Jon, There are scenes of the naval battles with ships of Mycenaean design and Egyptian design (Wachsmann) fighting each other in the Nile Delta. PotteryMessage 1 of 148 , Dec 1 5:33 AMView SourceJon,
There are scenes of the naval battles with ships of Mycenaean design and Egyptian design (Wachsmann) fighting each other in the Nile Delta.
Pottery evidence shows a migration of "Sea Peoples" to the coast of Israel in the LBA - IA transition. Dothan found parallels between the Philistine/Peleset pottery found in coastal areas of Israel to that of Crete. Crete has been described as in its "Mycenaean" era during this time.
The Egyptian 'Tale of Wenamum' from a later period (c. 11th-10th century) indicates the Tjeker (a Sea People described at Medinet Habu) controlled the harbor of Dor between modern Tel Aviv and Haipha.
The writings of the Hebrews described problems between the Philistines and Israel as far north as Beth Shean. The writings may have been based on a war between the Philistines and Israel, yet Biblical details of the battle of Beth Shean could not be proven to be historical. No Philistine pottery was found at Beth Shean.
There may be some confusion between the year 8 battle in the Nile Delta and Ramesses III's Syrian campaign. Ramesses III was recorded as marching north into Syria and this was probably after he was attacked in Egypt. Sea Peoples have long been credited with much of the destruction on the islands and along the coast of Asia Minor and the Levant south towards Egypt during the LBA - IA transition. Ramesses III may have done damage in Syria. Cyprus was close to the mainland, both visably close from a BA jet window high overhead.
One does not know whether Hazor was destroyed by the Sea Peoples, the Egyptians, or Israel. An army does not always settle on the ruins of a city it looted and burned. Later material remains found at a site may not indicate who destroyed the place.
David Q. Hall
Falls Church, Virginia
From: Jon Smyth <driver40386@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 9:07 PM
Subject: [ANE-2] Re: Sea Peoples, a dubious term.
--- In ANEemail@example.com, Joachim Friedrich Quack <joachim_friedrich.quack@...> wrote:
> I do not intend to go into the details of every single topographic item
> in the lists (that would take more time than I have available), but your
> translation "no-one could stand before the arms of Khatti, Kode,
> Carchemish, Arvad and Alashiya" ist plainly wrong. The text (a part of
> the famous inscription of year 8) is conveniently available in Kitchen,
> Ramesside Inscriptions V, 39f. and actually says "not a single land
> could stand before them, from Hatii, Kode, Karkemish, Arzawa and Alasia
> onwards they were deracinated in [one moment]". See for a detailed study
> of the text E. Edel, in Mélanges Gamal Eddin Mokhtar, Volume I (Cairo
> 1985), p. 223-237. So, the lands mentioned here are obviously the
> attacked ones, and your ideas are not born out by the actual evidence.
> Joachim Quack,
> Ähgyptologsiches Institut Heidelberg
Medinet Habu plate 120c provides justification for the northward advance of Ramesses III with the words spoken by Amon-Re-Harakhte:
"My hand is with thee that thou mayest overthrow that land of Hatti".
In support of this confrontation we read:
"That wretched chief of Hatti, whom his majesty slew"
"That wretched chief of Kode, whom his majesty slew"
That also among his conquest list we read:
"Land of Carchemish"
"Land of Yereth" (Arvad/Arzawa?)
The contemporary inscription appears to clearly state who the enemies of Ramesses III were (Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Yereth, etc.) regardless of any paradigm inspired readings of the hieroglyphic texts.
Research and debates over the origin of the "Sea Peoples" tends to overshadow the more complete story of events in year 8. As a result we appear to be left in the dark with respect to political tensions between the two great powers in this period.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Raz, Once again, I m rather hesitant to get into this, since the ongoing back and forth is most often done on the basis of party lines and self-perceivedMessage 148 of 148 , Dec 6 7:40 AMView SourceRaz,
Once again, I'm rather hesitant to get into this, since the ongoing back and forth is most often done on the basis of "party lines" and self-perceived "truths" and often without reference to the latest research in various areas.
I was not, in any way stating who has the truth or not, at this or that university. For that matter, I felt that both sides of what appeared to be a completely aimless argument were not arguing about details of the most updated discussions and recent evidence of the LB destructions and/or the Sea Peoples, but rather going over their "party lines" - of which each side was totally convinced that his/her "truth" had "won" long ago (and nothing scares me more [in research, religion and politics] than those who know for sure that they are absolutely right).
Simplistic conceptions of the various ideological divisions and scholarly camps are really only useful if you are interested in the debate - and not the content (or the history and sociology of research). Current research, with an overflow of wide ranging data, has shown, in my humble opinion, if anything, that the various ideological "camps" of the historical reconstruction of the beginning of the Iron Age are all wrong (or if you want, they are all partially right)! Things were much more complicated than previously assumed.
For example, the simplistic explanation of the Philistines as monolithic conquerors does not hold - but neither does the often repeated mantra that there is no evidence of the influx of Aegean (or rather "western") oriented cultural elements. Au contraire - there is plenty of evidence of this, and that it can most probably be connected to the actual arrival of bona fide "bodies" who carried these cultural influences to the Levant.
And to make things ever more multi-faceted, this is true to varying degrees in different areas, such as if we compare the situation in Philistia, Phoenicia and the Amuq. To try and explain away all these things in simplistic terms may sound good in a debating society - but not for those of us who are intimately involved in the nitty-gritty details of the relevant archaeological finds.
Knowing Hebrew is not a sine qua non for studying the archaeology of this region, just like you can study the archaeology of Denmark, or Finland, without knowing the local languages. But, it can be very helpful (to say the least, as you well know).
AND, when dealing with a topic such as the destruction of Hazor (which much of the recent discussion on this list was not demonstrating an awareness of much of the most updated research), if the most recent discussion is in Hebrew, it is worthwhile to relate to it.
But hey - I've long ago had the feeling that this list is all too often more about the sociology of research and the psychology of the researchers, than research itself.
But that is my opinion - and what do I know...