sea peoples

[how yes no 2]

J2 seems interesting regarding spread of sea peoples...

it does go from Asia minor towards south, along sea coasts of Levant, which is direction that sea peoples took

and in general J2 seems to be most sea/water oriented group

R1a and E-V13 in south of Asia minor and in Levant also have interesting spreads...

thing is Kosovo Albanians are dominantly E-V13 and do not have at all R1a. They likely origin from Dardanians who are tribe that moved after Trojan war from Asia Minor to Balkan... now, if R1a was already spread all over south of Asia minor they would have had it (as E-V13 comes to Europe via south part of Asia minor which is also part where R1a is present)... as expansion of sea peoples happens short after Trojan war, presence of R1a among sea peoples could have led to the population of south of Asia minor and of Levant with R1a..


in description of sea peoples, northernes comming from all lands are mentioned among them...

 

[how yes no 2]

I think that haplogroup I has nothing to do with sea peoples...

from
"Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions" - Khaled K Abu-Amero1 , Ali Hellani2 , Ana M González3 , Jose M Larruga3 , Vicente M Cabrera3 and Peter A Underhill4

haplogroup I is not found in Saudi Arabia and its occurence in middle east is I*, with exception of Anatolia where multiple subclades are present...

.in fact I* is present in Egypt and along Mediteranian coasts to Anatolia and the rest is as on maps of "Lineages of Asia" ... it does not really enter deep in Saudi Arabia

this suggests that haplogroup I was only spread in opposite direction from movement of sea peoples.. and that this happened very long time ago in past (as it is I* and not I2a)...

 

[how yes no 2]

I think that haplogroup I has nothing to do with sea peoples...

from
"Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions" - Khaled K Abu-Amero1 , Ali Hellani2 , Ana M González3 , Jose M Larruga3 , Vicente M Cabrera3 and Peter A Underhill4

haplogroup I is not found in Saudi Arabia and its occurence in middle east is I*, with exception of Anatolia where multiple subclades are present...

.in fact I* is present in Egypt and along Mediteranian coasts to Anatolia and the rest is as on maps of "Lineages of Asia" ... it does not really enter deep in Saudi Arabia

this suggests that haplogroup I was only spread in opposite direction from movement of sea peoples.. and that this happened very long time ago in past (as it is I* and not I2a)...

actually, I* in those testings meant probably only that they did not bother to go into determining subbranches of haplogroup I as it was not considered relevant....

so, sea peoples theory is still on... and Sherdana can easily be proto-Serb and proto-Slavic tribe...

 

[Taranis]

actually, I* in those testings meant probably only that they did not bother to go into determining subbranches of haplogroup I as it was not considered relevant....

so, sea peoples theory is still on... and Sherdana can easily be proto-Serb and proto-Slavic tribe...

Proto-Serb or Proto-Slavic?! etrified:

Every linguist will tell you that talking about Slavic languages, let alone Serbian, makes absolutely no sense in the mid-to-late 2nd millennium BC. Apart from possible mentionings by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD (and even for him, they lived at the farthest reaches of the known world), the Slavic peoples only make their debut in history during the migrations period, which is almost 2000 years later. Besides, how would people, who in their original vocabulary lacked coast/sea terminologies (this is an astounding feature of Proto-Slavic which linguists have reconstructed), be the descendants of seafarers?

It's far more plausible that "Sherden" and "Sardinia" are related - especially because Sardinia is much closer in both time and distance to ancient Egypt. There is also the "Shekelesh" (probably the Sicules, ie, Sicilians), which makes this idea seem far less coincidential.

Of course, the language of the ancient Sardinians is unknown, but it stands to reason that they either spoke Indo-European languages related with Italic/Celtic, or possibly non-Indo-European (perhaps related with Iberian or maybe even Basque, but that's pure speculation).

 

[how yes no 2]

Proto-Serb or Proto-Slavic?! etrified:

Every linguist will tell you that talking about Slavic languages, let alone Serbian, makes absolutely no sense in the mid-to-late 2nd millennium BC.

I speak of origin of people not of languages
that is why I use "proto-" in front of those words...

