سمندری لوگ

سمندری لوگ ایک مفروضہ سمندری کنفیڈریشن ہے جس نے قدیم مصر اور مشرقی بحیرہ روم کے دیگر خطوں پر کانسی کے زمانے کے خاتمے (1200 – 900 قبل مسیح) سے پہلے اور اس کے دوران حملہ کیا تھا۔ ^[1] ^[2] 19ویں صدی میں اس تصور کی تخلیق کے بعد، سمندری لوگوں کی دراندازی مصری تاریخ کے سب سے مشہور بابوں میں سے ایک بن گئی، جس کا تعلق ولہیلم میکس میولر کے الفاظ میں، " نسلیات اور قدیم کے سب سے اہم سوالات سے ہے۔ کلاسک قوموں کی تاریخ"۔ ^[3] ^[4]

سمندری لوگوں میں اچھی طرح سے تصدیق شدہ گروہ جیسے لوکّہ اور ساتھ ہی دوسرے جیسے ویشیش بھی شامل تھے جن کی اصلیت نامعلوم ہے۔ مختلف گروہوں کی اصل کے بارے میں مفروضے بہت زیادہ قیاس آرائیوں کا ذریعہ ہیں۔ بظاہر ان میں سے کئی ایجیئن قبائل تھے، جبکہ دیگر کی ابتدا سسلی ، سارڈینیا ، قبرص اور مغربی اناطولیہ میں ہوئی ہے۔

فرانسیسی مصری ماہر ایمانوئل ڈی روگے نے پہلی بار peuples de la mer اصطلاح استعمال کی۔ (لفظی طور پر "سمندر کے لوگ") 1855 میں میدینیت ہابو میں دوسرے پائلن پر ریلیف کی تفصیل میں، رمیسس III کے سال 8 کی دستاویز کرتے ہوئے۔^[5]^[6] 19ویں صدی کے آخر میں، گیستں ماسپیرو ، جو کولیژے دی فراںس میں دی روژے کے جانشین تھے، نے بعد میں "سمندری لوگ" کی اصطلاح اور اس سے منسلک ہجرت کے نظریہ کو مقبول بنایا۔ ^[7] 1990 کی دہائی کے اوائل سے، ان کے ہجرت کے نظریہ کو متعدد اسکالرز نے سوال میں لایا ہے۔ اسے "گہری پریشانی کا شکار نظریہ اور ایک ایسا نظریہ جسے بڑے پیمانے پر مسترد کیا گیا ہے" کے طور پر بیان کیا گیا ہے۔^[1]^[2]^[8]^[9]^[10]

