The Seafaring Raiders / 4 – Archeology

Archeological Evidences

The Papyrus Anastasi I (pBM 10247 – British Musem) [1]. The Anastasi Papyrus is a satirical letter dating to the early Ramesside era (Late Bronze to Early Iron Age). The text survives in several copies of varying levels of completeness. One fragmentary copy of the text can be dated to the reign of Ramesses III. Since the name of Ramesses II appears in several passages, Gardiner is inclined to date it to this Pharaoh’s reign, at the earliest (Gardiner 1964: 2, 4).

The text was a popular practice piece for scribes-in-training during the Ramesside period. It takes the form of a letter from one scribe, Hori, to his fellow scribe, Amenemope. Both are described as army scribes. The text has a definitely satirical flavor, and was presumably composed as a hypothetical exchange between two fictional scribes.

The most important section of the text for our purposes is the part dealing with Amenemope’s inability to manage a military expedition (section XV). Amenemope is sent to meet a contingent of foreign enemies at an uncertain location. Gardiner (1964: 19) speculates that the location in question is Phoenicia, but if this is correct, then it is curious that Africans make up so large a portion of the peoples mentioned in this context. The peoples that Amenemope must face are Sherden, Kehek, Meshwesh, and “Negroes” — presumably Sudanese. Amenemope’s assignment is to make provision for the campaign, which he fails to do. This section of the text tells us that the Shardana were fighting alongside the peoples of northern Africa as enemies of Egypt even at this early date — i.e., some time within the reign of Ramesses II.

Gardiner (1968: 195-6) tells us that the Shardana had already put in their first appearance as Egyptian enemies in the second year of Ramesses II, according to the Tanis and Aswan stelae.

Finally, in sections XVI-XX, Hori challenges Amenemope’s claim to be a Maher, apparently the title of an Egyptian emissary in Syria. The word is found in no other text (Gardiner 1964: 20). Hori launches into a series of questions about Syria, Phoenicia and Canaan, descending southward as he goes. He describes the conditions in these locations, and the activities of a Maher stationed there. He describes a hypothetical situation in which the Maher, inexperienced in the difficulties of travel, ends up in dire straits before finally managing to rectify the situation. The text concludes, in section XX, with Hori reasserting his conviction that Amenemope is a second rate scribe. Hori then pleads with Amenemope not to be angry, and promises to teach him, in particular to educate him about the foreign lands with which Egypt was interacting at the time (Gardiner 1964: 28-30). The Anastasi text is a valuable resource, in that it not only provides important information about the role and duties of the scribe in Egyptian administration during the Ramesside era, but also gives us a look at Egyptian foreign relations at the time. The text tells us little in reference to the Sea Peoples, but it helps to establish their role as enemies of Egypt and allies of the Libyans as early as the beginning of the Ramesside era.

The Onomastica of Amenope [2] . The text contains a word list for groups of things varying from the list of what is contained in the heavens, to the towns of Egypt, to the parts of an oxen and its kind of meat. It is generally accepted that the Onomastica of Amenope dates to the late Twentieth Dynasty and is known from at least ten copies or fragment versions on papyrus, a writing board, a strip of leather, and several potsherds. The Onomastica was used for administrative purposes but was also used for teaching scribes. Gardiner’s translation of the Onomastica is widely consulted, and its excellence has in some ways discouraged other scholars from studying the Onomastica. The most important section for our purposes is chapter 4, which lists the class, tribes, and types of human beings in the region. In this listing there are many references to the tribes of the Sea Peoples (Simpson 2001: 605).

There are several different groups of Sea Peoples that are mentioned in the Onomastica of Amenope. The Meshwesh are associated with the Sherden, Kehek, and Nubians when they found a contingent of the Egyptian army before the reign of Ramesses II. By the time of Ramesses III they were a principal enemy of Egypt. In the twenty-second Dynasty they were established in the oasis, and in later times could be found as princes of  Delta towns. It is believed that they originated in Libya. The most prominent physical feature of the Sea People is the wearing of a feather on the head, and also a phallus-sheath. The Meshwesh also spoke a Berber dialect (Gardiner 1968:121).

