assyrians lost pretty much all of their western possessions. Essentially, the Near East went from a few large empires to a patchwork of small kingdoms and city-states (which IIRC is what the Phoenicians were).

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    The tin and copper trade certainly produced an unprecedented intercontinental trade network. Neolithic peoples spread their farming cultures beforehand, but they didn't uphold a coherent trade network on this massive scale stretching from at least Afghanistan to the British Isles. The funny thing is that the Bronze Age also existed in territories further east like China, Korea, and Vietnam, but they were far more isolated from the western Eurasian and North African trade world. From what I know, however, they developed bronze tech on their own, since bronze working in China dates back to the Majiayao culture of the late 4th millennium BC (contemporaneous with Early Dynastic Egypt), long before the Indo-European chariot was spread to China. China's first unified kingdoms, the Shang dynasty and Western Zhou dynasty of the late Bronze Age, were also nothing like the post-Iron Age imperial Han dynasty that militarily dominated northern Korea, northern Vietnam, and pushed into the Tarim Basin of Central Asia, fighting battles with the Xiongnu as far as Kazakhstan. It is interesting how the Chinese developed bronze tech in isolation around the same time as others, and yet the otherwise urbanized and advanced Mesoamerican peoples like Aztecs remained in the Chalcolithic phase or early bronzeworking phase when Europeans first arrived in the 15th and 16th centuries AD. Much like Mesopotamian and Egyptian contemporaries, the Chinese also seem to have spread their bronze metallurgy to nearby regions, and then ironworking after that.
    Perhaps the civilizations of Mesoamerica lacked access to readily exploitable sources of copper or tin?

  15. #15
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,244

    Default Re: The Origin of the Philistines & The Sea Peoples Hypothesis

    Quote Originally Posted by Laser101 View Post
    Although the situation in the Bronze Age collapse is a bit different since as far as I can tell pretty much all the major imperial powers of the late Bronze Age suffered substantial territorial reduction or outright collapse in quick succession. The Mycenaean kingdom (empire?) disappeared completely with Mycenae itself being sacked, the Hittite empire crumbled and multiple smaller kingdoms emerged in Cilicia and Syria (the Neo-Hittites), Egypt's centralized monarchy weakened leading to prolonged territorial division (Third Intermediate Period), and the Assyrians lost pretty much all of their western possessions. Essentially, the Near East went from a few large empires to a patchwork of small kingdoms and city-states (which IIRC is what the Phoenicians were).
    To be clear, it was a very loose correlation, as the early Phoenicians were much more like the ancient Greeks of the Archaic period, city-states like Tyre that only established distant coastal colonies in the Mediterranean rather than large cohesive kingdoms. The Phoenician colony and republic of Carthage would be a seemingly better analogy due to its greater control over its own colonies. However, their civilization and mode of conquest obviously differed greatly from the Eastern Roman Empire and was far less centralized (it was more like the head of a league of Phoenician city-states including Utica that acted as a suzerain over non-Phoenician allies like Numidians, Sardinians, Iberians, etc.). The collapse of the Western Roman Empire (WRE) was also far less destructive and devastating than the Late Bronze Age Collapse, because most of the provincial territory of the WRE was immediately gobbled up and reorganized under Germanic led kingdoms that emulated and somewhat maintained Roman style administration and commerce. The only former WRE territory where this wasn't immediately the case was Sub-Roman Britain, yet most of the British Isles were eventually consolidated under the Anglo-Saxons (and the Celtic kingdoms surrounding them in Wales and Scotland were at the same level of development).

    Perhaps the civilizations of Mesoamerica lacked access to readily exploitable sources of copper or tin?
    That certainly played a major role in the apathy of various Mesoamerican civilizations from Olmecs to Aztecs in developing bronze tech (which they did develop to some extent and even used iron in limited contexts), but there was also also little competitive incentive for them to engage in it. Obsidian blades were certainly sharp enough for their purposes. Their ritualistic methods of war didn't really call for further improvements in military technology, either, since having a competitive edge wasn't a huge driving force for city-states with armies that lacked cavalry, mechanized artillery, or gunpowder entirely. Politicking and alliance building were more important, since that ensured greater numbers of men on their side. Human capital was far more important, as the Mayas and Aztecs relied on huge numbers of corvee style laborers to carry out their enormous construction projects. It wasn't until the arrival of Europeans that this entire system was disrupted and outclassed. A relative handful of Spaniards with steel and gunpowder weaponry, mounted cavalry, naval logistical support, and far more experience in breaking settlements under siege was enough to convince the traditional enemies of the Aztecs to side with the Spaniards, which gave them the double advantage of having better military technology and manpower (especially after Old World diseases like smallpox spread through Aztec communities like wildfire).

    I'll leave it there, since this conversation is only loosely related to Bronze Age stuff and certainly not relevant in a discussion about the nebulous Sea Peoples.
    I think I have derailed this thread enough for now. Back to you, Sumskilz.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •