TEXT: RAFFAELE D’AMATO 
  & ANDREA SALIMBETI
  ILLUSTRATED BY GIUSEPPE RAVA
  Sea Peoples of the 
  Bronze Age Mediterranean 
  c.1400 BC–1000 BC
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �����������
  Sea Peoples of the Bronze 
  Age Mediterranean 
  c.1400 BC–1000 BC
  ANDREA SALIMBETI 
  ILLUSTRATED BY GIUSEPPE RAVA
  & RAFFAELE D’AMATO
  Series editor Martin Windrow 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  CONTENTS
  INTRODUCTION 
  4
  CHRONOLOGY 
  6
  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND & SOURCES 
  7
  ���������������������������������������������������� �� �������������
  IDENTIFICATION OF GROUPS 
  12
  Sherden �  Peleset �� �������� �� ������� �� ���������� �� ������� � Teresh 
  �� ���������� ������ �� �������� �� ������������������ �� ������
  CLOTHING & EQUIPMENT  
  31
  ��������� �� ����������������������������������������������������� 
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  MILITARY ORGANIZATION 
  39
  ������������������������������������������������������������� � Leadership
  TACTICS 
  44
  ������������� �� �������������� �� ��������������������������������
  ‘THE WAR OF THE EIGHTH YEAR’, 1191 OR 1184 BC 
  49
  ������������� � The land battle � The sea battle �� ���������
  BIBLIOGRAPHY 
  61
  INDEX 
  64
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  INTRODUCTION
  The term ‘Sea Peoples’ is given today to various seaborne raiders and invaders 
  from a loose confederation of clans who troubled the Aegean, the Near East 
  and Egypt during the final period of the Bronze Age in the second half of the 
  2nd millennium BC.
  Though the Egyptians presumably knew the homelands of the Sea 
  Peoples, that information has since been lost. Many attempts have been made 
  to determine the origins of the various groups from textual and iconographic 
  evidence, and by study of their material culture as identified in Cyprus and 
  the Levant. This material culture is characterized by locally made Achaean-
  style pottery, and a considerable but not exclusively Aegean origin has 
  therefore been argued for the multi-ethnic coalition of Sea Peoples.
  The reliefs and inscriptions at Medinet Habu in Egypt, together with 
  Hittite written sources, reveal the emergence of 
  European populations as an influential power 
  in the political and military arena of the Near 
  East and Egypt in the last centuries of the 2nd 
  millennium BC. The movements of ‘barbarian’ 
  raiders, the crisis of the so-called ‘Palatial’ 
  system, internal quarrels, and the need for new 
  settlements among the inhabitants of the 
  Aegean area forced defeated leaders to seek 
  refuge and new lands in Western Asia. The 
  records of Pharaoh Ramesses III reveal the 
  repercussions of such Greek migrations and 
  conquests 
  among 
  the 
  Egyptians 
  and 
  neighbouring nations. These newcomers were 
  among the reasons for a sweeping change in 
  Late Bronze Age society, and for the fall of the 
  Palatial societies in Greece as well as the Levant. 
  Scholars have puzzled over whether the 
  Sea Peoples were directly responsible for the 
  collapse of some Late Bronze Age civilizations 
  or were only one of several catalysts, but their 
  movement was certainly one of the most 
  significant migrations in the history of the 
  Mediterranean world.
  SEA PEOPLES OF THE BRONZE 
  AGE MEDITERRANEAN 
  c.1400 BC–1000 BC
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������c���������������
  ���������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  Many of these ‘Northerners’ (as they are called in Egyptian texts) were 
  well acquainted with the sea; for at least two centuries the Sherden people 
  had been well known both for their piracy and for their prowess as 
  mercenaries. The shores and islands of the Aegean, as attested by the pottery 
  finds classified as Late Helladic IIIC period (LHIIIC, c.1150–1050 BC), were 
  ravaged by confrontations, while many powerful citadels of Late Bronze Age 
  Greece crumbled. Some of these, such as Tiryns in Argolis and Enkomi in 
  Cyprus, became bases for the Sea Peoples and their occasional confederacies. 
