Sea Peoples and the Phoenicians: A Critical Turning Point in History

[Antigonos]

4 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Horned Helmets of the Bronze Age.

Figures wearing horned helmets are depicted in Scandinavian rock art, on stelae in the Iberian Peninsula, and menhirs on Corsica. And horned helmets feature on statuettes from Zealand, Sardinia, and Cyprus, on wall decorations of the Sea People on reliefs in Egypt before the Bronze Age collapse, and on the Mycenaean Warrior Vase.

Clearly, horned helmets were widely distributed during this period of the Bronze Age.

But why? What do they mean? And are they connected in some way?

In this video we’re taking an epic voyage through the European Bronze Age in the 12th century BC from Scandinavia to the Iberian Peninsula and across the Mediterranean to the east in search of the horned helmets of traders, warriors, kings, and gods.

Interesting connections.

[Abramelin]

Just adding info about the end of the Bronze Age to understand what was happening back then.

The next video concerns the Bohuslan petroglyphs:

 

Sea Raiders in Nordic Bronze Age Rock Art

 

 

Prehistoric Scandinavian rock art displays scenes of warriors and long, narrow boats. Are these figures showing some kind of Bronze Age Vikings?

The world famous ancient petroglyphs in Sweden, dating to the Nordic Bronze Age, portray a world of sword-wielding warriors and their ships. But these figures - holding aloft axes and spears and shields - are usually said to be carrying out rituals, not warfare.

Is that true? Are there any scenes of violence here amongst the thousands of weapon-bearers?

If this is about ritual then what were the rituals for?

And what can all this tell us about the lives of these seaborne Nordic warriors who lived 3500 years ago?

[atalante]

Abramelin,

A recent book argues that the number of Bronze Age destructions (ca 1225-1175 BCE) in the Eastern Mediterranean has been sustantially misrepresented.  

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/getting-closer-to-the-late-bronze-age-collapse-in-the-aegean-and-eastern-mediterranean-c-1200-bc/482564326A668899FF183DD949FC520F

The conclusion of Chapter 3 is that, of the 153 proposed destructions c. 1200 BC, 94 (61%) are ‘false’ destructions. These are grouped into three categories: 1) destructions that have been misdated, 2) assumed or 3) that have appeared in the secondary literature, termed ‘false citations’. Each category is discussed region by region and site by site in discussions of varying lengths, depending on the site and its evidence. In the first category, 33 misdated destructions are identified. Here, Millek accepts those within a generous five-decade range of 1225–1175 BC, but rejects destructions beyond that range as part of the collapse. Sites such as Knossos, where destructions were earlier, and Koukounaries on Paros, destroyed in the mid-twelfth century, therefore, he argues, should be excluded from the list of destructions c. 1200 BC.

Thirty-five destructions are identified as assumed rather than real. Millek shows, for example, that there is a lack of evidence for a destruction of the possible palace site of Orchomenos, c. 1200 BC—it might have been destroyed or it may have been abandoned. The discussion of Athens is particularly instructive, reminding us that we do not even know whether there was a Mycenaean palace there in the first place. The reminder is that circularity should be avoided—in the absence of evidence, a destruction c. 1200 BC should not be assumed because it conveniently fits a ready-made narrative. Twenty-six cases of destruction are rejected based on ‘false citations’, where destructions have appeared in the literature but are not supported by the excavation reports.

[docyabut2]

The true origins of the Sea Peoples is one of history's great unsolved mysteries. One leading theory is that they emerged from the western Mediterranean—the Aegean Sea or as far as the Iberian Peninsula of modern Spain—and were driven East by drought and other climate disasters.

In a matter of decades, though, that thriving culture underwent a rapid and near-total collapse. After 1177 B.C., the survivors of this Bronze Age collapse were plunged into a centuries-long "Dark Ages" that saw the disappearance of some written languages and brought once-mighty kingdoms to their knees.

'Megadrought' and 'Earthquake Storms'

After the Collapse: Knowledge Lost

 

https://www.history.com/news/bronze-age-collapse-causes

Edited March 6 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

A similar situation occurred Tiryns in 1200 BC, when an earthquake destroyed much of the city including its palace. It is likely however that the city continued to be inhabited for some time following the earthquake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse#:~:text=A similar situation occurred Tiryns,some time following the earthquake.

[Abramelin]

On 3/6/2024 at 10:46 PM, atalante said:

Abramelin,

A recent book argues that the number of Bronze Age destructions (ca 1225-1175 BCE) in the Eastern Mediterranean has been sustantially misrepresented.  

