[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Atlantis = The Sea People?

Subject: Re: Atlantis = The Sea People?
From: Italo
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:24:31 +0100
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Uwe Müller wrote:

"Italo" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]

Uwe Müller wrote:


The best parallel for the leaf crowns of the sea peoples, depicted in
Egyptian sources, is from middle Bronze Age Bavaria. There is pottery
Troia, that looks like it came from the central European
culture. There are nordic swords in Greece, and closely related types in
Egypt, as well as southern styles of decoration of ceramics or bronze
vessels from the north. The megaron-style houses are spread far and
How far spread was the use of the megaron-style up to 1600BC?

Apparently it was absent from the Near East outside Asia
minor - with the exception of one very early (pre-pottery
neolithic) isolated case from Jericho.

There is AFAIK no comprehensive study of this building type. I have seen
megaron style buildings starting from the (late?) Neolithic up to classical
times, and from the Med up north till Poland.

I guess 'megaron type' is not a clearly defined term, considering also that in most cases there would be only a groundplan available.

with little to show that they originated from one area or were
restricted to
one time.

Any identification of peoples mentioned in the sources based on
in only one or two artefact groups, a building style or a name can and
been refuted.

Nevertheless the introduction of megaron style builds (or
rather variations thereupon; typically the Innin temple in
Uruk and a Kassite fortress in Ur) in Mesopotamia in the
Kassite period is noted by Jaritz as possible evidence for
the Kassites origin.

Yes, again and again such minor differences are described as 'possible
evidence' of some change. But what kind of  definition of 'people' is used
by these authors, when all the differences between two of these 'peoples'
they can name is a building style for one type of building?

In the case of the Kassites, there is of course no doubt that they were a distinct group. The remnants of their language includes a list of gods names in both Kassite and Babylonian.

If there was a comprehensive study, showing:
A) megaron type buildings were only used in a certain cultural contex,
always appearing in this context and never outside

and if

B) the adaption of this building type can be demonstrated to have spread
together with all the other traits of the above mentioned cultural context
into a new area, fundamentally changing the cultur in that area,

than the appearance of a megaron might be ascribed to the spreading of a
certain population into a new area.

The building of megaron style houses in middle Bronze age Brandenburg does

Are those wooden houses?

not make these settler Kassites, and the building of megarons in Neolitthic
Greece argues against a close connection between this type of building and
any ethnic or cultural group whatsoever.

Of course there are some people, who still claim such a connection, usually
expressed as a wandering of a people, or the increase of their sphere of
power, but I believe this to be grossly misleading.

If a building style appears new in an area then it seems logical to look for the closest area that has the building style already in use. For south Mesopotamia a connection to Asia minor (be it direct or indirect) is not something that I would think a priori impossible.

K.Jaritz has a range of indirect evidence, and some of it may be untenable to todays knowledge.

The basic idea seems that the Kassites may be linked to two districts 'Tarahna' and 'Kashshia' mentioned in a Hittite text - "Tarahna (kass. d/turuhna) ein eindeutig kassitisches Wort, die genaue Lokalisierung des Landes ist nicht durchführbar".

If 'Kassiya/Kassija' is the same as J.'s 'Kashshia' then that is nowadays placed to the N.W. of the Hittite center area (while at the time (1960) of J.'s writing it was thought to be to the South-East).

have fun

Uwe Mueller

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>