We all know about the Vikings who invaded parts of Europe during the dark age--rougly 500-1100 AD. They sailed in long boats and attacked communities by landing on shore.

Did you know about these guys?

http://i-cias.com/e.o/ill/sea_people.jpg http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople4.jpg http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/sherden.jpg http://home.nycap.rr.com/foxmob/images/medinet_habu.jpg http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_aek11/www/shardana.jpg

The "Sea Peoples" were sailing warriors much like the Vikings who ravaged parts of the middle east in ancient times. During the 1100 and 1200s BC they waged wars with Egypt and the Hittites. It is believed that they helped bring about the fall of Egypt and completely destroyed the Hittites (which were world super powers at the time). It must also be noted that after the wars of the Sea Peoples, the ancient world was plunged into a dark age similar to other one.

From the pictures above you can tell that the Sea Peoples were white and some of them even wore horned-helmets, similar to the Vikings.

Visit these sites for more research:

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/seapeople.htm http://home.nycap.rr.com/foxmob/sea_peoples.htm http://www.courses.psu.edu/cams/cams400w_aek11/www/index.htm

I assumed the Sea Peoples were Phoenicians (sp?) Raids by longboat would speak of a settlement not too distant. Viking settlement in middle east? Maritime skills and M.O. may seem common, but I think it's a huge stretch to infer the attackers in this particular drama were white, let alone Vikings.
I believe the Viking legends started something like this: Living in an increasingly cold and bareren land, they sailed coast till they encountered a hamlet who, by tradition, showed them hospitality. This increased to the point that the hamlets could no longer support themselves and their seafaring brethren. Vikings show up, and instead of the usual reception, are told "no more". Things get ugly and viking gets it's definition. They would continue to ask, but the penalty for refusal was having goods, and slaves, taken violently. How the Vikings wound up that far north to begin with is still a mystery to me. The extreme edge of White Wonderlust?
P.S.: I could be full of shit.

A huge stretch to infer that they were white? Most of the people in that part of the world were white at that time. The Egpytians, the Greeks, etc...

I'll agree with your statement about Whites in the area. But partly to avoid the whole nord./med. bit. I appreciate that you are trying to make connections, very valuable to historic research. The long-boats are not terribly similar, other than by type. The horned helmets were worn by many cultures. Difficult to imagine a warring group leaving a warm area for almost inhospitable cold. White wonderlust I understand, but this move would entail changes in diet, food production, familiar materials, leaving dead ancestors behind, etc. Therefore the known history of the Vikings seems to preclude your conclusion.
The currently accepted version of the history of that area is so twisted because those in charge are in the camp that believes man is only 5764 years young. They control the funding for research, as well as the keys to the locked doors. Their buds are currently scouring Iraq for artifacts that conflict with the tale they tell.
There is a fairly recent term coined ooparts. Out of place artifacts. A recent article I read stated that more than 50% of known artifacts could be qualified as such. This should be a huge blinking neon sign to anyone interested in ancient history that the current assumptions are WRONG. So, by all means, investigate away.

The currently accepted version of the history of that area is so twisted because those in charge are in the camp that believes man is only 5764 years young. They control the funding for research, as well as the keys to the locked doors...

You are very correct and more people need to know it. At the rate we're going Bishop Unser's "creation happened in 4004 BC" is going to become official history again.

I think it was about a century back that a bunch of upper class Brit Christians put together the Egyptian Exploration Society. It's charter specifically charged the scholars who worked for it to find evidence to prove the Old Testament. Most of the evidence and translations from pharaonic Egypt was vetted by these clowns.

So now we have to re-do all the work for the past century because the gentleman scholars took their work too seriously. Nobody trusts their translations or their conclusions anymore. They lied too obviously and too often.

Same with Iraq, as you noted. We know these people had technology of sorts and a stable and fair social system, or they wouldn't have created the template for all future civilizations.

There are people who don't like knowing things like this, and they're not above misrepresenting and even destroying evidence to keep the rest of us from knowing too.