^ ^ا ^ب Killebrew 2013. Quote: "First coined in 1881 by the French Egyptologist G. Maspero (1896), the somewhat misleading term 'Sea Peoples' encompasses the ethnonyms Lukka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Teresh, Eqwesh, Denyen, Sikil / Tjekker, Weshesh, and Peleset (Philistines). [Footnote: The modern term 'Sea Peoples' refers to people that appear in several New Kingdom Egyptian texts as originating from 'islands' (tables 1–2; Adams and Cohen, this volume; see, e.g., Drews 1993, 57 for a summary). The use of quotation marks in association with the term 'Sea Peoples' in our title is intended to draw attention to the problematic nature of this commonly used term. The designation 'of the sea' appears only in relation to the Sherden, Shekelesh and Eqwesh. Subsequently, this term was applied somewhat indiscriminately to several additional ethnonyms, including the Philistines, who are portrayed in their earliest appearance as invaders from the north during the reigns of Merenptah and Ramesses Ill (see, e.g., Sandars 1978; Redford 1992, 243, n. 14; for a recent review of the primary and secondary literature, see Woudhuizen 2006). Henceforth the term Sea Peoples will appear without quotation marks.]"
^ ^ا ^ب Drews 1995: "The thesis that a great 'migration of the Sea Peoples' occurred ca. 1200 B.C. is supposedly based on Egyptian inscriptions, one from the reign of Merneptah and another from the reign of Ramesses III. Yet in the inscriptions themselves, such a migration nowhere appears. After reviewing what the Egyptian texts have to say about 'the sea peoples', one Egyptologist (Wolfgang Helck) recently remarked that although some things are unclear, 'eins ist aber sicher: Nach den ägyptischen Texten haben wir es nicht mit einer "Völkerwanderung" zu tun' ['One thing is however certain: according to the Egyptian texts we are not dealing with a "migration"'] Thus the migration hypothesis is based not on the inscriptions themselves but on their interpretation".
↑ Müller 1888, p. 147: "In Egyptian history, there is hardly any incident of so great an interest as the invasion of Egypt by the Mediterranean peoples, the facts of which are connected with the most important questions of ethnography and the primitive history of classic nations."
↑ Hall 1922.
↑ Silberman 1998, p. 269.
↑ de Rougé 1855, p. 14: [Translation from the French]: "For a long time Kefa has been identified, with verisimilitude, with Caphthorim of the Bible, to whom Gesenius, along with most interpreters, assigns as a residence the islands of Crete or Cyprus. The people of Cyprus had certainly to take sides in this war; perhaps they were then the allies of Egypt. In any case, our entry does not detail the names of these people, from the islands of the Mediterranean. Champollion noted that T'akkari [which he names Fekkaros; see appendix at the following entry] and Schartana, were recognizable, in enemy ships, with unique hairstyles. In addition, in the crests of the conquered peoples, the Schartana and the Touirasch bear the designation of the peoples of the sea. It is therefore likely that they belong to these nations from islands or coasts of the archipelago. The Rabou are still recognizable among the prisoners."
↑ Drews 1992
In fact, this migration of the Sea Peoples is not to be found in Egyptian inscriptions, but was launched by Gaston Maspero in 1873 [footnote: In the Revue Critique d'Histoire et de Littérature 1873, pp. 85–86]. Although Maspero's proposal initially seemed unlikely, it gained credibility with the publication of the Lemnos stele. In 1895, in his popular Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'orient classique [footnote; Vol. II (Paris:1895), translated into English as The Struggle of the Nations (ed. A. H. Sayce, tr. M. L. McClure, New York: 1896)], Maspero fully elaborated his scenario of "the migration of the Sea Peoples". Adopted by Eduard Meyer for the second edition of his Geschichted es Altertums, the theory won general acceptance among Egyptologists and orientalists.
↑ Silberman 1998, p. 272:
As E. S. Sherratt has pointed out in an enlightening study of the interplay of ideology and literary strata in the formation of the Homeric epics (1990), phases of active narrative or descriptive invention closely correspond to periods of rapid social and political change. Sherratt notes that one of the characteristic manifestations of this process – in which emerging elites seek to legitimate their power – is 'the transformation of an existing oral epic tradition in order to dress it in more recognizably modern garb' (1990: 821). Can we not see in the history of the archaeology of the Sea Peoples a similar process of literary reformulation, in which old components are reinterpreted and reassembled to tell a new tale? Narrative presupposes that both storyteller and audience share a single perspective, and therein may lie the connection between the intellectual and ideological dimensions of archaeology. To generalize beyond specific, highly localized data, archaeologists must utilize familiar conceptual frameworks and it is from the political and social ideologies of every generation that larger speculations about the historical role of the Sea Peoples have always been drawn. As many papers in this conference have suggested, traditional interpretive structures are in the process of reconsideration and renovation. That is why I believe it essential that we reflect on our current Sea Peoples stories – and see if we cannot detect the subtle yet lingering impact upon them of some timeworn Victorian narratives.
↑ Vandersleyen 1985, p. 53:
However, of the nine peoples concerned by these wars, only four were actually defined as coming 'from wꜣd-wr' or 'from pꜣ ym'. Furthermore, these expressions seem to be linked more often to vegetation and sweet water than to seawater, and it seems clear that the term "Sea Peoples" has to be abandoned. Some will object to this, basing themselves on the expression iww hryw-ib w3d-wr, usually translated by 'islands situated in the middle of the sea', where some of the Sea Peoples are said to have come from. Indeed. it is this expression that supported the persistent idea that the 'Sea Peoples' came from the Aegean islands or at least from an East Mediterranean island. Now, these terms are misleading, not only because w3d-wr and p3 ym, quite likely, do not designate 'the sea' here, but also because the term in itself does not always mean 'island'; it can also be used to indicate other kinds of territories not necessarily maritime ones. The argument based on these alleged 'sea islands' is thus groundless ... To conclude, the Philistines came neither from Crete nor from the Aegean islands or coasts, but probably from the southern coast of Asia Minor or from Syria.
↑ J. Yoo، A. Zerbini، C. Barron (2018)۔ Migration and Migrant Identities in the Near East from Antiquity to the Middle Ages۔ Taylor & Francis۔ صفحہ: 2۔ ISBN 978-1-351-25475-5۔ اخذ شدہ بتاریخ 24 فروری 2024۔ The earliest scholarly thesis to deal with migration in the ancient Near East emerged in the work of Gaston Maspero; his Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'orient classique blamed a vast migration for the ruin of Bronze Age civilisation, attributing its fall to a migrating confederation of 'Sea Peoples' that attacked Egypt and other areas of Asia Minor. Although now widely considered a deeply problematic theory and one that has been largely dismissed, it was not until the early 1990s that it received proper, rigorous questioning in the scholarship of Claude Vandersleyen, Robert Drews and Neil Silberman, amongst others.