  These events may have provoked the Achaean princes to piracy and a search 
  for new lands in the East, confronting the Hittites in Asia Minor who stood 
  in the way of their advances inland from the Aegean. This struggle between 
  the newcomers and the Anatolian population may have been among the 
  causes of the Trojan War.
  By about 1200 BC the tide of invasion from Europe had swept across 
  Asia Minor, broken up the Hittite Empire, and spread out over the coasts of 
  Anatolia and the Fertile Crescent; here some of the invaders – also involving 
  Semitic peoples in their migratory movement – began to settle permanently. 
  Amidst all this turmoil, elements of older populations were dislodged; some 
  mixed with the invaders to form new elements of the migratory flow, and 
  others simply fled in search of new homes. As the disintegration of the older 
  states progressed the Sea Peoples increased in numbers and diversity of tribes, 
  extending their attacks towards the south and especially towards the Egyptian 
  empire. The rich cities of the Nile Delta were an attractive prize, and the 
  political situation in Egypt offered an excellent opportunity for new 
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  settlement. Some of the newcomers allied themselves with the traditional 
  enemies of Egypt, the Libyans, and supported the latters’ efforts to settle in 
  the Nile Delta, but this attempt was utterly defeated by the Pharaoh 
  Merneptah in c.1207 BC.
  However, in Year 5 of the reign of Ramesses III the Egyptian texts record 
  troubles in Syria provoked by the invaders, and in Year 8 a more threatening 
  danger arose. While earlier attacks by the Northerners had been limited to 
  seaborne raids on the coastal regions of the Delta, now the Sea Peoples were 
  moving southward not only in a military invasion but in a comprehensive 
  migration, with their families and possessions, to settle in the Asiatic part of the 
  Egyptian empire. Ramesses III faced invasions by land and sea, as enemy ships 
  seem to have co-operated with the main body moving overland. The pharaoh 
  led out his best forces to meet this threat, including foreign mercenaries, and 
  claims to have won complete victories in the subsequent battles by land and sea.
  Groups of defeated Sea Peoples were settled as guardians over the eastern 
  frontiers of Egypt, such as the Philistines who were planted along the 
  Palestinian coast. As the power of the pharaohs slowly diminished into 
  decadence, these settlers created their own kingdoms, taking possession of 
  the Palestinian coastal plain that took its name from them. It has even been 
  suggested that some roamed much further west, since the name of present-
  day Sardinia resembles that of one of the seagoing groups who were 
  prominent among the Sea Peoples.
  CHRONOLOGY (BC)
  2000–1700 
    Egyptian inscription from ‘Byblos obelisk’ mentions the 
  Lukka.
  1430–1385 
   Annals of Tudhaliya I/II list the Karkisa as taking part in 
  western Anatolian rebellion (Assuwan confederacy) against 
  Hatti.
  1386–1321 
   So-called ‘Amarna letters’ mention the Sherden, Danuna and 
  Lukka. 
  1350 
   
   Achaean and Sherden mercenaries serve in armies of Pharaohs 
  Akhenaten and Horemheb.
  1274 
   
   Battle of Kadesh inscriptions of Pharaoh Ramesses II the 
  Great (r.1279–1213) mention the Karkisa and Lukka, together 
  with the pharaoh’s Sherden mercenaries.
  1260 
   
   Treaty of Hittite kings Muwatalli II and Alaksandu of Wilusa 
  binds latter to help former if he campaigns against the Karkisa.  
  1207 
   
   During reign of Pharaoh Merneptah (r.1213–1203), ‘Great 
  Karnak Inscription’ lists Ekwesh, Teresh, Lukka, Sherden and 
  Shekelesh among ‘Northerners’ allied with Libyans against 
  Egypt. On the ‘Athribis Stele’ a list of captured peoples from 
  the Libyan campaign includes Ekwesh of the Sea, Shekelesh, 
  Teresh and Sherden. 
  Late 13th C: 
   Letter from king of Ugarit (in Syria) to king of Alashiya (in 
  Cyprus) states that the former is left defenceless against the 
  enemy because all his ships are in ‘the land of Lukka’. 
