Luwian studies

Angela said:
I don't know if you saw this post on the Dienekes blog. I hope he doesn't mind my posting it here.
" Nobody doubts that Bronze Age collapse happened. Nobody doubts that Sea Peoples raided coastal civilizations in the Eastern Med. Nobody doubts (any more) that the Trojan War really happened. Bronze Age collapse did fell the Mycenean, the Hittite and the Egyptian empires, ushering in the Iron Age a few hundred years later.

But, I am with those that look to fundamentals like climate change and declining trade, rather than to the particular military and political coalitions that seized the moment to tear down civilization. And, a focus on Luwian Civilization is undermined by the fact that Bronze Age collapse had an impact as far away as Denmark, rather than being limited to the Eastern Med.

Could Luwians have played a part in effectuating Bronze Age Collapse? Sure. Did they do so as a well organized central coalition that was the primary proximate cause of the demise of Mycenean, Hittite and Egyptian civilization? I rather doubt it.

Were Luwians the Sea People? They may have been one subset of Sea People, but we know from archaeological evidence that one group of Sea People (the Philistines) were Mycenean Greeks who were resettled in basically the Gaza Strip pursuant to a deal with Egypt to leave it alone in future raids. Realistically, the Sea People were less an ethnically defined nation and more a disparate collection of refugees and raiders aggressively seeking out resources from coastal cities when the economies of their homelands collapsed for reasons beyond their control."

I'm not sure that we know the Philistines were Mycenaean Greeks, but other than that, I rather agree with "Andrew's" assessment of what the evidence currently suggests.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/luwians-vs-hittites-and-mycenaeans-vs.html

(Fwiw, I share your frustration with the posting of conclusions for which there is absolutely no proof. )
Click to expand...

there are indications that the Philistines came from the Aegean area
some of them had allready settled in the Gaza area earlier, maybe traders and farmers
they seem to have kept contacts with their homeland
so during the turmoil of the Sea Peoples more Philistines arrived
it doesn't look like it was a military conquest
 
bicicleur said:
there are indications that the Philistines came from the Aegean area
some of them had allready settled in the Gaza area earlier, maybe traders and farmers
they seem to have kept contacts with their homeland
so during the turmoil of the Sea Peoples more Philistines arrived
it doesn't look like it was a military conquest
Click to expand...

there already is a 2014 Israeli documentary via digs on Philistines originating from eastern crete from Mycenaean descent
 
MOESAN said:
this affirmation concerning Veneti "bored my ace" (sorry Angela). Perhaps it's true but I need confirmation. Have you the link to the survey about this Anatolia connexion for Veneti? Genetics "showed" the one and its opposite more than a time according to agendas - look at Etruscans studies -
Thanks beforehand.
&: just: these Luwian thing leaves me very doubtfull. A "rubbish" bag of diverse folks? Or a true unity???
What remains is what seems an at least partial tentative of migration of Hittites towards South and a sea coalition (Greeks? + "Pelasgians" + diverse mercenaries of the Italian and Aegean Isles sacking or trying to colonize South Eastern Mediterranea. A domino effect for some reasons seems sensible. I 've a book at home but cannot reach it just now;
Click to expand...

I have already place on this site many times the results of natgeno study 2005-2010 in regards to the veneti-north anatolian association, which also includes the non-association with brittany veneti or baltic veneti

I never believed in this veneti -north anatolian association until I saw these results
 
Sile said:
there already is a 2014 Israeli documentary via digs on Philistines originating from eastern crete from Mycenaean descent
Click to expand...

Sile both times I think you confuse the Minoans, with the Mycaineans,

Minoans might not be IE,

Mycainae was IE.
 
about Phillistines and Minoans etc etc,

not only the known cities,
But even in areas that no one will ever imagine,
like Tel-Kabri, which seems to be a city of 3 citadels, 1 of them purely Aegan, (Aegean is not Mycenean, but close enough to Minoan)
area not known as Phillistine area,

Avaris Egypt. Tel-Kabri and Allalakh are known Cretan/Minoan Citadels,
from 2011 started a search about the abilities of Aegean and Minoan civilization and colonial system, which until today give many,
it is certain that Aegeans and Minoans even colonise Iberia (Spain) and still argue about Norway and American continent,
all that before the Thera Volcanoe and the exit from Avaris,
there was some publishing about cherrokee Ameridians that have Cretan origin, and copper mines etc,
but to most I can not access,
 
Angela said:
I don't know if you saw this post on the Dienekes blog. I hope he doesn't mind my posting it here.
" Nobody doubts that Bronze Age collapse happened. Nobody doubts that Sea Peoples raided coastal civilizations in the Eastern Med. Nobody doubts (any more) that the Trojan War really happened. Bronze Age collapse did fell the Mycenean, the Hittite and the Egyptian empires, ushering in the Iron Age a few hundred years later.