Apart from possible mentionings by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD (and even for him, they lived at the farthest reaches of the known world), the Slavic peoples only make their debut in history during the migrations period, which is almost 2000 years later. Besides, how would people, who in their original vocabulary lacked coast/sea terminologies (this is an astounding feature of Proto-Slavic which linguists have reconstructed), be the descendants of seafarers?

again, you use linguistics...
languages change faster than you think...
if you move a tribe from sea to inland, after some time they will lose vocabulary about sea...
any linguist will tell you that...

many historians (e.g. Shafarik) think that in past tribal name Serbs was used for all Slavs

It's far more plausible that "Sherden" and "Sardinia" are related - especially because Sardinia is much closer in both time and distance to ancient Egypt. There is also the "Shekelesh" (probably the Sicules, ie, Sicilians), which makes this idea seem far less coincidential.

those people are drawn with wagons with oxen
besides sea there was also massive land invasion.. it went in parallel by land and sea, so Sardinians are not likely explanation....

Serden/Sherdana are also known by lake in Egypt named after them. Lake name is Serbonian bog/Serbonis/Sirbonis...

besides words Sardinia and Serbia obviously origin from same tribal name.... Sardinians are dominantly I2a1 and Serbs I2a2.. whether it was about proto-Sardinians or proto-Serbs we will know when it is examined whether I2a in Asia is I2a1 or I2a2.. as far as we know both could at time speak same language (who knows which language could that had be 3200 ybp and does it matter?) and be same tribe...

Shekelesh can as well be Scythians or some other people.. e.g. Scythians are known as Saka and in medieval period Arabs use name "sakaliba" for Slavs..

keep in mind that story of sea peoples speak of people from far north countries...
they likely start from Black sea coasts... study order in which they subjugate lands... that cannot be done by sea alone and not from Sardinia and Sicily... they would need to cross Dardanelles and make port in southeast of Black sea and start from there both land and sea invasion...

Of course, the language of the ancient Sardinians is unknown, but it stands to reason that they either spoke Indo-European languages related with Italic/Celtic, or possibly non-Indo-European (perhaps related with Iberian or maybe even Basque, but that's pure speculation).

again, languages you can use to analyze recent times...not times from 3200 years ago... because languages change.... genetics stays and tribal names are often (not always) preserved...because tribal names are key of identity of tribes...

but if you want, the order of attacks clearly place mass of sea people in area where Kurds are now, and Kurds have both genetic and linguistic similarity with Slavic people that is not shared with most other iranian people
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?26451-Y-DNA-Haplogroups-in-Iraqi-Kurdistan

order of attack
Hatti, Carchemish, Arzawa, Alashya, Egypt

 

[Taranis]

I speak of origin of people not of languages
that is why I use "proto-" in front of those words...



again, you use linguistics...
languages change faster than you think...
if you move a tribe from sea to inland, after some time they will lose vocabulary about sea...
any linguist will tell you that...

many historians (e.g. Shafarik) think that in past tribal name Serbs was used for all Slavs

those people are drawn with wagons with oxen
besides sea people was also massive land invasion.. it went in parallel by land and sea, so Sardinians are not likely explanation....

Serden/Sherdana are also known by lake in Egypt named after them. Lake name is Serbonian bog/Serbonis/Sirbonis...

The Sherden are explicitly mentioned in the Egyptian sources to have come by sea.

besides words Sardinia and Serbia obviously origin from same tribal name.... Sardinians are dominantly I2a1 and Serbs I2a2.. whether it was about proto-Sardinians or proto-Serbs we will know when it is examined whether I2a in Asia is I2a1 or I2a2.. as far as we know both could at time speak same language and be same tribe...

They are "Obviously" from the same tribal name? Sorry, but I2a1 and I2a2 had a common ancestry some 10,000 years ago (near the end of the last ice age), how can they be "obviously the same tribal name"?

Shekelesh can as well be Scythians or some other people.. e.g. Scythians are known as Saka and in medieval period Arabs use name "sakaliba" for Slavs..

