Really? I mean at least there was a genetic study that indicated the Japanese case was more than fanciful speculation, that is until the implication of the study was rebutted by another paper. AFAIK, the Chinese case has been even weaker.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Really? I mean at least there was a genetic study that indicated the Japanese case was more than fanciful speculation, that is until the implication of the study was rebutted by another paper. AFAIK, the Chinese case has been even weaker.
Should be noted that we do know that cross-Bering strait contact was a relatively continous thing: It's just that the peoples on either side of that strait were kind of far away and isolated from everyone else.
It had very little to do with "feeling good", it's just that the Chinese Empire was more interested in tributaries and inferior foreigners that could proclaim its superiority, rather than ethnic cleansing for the sake of resource extraction. Chinese founded plenty of settlements outside of China proper, just not under the direction from (or indeed the acknowledgement of) their government.
Interestingly we now do have evidence for polynesians having contact with south america.
https://phys.org/news/2013-01-sweet-potato-dna-early-polynesians.html
The Chinese did colonize and at a grand scale as well. They were simply so successful about it that most of the populations whose territories they took over were assimilated into the Han ethnicity.
Truth is, we are not certain. 9 differents peoples are mentions by an ancient Egyptians source. Of those 9 only 1 is precisely identified as being the Philistines. For the other ones, it is merely a guessing game, looking at the consonant similarities.
And the "Greeks" considered themselves as three different peoples recognized as "Greeks". Anyway, the "Sea Peoples" an improper denomination given to group of unknown invaders coming from the Mediterranean. They might have come from the places you mentioned, or the Egyptians were wrong in their hypothesis or the consonants similarities mislead us.
We actually know that they navigated the Mediterranean, there is no certainty that they were from the area. Highest possibility, yes.
It is known that the Minoans were plundered, as Canaan, the Hittites or the Egyptians were. One can safely assume that it is the same waves of invasion that are responsible for that. However, the origin of those peoples is unknown, so is their fate (except for the Philistines). Maybe they were Archaic Greeks, maybe they passed through Greece then took the sea, maybe they came from the western Mediterranean and plundered their way through Greece. I find all of this uncertainty a bit exciting to be honest
It is fascinating stuff, definitely. I would add to the question of origin and fate of the Sea Peoples, the simple one of their approximate size. The Philistines occupied just 5 cities, in which they probably were a ruling minority at first - and there is some evidence that other Sea Peoples contributed to the settlement. Even if the seaborne invasions were accompanied by groups moving overland, as some scholars suggest, they must have been small groups relative to the empires they fought.
Also, in addition to destruction around the eastern Mediterranean, there is evidence of invasions into the fertile crescent from the south, affecting not only the Levant but also Mesopotamia. Though the Assyrian empire survived, it went through a period of crisis and contraction. Babylonia reemerged for a short time, Elam perished. This wave of invasions is less certainly dated and may have followed the weakening of the empires after seaborne attacks, or after their social and economic consequences. As all 3 great empires of the preceding era were affected, the invasions must have caused (or coincided with) knock-on effects such as decreased trade and population decline in key areas. This struck at the tax/resource base of the main empires, reducing their capacity to fight as well as to control economic life. Perhaps the most significant casualty of the Bronze Age Collapse is the palace economy.
Also, in addition to destruction around the eastern Mediterranean, there is evidence of invasions into the fertile crescent from the south, affecting not only the Levant but also Mesopotamia. Though the Assyrian empire survived, it went through a period of crisis and contraction. Babylonia reemerged for a short time, Elam perished. This wave of invasions is less certainly dated and may have followed the weakening of the empires after seaborne attacks, or after their social and economic consequences. As all 3 great empires of the preceding era were affected, the invasions must have caused (or coincided with) knock-on effects such as decreased trade and population decline in key areas. This struck at the tax/resource base of the main empires, reducing their capacity to fight as well as to control economic life. Perhaps the most significant casualty of the Bronze Age Collapse is the palace economy.
It is known that the Minoans were plundered, as Canaan, the Hittites or the Egyptians were. One can safely assume that it is the same waves of invasion that are responsible for that. However, the origin of those peoples is unknown, so is their fate (except for the Philistines). Maybe they were Archaic Greeks, maybe they passed through Greece then took the sea, maybe they came from the western Mediterranean and plundered their way through Greece. I find all of this uncertainty a bit exciting to be honest
It is exciting. It's not even the cliche 'open to interpretation' as there's nothing much to interpret. It could be almost anything.
Could be some pre-Celtic or pre-Norse people from the north that loved to raid the area in that period for all we know.
I'm pretty sure there is some evidence scattered around that could make several stories plausible, but not so sure we've gathered enough of it.
Some probably farfetched scenario connects them with the return of the Danaans and Achaeans from Troy. Heroes like Teucros and Eumaeos were said to have reached Egypt after the war, so someone tried to be creative by connecting two dots. It's a "why not?" idea I guess.
might have just been Minoan peasants staging an uprising.It is known that the Minoans were plundered, as Canaan, the Hittites or the Egyptians were. One can safely assume that it is the same waves of invasion that are responsible for that. However, the origin of those peoples is unknown, so is their fate (except for the Philistines). Maybe they were Archaic Greeks, maybe they passed through Greece then took the sea, maybe they came from the western Mediterranean and plundered their way through Greece. I find all of this uncertainty a bit exciting to be honest
i know that the Sea Peoples stuff is a fascinating topic, and it's going to be complicated, but I've long thought that it was Cretans/Ionians. They were some of the most advanced people in the area at the time, they'd just gotten whacked by Santorini, and they took to their ships.
They had superior technology, superior organization, knowledge of locals in the eastern med, and little reason to look back.
The chronology doesn't work; the Santorini eruption is approximately 3 centuries before the Bronze Age Collapse.
That doesn't rule out a connection to Greece or even the Minoans. There's linguistic evidence that the Philistines used Greek words before they adopted Canaanite. The name Ekwesh for one of the sea peoples has been linked to Achaeans. Minoan civilization survived the Thera eruption with some alterations in material culture, even though it was conquered at some point by Mycenaeans, but it was destroyed in the Bronze Age Collapse, as was mainland Mycenaean civilization. There is even evidence of destruction of northern Mycenaean palaces decades before the Collapse, so prima facie evidence that the trouble started in the Agaean Sea area. But the cause was certainly not Santorini.
The Sea Peoples historiography is a bit iffy though. It is said that their reign of terror was going for like 100 years and the relations between Egypt and the Hittites is the most important detail. There's no way we can know if they were relevant +/- 200 years from that period of time.
Apparently there was a wheat shortage that devestated the wider regions of the Nile, but we have no insight of what anything west of Egypt and Crete was like, what kind of trading hubs existed and what kind of people/nations existed in proximity. We have some knowledge about the East, but pretty much nothing on the West.
It is naive to assume that the West was completely irrelevant during those times and 'barbaric' due to lack of information, just like unknown Germania had always been a threat to "civilized Rome".
I don't think there's enough evidence to isolate the Sea Peoples to roughly an area between the Aegean and the Levant.
Apparently there was a wheat shortage that devestated the wider regions of the Nile, but we have no insight of what anything west of Egypt and Crete was like, what kind of trading hubs existed and what kind of people/nations existed in proximity. We have some knowledge about the East, but pretty much nothing on the West.
It is naive to assume that the West was completely irrelevant during those times and 'barbaric' due to lack of information, just like unknown Germania had always been a threat to "civilized Rome".
I don't think there's enough evidence to isolate the Sea Peoples to roughly an area between the Aegean and the Levant.