  Late 13th or 
  Hittite great king requests from Ugarit extradition of a man 
  early 12th C: 
  who was formerly a prisoner of the Shekelesh (or Tjekker).
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  1191 or 1178: 
   Land and sea victories of Pharaoh Ramesses III over 
  confederation of Sea Peoples.  
  1174–1130 
   Egyptians plant Peleset in garrisons in southern Canaan, and 
  early ‘Philistine’ settlements are founded in southern Levantine 
  coastal region. 
  1114–1064 
   During 20th Dynasty, under Ramesses XI, Sherden mercenaries 
  are still mentioned in administrative documents as in service 
  of royal house and beneficiaries of lands and goods.
  HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 
  & SOURCES
  The earliest mention of an ethnic group now considered to be among the 
  Sea Peoples is in Egyptian hieroglyphics on the ‘Byblos obelisk’. This mentions 
  kwkwn son of rwqq, transliterated as Kukunnis, son of Lukka (the Lycian). 
  The next historical evidence is from the ‘Amarna letters’, representing 
  diplomatic correspondence between 14th-century BC pharaohs and their 
  contemporaries in Canaan, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and the Aegean. At this 
  time the Near East was dominated by a group of ‘great kings’ with numerous 
  vassal city-states under their influence. It is in the vassal correspondence that 
  the Sea Peoples appear most frequently. The earliest of the letters date from 
  late in the reign of Amenhotep III, and the latest from the reign of Ay (i.e. 
  between c.1360 and 1321 BC). The ethnic groups under consideration are 
  the Sherden, Danuna and Lukka.
  The Kadesh campaign of Ramesses II, c.1274 BC
  Some of the Sea Peoples are also mentioned in Pharoah Ramesses II’s inscriptions 
  regarding the battle of Kadesh. This battle against the Hittites was one of the 
  most significant events of his reign, and took place in Year 5 of his rule (c.1274 
  BC following the most recent chronology). Although it did not end in a 
  conclusive victory for either side, it did result in a peace treaty between Egypt 
  and Hatti and a period of stability in the ancient Near East. The text is divided 
  into two sections: a bulletin and a poem. In the former, Ramesses mentions, 
  among the confederation of peoples from Canaan and the Mediterranean 
  campaigning alongside the Hittites, the Karkisa and the Lukka. Throughout the 
  text these two peoples are always mentioned in close association with one 
  another. In the poem the composition of the Hittite confederation is again 
  described, but another of the Sea Peoples is mentioned in the context of 
  Ramesses’ own soldiers: the Sherden, formerly captured in battle and put to 
  work as mercenary troops. These accounts of the battle are important for what 
  they say about the status of the Sea Peoples at the height of the Egyptian New 
  Kingdom: the Lukka, Karkisa and Sherden were all significant military forces 
  at this time, apparently operating mostly as mercenaries.
  The victory of Merneptah, c.1207 BC
  In the fifth year of the Pharaoh Merneptah (1207 BC) – according to the 
  sources known as the Great Karnak Inscription, Cairo Column, Athribis Stele, 
  and Hymn of Victory (aka the Israel Stele) – King Meryey of the Libyans 
  formed a coalition with several groups of Sea Peoples, and pushed forwards 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  �
  into the Nile Delta accompanied by wives, children 
  and belongings (implying that the Northerners 
  intended not only to plunder, but also to settle). 
  Merneptah led an expedition against the invaders, 
  and defeated them after six hours’ fighting at the 
  border of the Delta. The Great Karnak Inscription 
  begins with a list of the enemies faced by Egypt: the 
  Labu (Libyans), Ekwesh, Teresh, Lukka, Sherden, and 
  Shekelesh. The Meshwesh (a tribe probably related to 
  the Libyans) appear later in the text. The Ekwesh and 
  Teresh, although traditionally grouped with the rest 
  of the Sea Peoples, do not appear together with the 
  other groups in earlier or later texts.
