h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

you have me to a tee there 3Dots

I think that's in pretty poor taste, Dots, to take a picture of a woman with a glazed expression, seeing stars, still in her nightdress, tattoo of some woman's name on her right arm that she didn't have the night before, up the duff with no clue who the father is, and say it looks like a Researcher here

Gif

Hi Gif

Perhaps I wasn't very clear.

Remembering that in Egyptian, like many oriental languages, there is only one letter to represent both l and r (which is why Japanese folks fill up their cars with gasorin), so the name on the Medinet Habu inscriptions of Rameses III can be rendered either p-l-s-t (philistine), or as p-r-s-t (persian). You can see that both the Persians and the representation of the p-l-s-t from Medinet Habu wear a distinctive helmet made in strips.

Their is no record, save the Egyptian one, of the invasion attempt of the Peleset and the Sea Peoples (two distinct groups); no record of where they came from, or what happened to them afterwards. Nor is there any explanation of their initial alliance with Rameses against the Libyans, or the shift in alliance of the Sea peoples from Rameses in the second phase of the war, to the Peleset in the third and final phase.

Conversely, in the fourth century there is no Egyptian record of the war between Egypt and Persia, and the shifting role of the Greeks, our principle source being Diodorus of Sicily. The two histories are uncannily similar.

So you can breathe easy - the Philistines and the Persians are not the same people.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

OK, I'm a little confused by what your point here is then.

I followed what you said about the similarity in names, and I can see the similarity in headgear (though note the distinctive difference in facial hair - Persians are always shown with curly beards, Philistines never are). However, look a little closer and I think you will see that the Philistine is wearing a plume (some kind of hairy tufts), whereas the Persian is wearing a banded helmet. So even that similarity is illusory.

But perhaps that's irrelevant, if you're saying the Sea Peoples weren't Philistines (but then why use a picture of a Philistine to illustrate a Sea Person?)? Why would Persians - a single ethnic group who attacked overland and conquered Egypt - be referred to as 'sea peoples', a loose coalition whose marine invasion was repulsed?

>Their is no record, save the Egyptian one, of the invasion attempt of the Peleset

Although the Sea Peoples are *mostly* known from Egyptian records, the Egyptians name some tribes who also appear in the Ugaritic records (and in case your riposte is that Ugaritic history relies upon Egyptian history alone, it can be tied to Hittite history, which means you have to deal with Mursili's eclipse in that case). And the disruption caused by the invasion is seen throughout the eastern Med.

To surmise:

So we have (up to) 3 groups of people with similar names - the 'Sea Peoples' / Peleset (who are the same group, though composed of several distinct ethnic groups - your post could be read as saying the Peleset are not the same as the Sea Peoples), the Philistines and the Persians. Most archaeologists identify the Sea Peoples with the Philistines. Which (if any) of those groups are you saying are the same?

>the Philistines and the Persians are not the same people

So why did you link to pictures of the two and point out similarities? I thought that was exactly what you *were* saying? I think I've lost the plot a little here...

Gif

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091019/entertainment/portugal_literature_religion


~jwf~

IS that Richard Dawkins dad?!?!!

Well and bravely said sir...I salute you...

Sitting at my local library terminal I just checked to see if they had the new Dawkin's book. There are 90 reservations ahead of me.

Last time, with the God Delusion I went out and bought a copy to avoid the line-up. And when I'd finished it I gave it to the library. They were ever so grateful.

The one 'charitable' act of my life, donating an atheists' manifesto to a public library.


~jwf~

You could always pass on one of thsi humanists books:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8314778.stm

Hi Gif

Sorry, this does get complicated.

When the Medinet Habu inscriptions were deciphered in the mid nineteenth century, the name of their principle adversary was read as P-l-s-t or P-r-s-t. Rameses III having already been assigned a date in the 12th century (and this happened at least as early as 1819, before the hieroglyphs were read), the reading P-l-s-t was accepted (there being, as you say, no Persians around at that time), and they were identified as Philistines, a people otherwise known only from the bible. Since there are no pictures of Philistines from elsewhere, any picture you see of a "Philistine", will, in fact, be a picture of a P-r-s-t, from Medinet Habu.

Along with the P-l-s-t, another group, loosely known as The Peoples of the Sea, also appear in the inscriptions. They wear horned helmets, with or without a disc in the centre, and a list of their names appears in the inscriptions, and also in the Great Papyrus Harris. Some of these names appear in texts from Ugarit (or in the el-Amarna letters); some appear in Rameses II's account of the Battle of Kadesh, and a more similar list appears on the Merneptah Stele. A couple also appear in inscriptions from Ptolemaic times. Their identities can be guessed at, but are not known for certain. The reasons for the complex changes of alliance depicted in the inscriptions are a mystery.

The Persians invaded and conquered Egypt in 525 BC, and maintained control pretty much until the end of the 5th century, when, while the Persians were occupied elsewhere, the Egyptians regained a measure of independence under Nepherites and Acoris. According to Diodorus, in about 380 the throne passed to Nectanebo I. Because he was still a vassal king, he had assistance from the Persians and Greek mercenaries in defeating Libyan incursions into the Delta, then afterwards, with the help of the Greeks, he expelled the Persians, and became fully independent. Following political negotiations between Persia and Athens, however, the Greeks returned to Greece, and Athens provided mercenaries to assist the Persian reconquest of Egypt. The main assault was by sea and the Persians were defeated.