The Libu originated in Libya and settled in Egypt after the reign of Merneptah. Ramesses III defeated them in his 5th year but they continued to be a nuisance throughout the Twentieth dynasty. After the Twenty-first dynasty, the mentions of the Libu were few and far between. The Libu were similar in physical appearance to the Meshwesh, except instead of wearing a phallus-sheath they wore a kilt (Gariner 1968:121-122).

The Danuna are only mentioned in the Onomastica in the time of Ramesses III. The origins of the Danuna are uncertain, however Ramesses claims to have slain them in their islands, off the Cilician coast. It has been believed that the Danuna are mentioned in the Armarna letter 151 from the time of Akhnaton. They are depicted similar to the Philistines (Gardiner 1968:125). The Lukka are very closely associated with the Karkisa and also the Masa. They are listed as allies of the Hittites in the time of Ramesses II. Merneptah mentions the Lukka as one of the five ‘Peoples of the Sea’. These three tribes are believed to have been located in Caria, on the southwest coast of Asia Minor (Gardiner 1968:128).

The Sherden are believed to be associated with the island of Sardinia and they are also are mentioned in Babylonian and Phoenician texts. The first mention of them is in the Amarna letters, where they make up part of the Egyptian army. Ramesses II and Ramesses III also record them as making up a contingent of the Egyptian army. They are first mentioned as enemies of Egypt in the time of Ramesses II. Sherden warriors were involved in both sides of the battle in which Ramesses III defeated the Philistines and the Tjekker. The Sherden differ from the others by wearing a helmet with horns and a projecting spike, and their main weapon was the lance (Gardiner 1968:194-196).

The Philistines are first mentioned during the reign of Ramesses III as one of the ‘Peoples of the Sea’. They are most closely related to the Tjekker because of the feather caps. They are depicted with round shields and feather headdress. It was believed that the Philisines launched their attack from the islands of the Mediterranean (Gardiner 1968:201-204).

The Papyrus Harris (pBM 9999 – British Musem ) [3] -[4] . Papyrus Harris is the largest extant ancient Egyptian papyrus, dates to early in the reign of Ramesses IV, the successor of Ramesses III. The document is unique not only in its size, but also in its remarkable abundance of valuable historical documentation.

The Papyrus Harris is essentially a summary of the important events of Ramesses III’s reign, prepared by Ramesses IV, but written from the point of view of Ramesses III. Breasted (1906: 92) divides the Papyrus up into seven basic sections. The first is an introduction stating the ending date of Ramesses III’s reign, along with his name and titles, and the purpose and dedication of the document (Breasted 1906: 110-111). The next three sections detail the contributions made by the king to the townships of Thebes, Heliopolis and Memphis, respectively, along with dedicatory prayers to the gods of these towns and lists of donations made by the king to the local temples (Breasted 1906: 111-177). Following is a general section detailing the king’s contributions to smaller temples (Breasted 1906: 177-191), and a summary of the total contributions made by Ramesses III (192-198). Section VII is the historical section, recounting the accession of the king, his organizational policies, his military campaigns, and his death (Breasted 1906: 198-206).  The Sea Peoples are mentioned in the historical section in the context of the northern wars of year 8 (Breasted 1906: 201). Ramesses describes the northerners as invaders of Egypt’s borders, and describes their place of origin as “islands.” The specific peoples mentioned in the text are Danuna, Tjekker, Peleset, Shardana and Weshesh.

The Shardana and Weshesh are singled out as being “of the sea,” which is consistent with their depiction in other sources of the time as oceanic nomads and pirates (Redford 1992: 244).
The most interesting aspect of this brief passage on the year 8 battles is the description of the fate of the Sea Peoples. Ramesses tells us that, having brought the imprisoned Sea Peoples to Egypt, he “settled them in strongholds, bound in my name. Numerous were their classes like hundred-thousands. I taxed them all, in clothing and grain from the storehouses and granaries each year” (Breasted 1906: 201).  It is likely that these “strongholds” were actually fortified towns in Canaan — that is, the towns that would eventually become the Philistine Pentapolis (Redford 1992: 289).  The Papyrus Harris passage concerning the Sea Peoples, while largely overlapping with the information provided in the Medinet Habu inscriptions, also provides some important details lacking in the Medinet Habu texts. Both sources taken together provide the most complete historical picture of the Sea Peoples at the end of the 13th century BCE.