  The most important part of the textual evidence 
  for the purposes of the present study is the list of captives, enemies slain, and 
  plunder. The total number of enemies either killed or brought as living captives 
  to Egypt is 9,376. Most of these were Labu, but the Sea Peoples also account 
  for a large number of the slain: 222 Shekelesh and 742 Teresh are accounted 
  for, though the numbers for the Sherden and Ekwesh have been lost. The list of 
  plunder is interesting for the information that it provides about the material 
  culture of the Sea Peoples and Libyans: 9,111 copper swords were taken from 
  the Meshwesh and Labu, as well as a variety of other weapons, armour, fine 
  vessels, cattle and goats. The Great Karnak Inscription also states that at least 
  three of the Sea Peoples – the Ekwesh, Shekelesh and Sherden – were circumcised, 
  which may offer a clue as to their ethnic origins. (By contrast, it is interesting to 
  note the Old Testament emphasis on the Philistines as an uncircumcised people.)
  The historical text on the Cairo Column simply describes the announcement 
  by a messenger to Merneptah of the invasion by the Libyans and their allies: 
  ‘Year 5, second month of the third season (tenth month)…. The wretched 
  [chief] of Libya has invaded [with]...., being men and women, Shekelesh ...’. 
  The Athribis Stele, similar to the Great Karnak Inscription, consists of an 
  abridged account of the battle (including the Year 5 date), followed by another 
  list of slain enemies, captives and spoils of battle. The numbers generally agree 
  with the other account, with only a few minor differences. The number of dead 
  Sherden is again missing, but the number of Ekwesh killed is given as 2,201.
  SHERDEN & DANUNA MERCENARIES; EGYPT, 
  14th CENTURY BC 
  1: Sherden warrior  
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �������
  2: Danuna warrior  
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������ �������� ���� ������� ����������� ����� ���� ���������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������
  3: Danuna warrior  
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������� ��� ��������� ���� ����� ����������� ��������� ��� �� ������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������
  4: Egyptian woman 
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������ 
  A 
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������c.���������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������������
  ��������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  1
  2
  4
  3
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The victories of Ramesses III, 1191/1178 et seq 
  The most detailed and best-known texts concerning renewed attacks on 
  Egypt by the Sea Peoples are the inscriptions from the present-day village of 
  Medinet Habu near Thebes in Upper Egypt, where a mortuary temple was 
  constructed for Ramesses III. The interior and exterior wall surfaces are 
  covered with a series of reliefs and texts providing an account of the pharaoh’s 
  campaign against the Labu and the ‘coalition of the sea’ from an Egyptian 
  point of view. The war against the Northerners is described in eight scenes 
  and a long inscription of 38 lines. These refer to Year 8 of Ramesses’ reign 
  (1191 BC or 1178 BC, depending on the different dates attributed to his 
  reign, either 1198–1166 or 1186–1155 BC). The campaign is recorded more 
  extensively on the inner north-west panel of the first court.
  According to the inscriptions, in that year the Nine Bows (the traditional 
  enemies of Egypt) appear as a ‘conspiracy in their isles’. The inscriptions go 
  on to specify the groups involved in the Sea Peoples’ confederation: Peleset, 
  Tjekker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh, who are classified as ‘foreign 
  countries’. The hieroglyphics do not mention the Sherden among the invaders, 
  but in two of the Sea Peoples’ ships warriors are depicted wearing the horned 
  helmet generally associated with the Sherden. The reliefs are especially 
  significant for their artistic depictions of the Sea Peoples; they provide 
  valuable evidence for the appearance and accoutrements of various groups, 
  and offer clues towards deducing their ethnic backgrounds. To this day, no 
  other source has been discovered that provides such a detailed account of 
  these groups at a specific date in their history.
  Other sources
  Some Sea Peoples appear in four letters found at Ugarit, Syria, the last three 
  of which seem to foreshadow the destruction of that city in about 1180 BC. 