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/getting-closer-to-the-late-bronze-age-collapse-in-the-aegean-and-eastern-mediterranean-c-1200-bc/482564326A668899FF183DD949FC520F

The conclusion of Chapter 3 is that, of the 153 proposed destructions c. 1200 BC, 94 (61%) are ‘false’ destructions. These are grouped into three categories: 1) destructions that have been misdated, 2) assumed or 3) that have appeared in the secondary literature, termed ‘false citations’. Each category is discussed region by region and site by site in discussions of varying lengths, depending on the site and its evidence. In the first category, 33 misdated destructions are identified. Here, Millek accepts those within a generous five-decade range of 1225–1175 BC, but rejects destructions beyond that range as part of the collapse. Sites such as Knossos, where destructions were earlier, and Koukounaries on Paros, destroyed in the mid-twelfth century, therefore, he argues, should be excluded from the list of destructions c. 1200 BC.

Thirty-five destructions are identified as assumed rather than real. Millek shows, for example, that there is a lack of evidence for a destruction of the possible palace site of Orchomenos, c. 1200 BC—it might have been destroyed or it may have been abandoned. The discussion of Athens is particularly instructive, reminding us that we do not even know whether there was a Mycenaean palace there in the first place. The reminder is that circularity should be avoided—in the absence of evidence, a destruction c. 1200 BC should not be assumed because it conveniently fits a ready-made narrative. Twenty-six cases of destruction are rejected based on ‘false citations’, where destructions have appeared in the literature but are not supported by the excavation reports.

They seem to focus on the Late Bronze Age in Greece.

[Abramelin]

On 3/6/2024 at 11:29 PM, docyabut2 said:

The true origins of the Sea Peoples is one of history's great unsolved mysteries. One leading theory is that they emerged from the western Mediterranean—the Aegean Sea or as far as the Iberian Peninsula of modern Spain—and were driven East by drought and other climate disasters.

In a matter of decades, though, that thriving culture underwent a rapid and near-total collapse. After 1177 B.C., the survivors of this Bronze Age collapse were plunged into a centuries-long "Dark Ages" that saw the disappearance of some written languages and brought once-mighty kingdoms to their knees.

'Megadrought' and 'Earthquake Storms'

After the Collapse: Knowledge Lost

 

https://www.history.com/news/bronze-age-collapse-causes

Docy, did you read all of what was written in that link of yours?

[atalante]

23 hours ago, Abramelin said:

They seem to focus on the Late Bronze Age in Greece.

Abramelin,

Yes.   Various writers have OVER-emphasized the "strength" of a rapid wave of eastern Mediterranean Sea Peoples, whereas about 61% of the destructions in the eastern Med were unrelated to the rapid Bronze Age collapse. 

This enhances a theme you have been pursuing in this topic -- that waves of migration had started in the northwest.

Edited March 10 by atalante

[Abramelin]

6 hours ago, atalante said:

This enhances a theme you have been pursuing in this topic -- that waves of migration had started in the northwest.

And the northwest would be the North Sea area.

I really think something big happened in that area, and sent lots of people on the move.

Their migration created some kind of domino effect.

 

[Abramelin]

Still_Waters started this topic today, and I think it is related to thìs topic:

 

[The Puzzler]

17 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Still_Waters started this topic today, and I think it is related to thìs topic:

 

It says this though…

However, the invasion referenced by the newfound tablet doesn't seem to be related. Matsumura said the tablet dates to the reign of the Hittite king Tudhaliya II, between about 1380 to 1370 B.C. — roughly 200 years before the Late Bronze Age collapse.

The tablet "seems to come from a period of civil war which we know about from other [Hittite] texts," he said. "During this time, the Hittite heartland was invaded from many different directions at once … and many cities were temporarily destroyed."

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/3300-year-old-tablet-from-mysterious-hittite-empire-describes-catastrophic-invasion-of-four-cities

Still, an interesting find.

[Abramelin]

30 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

It says this though…

However, the invasion referenced by the newfound tablet doesn't seem to be related. Matsumura said the tablet dates to the reign of the Hittite king Tudhaliya II, between about 1380 to 1370 B.C. — roughly 200 years before the Late Bronze Age collapse.

The tablet "seems to come from a period of civil war which we know about from other [Hittite] texts," he said. "During this time, the Hittite heartland was invaded from many different directions at once … and many cities were temporarily destroyed."

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/3300-year-old-tablet-from-mysterious-hittite-empire-describes-catastrophic-invasion-of-four-cities

Still, an interesting find.

I know it happened before the Bronze Age Collapse, but it's too close in time to ignore.

[The Puzzler]

19 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I know it happened before the Bronze Age Collapse, but it's too close in time to ignore.