[AK2013-1] ا ^ب Killebrew 2013. Quote: "First coined in 1881 by the French Egyptologist G. Maspero (1896), the somewhat misleading term 'Sea Peoples' encompasses the ethnonyms Lukka, Sherden, Shekelesh, Teresh, Eqwesh, Denyen, Sikil / Tjekker, Weshesh, and Peleset (Philistines). [Footnote: The modern term 'Sea Peoples' refers to people that appear in several New Kingdom Egyptian texts as originating from 'islands' (tables 1–2; Adams and Cohen, this volume; see, e.g., Drews 1993, 57 for a summary). The use of quotation marks in association with the term 'Sea Peoples' in our title is intended to draw attention to the problematic nature of this commonly used term. The designation 'of the sea' appears only in relation to the Sherden, Shekelesh and Eqwesh. Subsequently, this term was applied somewhat indiscriminately to several additional ethnonyms, including the Philistines, who are portrayed in their earliest appearance as invaders from the north during the reigns of Merenptah and Ramesses Ill (see, e.g., Sandars 1978; Redford 1992, 243, n. 14; for a recent review of the primary and secondary literature, see Woudhuizen 2006). Henceforth the term Sea Peoples will appear without quotation marks.]"

[Drews48-2] ا ^ب Drews 1995: "The thesis that a great 'migration of the Sea Peoples' occurred ca. 1200 B.C. is supposedly based on Egyptian inscriptions, one from the reign of Merneptah and another from the reign of Ramesses III. Yet in the inscriptions themselves, such a migration nowhere appears. After reviewing what the Egyptian texts have to say about 'the sea peoples', one Egyptologist (Wolfgang Helck) recently remarked that although some things are unclear, 'eins ist aber sicher: Nach den ägyptischen Texten haben wir es nicht mit einer "Völkerwanderung" zu tun' ['One thing is however certain: according to the Egyptian texts we are not dealing with a "migration"'] Thus the migration hypothesis is based not on the inscriptions themselves but on their interpretation".

[FOOTNOTEMüller1888147-3] Müller 1888, p. 147: "In Egyptian history, there is hardly any incident of so great an interest as the invasion of Egypt by the Mediterranean peoples, the facts of which are connected with the most important questions of ethnography and the primitive history of classic nations."

[FOOTNOTEHall1922-4] Hall 1922.

[FOOTNOTESilberman1998269-5] Silberman 1998, p. 269.

[deRouge-6] Rougé 1855, p. 14: [Translation from the French]: "For a long time Kefa has been identified, with verisimilitude, with Caphthorim of the Bible, to whom Gesenius, along with most interpreters, assigns as a residence the islands of Crete or Cyprus. The people of Cyprus had certainly to take sides in this war; perhaps they were then the allies of Egypt. In any case, our entry does not detail the names of these people, from the islands of the Mediterranean. Champollion noted that T'akkari [which he names Fekkaros; see appendix at the following entry] and Schartana, were recognizable, in enemy ships, with unique hairstyles. In addition, in the crests of the conquered peoples, the Schartana and the Touirasch bear the designation of the peoples of the sea. It is therefore likely that they belong to these nations from islands or coasts of the archipelago. The Rabou are still recognizable among the prisoners."