The Amarna Letters. [5]-[6] The Amarna letters, a unique corpus of documents from the Egyptian New Kingdom, were discovered in the late 1880’s by Egyptian peasants (Moran 1992: xiii). As soon as their authenticity was confirmed and Egyptologists were able to evaluate their contents, it became clear that the stash of clay tablets represented one of the most important historical sources on the socio-political environment of the ancient Near East.  The Amarna letters represent the diplomatic correspondence between the pharaohs of the Amarna period and their contemporaries in Canaan, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Aegean. The earliest of the letters date from late in the reign of Amenhotep III, and the latest date from the reign of Ay, spanning a period from c. 1386-1321 BCE (Moran 1992: xxxix). The majority of the letters date to the reign of Akhenaten, the monotheistic pharaoh.  The Amarna letters provide an interesting picture of the ancient world at the crest of the Egyptian empire. At this time, the Near East was dominated by a group of “Great Kings” — the Egyptian pharaoh, the king of Mitanni, the king of Babylonia, the king of Assyria, and the king of the Hittites. The Great Kings are represented in about 50 of the remaining letters (Cohen & Westbrook 2000: 6-7) . Two independent states, not quite of Great King status, are also represented in the letters. One of these is Arzawa, and the other is Alashiya, generally identified with Cyprus (Cohen & Westbrook 2000: 7-8).  There were also numerous city-states under the influence of the Great Kings. The rulers of these city-states were referred to as “mayors” by the Egyptians, and they essentially served as vassals to the Great Kings (Murnane 2000: 107). The correspondence between these vassals and the Egyptian king generally consists of requests for aid or affirmations of loyalty. It is in the vassal correspondence that the Sea Peoples appear most frequently.  The Amarna letters provide the earliest historical evidence of the Sea Peoples. The ethnic groups now classified as Sea Peoples mentioned in the Amarna letters are the Shardana, the Danuna and the Lukka. The letters to be examined below come from three different authors: Rib-Hadda, Mayor of Gubla, Abi-Milku, Mayor of Tyre, and the King of Alashiya.

About Shardana: A type of person referred to as “Shirdanu” appears in three of the extant letters, all of them from Rib-Hadda of Gubla (or Byblos).  Moran (1992: 393) remarks that this term “probably has nothing to do with” the Shardana of later Egyptian texts. However, he makes no explanation of this statement. At any rate, based on the striking similarity in the form of the two words, it seems unwise to so casually disregard any possibility of a connection.     EA 81 (Moran 1992: 150-151) is a plea from Rib-Hadda to the Egyptian pharaoh (probably Akhenaten) for aid in a dispute with ‘Abdi-Ashirta, the ruler of Amurru and another vassal of the Egyptians. Rib-Hadda accuses his opponent of luring away his followers and inciting them to attack their own ruler. Rib-Hadda pleads with Akhenaten to send archers so that he can defend himself not only from ‘Abdi-Ashirta and his defectors, but also from the increasingly unhappy peasantry. In this letter, Rib-Hadda states that a Shirdanu of his acquaintance has run away to join ‘Abdi-Ashirta. The context of the remark suggests that the Shirdanu were perhaps some type of mercenary soldiers working for the vassals of Egypt.     EA 122 and 123 (Moran 1992: 201-202) are two different versions of the same letter, so they need not be discussed separately. Again, as in EA 81, they concern Rib-Hadda’s plea for aid against an attacker. This time the offender is the commissioner Pihura. Pihura has captured three Canaanites and slain a number of Shirdanu. Rib-Hadda demands that Akhenaten help him protect himself and also return the three men that Pihura has brought as captives into Egypt. Again, the exact role of the Shirdanu is not clear, but it seems that they might have been acting in some military capacity.
About  Danuna: The Danuna appear in only one letter, EA 151 (Moran 1992: 238-239), written by Abi-Milku of Tyre. The letter contains a typical demand for aid against an attacker (Zimredda of Sidon). Abi-Milku then goes on to ask for wood and water, two resources for which Tyre depended on mainland Phoenicia. Finally, in response to a query from the pharaoh, Abi-Milku summarizes current events in Canaan.
In this section of the letter, Abi-Milku states that “the king of Danuna has died” and has been peacefully succeeded by his brother. This letter suggests that the Danuna were a significant political entity, governed by a king who controlled a specific territory. He goes on to describe the destruction of the palace at Ugarit by fire — an interesting historical reference to the numerous destructions that characterize the archaeological picture of the end of the Late Bronze Age.
The Lukka: A group called the Lukki appears in a single letter from the unnamed king of Alashiya to an Amarna pharaoh (EA 38; Moran 1992: 111-112). Since only one side of the correspondence is preserved, it is difficult to evaluate the exact nature of the dispute between the two kings. However, apparently the Egyptian king has accused some Alashiyans of attacking Egyptian territory in cooperation with Lukki. The king of Alashiya defends himself by saying that “men of Lukki, year by year, seize villages in my own country.” This fits in well with the later picture of the Sea Peoples as wandering raiders.