Abe….really? So I can now quote something that happened in 1380BC and say it was Sea People related…?….OK

[Abramelin]

On 3/14/2024 at 8:50 AM, The Puzzler said:

Abe….really? So I can now quote something that happened in 1380BC and say it was Sea People related…?….OK

No.

Read the post again, and then remember what has been posted about what happened with the Hittites during the time of the attacks of the Sea Peoples.

[The Puzzler]

19 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

No.

Read the post again, and then remember what has been posted about what happened with the Hittites during the time of the attacks of the Sea Peoples.

I read it, again and again and much more Hittite history to track anything down that might indicate a plus on your side…it talks of civil war within the land as coming in….the Hittites have hundreds of years of conflict including by the Egyptians.

All of this is way too early for the Sea People, in fact, it actually more aligns with the same civil wars going on in Spain at c. 1350BC, not 1150BC….but if you would,like to show the parts you think are relevant, I’m all ears. 

Edited March 16 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

6 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

I read it, again and again and much more Hittite history to track anything down that might indicate a plus on your side…it talks of civil war within the land as coming in….the Hittites have hundreds of years of conflict including by the Egyptians.

All of this is way too early for the Sea People, in fact, it actually more aligns with the same civil wars going on in Spain at c. 1350BC, not 1150BC….but if you would,like to show the parts you think are relevant, I’m all ears. 

The Hittites were at war with themselves and surrounding countries for ages with only short periods of calm and peace. This must have been known to people living further away.

[Antigonos]

24 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

The Hittites were at war with themselves and surrounding countries for ages with only short periods of calm and peace. This must have been known to people living further away.

 

24 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

duplicate 

You make an excellent point here. Even today we’re discovering more and more just how well connected the different peoples of the ancient Near East were. 

If from no other way, the Hittite’s neighbors would have been alerted by the repeated disruption of long established trade routes from Anatolia. And of course the people themselves traveling through these countries along migratory routes would have spread the word.

The rulers of these areas themselves would have kept each other informed of anything that directly or indirectly effected their domains as well, as contemporary documents like the Amarna Letters clearly attest.

Edited March 16 by Antigonos

[The Puzzler]

1 hour ago, Antigonos said:

 

You make an excellent point here. Even today we’re discovering more and more just how well connected the different peoples of the ancient Near East were. 

If from no other way, the Hittite’s neighbors would have been alerted by the repeated disruption of long established trade routes from Anatolia. And of course the people themselves traveling through these countries along migratory routes would have spread the word.

The rulers of these areas themselves would have kept each other informed of anything that directly or indirectly effected their domains as well, as contemporary documents like the Amarna Letters clearly attest.

Yes, great point….it still has nothing to do with the Sea People as far as I’m concerned, being way too early.

[The Puzzler]

Seems to me the real culprit of the decline of the Hittites during the Sea People attacks is from Assyria. Left largely unscathed….isn’t that the original premise of this topic…? Why were the Phoenicians left unscathed? So too the Assyrians…Herodotus mentions how the Phoenicians, upon arrival in Tyre immediately began trade with the Assyrians….but anyway…

and Tukulti-Ninurta I (r. c. 1243–1207 BC), under whom Assyria expanded to become the dominant power in Mesopotamia and the Near East, eclipsing rivals such as the Hittites, Egyptians, Hurrians, Mitanni, Elamites and their fellow Mesopotamian Babylonians. The reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I marked the height of the Middle Assyrian Empire and included the subjugation of Babylonia and the foundation of a new capital city, Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, though it was abandoned after his death. Though Assyria was left largely unscathed by the direct effects of the Late Bronze Age collapse of the late 13th and early 12th century BC, 

 

[The Puzzler]

This is the time frame of the Sea People, the state of the World. All the newly conquered lands taken by Assyria would surely have had an impact on people, subjugating Babylon, no less…causing widespread migrations and upheavals imo. The Aramean tribes might have had some hand in this too….after the fall of Assyria…

”Even during its period of decline, Middle Assyrian kings continued to be assertive geopolitically and militarily; both Ashur-dan I (r. c. 1178–1133 BC) and Ashur-resh-ishi I (r.  1132–1115 BC) campaigned against Babylonia. Under Ashur-resh-ishi I's son and successor Tiglath-Pileser I (r. 1114–1076 BC), the Middle Assyrian Empire experienced a period of resurgence, owing to wide-ranging campaigns and conquests. Tiglath-Pileser's armies marched as far from the Assyrian heartland as the Mediterranean, the Caucasus and Arabian Peninsula. Though the reconquered and newly conquered lands were held on to for some time, the empire experienced a second and more catastrophic period of decline after the death of Tiglath-Pileser's son Ashur-bel-kala (r. 1073–1056 BC), which saw the loss of most of the empire's territories outside of its heartlands, partly due to invasions by Aramean tribes.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Assyrian_Empire

[Antigonos]

2 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Yes, great point….it still has nothing to do with the Sea People as far as I’m concerned, being way too early.