No, it's not that easy if you look at the roots:

ŠRDN - "Sardinians"
ŠKLŠ - "Sicules"

If Shekelesh was related with Skythians, it'd have been spelled something along the lines of "ŠKT". You'd somehow need to explain how T becomes L in the root. Also, again the Scythians were a steppe people.

keep in mind that story of sea peoples speak of people from far north countries...
they likely start from Black sea coasts... study order in which they subjugate lands... that cannot be done by sea alone and not from Sardinia and Sicily... they would need to cross Dardanelles and make port in southeast of Black sea and start from there both land and sea invasion...

For the Egyptians back then, even Greece and Anatolia would have been "far north".

again, languages you can use to analyze recent times...not times from 3200 years ago... because languages change.... genetics stays and tribal names are often (not always) preserved...because tribal names are key of identity of tribes...

That is a fantastic strawman argument. So basically deny that Baltic and Slavic languages have a significant number of commonalities, and stem from a common Proto-language, and also, 130+ years of linguistic methodology are worthless because you declare it so. :innocent:

Sorry, all your theories are too far out, too implausible and too far-fetched to work out.

In regard for names being preserved, while this is (sort of) correct, they are still subject to sound laws. You seem to not even care about that.

 

[how yes no 2]

Taranis, read again (post was edited)... read order of attack.....look pictures... try to think...

How on earth can you attack Hatti from Sardinia and Sicily?

suppose they could have crossed Dardanelles and made big port in southeast of Black sea
why would you start attack there if you are attacking from Sardinia and Sicily? you would go to Arzawa and Egypt directly... how many people you need to bring to port in southeast of Black sea to conquer Hatti and make land connection from there to Karkemish and Arzawa?

this was massive settlement not just sea attack...settlement went by land with woman, children, wagons with oxen, cattle... they came from far north countries, which doesnot match Sardinia and Sicily that are both south of Hatti...

if Serden/Sherden/Shardana cannot be Serb tribal name, why is the lake named after them Serbonian bog / Serbonis / Sirbonis ? why is it not Sardinian bog/Sardinis? how do you know that what you think is 'd' was not in fact pronounced as 'b' by writers? And Serdi and Serbi are clearly interchangeable which coupled with related genetics is obviously making the tribal names comming from same origin and thus being in fact variants of the same tribal name...

 

[Taranis]

Taranis, read again (post was edited)... read order of attack.....look pictures... try to think...

How on earth can you attack Hatti from Sardinia and Sicily?

The Sea Peoples were not a homogenous/coherent group. If you look at the various names that are preserved, this gets very clear. The people who attacked in Anatolia were probably not identical with those who attacked Egypt. The Egyptians eplicitly talk about the Sherden arriving by sea.

Besides, you lead yourself ad-absurdum. On the one hand you say that "Sherden" and "Serbians" are one and the same, and then you proclaim that analyzing languages is worthless. By your own logic, your purported connection of Sherden and Serbians should be worthless, shouldn't it?

EDIT:

Having said this, while a connection between the names "Sherden" and "Sardinia" seems plausible, that doesn't automatically mean the Sherden really came from Sardinia. Given how the name "Sardinia" is only attested centuries later, and we do not know how much continuity there is between the inhabitants of Sardinia in Classical Antiquity and the previous Nuragic Civilization, it stands to reason that the Sherden migrated to Sardinia.

What I finally have to say is this:

Either you find peer-reviewed evidence to solidly proof your ideas (which I verymuch doubt that such a thing exists), or you just stop about this topic. I've had enough of it. End of story.

 

[how yes no 2]

The Sea Peoples were not a homogenous/coherent group. If you look at the various names that are preserved, this gets very clear. The people who attacked in Anatolia were probably not identical with those who attacked Egypt. The Egyptians eplicitly talk about the Sherden arriving by sea.

if you start on shores of Black sea attacking Hatti, than you want to continue by both land and sea... to do that you need to make land bridge to Arzawa..this bridge is exactly where Kurds live..and Kurds are related to Slavs genetically and linguistically... that gicves sound foundation for my hypothesis

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/49/Dialects.jpg

Kurds have both genetic and linguistic relation to Slavs that doesnot go via PIE or iranian people

Sorani tribe of Kurds is the one that share vocabulary with Slavic people
Sorani is same tribal name as Serians and as Zeruiani

Seneca speaks of Serians living in Europe, in Caspian highlands, in south Siberia/northwest China, and maintain control over red sea

now, how on earth do you think Serians arrived all the way to Red sea?

manuscript of Bavarian geographer says that country of Zeruiani was so big that all Slavs come from it

Zeruiani = Serians = Sorani

Serica where Serians live is area in northwest China/south Siberia, but also arc between China and India

do you see the arc between China and India?

comapare where haplogroup I arc makes turn with settlement of Pastun Sarbans... pay attention to location of turn from NW-SE direction to SW-NE direction.. (Herat area). perfect match with turn in spread of Pashtun Sarbans...