But, I am with those that look to fundamentals like climate change and declining trade, rather than to the particular military and political coalitions that seized the moment to tear down civilization. And, a focus on Luwian Civilization is undermined by the fact that Bronze Age collapse had an impact as far away as Denmark, rather than being limited to the Eastern Med.

Could Luwians have played a part in effectuating Bronze Age Collapse? Sure. Did they do so as a well organized central coalition that was the primary proximate cause of the demise of Mycenean, Hittite and Egyptian civilization? I rather doubt it.

Were Luwians the Sea People? They may have been one subset of Sea People, but we know from archaeological evidence that one group of Sea People (the Philistines) were Mycenean Greeks who were resettled in basically the Gaza Strip pursuant to a deal with Egypt to leave it alone in future raids. Realistically, the Sea People were less an ethnically defined nation and more a disparate collection of refugees and raiders aggressively seeking out resources from coastal cities when the economies of their homelands collapsed for reasons beyond their control."

I'm not sure that we know the Philistines were Mycenaean Greeks, but other than that, I rather agree with "Andrew's" assessment of what the evidence currently suggests.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/luwians-vs-hittites-and-mycenaeans-vs.html

(Fwiw, I share your frustration with the posting of conclusions for which there is absolutely no proof. )
Click to expand...

Thanks Angela. I 'm not at home just now but red a seemingly good book about Sea People. My memory is not so good and I forgot a lot; what I retained from this book is rather prudent suppositions without too much steep affirmations for a not too well known period in East Mediterranea. What remained is an apparently heavy enough move or try to move of Hittites towards South, with women and children and not only male soldiers if I remind well.
 
Here we go again. I just read the paper cited in post #27.

https://www.academia.edu/1822403/Graeco-Anatolian_Contacts_in_the_Mycenaean_Period

It cannot be used to support the proposition that "the Mycenaeans destroyed the minoans and in turn the Dorians destroyed the myceneans ( in crete )".

It doesn't address that question at all. It is a linguistic paper looking at influences between the Mycenaean language and Anatolian languages, and concludes that the influences were scarce, probably because the Mycenaean influence in Anatolia was very circumscribed in both time and geography. No mention is made of war, while trade and cultural exchanges are discussed a great deal.

Moderator note: Posters are urged to read papers carefully before proffering them as support for one hypothesis or another. The failure to do so can totally mislead readers if they don't take the time to read the said papers. Readers, if at all possible try to at least read the conclusion of posted papers before taking them as gospel.

 
http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/HIST301-1.3-MycenaeanCiv-FINAL.pdf


http://www.explorecrete.com/archaeology/minoan-civilization-destruction.html


Invasion by Mycenaeans - Complete destruction of the Minoan Civilization


mycenean-sword.jpg

Mycenean sword found in a tomb in Chania

​
Archaeologists have now enough evidence to believe that the reputed Minoan Civilization was severely damaged and affected by the eruption of Santorini Volcano, which destroyed their fleet.
Prosperity and safety of the Minoans relied on their ships; since their main means of existence and defense were afflicted, Minoans became an easy prey for the Mycenaean invaders that came to island from the Greek Mainland.


EDIT: there are many here who blow their own trumpet for glory , who use important information found by others and claiming it for themselves.
 
A. Papadimitriou said:
Can't be sure. The dating of Trojan War is supposed to be (1260–1180 BC)
And the Etruscan civilization is dated in the following period ( 768 BC–264 BC)

So, not impossible at least.

The Lemnian language, supposedly similar to Etruscan, very close to Troy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemnian_language (but much later chronologically)

And in my opinion the 'Pelasgians' were a related group of people. In Homer the Pelasgians are allies of Troy. Many of them became Hellenes it seems, though.

Also toponyms or placenames which contain -ss-, -tt-, -nth-, are considered pre-Greek. So, probably, the original inhabitants of Attica were pre-Greek 'Pelasgians', possibly related to Trojans and Hattians.

Pelasgians also were expelled from Attica by Athenians.

Then in the Middle Ages we encounter these myths, whatever that means https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks#Mythological_origins (Turks here = a people probably related to Magyars)

What I say is probably the opposite of what most people here think. Take that into account if you wish.
Click to expand...

