Who were the Sea People who attacked Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age Collapse?

Some of the ethnic groups in the sources can be traced to Anatolian lands

Question: Who were the Sea People who attacked Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age Collapse?
Position‹3 of 5›: The Sea People were an emerging Anatolian power
Argument1 of 2›: Some of the ethnic groups in the sources can be traced to Anatolian lands

The Sherden, Shekelesh, Teresh, and Lukka can all be linked to places in Anatolia. The Anatolian connection is particularly strong for the Lukka, who are mentioned quite frequently in antiquity.

The argument

The word “Lukka”, appears in multiple Near Eastern texts which appear to describe a region of Anatolia. Although it is uncertain which part, Lycia is one strong candidate, as the Greek word Lykaeonia, could easily be a transliteration of Lukkawani (literally the people who live in Lukka). Whoever the Lukka were, they appear to have had frequent conflicts, including religious disputes, with the Hittites, whose power was based in Eastern Anatolia. The Hittite capital Hattusa is one of the sites destroyed in this period. It has been proposed that the Shekelesh might have come from the Shekha river region in western Anatolia. The Sherden may be from Sardis in Western Anatolia, based on the origins of others Sea People in Anatolia, the word Sherden may have come from Mount Sardena, or the Sardanion plain. The Teresh are the Tyrrhenians who according to Herodotus came from ancient Lydia (Western Anatolia) to Italy. There are multiple compelling theories that the names of at least some of the Sea People derive from places in Anatolia. The Lukka, in particular, are identified by name in Near Eastern sources. The Sea People were likely a coalition of peoples from Anatolia.

Premises

[P1]Several ethnic names recorded in the ancient sources — such as the Lukka, Shekelesh, Sherden and Teresh — can be linked to specific places in Anatolia. [P2] The Lukka in particular are identified by name in Near Eastern texts and are associated with a region of Anatolia. [P3] If the names of so many of the Sea People derive from Anatolian lands, they were most plausibly a coalition originating there. [C] Therefore, the Sea People were an emerging Anatolian power.

Counter-arguments

Many of the etymological arguments are weak, and there are multiple equally plausible variations on many of the names, especially for the Shekelesh and the Sherden. We do not really know where they were from and many archaeologists have resorted to guessing based on similar soundings names.There is stronger evidence, based on written material and archaeology that the Sea People were mostly Greek. The story in Herodotus about the Etruscans is believed by many to be inaccurate, or date to a much later period in history. The Egyptian sources say that the Sea People came from the islands, which makes it unlikely they came from mainland Anatolia. There are better explanations for the origins of many of the ethnic groups which are backed up with source material and archaeology.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Name-similarity is the weakest evidence available here. Several of the identifications have equally plausible rival readings — Shekelesh and Sherden have long been linked to Sicily and Sardinia as readily as to Anatolia — and the method amounts to matching sounds across languages and centuries. [Rejecting P2] The Lukka are the strongest case and still do not carry the conclusion: attesting one named group in Anatolian territory shows that a coalition could include Anatolians, not that the coalition was Anatolian in origin or character. [Rejecting P3] The inference runs against the Egyptian testimony itself, which describes these peoples as coming from the islands and from the sea, and against the material evidence read as Aegean. Herodotus on the Tyrrhenians is a much later source and is widely doubted, so it cannot anchor a Bronze Age identification.