Archaeologists do it in holes: Tales from the stratigraphy

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm not aware of any strong archaeological evidence of a conquest.  What there appears to be is a distinctive material culture and set of burial practices.  That has then been hypothetically lined to fragmentary writings about Sea Peoples.

It's possible there was a military conquest by new arrivals. It's also possible that these were refugees occupying temporary depopulated areas in a coastal are previously emptied by war, famine and crisis.  Or that they were colonies of mercenaries and auxiliaries settled by the Pharaoh in a strategic border/coastal area.   There are a number of possibilities of which Mediterranean Viking conquerer/settlers are only one.

The one possibility that appears now to be ruled out is that the change in material culture was due entirely to cultural transmission by trade, etc. without any physical movement of people. 

[Razgovory]

Well it's not exactly a period of history with good records.  The best we have concerning this time period is from the Egyptians and their kings were prone to absurd boasting.  The Pharaoh claimed that Egypt was invaded outsiders around this time and he defeated them.  And then decided to just let them stay after words.  That seems suspect.

[Agelastus]

Well it's not exactly a period of history with good records.  The best we have concerning this time period is from the Egyptians and their kings were prone to absurd boasting.  The Pharaoh claimed that Egypt was invaded outsiders around this time and he defeated them.  And then decided to just let them stay after words.  That seems suspect.

I'm not sure "let" is the word - Egyptian historiography was very big on how successful the naval battle was, whereas there's no real mention of the land battle (the Sea Peoples were supposed to be launching both land and sea assaults according to the texts concerning the pre-battle period.) I've seen at least one Egyptologist suggest that the losses in the land battle were so pyrrhic that they had to concentrate on the naval battle in the iconography. They may not have had the strength to pursue the survivors of the Sea Peoples.

And after Ramesses III? Well, none of his successors seem to have been particularly inspiring - many of them having very short reigns, and at least one dying of smallpox suggesting epidemic conditions at the time.

[crazy canuck]

And others theorize that Ramsses III was unimpressive himself and compensated with exaggerated claims about dealing with the Sea Peoples when in fact, by that time, he was really only dealing with some pirate raiders.

[viper37]

And others theorize that Ramsses III was unimpressive himself and compensated with exaggerated claims about dealing with the Sea Peoples when in fact, by that time, he was really only dealing with some pirate raiders.

Kinda remind me of another world leader, come to think of it...

[Razgovory]

Well it's not exactly a period of history with good records.  The best we have concerning this time period is from the Egyptians and their kings were prone to absurd boasting.  The Pharaoh claimed that Egypt was invaded outsiders around this time and he defeated them.  And then decided to just let them stay after words.  That seems suspect.

I'm not sure "let" is the word - Egyptian historiography was very big on how successful the naval battle was, whereas there's no real mention of the land battle (the Sea Peoples were supposed to be launching both land and sea assaults according to the texts concerning the pre-battle period.) I've seen at least one Egyptologist suggest that the losses in the land battle were so pyrrhic that they had to concentrate on the naval battle in the iconography. They may not have had the strength to pursue the survivors of the Sea Peoples.

And after Ramesses III? Well, none of his successors seem to have been particularly inspiring - many of them having very short reigns, and at least one dying of smallpox suggesting epidemic conditions at the time.

That's my point.  We don't even know if the Egyptians won.   Ramesses II claimed to have won the battle of Kadesh.  So did the Hittites.  Someone was lying.  The same thing could be the case for the Sea People.  Hell, for all we know the Sea People were mercenaries working for the Pharaoh and were paid by the Pharaoh by letting them settle in Egypt.  The whole battle story could have been concocted to avoid the shame of relying on foreign soldiers.  With sources from the late Bronze age it can be difficult to take anything at face value.

[Agelastus]

Well it's not exactly a period of history with good records.  The best we have concerning this time period is from the Egyptians and their kings were prone to absurd boasting.  The Pharaoh claimed that Egypt was invaded outsiders around this time and he defeated them.  And then decided to just let them stay after words.  That seems suspect.

I'm not sure "let" is the word - Egyptian historiography was very big on how successful the naval battle was, whereas there's no real mention of the land battle (the Sea Peoples were supposed to be launching both land and sea assaults according to the texts concerning the pre-battle period.) I've seen at least one Egyptologist suggest that the losses in the land battle were so pyrrhic that they had to concentrate on the naval battle in the iconography. They may not have had the strength to pursue the survivors of the Sea Peoples.