  The letters therefore date from the early 12th century BC; the last king of 
  Ugarit was Ammurapi or Hammurabi (r.1191–1182 BC), and throughout 
  this correspondence he appears to be quite a young man. In the earliest letter 
  the ‘Great King’ of the Hittites (presumably Suppiluliuma II) says that he 
  ordered the king of Ugarit to send him the man Ibnadushu for questioning, 
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  but that the king was too immature to respond; he 
  therefore wants the prefect to send the man, whom he 
  promises to return. Ibnadushu had been kidnapped 
  by and had resided among a people referred to as 
  ‘Shikala’ (probably the Shekelesh), ‘who lived on 
  ships’, and the letter is generally interpreted as 
  showing the Great King’s interest in obtaining 
  military intelligence about this people. The last 
  three letters are a set from the Rap’anu Archive 
  by a slightly older King Ammurapi, in which he 
  informed Eshuwara, a senior official of Alashiya, 
  that an enemy fleet of 20 ships had been spotted 
  at sea.
  The Anastasi Papyrus is a satirical letter dated 
  to the early Ramessid era (Late Bronze to Early 
  Iron Age); one fragmentary copy can be dated to the 
  reign of Ramesses III, but the name of Ramesses II 
  appears in several passages. The most important section 
  for our purposes deals with the military expedition led by a 
  certain Amenemope, sent to meet a group of foreign enemies at an 
  uncertain location; his assignment is to make provision for the campaign, 
  which he fails to do. These peoples are Sherden, Kehek, Meshwesh, and 
  ‘Negroes’ (presumably Nubians or Sudanese); this indicates that the 
  Sherden were fighting alongside peoples from North Africa as enemies of 
  Egypt even at this early date, some time within the reign of Ramesses II.
  Ramesses III and the Sea Peoples are again mentioned in the Papyrus 
  Harris I, also known as the ‘Great Harris Papyrus’ – with its 41 metres, the 
  longest papyrus ever found in Egypt. This document, dated to early in the 
  reign of Ramesses IV (r. either 1151–1145 or 1155–1149 BC), was found 
  behind the Medinet Habu temple. It suggests a wider campaign against the 
  Sea Peoples; it does not mention a date, but the event has been connected 
  by scholars with the campaign of Ramesses III’s Year 12, as attested by a 
  stele found on the south side of the temple which mentions the Tjekker, 
  Peleset, Denyen, Weshesh and Shekelesh. In the papyrus the persona of 
  Ramesses III says: ‘I slew the 
  Denyen (D’-yn-yw-n) in their 
  isle and burned the Tjekker 
  and Peleset’, thus implying a 
  maritime expedition of his 
  own. He also captured some 
  Sherden and Weshesh ‘of the 
  Sea’ and settled them in 
  Egypt. As Ramesses III is 
  called the ‘Ruler of Nine 
  Bows’ in the relief on the east 
  side, these events probably 
  happened subsequent to the 
  battles of his Year 8, when he 
  would 
  have 
  used 
  the 
  victorious fleet for punitive 
  expeditions elsewhere in 
  the Mediterranean.
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  IV in c.�����������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������������
  �����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The Onomasticon of Amenemope or Amenemipit (Amen-em-apt) gives 
  slight credence to the idea that the Ramessid kings settled Sea Peoples in 
  Palestine. Dated to about 1100 BC, it mentions several different groups; after 
  six place names, four of which were in Philistia, the scribe lists the Sherden, 
  the Tjekker and the Peleset, who therefore might be presumed to occupy those 
  cities. The 11th-century BC Report of Wen-Amon papyrus also places the 
  Tjekker at Dor, in modern Israel, under the 22nd Dynasty. The Danuna 
  (Denyen) are only mentioned in the Onomasticon in the time of Ramesses III. 
  The Lukka are very closely associated with both the Karkisa and the Masa.
  IDENTIFICATION OF GROUPS
  The Sherden (S’-r’d-n, S-ar-di-na) 
  The Sherden/Shardana were among the first of the Sea Peoples to appear in 
  the historical record; in the Amarna letters (c.1350 BC) Sherden are 
  mentioned as part of an Egyptian garrison in Byblos, where they provided 
  their services to the king Rib-Hadda. They appear again during the reign of 
  Ramesses II, in the mid-13th century BC.