Pasthun Sarbans are clearly Serians

Serians are Kurdish Sorani who among Kurds share most words with Slavs that are not PIE nor iranic words
Serians in Europe are Zeruiani ancestors of Slavs... who are they?


Cimmerians settle Cappadocia...in Strabo's time they are called white Syrians (again same tribal name - Serians)

Thraco-Cimmerians match I2a2 and early Slavs in Europe...
Thraco-Cimmerians are Zeruiani from whom Slavs origin...

Serians in Caspian highlands who live among Sarmatians are Cimmerians and Serboi recorded by Ptolemy in Asian Sarmatia

sure it is possible that Sardinians participated too.... but how likely is that Sardinians made pact with people living so far of them? unless perhaps they were related people and spoke same language?

Besides, you lead yourself ad-absurdum. On the one hand you say that "Sherden" and "Serbians" are one and the same, and then you proclaim that analyzing languages is worthless. By your own logic, your purported connection of Sherden and Serbians should be worthless, shouldn't it?

you as linguist wanna be should know that you cannot expect all letters exactly the same when you use 3rd language to compare words in two different languages based on written text in 4th language whose pronounciation rules you do not know as last speakers able to write it died many years ago.....

already in english you make idiotic mistake - Serbs is about nation name, Serbians is about people living in Serbia... I do not speak of people living in Serbia... I speak of tribe and tribal name from which they origin... about tribe with same genetics, same tribal name ... perhaps that proto-tribe spoke same language as Serbs of today, but I do not really care about that.....I investigate proto-tribe from which Slavs and Serbs of today came to existance... I speak about Serians who are extremely likely forefathers of Slavic people and who from what we can see also did use Serb tribal name.... I speak of proto-Serbs and proto-Slavs not about proto-Serbians... Is it that difficult to understand? Is it my impression or you in fact do not want to understand, you do not really care what is the truth, you just try to negate everything I say...you use linguistic arguments about word not being exactly the same (every letter) in 4 languages with time span of 3200 years? did you turn your brain on this morning?


btw. tribal names that you should compare are Serbi and Sardi... to me it is clearly very likely same origin of tribal name...coupled with ones being I2a1 and others I2a2 probability of unrelated sources of tribal names is so little that it is ridicilous to argue it....

it is possible that Sardinians made pact with e.g. Scythians and Cimmerians and greek people to make conquest, but how likely is it considering distances? I am not convinced... but it is possible.... it is more likely if they spoke same language with proto- Kurds who are most likely of all people to originate from the land forces that did undertake conquest... we do not know language of ancient Sardinians, but we can see common points between Slavic languages and Sorani language of Kurds.... that speaks about some link in past... tribal name Sorani as in Kurds and tribal name Zeruiani as in proto-Slavs further strengthen this relation...

whole story I give here is much much more based on solid argument than any assumptions from that period that exist... only, I repeat only, link to sea people being Sardinians and Sicily is certian level of similarity of names and those two living near sea...it's a very vague hypothesys... in my opinion the reconstruction I gave here is much much more based on real arguments...

ither you find peer-reviewed evidence to solidly proof your ideas (which I verymuch doubt that such a thing exists), or you just stop about this topic. I've had enough of it. End of story.

you didnot turn on your brain after all...
this is forum, this is not encyclopedia...
look around...people have arguments...they propose ideas, they do not just come to copy/paste existing knowledge... that is not point of forums...forums would be very dull and boring place if that was the case.. forums like this exist to exchange opinions... to propose new ideas...to solve open questions.. I've had enough of your childish arguments... you said several times you are putting me on ignore list..so do it... keep your word