Since that wasn’t the point of my reply to Abe, I’m not quite sure what the issue is here. Do you have any comments to offer on the actual content of my post?

Now, regarding your point, when it comes to any period covering several centuries or less from this time or before it’s important to keep in mind that no ancient history dates for general events are set in stone (pardon the pun). Nothing can be dated absolutely to the year or even decade and sometimes not even to the century. Which is why more often than not the word “circa”appears before dates in academic research papers and history books. Saying something definitely happened exactly in the year 1150bc or 1237bc or 2256bc is applying a Bishop Ussher like type logic to ancient timelines. Obviously the more we move forward in time that changes significantly however.

What time frames we do have for those early periods have been supplied by archaeology. I’ll give you an example: 

In both 1984 and 1995, radiocarbon dating was performed on a wide range of Old Kingdom monuments in Egypt, spanning the first eleven dynasties. The results showed that on average across the board the OK was four hundred years older than was currently accepted by academia. Several of the outlying data showed dates much older. At the end of the day though it changes little overall because the predynastic dates are still holding firm. At any rate, four centuries is longer than the period we’re talking about here, so two centuries shouldn’t automatically be taken as absolute. Especially if the wider picture shows evidence of or hints at possible connections.

I’m not saying you’re wrong in this particular instance, my only point is that it pays to be a little flexible with general historical events of this era and earlier when dealing with smaller (relatively speaking) spans of time like two or three centuries. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 16 by Antigonos

[The Puzzler]

38 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

Since that wasn’t the point of my reply to Abe, I’m not quite sure what the issue is here. Do you have any comments on the actual content of my post?

Now, regarding your point, when it comes to any period covering several centuries or less from this time or before it’s important to keep in mind that no ancient history dates for general events are set in stone (pardon the pun). Nothing can be dated absolutely to the year or even decade and sometimes not even to the century. Which is why more often than not the word “circa”appears before dates in academic research papers and history books. Saying something definitely happened in 1150bc is applying a Bishop Ussher type logic to it. Obviously the more we move forward in time that changes however.

What time frames we do have, have been supplied by archaeology. I’ll give you an example: 

In both 1984 and 1995, radiocarbon dating was performed on a wide range of Old Kingdom monuments in Egypt, spanning the first eleven dynasties. The results showed that on average across the board the OK was four hundred years older than was currently accepted by academia. Several of the outlying data showed dates much older. At the end of the day though it changes little overall because the predynastic dates are still holding firm. At any rate, four centuries is longer than the period we’re talking about here, so two centuries shouldn’t automatically be taken as absolute. Especially if the wider picture shows evidence of or hints at possible connections.

I’m not saying you’re wrong in this particular instance, my only point is that it pays to be a little flexible with general historical events of this era and earlier when dealing with smaller (relatively speaking) spans of time like two or three centuries. 

 

 

 

 

I understand your point, thanks for the post. 
My comment was, the inscription Abe showed as relative to the Sea People imo is not, when you are talking 200-300 year differences….we may as well admit now Velikovsky was right, 

If you want to fit 1380BC into 1150BC events…

Edited March 16 by The Puzzler

[Abramelin]

2 hours ago, The Puzzler said:

Yes, great point….it still has nothing to do with the Sea People as far as I’m concerned, being way too early.

I think it hàs something to do with the Sea People, as long as we assume 'it' started somewhere in northern Europe, and then spreaded south and east.

People went on the move for gods know what reason. They knew - like Antigonos explained - of the situation in the Hittite empire, the one they knew from its riches.

Desparate people do desparate things, and attacking a country already troubled by many conflicts but also known for its riches could have been a target.

[Antigonos]

4 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

 

Desparate people do desparate things, and attacking a country already troubled by many conflicts but also known for its riches could have been a target.

Absolutely. Look at what Alaric and the Goths did to Rome.

[The Puzzler]

10 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I think it hàs something to do with the Sea People, as long as we assume 'it' started somewhere in northern Europe, and then spreaded south and east.

People went on the move for gods know what reason. They knew - like Antigonos explained - of the situation in the Hittite empire, the one they knew from its riches.

Desparate people do desparate things, and attacking a country already troubled by many conflicts but also known for its riches could have been a target.

This is ridiculous…3 days later…..lol

OK, say it was relative, so what? It didn’t offer much insight….and the Northern Europeans are another story than internal Mesopotamia strife.