  PRIMARY SOURCES
  Egyptian primary sources mentioning Sea Peoples, by specific group: 
  Denyen
  Amarna letters (El-Amarna tablet 151; Amenophis 
  III/IV)
  Medinet Habu (Ramesses III)
  Papyrus Harris (Ramesses III)
  Onomasticon of Amenemope (late 20th–22nd 
  Dynasties)
  Ekwesh
  Great Karnak Inscription (Merneptah)
  Athribis Stele (Merneptah)
  Karkisa 
  Kadesh inscription (Ramesses II)
  Lukka
  Obelisk temple hieroglyphics (Byblos obelisk, 2000–
  1700 BC)
  Amarna letters (El-Amarna tablet 38; Akhenaten)
  Kadesh inscription (Ramesses II)
  Great Karnak Inscription (Merneptah)
  Onomasticon of Amenemope (late 20th–22nd D)
  Peleset
  Medinet Habu (Ramesses III)
  Papyrus Harris (Ramesses III)
  Rhetorical Stele, Chapel C at Deir el-Medina 
  (Ramesses III)
  Onomasticon of Amenemope (late 20th–22nd D)
  Shekelesh
  Great Karnak Inscription (Merneptah)
  Cairo Column (Merneptah)
  Athribis Stele (Merneptah)
  Medinet Habu (Ramesses III)
  Sherden
  Amarna letters (El-Amarna tablets 81, 122 & 123; 
  Amenophis III/IV)
  Stele of Padjesef (19th–22nd D)
  Kadesh inscription (Ramesses II)
  Tanis Stele (Ramesses II)
  Papyrus Anastasi I (Ramesses II)
  Great Karnak Inscription (Merneptah)
  Athribis Stele (Merneptah)
  Papyrus Anastasi II (Merneptah)
  Stele of Stemhebu (late 19th–early 20th D)
  Medinet Habu (Ramesses III)
  Papyrus Harris (Ramesses III)
  Papyrus Amiens (20th D)
  Papyrus Wilbour (Ramesses V)
  Adoption Papyrus (Ramesses IX)
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Other primary sources mentioning specific groups: 
  Denyen 
  Letter to Abi-Milku, king of Tyre, mentions death of 
  king of ‘Danuna’ (El-Amarna tablet 151)
  Hittite sources:
  Letters of Ramesses II and Hattusili III
  Karatepe inscription (early 1st millennium BC)
  Karatepe inscription (8th century BC)
  Karkisa 
  Linear B tablet from Pylos mentions ‘Ko-ro-ki-ja’ 
  women (An02-292)
  Hittite sources:
  Annals of Tudhaliya I/II (Catalogues des textes 
  hittites 142)
  Annals of Mursili II (Cat. des textes... 61)
  Treaty of Mursili II & Manapa-Tarhunta (Cat. des 
  textes... 69)
  Treaty of Muwatalli II & Alaksandu of Wilusa (Cat. 
  des textes... 76)
  Lukka 
  Letter of king of Alashiya to Akhenaten (El-Amarna 
  tablet 38)
  Ugaritic sources:
  Letter from king of Ugarit to king of Alashiya (Ras 
  Shamra 20.238)
  Hittite sources:
  Annals of Tudhaliya I/II (Cat. des textes... 142)
  Plague prayer of Mursili II (Cat. des textes... 376)
  Treaty of Muwatalli II & Alaksandu of Wilusa (Cat. 
  des textes... 76)
  Tawagalawa letter of Hattusili III (Cat. des textes... 
  181)
  Annals of Hattusili (Cat. des textes... 82)
  Suedburg inscription of Suppiluliuma II
  Yalburt (Ilgin) inscription – Tudhaliya’s military 
  operations
  Instruction of Tudhaliya IV to his stewards
  Shekelesh 
  Hittite great king’s request to Ugarit (Ras Shamra 
  34.129)
  Tiglath-Pileser III plunders a fortress (Annals text 13)
  Sherden 
  Sherden man defects from Rib-Hadda of Byblos to 
  Abdi-Asirta (El-Amarna 81)
  Sherden people under suzerainty of Rib-Hadda of 
  Byblos (El-Amarna 122, 123)
  Ugaritic sources: 
  Lawsuit between two citizens of Ugarit (Ras Shamra 
  17.112)
  Possible use of Sherden as personal name ‘Drdn’ 
  (Ras Shamra 19.011)
  Contract with unnamed son of a Sherden (Ras 
  Shamra 15.167+163)
  Ibshalu receives property of man named ‘Mse-er-ta-
  an-ni’ (Ras Shamra 15.118)
  Four Sherden counted (as guards?) in palace (Ras 
  Shamra 15.073)
  Five Sherden counted in palace (Ras Shamra 15.015, 
  15.094, 15.095 & 15.103)
  Sherden as recipients in list of wine rations (Ras 
  Shamra 16.165)
  Ethnic Sherden name of man ‘Al-la-an-se-ri-da-ni’ 
  (Ras Shamra 16.251)
  Tjekker/Sikila (?) 