 

[Dagne]

how yes no,
do you happen to have a reference to those words: "Serians are Kurdish Sorani who among Kurds share most words with Slavs that are not PIE nor iranic words"

 

[zanipolo]

In my opinion and what I read in the past, the sea peoples where the myceneans of Agamemnon. The trojan war was part of the sea-peoples looting. Also the islands in the aegean sea ( most islands where mycenean, ), went on a piracy looting raids which went on for over a decade.
Most boats where of cyclanean design ( ex minoan type) , and these group of islands where mycenean.
Mycenea on the mainland when to poverty due to crop and trade failures.

 

[Taranis]

In my opinion and what I read in the past, the sea peoples where the myceneans of Agamemnon. The trojan war was part of the sea-peoples looting. Also the islands in the aegean sea ( most islands where mycenean, ), went on a piracy looting raids which went on for over a decade.
Most boats where of cyclanean design ( ex minoan type) , and these group of islands where mycenean.
Mycenea on the mainland when to poverty due to crop and trade failures.

Some of the Sea Peoples, without a doubt were of Mycenean/Greek origin in my opinion, and it also stands to reason that the historic basis of the Trojan War (consider that the Trojan War was written down only centuries later, and the Greeks were an illiterate people for many centuries in the meantime) was indeed related with the Sea Peoples' raids/migrations. However, as I stated before, I do not think that the Sea Peoples were an ethnically homogenous group, and it stands to argue that there were also Italian and Anatolian people amongst them.

What I'm somewhat sceptical about is in what way the Etruscans are affiliated with this:

The arrival of the Etruscans in Italy can be timed to either around or relatively immediately after the Sea People invasions in the East Med, the identification of the "Turiša" with the "Tyrsenoi" (that is, the Greek name for the Etruscans) is somewhat spurious, principally because the Etruscans refered to themselves as "Rasna" or "Rasena".

 

[zanipolo]

@ how yes and no

Why do you say the suebi are slavic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suebi

Why do you call I2a2 slavic when the I group was from the illyrians, the slavs inherited it by way of forcing the illyrians to become slavs.

why do you not say that G2 is thracian , all the evidence is in front of what you presented.

 

[how yes no 2]

how yes no,
do you happen to have a reference to those words: "Serians are Kurdish Sorani who among Kurds share most words with Slavs that are not PIE nor iranic words"

oh, sorry... I did not carefully reread what I wrote... it sounds as very strong statement but it was not meant to be....its strength was related to my strong impression that it must be the case, based on speaking shortly before that on this forum with someone who is Kurdish speaker and who said that non PIE and not iranic cognjates between Slavic and Kurdish that I have posted are mostly Sorani language...for me that was instant bingo...it was fitting perfectly in my theory of proto-Slavs being known as Serians... Sorani would be obviously the same tribal name

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showth...raqi-Kurdistan&p=371257&viewfull=1#post371257

@ how yes and no

Why do you say the suebi are slavic?

what? you now invent what other people said?
ok, lets play your game
Zanipolo, why do you say Albanians are same as English?

Why do you call I2a2 slavic when the I group was from the illyrians, the slavs inherited it by way of forcing the illyrians to become slavs.

you are aware that if haplogroup I2a2 in Balkan were Illyrians, than Albanians have nothing to do with Illyrians?

why do you not say that G2 is thracian , all the evidence is in front of what you presented.

I don't see how G2 is Thracian...
G2 is related to Caucasus, to Alans, perhaps to Hittite, somewhat to Etruscans.. but in Thrace I think it was only a lesser part of genetic...

In my opinion and what I read in the past, the sea peoples where the myceneans of Agamemnon. The trojan war was part of the sea-peoples looting.

while they could have been involved and while it is very likely that some of the ancient Greeks were involved, mycenian civilization perished in same years as a part of Bronze age collapse in mediteranian that is in opinion of many caused by sea peoples......so they are more likely to have been victims of new people from north...

worth nothing facts related to sea peoples that are often forgoten is that it is about invasion from far away lands in the north, that it included also big land movements, that it was settlement wave, that based on first conquers those people must have penetrated from Caucasus, or Black sea shores of Thrace and occupied area where Kurds live making the bridge between two sees... so in my opinion, who sea people were we can only find out by looking at tribal names, legends and genetics of Kurds...