[Drews1-7] Drews 1992
In fact, this migration of the Sea Peoples is not to be found in Egyptian inscriptions, but was launched by Gaston Maspero in 1873 [footnote: In the Revue Critique d'Histoire et de Littérature 1873, pp. 85–86]. Although Maspero's proposal initially seemed unlikely, it gained credibility with the publication of the Lemnos stele. In 1895, in his popular Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'orient classique [footnote; Vol. II (Paris:1895), translated into English as The Struggle of the Nations (ed. A. H. Sayce, tr. M. L. McClure, New York: 1896)], Maspero fully elaborated his scenario of "the migration of the Sea Peoples". Adopted by Eduard Meyer for the second edition of his Geschichted es Altertums, the theory won general acceptance among Egyptologists and orientalists.

[Silberman-8] Silberman 1998, p. 272:
As E. S. Sherratt has pointed out in an enlightening study of the interplay of ideology and literary strata in the formation of the Homeric epics (1990), phases of active narrative or descriptive invention closely correspond to periods of rapid social and political change. Sherratt notes that one of the characteristic manifestations of this process – in which emerging elites seek to legitimate their power – is 'the transformation of an existing oral epic tradition in order to dress it in more recognizably modern garb' (1990: 821). Can we not see in the history of the archaeology of the Sea Peoples a similar process of literary reformulation, in which old components are reinterpreted and reassembled to tell a new tale? Narrative presupposes that both storyteller and audience share a single perspective, and therein may lie the connection between the intellectual and ideological dimensions of archaeology. To generalize beyond specific, highly localized data, archaeologists must utilize familiar conceptual frameworks and it is from the political and social ideologies of every generation that larger speculations about the historical role of the Sea Peoples have always been drawn. As many papers in this conference have suggested, traditional interpretive structures are in the process of reconsideration and renovation. That is why I believe it essential that we reflect on our current Sea Peoples stories – and see if we cannot detect the subtle yet lingering impact upon them of some timeworn Victorian narratives.

[Vandersleyen-9] Vandersleyen 1985, p. 53:
However, of the nine peoples concerned by these wars, only four were actually defined as coming 'from wꜣd-wr' or 'from pꜣ ym'. Furthermore, these expressions seem to be linked more often to vegetation and sweet water than to seawater, and it seems clear that the term "Sea Peoples" has to be abandoned. Some will object to this, basing themselves on the expression iww hryw-ib w3d-wr, usually translated by 'islands situated in the middle of the sea', where some of the Sea Peoples are said to have come from. Indeed. it is this expression that supported the persistent idea that the 'Sea Peoples' came from the Aegean islands or at least from an East Mediterranean island. Now, these terms are misleading, not only because w3d-wr and p3 ym, quite likely, do not designate 'the sea' here, but also because the term in itself does not always mean 'island'; it can also be used to indicate other kinds of territories not necessarily maritime ones. The argument based on these alleged 'sea islands' is thus groundless ... To conclude, the Philistines came neither from Crete nor from the Aegean islands or coasts, but probably from the southern coast of Asia Minor or from Syria.

[Yoo_Zerbini_Barron_2018_p._2-10] J. Yoo، A. Zerbini، C. Barron (2018)۔ Migration and Migrant Identities in the Near East from Antiquity to the Middle Ages۔ Taylor & Francis۔ صفحہ: 2۔ ISBN 978-1-351-25475-5۔ اخذ شدہ بتاریخ 24 فروری 2024۔ The earliest scholarly thesis to deal with migration in the ancient Near East emerged in the work of Gaston Maspero; his Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'orient classique blamed a vast migration for the ruin of Bronze Age civilisation, attributing its fall to a migrating confederation of 'Sea Peoples' that attacked Egypt and other areas of Asia Minor. Although now widely considered a deeply problematic theory and one that has been largely dismissed, it was not until the early 1990s that it received proper, rigorous questioning in the scholarship of Claude Vandersleyen, Robert Drews and Neil Silberman, amongst others.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]