Bernard Sergent thinks Pelasgoi would be restricted to Phillistins who stayed rather in South-Western Balkans and were a set of ancient Macro-Italic speakers as Dalmatians and pre-Samnite pre-latin tribes of Southern Italy, distinct from genuine Illyrians. Some of them went to Aegea and associated themselves in some way to Tyrsenoi considered as Etruscans around the 'Sea People' time, Etruscans autochtonous or not of these Aegea area. The term 'pelasge' became overused after by Greeks for every supposed predecessor. But the linguistic layer referring to the suffixes in -anth, -tt, -ss, pre-Greek, would have been of different origin spite they were I-Eans too: a group of languages akin to Anatolian ones, finally.
The linguistic quality of the very Troyans remain still a mystery.
 
It could help or not?

Kadesh battle,around 1286/1285 BC on the Oronte river.
Hittie Muwatallisagainst pharaon Ramses III : last battle between both.
Charriots battle.« Kadesh list » : in Louxor : alliees of Hittiteswhose names reappeared later among the North and Sea People ofEgyptians :
- Nahrin = Mitanni
- Arzawa (betweenHittite empire and coastal states like Millawanda - surely Milet -and Lukka countries
- Dardany (Drdny),perhaps the Dardanoi of Homere, so Troia people – in every case,this Dardany are localized in NW Anatolia
- Kashka (Keshkesh)of N Anatolia, later become enemies of the Hittites
not mentioned inlater egyptian doc's about sea raiders :
- Lukka (uncertainlocalization : NW : Lykaonia, or SW Karia ?
- Kizzawatna =Cilicia (very close relations with Hittites) : the most of themspoke a Louwian dialect as did peope of Arzawa. Others spoke Hurriandialect
- Karchemish, closeto Kizzuwatna
+ Ugarit* city,Khaled = Alep city, Kadesh city...
* : Ugaritwould have had a special corpse of elite charriots warriors, foreignmercenaries directly under the king and often of I-Ean origin –since the XIV°Cy the semitic names became a minority in the palaceand the administration.
In XIV°Cy too,the garnisons men of Carmel Monts at the service of Egyptians haveI-Ean names !


Around1220 BC, Merneptah was obliged to fight against Lybians and theirallies. In fact it was an invasion which was planned. Aside theLybians, there were their neighbours Meshwesh, and people « ofthe North » : Sherden (Shardana), Lukka, Ekswesh* (eg.Ikws), Teresh (eg. Trs) and Shekelesh (eg. Skrs). The Shardana werealready mentioned in wars in Byblos in the XIV°Cy and later, butwithout mention of geographic origin.
* :the hypothetic identifications of the Ekwesh to the Ahhiyawa andof these last ones to Akhaiwoi (Acheans) are still withoutconfirmation. The Ahhiyawa's high position in their relations withHittites and their certain maritime force is not sufficient tolocalize them precisely : continental Greece ?Egea ? Western Anatolia shores ?
The Teresh could be the Taruisha of the Hittites, who localized themNorth the Assuwa so near the Troiad, bu they were localized too inLydia, and considered by someones as the Tyrsenoi and Etruscans.
& : an Egyptian sculptor described a Teresh chief with abeard, a short thick nose and thick lips. Concerning Shekelesh, N.K.Sandars considere them the same as the Sikels possibly of Anatolianorigin without ascribe them a family language (I-Ean or not, forus)...


around 1186 occurred what the Egyptians scribes named « Theraids from the Great land and from the Sea ». Supposedconspiration of the enemies in their islands. According to theEgyptians, Hatti, Kode (Kizzuwatna), Carchemish, Arzawa and Alishiya(Cyprus) were silated. In the coalition there were Peleset(Phillistins?), Tjeker (?), Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh. Curiouslyor not, a land battle preceded the naval battle. Two wheel cartsdrawn by 4 oxen were described, and in them, women, children :signs of emigration from Anatolia regions, and not only a militaryconquest. It' of some importance for History I personally think.
& : concerning physical aspects, all the enemies aredescribed as slim angulous men with « imperious » andhard aspect, far from the common descriptions of the Amorrites,Syrians and Hittites, these last ones often described as ratherflabby (something evocating today majority of Georgians aside of linguistic considerations ? Idon't now).


This is what I found the book I have. Maybe later studies haveshown more precise geographical localizations ? But the bookgives insights about causes of the Hittite falling down. I seenothing in it about a strong Luwian confederation except the luwian dialect seems having been largely spred. I'll post latersome abstract of the Sandars opinion about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 19293 times.

Back
Top