 

[how yes no 2]

Some of the Sea Peoples, without a doubt were of Mycenean/Greek origin in my opinion, and it also stands to reason that the historic basis of the Trojan War (consider that the Trojan War was written down only centuries later, and the Greeks were an illiterate people for many centuries in the meantime) was indeed related with the Sea Peoples' raids/migrations. However, as I stated before, I do not think that the Sea Peoples were an ethnically homogenous group, and it stands to argue that there were also Italian and Anatolian people amongst them.

What I'm somewhat sceptical about is in what way the Etruscans are affiliated with this:

The arrival of the Etruscans in Italy can be timed to either around or relatively immediately after the Sea People invasions in the East Med, the identification of the "Turiša" with the "Tyrsenoi" (that is, the Greek name for the Etruscans) is somewhat spurious, principally because the Etruscans refered to themselves as "Rasna" or "Rasena".

hm, good point...

Greek name is based on relation to Taurus area or due to man who led Etruscans to Italy.... another possibility is that Greeks added Tau in front of Rasena to indicate some mixture of cultures or whatever...

Rasena might have been R1a tribal name...
Etruscans probably did bring R1a to Italy - that is strongly suggested from shape of R1a spread matching fairly well spread of Etruscans...also area from which they left is clear as hole in R1a...R1a was not only thing they brought there was J2 as well.. and some G2a

order: Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, Alashiya
thus, from southeast Black sea to south Anatolia, Crete, than along Syria to Egypt ....
is this reflected in R1a spread? looks a bit like it is...

Etruscans are non-IE speaking, but they come from Asia minor that was already IE speaking at the time (the movement happens decades after collapse of Hittite empire due to sea peoples)...
so what is the source of this R1a?
non-IE Hurians perhaps? are they still non-IE at the time of end of Hittite state?
or sea people arrival? or both?

The ends of several civilizations around 1175 BC have instigated a theory that the Sea Peoples may have caused the collapse of the Hittite, Mycenaean and Mitanni kingdoms. [29]
"A terminus ante quem for the destruction of the Hittite empire has been recognised in an inscription carved at Medinet Habu in Egypt in the eighth year of Ramesses III (1175 BC). This text narrates a contemporary great movement of peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, as a result of which "the lands were removed and scattered to the fray. No land could stand before their arms, from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, Alashiya on being cut off. [ie: cut down]"

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

thus, 1175 BC collapse of several civilizations

but
1194 BC: The beginning of the legendary Trojan War.

April 24, 1184 BC: Traditional date for the fall of Troy, Asia Minor to the Mycenaeans and their allies. This marks the end of the Trojan War of Greek mythology.

1180 BC: Collapse of Hittite power in Anatolia with the destruction of their capital Hattusa.

April 16, 1178 BC: A solar eclipse may mark the return of Odysseus, legendary King of Ithaca, to his kingdom after the Trojan War.

1159 BC: The Hekla 3 eruption triggers an 18-year period of climatic worsening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12th_century_BC


hm, something doesnot fit in timing.... Trojan war is not mentioned by any of historic documents from the neighbours of that time...Egypt inscription should place Troy before Hati but it does not...but was it mentioned in letters of Ugarit or Hittite? did it happen there at all? and when? what about many people who have legend of origin related to moving out after Trojan war? (e.g. Franks? or legend that twin brothers Romulus and Remus descended from the Trojan prince Aeneas)

what if those people who lost war moved into Europe causing big movement of people who were already there and who than went south as sea peoples?

movement of Etruscans happens due to 18 year long hunger - thus up to 40 years after sea peoples invasion... well in time when sea peoples already took over the area.... sea peoples taking over is supposed to bring to rapid end all the middle east civilizations...but Etruscans have highly developed civilization...


if sea peoples were proto-Slavic R1a carriers, than they could have brought R1a to area... conquest might have also bring R1a on Crete as it was conquered too...
but if R1a Etruscan / Rasena originated from sea people that implies R1a was non IE at the time?

how about Veneti being kicked out of Paphlagonia short after Trojan war due to their expedition with Cimmerians? short after Trojan war is time of sea peoples...but who kicked them out?

anyway, on trail of sea peoples being wave in which some proto-Slavic people participated...

the Peleset and Tjekker warriors who fought in the land battle [against Ramesses III] are accompanied in the reliefs by women and children loaded in ox-carts.

