These questions are all open questions. No one has convincing evidence for one or the other solution. The best read is surely Eric H. Cline, "1177 BC". Most important is to understand that the Sea Peoples movement was no strong alliance which suddenly started attacking others, but that it was a movement which formed over time, like domino stones.

Only concerning the rise of the people of Israel, there are some answers from archaeology. As Finkelstein and Silberman wrote in their book "Bible unearthed", the people of Israel began to form as a response to economic changes in the aftermath of the end of the bronze age civilizations. The theocratic aspects came only later, much later, see the same book.

I'll provide a pertinent answer tomorrow, but it seems to me that the so-called Israeli group emerged out of the religious and political ideologies of the period. I do not see why the Israeli referred to by Mermeptah should be the same people as the later group.

Elements of the Sea Peoples had served as mercenaries for the Egyptians; for example the Sherden, probably sea-raiders, who settled down within the Nile Valley. They were, as with the other Sea Peoples, professional soldiers/warriors. Spalinger (War in Ancient Egypt. The New Kingdom.Blackwell 2005: 249) describes them as similar to the later Vikings. Such behaviour can be extrapulated from the Iliad, and also from other information on the Mycenaens, who like the Vikings were, it appears, both traders and raiders.

The Sea Peoples appear in the wars between Libya and Egypt-often fighting on both sides. Spalinger names them as Peleshet (the later Philistines), Shekelesh, Sherden, Weshesh and Denyen. He stipulates that all at one time or another fought in the Egyptian ranks.

Of interest is that during the raids of the Sea Peoples, warfare was changing.

As Thorwald has mentioned above, there is no generally accepted answer on most of the questions. The "Viking" analogy seems interesting and it is quite likely that the "Sea Peoples" were indeed made up of warriors coming from various backgrounds, who got together only temporarily for raiding (or serving as mercenaries). A part most probably were indeed "jobless" Greek soldiers and the collapse of power in Greece may have contributed to their looking for other possibilities - but here the question is almost like the hen/egg one - what was first?

A colleague recently pointed out that those identified as "Sea Peoples" on some of the Egyptian reliefs are in fact on ships of merchant type, practically naked and completely unarmed - these were certainly not attackers, but more likely merchants being attacked!

Last note very interesting. I will look into it, thanks. Egyptian art and writing was, as I'm sure you know, not based on fact and believing entirely their representations of battles, etc, is folly. They were mainly historical fiction, in the same way a novel on Agincourt (a UK reference) might show soldiers dressed in heavy armour of a later period, and show aspects of other battles during the 100 Years War all collated into one. If your colleague is right, it will widen references on the time and meaning of reliefs.

I find it difficult to agree with the general view that the Sea Peoples destroyed Hattusa unless we change our understanding of this group, especially as Aramaic tribes were hovering around in northern Syria, apparently (if the Assyrians are to be believed) attacking everything that moved.

Stanley this sounds like the origin of the Sumerian! No one seem to know the answer. Thus every answer has some merit!

I agree, Amir.

Nikolaus, just a further point. I haven't found the relief mentioned yet, but care needs to be taken with assigning them to one event or another. As I'm sure you know. Recently, two such scenes were re-ascribed to Merneptah's reign from the reign of Ramesses II-as there is evidence that the existing scenes were carved over other pre-existing scenes (The Architecture of Imperialism: 2005).

I still cannot find it, Nikolaus, but I am reminded that the Sea-Peoples took their families when joined-up with the Libyan assault on Egypt in Mernephat's reign.

A worthwhile addition: Many coastal towns in Canaan and Syria were destroyed. The Egyptians laid these sackings at the feet of the Sea Peoples. They were then re-settled by people who used Mycenaean IIIC: Ib and later Philistine ware.

Troy writ large, perhaps?

Agree with Stanley Wilkin.

Many of the Sea Peoples had fought beside Egyptian armies and for their enemies long before their attacks on the East Meditteranean coast. Did their appearance signal problems in the Greek homeland?

My research into the Two United Kingdoms of Israel and Judah has given me a deeper understanding of this matter. The Sea Peoples mainly came from Greece, some from Europe proper, Anatolia and Cypress. It was a phenomenon over a century with different episodes-some so-called Sea Peoples fighting as mercenaries alongside the Egyptians and then Lybians. The migration at the time of Ramesses III was made up of Greeks, their families, Anatolians and Sikils (possibly later Sicilian). We know at at roughly the same time Greece became depopulated in some areas.

The Sea Peoples, possibly repulsed by Ramesses III, set up states in present day Lebanon and Northern Israel. One of those small states was Dan, the home of Samson, by the Danuna-probably Greek. The others were the Philistines, who may have wiped out the Canaanites when they arrived (exodus and Joshua perhaps?)

Kyle, elsewhere I have pointed out that changes in Mycenean armour and shields indicates a greater focus on individual combat, suggesting a focus on sea raiding. Piracy can be seen in the Iliad. Folk movements appear to have occurred and there is evidence of crop failure in Greece and southern Anatolia.

Kyle, many murals found in Minoan cities contain evidence of sea raids. The Egyptians and Canaanite wrote of it, but of course so did the city of Pylos. It must thereby be viewed as a fairly common method of obtaining wealth. There is evidence that possible Greek presence in Anatolia engaged in raiding Anatolian cities for women skilled in weaving (the Egyptians did likewise) and/or their beauty and seems the reality behind Helen. Women were a tradable commodity in the Aegean.

Although the evidence for early Mycenaen warriors shows large often figure of eight shields ones found later are small and round, suitable for more agile fighting required when boarding or leaving ships or when raiding deep into foreign countries. The sword began to dominate.

The use of women as a commodity was common in the Late Bronze Age in this period. Its possible the sea peoples represented a general movement due to societal changes in the area, that is the East Mediterranean, and changes in power structures. Evident over some two hundred years it was probably not a single phenomenon although as I have pointed out much earlier there may be a connection between the apparant depopulation of Greece and the arrival of the Philistines in Palestine except that they arrived c 1200 BCE and the depopulation is seen as later. Nevertheless, there appears to have been a number of Philistine incursions until possibly close to the 10th century BCE, although it is disputable that all came from Greece.

Kyle, sorry but I've struggled with your writing at times-I assume you are in a rush on occasion. Sorry, but I've had to guess where some of your conclusions are concerned, so some of my responses are to do with this.

Don't worry, I was just too embarrassed to say anything. I've done it myself on here.