The Amarna letters give us a valuable glimpse at the early history of the Sea Peoples. For the most part, the picture of the Sea Peoples in the Amarna letters is confirmed by later historical information. There is documentation from the time of Rameses II of the Shardana as mercenaries of the Egyptians, and the Lukka were later known for their piracy and fighting prowess (Redford 1992: 243). The reference to the Danuna is most interesting for the light it sheds on the people’s social system before the end of the Bronze Age.

The Inscriptions of Medinet Habu [7]-[8].   When studying the Sea Peoples, scholars turn to one of the most detailed and well known texts concerning the Sea Peoples, the inscriptions from Medinet Habu. Medinet Habu is a mortuary temple that was constructed for Ramesess III at Thebes, in Upper Egypt. The temple decoration consists of a series of reliefs and texts telling of the many exploits of the king, from his campaign against the Libyans to, most importantly, his war against the Sea Peoples. The texts and reliefs that deal with the Sea Peoples date to year eight of Ramesess III’s reign, approximately 1190 BCE. The significance of these texts is that they provide an account of Egypt’s campaign against the “coalition of the sea” from an Egyptian point of view. In the inscriptions, Ramesses alludes to the threat the Sea Peoples posed, as can be seen in this portion of text:

…the foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands were removed and scattered in the fray.  No land could stand before their arms from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Artawa, and Alashiya on being cut off [at one time].  A camp was [set up] in one place in Amor.  They desolated its people and its land was like that which has never come into being.  (Medinet Habu, Year 8 inscription.)

The inscriptions go on to specify the groups which were involved in the “confederation”: Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen, and Weshesh.  Although Ramesses III boasts of his defeat of the Sea Peoples’ coalition on land and sea, the portion of text quoted above gives the impression that the Egyptians were facing a great and strong military presence.  However, some scholars believe that the battles described at Medinet Habu were not one coherent event, but were actually small skirmishes between the Sea Peoples and the Egyptians at different intervals that were conflated in Ramesses’ account into two grandiose battles.  Barbara Cifola (1988: 275-306) concluded that, due to the vague manner in which the northern enemies were described, they could not possibly represent one force, and were probably never joined into a clearly defined confederation (see also O’conner 2000: 94). The Medinet Habu inscriptions are also significant for their artistic depictions of the Sea Peoples. These provide valuable information about the appearance and accoutrements of the various groups, and can lend clues towards deciphering their ethnic backgrounds (Redford 1992: 251).

From the textual evidence on the temple walls, it appears that the Peleset and the Tjeker made up the majority of the Sea Peoples involved in the year 8 invasion.  In the artistic depictions, both types are depicted wearing a fillet, from which protrudes a floppy plume and a protective piece down the nape of the neck.  Their armament included long swords, spears and circular shields, and they are occasionally shown wearing body armor.  Other groups, such as the Shekelesh and Teresh, are shown wearing cloth headdresses and a medallion upon their breasts.  The weaponry that they carried consisted of two spears and a simple round shield.  The Shardana soldiers are most obviously armored in the artistic depictions, due to the thick horned helmets that adorn their heads (Redford 1992: 252).