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

lol, Poles and Czechs?

 

[iapetoc]

Some of the Sea Peoples, without a doubt were of Mycenean/Greek origin in my opinion, and it also stands to reason that the historic basis of the Trojan War (consider that the Trojan War was written down only centuries later, and the Greeks were an illiterate people for many centuries in the meantime) was indeed related with the Sea Peoples' raids/migrations. However, as I stated before, I do not think that the Sea Peoples were an ethnically homogenous group, and it stands to argue that there were also Italian and Anatolian people amongst them.

What I'm somewhat sceptical about is in what way the Etruscans are affiliated with this:

The arrival of the Etruscans in Italy can be timed to either around or relatively immediately after the Sea People invasions in the East Med, the identification of the "Turiša" with the "Tyrsenoi" (that is, the Greek name for the Etruscans) is somewhat spurious, principally because the Etruscans refered to themselves as "Rasna" or "Rasena".

Indeed

Taranis you can be right,

For many Greeks, Cretans are considered as the policeman of the sea, at that time,

the case of sea people for me mostly has 5 version,

1) is the Lycaonia and Rhodes island people,

2) is the Myceneans after invated Crete, and the destruction of Naval forces by Volcanic activity
the story of Troy could be just 1 of the adventures

3) The Troyans after the fall of Troy

4) mercenaries that the time of troy became something like nation (either Troyans or Myceneans)

5) the Pelasgians (Etruscan branch (minor asia) or North Greek branch Ematheia or Thessaly)

the case of Athens and the Thyrrenean Pirates
written by Thoukidides,
also the Dionysus piracy written Hesiodos,
and many other lead us to Aegean,
and that Greeks always consider Etruscans as pirates (piracy of Helen, of Dionysus etc)
the most possible for me is that sea peoples were Troyan allies that after 10 years of war became something like nation, or lost their priviledges in their countries, and start looking for land, that lead us to an age before the mass devastation of Etruscans to Italy,

the case to be the Myceneans is the other major possibility also for me,
the Troyan war could be just 1 of their adventures,

the dates,
according Greeks the Troyan war happened at 1150-1250 BC,
according Phoenician calendar happened 950 BC,

in first case Hettit were at its maximum,
in 2nd did not exist,

a strange history-theory, connects Thera Volcanic activity, with Cretan naval destruction, with Hyksos invasion and the Exodus of Israelites from city Avaris,
according Geologists red sea Africa coast raise almost 5 m, that could move water quantities, but that still is little extraordinary.

some dates, like the the Exodus of israelites, the destroy of Thera and the naval forces of Crete, and the move west of Etruscans, are connected with the volcano of Thera,
probably sea peoples found open sea free, or their mother land was destroy by volcanic dust etc,

the geology of Aegean is known today, remember that every year more than 5000 earth quakes happens in Greece, it is also connected with the great Anatolian earthquake line, and the south Kythera line that drives west and north, the Ionic pelago line, a geologiacal mecanism that starts from Black sea and Armenia and after follow all Aegean south to Crete splits to Lycaonia and Kythera and goes up almost to Epirus.


How yes no

the case of Troyans is the most posible.
either Troyans, either some ally to them,
But Thyrrenians as Pelasgic are older than Troy,
the possibilty that the Fall of Troy destroy balances and a revolt by Hattians against Hettit, and a massive movement of devastation to the west cities either By Hettit, either by Hattianst to Attica or thessaly, and from there by sea to search for land, is a possible scenario

 

[zanipolo]

what? you now invent what other people said?
ok, lets play your game
Zanipolo, why do you say Albanians are same as English?

you have been saying the suebi could be proto-slavic as well as the baltic.
Since the term proto-slavic ONLY refers to linguistic terms and not genetic terms ( because it does not exist) . then you clearly refer to the language.