And after Ramesses III? Well, none of his successors seem to have been particularly inspiring - many of them having very short reigns, and at least one dying of smallpox suggesting epidemic conditions at the time.

That's my point.  We don't even know if the Egyptians won.   Ramesses II claimed to have won the battle of Kadesh.  So did the Hittites.  Someone was lying.  The same thing could be the case for the Sea People.  Hell, for all we know the Sea People were mercenaries working for the Pharaoh and were paid by the Pharaoh by letting them settle in Egypt.  The whole battle story could have been concocted to avoid the shame of relying on foreign soldiers.  With sources from the late Bronze age it can be difficult to take anything at face value.

Not sure what you are arguing here - the Philistines weren't settled in Egypt but in an area that Egypt once controlled but doesn't seem to have done after the time of Ramesses III's predecessors. Moreover the evidence for foreign immigration into Egypt in the period is overwhelmingly Libyan from west of the Delta, not Asian from east of the Delta.

And someone burnt down a large chunk of Anatolia and the Levant around that time in an arc from north-west to south-east which is consistent with the Egyptian statements concerning the period and the invasion.

[Razgovory]

My point was that historical records from this era are scarce and often of suspect veracity.

[Agelastus]

My point was that historical records from this era are scarce and often of suspect veracity.

But with regard to the Sea Peoples we do have records that, while scarce, are not of suspect veracity. We have tablets that the ruler of Ugarit wrote literally on the eve of the fall of the city (it was burned down before those last messages could be sent) which indicate a widespread crisis as he has already sent much of his forces to the north and west to aid allies under attack. General consensus is that Ugarit fell not many years before Ramesses III claimed to repel an invasion of Egypt.

While Ramesses III may have exaggerated his exploits his narrative fits sequentially with the Ugaritic tablets both in time and content. I think you are chasing the wrong tail to make your point about the suspect veracity of historical records from the era.

[The Minsky Moment]

And there is also a Cypriot inscription to the King of Ugarit claiming that the "enemy" ships are "people of your own country" and "your own ships".  There could be a linkage between the fall of Ugarit and the Egyptian inscriptions concerning the Sea Peoples, but exactly what is is just a matter of speculation. It's a connect the dots the game where most of the dots are missing.

[jimmy olsen]

My point was that historical records from this era are scarce and often of suspect veracity.

If you haven't read it, try 1177 BC, the year civilization collapsed. Awesome book on the topic.

[viper37]

Celtic chariot found in England

n Iron Age chariot burial found in Yorkshire, England, is reshaping archaeologists' understanding of Celtic art and weaponry.

As Mike Laycock reports for the York Press, researchers uncovered the Celtic warrior's elaborate grave while conducting excavations at a housing development in the town of Pocklington last year. The soldier, who was at least 46 years old when he died, was laid to rest atop a shield placed in an upright chariot drawn by two horses.

Per Melanie Giles, an archaeologist at the University of Manchester, the shield—dated to between 320 and 174 B.C.—is "the most important British Celtic art object of the millennium."

Experts unveiled the shield, which has been newly cleaned and conserved, earlier this month. The full results of the team's investigation will be published in spring 2020.

Paula Ware, an archaeologist who worked on the project, tells Laycock the shield was made in the La Tène style typical of early Celtic art. It depicts organic forms like mollusk shells, as well as triskele, or triple spiral designs that draw the eye to the shield's raised center. Unlike other Iron Age shields found across Europe, the artifact has a scalloped edge.

[...]

[jimmy olsen]

Celtic chariot found in England

Yikes

The team found the remains of a 17- to 25-year-old man who had been ritually impaled with 10 iron and bone spears about 200 feet away from the warrior's burial site. Pieces of a broken shield were scattered across this younger individual's grave.

[Valmy]

Human sacrifice you think? Though I wonder how they could figure he was ritually impaled.

[viper37]

Human sacrifice you think? Though I wonder how they could figure he was ritually impaled.

Probably because there were iron and bone spears coming through his chests?

Had he been killed elsewhere, these would have been removed.