The history of Ugarit is indeed dated by Egyptian history, as is Hittite history. The "solar omen" of Mursilis does puzzle me, for obvious reasons. What did you make of the stratification of Gordium and the positioning of the Hittite strata between the Phrygians and the Persians?

Noggin

<< What did you make of the stratification of Gordium ?>>

It's a knotty question, that.

Hi Nog,

OK, so that's a rough outline of the 'standard' history of the Philistines, Persians and Sea Peoples. You're right that the link between the Philistines and Sea Peoples is more assumption than proof, but how does this support re-dating the whole lot?

>Along with the P-l-s-t, another group, loosely known as The Peoples of the Sea, also appear in the inscriptions.

Every source that I can find says that the Sea Peoples included the plst (Philistines, probably), among others. Not sure how important the distinction is in this context.

>The history of Ugarit is indeed dated by Egyptian history, as is Hittite history. The "solar omen" of Mursilis does puzzle me, for obvious reasons.

It doesn't need to puzzle you if you can accept that it can be used to date Hittite history independent of the Egyptians!

>What did you make of the stratification of Gordium and the positioning of the Hittite strata between the Phrygians and the Persians?

I haven't looked yet. As I said, I'm trying to stick to one issue at a time 'cos these are not things I'm familiar with. It seems to me that pottery supports the existence of a Greek Dark Age (and thus the 'standard chronology') and I don't see anything in the Philistines / Persians to dispute that.

So far, I think that out-of-place pottery has been your strongest point. If you want to move on to Hittite strata next, let's go!

Gif

Catholic church makes it easy for gay and women loathing anglicans to join them and keep their identity.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8316120.stm

Imaginary friend worshipping sexist homophobes unite!

What about the gays and women who actually like anglicans, can they join too?

The post you want is 21650 (click on "this is a reply to this posting" at the top of this post )

The Phrygian city of Gordium was destroyed in or shortly after 687 BC. The Persian city was built in about 550.

The explanation for the Hittite layer, is, shall we say, a little strained.

The coincidence of historic events is equally important, something which the standard history of Egypt in the 20th and 21st dynasties is lacking.

Noggin

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go2081/is_4_121/ai_n28888376/

A note of caution on the "solar omen" citing the Hittite text.

Noggin

Hi Nog,

OK, I've found a source on Gordium available online:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OGBGauNBK8kC&pg=RA3-PA625&lpg=RA3-PA625&dq=gordium+hittite&source=bl&ots=wlo8Ku9QGn&sig=TFqdQvQu-eaU4lWGJ_d7cg0jpOk&hl=en&ei=SwzeSvTaI4n14AaD1OQI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBIQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=gordium%20hittite&f=false
(don't know if it'll display properly; I'm looking at p. 626 of the Cambridge Ancient History, Vol 3 Pt 2):
"The Phrygian levels of the large mound overlie a site of the third and second millennia BC., with an apparently uneventful transition from the Hittite empire strata to those of recognizable Phrygian character. The difference is mainly visible in pottery..."

p642 mentions that a neo-Hittite deity is associated with the Phrygian period, and it also seems that Mita (Midas) had allegiances with neo-Hittite kings.

So we have a strong association of the Phrygians with the neo-Hittites. We have even stronger reasons to think that the neo-Hittites came after the Hittites. (Random article discussing Hittite vs neo-Hittite in ceramics, metals, etc: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dL3zf0Wkx80C&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=Rodney+Young+at+Gordion&source=bl&ots=LRuG3J-FVW&sig=r1v_zuZQpsmwldjGmuHLaJojHcM&hl=en&ei=RxDeSsb1K9Ww4Qb93ZwT&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false) At best, therefore, we have contradictory data if we find a Hittite layer on top of a Phrygian layer.

But, of course, that's not what your source seems to be saying.

http://home.att.net/~gordion/
http://www.penn.museum/documents/publications/expedition/PDFs/51-2/FromTheDirector.pdf

Young *did not* conclude that the Hittites occupied Gordium after the Phrygians. In fact, in the section you quoted, he seemed quite clear that the Hittite sherds were not in situ when discovered - they were moved by later peoples (this is easy for archaeologists to spot, so I understand). So yes, why they should have gone to such lengths to use that particular clay, I can't say. But it seems much easier to conclude that they did than to reverse the order of the Hittites and the neo-Hittites in the face of evidence that the latter succeeded the former.

Gif

Hi Nog,

Yes, I agree that there is a deductive process to get from 'solar omen' to 'total eclipse'. However, in the absence of other candidates to explain the phrase, it seems the most reasonable conclusion.

Gif

Don´t forget sun dogs, though I don´t know if those show up in warm climates.

Archeologists, being generally nice honest folks, probably never consider that a lot of broken crockery found 'out of place and out of sequence' may well be loot from raids upon passing caravans or from expeditions of conquest and plunder.

Just because future archeologists might find piles of empty beer bottles round the mound of my decaying hovel does not mean I was a glass blower. Or even a beer drinker. I could have imported them (full or empty) during a passing phase in which I considered filling them with sand and stacking them on their sides to create thicker walls or some strange glass garden folly.

Whose to say these 'incongruous' shards were not part of some ransom paid by outsiders, buried treasure dragged home from some foreign hills, vessels looted from a neighboring kingdom, or some aborted plan to build thicker walls or garden follies.


~jwf~