Finnic Language descent

[FONT=&quot]Figure 3.1[/FONT]​

Finnic Language Descent suggested by Inessive, Partitive, and Illative​

Clearly the tribes on the baltic sea have never been slavic until after 200AD, they where either germanic or finnic

you are aware that if haplogroup I2a2 in Balkan were Illyrians, than Albanians have nothing to do with Illyrians?

I already presented scholars theories on the albanians , the claims are that they are not of illyric descent but of dacian descent who migrate to albanian area and took the name of the albanoi

I don't see how G2 is Thracian...
G2 is related to Caucasus, to Alans, perhaps to Hittite, somewhat to Etruscans.. but in Thrace I think it was only a lesser part of genetic...

Check your posts, I agree that they are G2 , if that was not your intension, they I am confused.

while they could have been involved and while it is very likely that some of the ancient Greeks were involved, mycenian civilization perished in same years as a part of Bronze age collapse in mediteranian that is in opinion of many caused by sea peoples......so they are more likely to have been victims of new people from north...

worth nothing facts related to sea peoples that are often forgoten is that it is about invasion from far away lands in the north, that it included also big land movements, that it was settlement wave, that based on first conquers those people must have penetrated from Caucasus, or Black sea shores of Thrace and occupied area where Kurds live making the bridge between two sees... so in my opinion, who sea people were we can only find out by looking at tribal names, legends and genetics of Kurds...

you do realise that Miletus was mycenean at the time and there was a trading war with Troy. Troy prevented the passage of mycenean ship into the black sea so that they could deal with cochis for GOLD.

In regards to troy's allies , the eneti under Pylaemenes. I have found no hittite records mentioning the eneti. I only found Pylaemenes and his Paphlagonia, who inhabited the towns of Kytoros and Sesamos, near the reiver of Partheenios and Kromna in the land of the Bithynia

Strabo also could not find any evidence of the eneti in anatolia.

I have doubts that the eneti where anywhere near anatolia.

The book Origines Celticae, the henetoi in the adriatic are called the Benetoi.

 

[Taranis]

you have been saying the suebi could be proto-slavic as well as the baltic.
Since the term proto-slavic ONLY refers to linguistic terms and not genetic terms ( because it does not exist) . then you clearly refer to the language.

Finnic Language descent
Finnic Language Descent suggested by Inessive, Partitive, and Illative
http://www.paabo.ca/veneti/VENETICLANGUAGE_files/image031.jpg


Clearly the tribes on the baltic sea have never been slavic until after 200AD, they where either germanic or finnic

Let me say this: Common Slavic (Proto-Slavic, if you will) must have been spoken very late. Specifically, there's a few borrowings from Gothic (or otherwise East Germanic) which are common to the Slavic languages. If we consider the development of the Germanic languages (consider that Common Germanic itself was spoken relatively late, which I elaborated in the "Celtic and Pre-Germanic" thread). This kind of narrows down the timing of Common Slavic to circa 400-600 AD. However, what is less clear is when Common Balto-Slavic was spoken: the split between the Baltic family and Pre-Slavic must have been earier.

I already presented scholars theories on the albanians , the claims are that they are not of illyric descent but of dacian descent who migrate to albanian area and took the name of the albanoi

The name "Albanian" is an exonym, anyways. In their own language, they call themselves "Shqiptarët". Personally, I have no satisfying solution for Albanian, either.

 

[zanipolo]

on R1a the terminiloy for genetics is not proto-slavic , but proto-indo-European

R1a likely originated in the Eurasian Steppes, and may be associated with the Kurgan culture and Proto-Indo-European expansion. It is primarily found in Central and Western Asia, India, and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, as well as among some populations of Mongolia and southern Siberia, where it might reflect Scythian influences of classical antiquity.

 

[Taranis]

on R1a the terminiloy for genetics is not proto-slavic , but proto-indo-European

R1a likely originated in the Eurasian Steppes, and may be associated with the Kurgan culture and Proto-Indo-European expansion. It is primarily found in Central and Western Asia, India, and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, as well as among some populations of Mongolia and southern Siberia, where it might reflect Scythian influences of classical antiquity.

I was refering purely to linguistics, actually.