The land battle and sea battle scenes provide a wealth of information on the military styles of the Sea Peoples.  The reliefs depicting the land battle show Egyptian troops, chariots and auxiliaries fighting the enemy, who also used chariots, very similar in design to Egyptian chariots.  Although the chariots used by the Sea Peoples are very similar to those used by the Egyptians, both being pulled by two horses and using wheels with six spokes, the Sea Peoples had three soldiers per chariot, whereas the Egyptians only had one, or occasionally two.
 
The land battle scenes also give the observer some sense of the Sea Peoples’ military organization. According to the artistic representations, the Philistine warriors were each armed with a pair of long spears, and their infantry was divided into small groups consisting of four men each.  Three of those men carried long, straight swords and spears, while the fourth man only carried a sword. The relief depicting the land battle is a massive jumble of figures and very chaotic in appearance, but this was probably a stylistic convention employed by the Egyptians to convey a sense of chaos. Other evidence suggests that the Sea Peoples had a high level of organization and military strategy (O’Conner 2000: 95). A striking feature of the land battle scene is the imagery of ox-pulled carts carrying women and children in the midst of a battle. These carts seem to represent a people on the move (Sandars 1985: 120).  The other famous relief at Medinet Habu regarding the Sea Peoples is of the sea battle.  This scene is also shown in a disorganized mass, but as was mentioned earlier, was meant to represent chaos, again contradicting the Egyptians’ descriptions of the military success and organization of the Sea Peoples.  The sea battle scene is valuable for its depictions of the Sea Peoples’ ships and their armaments.  The Egyptians and the Sea Peoples both used sails as their main means of naval locomotion. However, interestingly, the Sea Peoples’ ships appear to have no oars, which could indicate new navigation techniques (Dothan 1982: 7).  Another interesting feature of the Sea Peoples’ ships is that all the prows are carved in the shape of bird heads, which has caused many scholars to speculate an Aegean origin for these groups. Wachsmann (2000) speculates that the sea battle relief shows the battle in progression, from beginning to end. Medinet Habu still remains the most important source for understanding the Sea Peoples, their possible origins, and their impact on the Mediterranean world.  To this day, no other source has been discovered that provides as detailed an account of these groups, and this mortuary temple still provides the only absolute date for the Sea Peoples.

NOTES:

[1]  Gardiner, A. H.     Egyptian Hieratic Texts. Literary Texts of the New Kingdom I. Georg Olms   Verlagsbuchhandlung Hildesheim. 1964
[2]  Gardiner, A. H. Ancient Egypt Onomastica vol. 1. Oxford, University Press 1968
[3]  Breasted, J. H.  – 2001/1906   Ancient Records of Egypt, vol. 4. Illinois: University of Illinois Press.
[4]  Redford, D. B. -   1992   Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
[5]  Moran, W.  1992     The Amarna Letters. Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.  Translations of the entire extant foreign correspondence of the Amarna pharaohs, with notes and   commentary.
[6]  Raymond Cohen and Raymond Westbrook, editors. Amarna Diplomacy: The Beginnings of International Relations. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2000. Pp. xvi, 307.
[7]  Primary Source Bibliography:
– Medinet Habu Inscriptions, reign of Ramesses III. Pp. 262-263 in:  Pritchard,J. 1969     Ancient Near Eastern Texts. New Jersey: Princeton Univeristy Press.
[8]  Secondary Sources Bibliography:
– Cifola,1988     Rameses III and the Sea Peoples: A Structural Analysis of the Medinet Habu Inscriptions.   Orientalia 57 (3): 275-306.
– Dothan, 1982   Philistines and Their Material Culture.  London
– O’Conner, D.2000  The Sea Peoples and the Egyptian Sources, pp. 85-102, in E. Oren (ed.) The  Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Press.
– Redford,D.B. 1992     Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
–Sandars, N.K. 1985     The Sea Peoples Warriors of the Ancient Mediterranean. London.
–Wachsmann,S. 2000     To the Sea of the Philistines. pp. 103-143, in E. Oren (ed.) The Sea Peoples    and Their World: A Reassessment. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Press.