  Hittite great king’s requests from Ugarit (Ras Shamra 
  34.129)
  Papyrus Moscow 169 (Onomasticon Golenischeff; 
  early 21st D)
  Papyri British Museum 10326 & 10375 
  (end 20th D)
  Papyrus Turin Museum 2026 (end 20th D)
  Onomasticon of Amenemope (late 20th–22nd D)
  Donation Stele (Osorkon II)
  Teresh
  Great Karnak Inscription (Merneptah)
  Athribis Stele (Merneptah)
  Medinet Habu (Ramesses III)
  Rhetorical Stele, Chapel C, Deir el-Medina 
  (Ramesses III)
  Tjekker/Sikila (?) 
  Medinet Habu (Ramesses III)
  Papyrus Harris (Ramesses III)
  Onomasticon of Amenemope (late 20th–22nd D)
  Report of Wen-Amon (22nd D)
  Weshesh
  Medinet Habu (Ramesses III)
  Papyrus Harris (Ramesses III)
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The role that the Sherden played with relation to 
  Egypt varies from one text to another. They appear 
  as a contingent of the Egyptian army in a wide array 
  of sources, including the Kadesh battle inscription of 
  Ramesses II, the Anastasi Papyrus, and the Papyrus 
  Harris of Ramesses III; and as enemies of the 
  Egyptians for the first time under Ramesses II, in the 
  Tanis and Aswan Stelae dated to that pharaoh’s Year 
  2. In later periods they seem to have been mercenaries 
  with no fixed alliances, who might fight either with 
  or against the Egyptians, or both.
  At the battle of Kadesh some Sherden were 
  assimilated as the personal guard of Ramesses II. 
  They show up in Egypt again during the reign of 
  Merneptah, now fighting the Egyptians as part of a 
  coalition of Sea Peoples. In the reign of Ramesses III 
  some are probably represented in the Medinet Habu 
  reliefs as fighting alongside the Peleset, but in other 
  scenes they seem to be depicted as mercenaries in the 
  pharaoh’s service. While the Medinet Habu 
  inscription does not mention a Sherden presence 
  among the invaders, a chief of the ‘Sherden of the 
  Sea’ is represented among the prisoners. During the 
  final period of the Bronze Age the Sherden appear in the Onomasticon of 
  Amenemope in a list of Sea Peoples occupying the Phoenician coast.
  In Egyptian administrative documents subsequent to the reign of Ramesses 
  III (Papyrus Amiens, Papyrus Wilbour, Papyrus of the Adoption, and Papyrus 
  Turin 2026) there is plentiful evidence for settlements, land and goods intended 
  for Sherden mercenaries. This confirms the elite status of such troops in the 
  pharaohs’ armies, and in Egyptian society in general. For instance, the Papyrus 
  Amiens states that the king has granted to the Sherden warriors and the royal 
  scribes the agricultural use of land adjacent to the temple of Karnak.
  �����������������������
  ������������������������
  ��������������������������
  c.����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������
  SHERDEN MERCENARIES MARCHING TO 
  KADESH, 1274 BC
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������
  1: Regular infantryman 
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  �������� ���������� (klaft).� ���� ������������� ��� ������ �����
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������
  2: ‘Sea Shardana’  
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������(3)��������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������
  3: Royal guardsman 
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����� ���������� ��� ��� ��������� ����� ��� ��������� ����������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������� �������� ������ (shenti).����� �������� ����� ��������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������
  B
  A
  D
  B
  C
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  1
  2
  3
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The question of their land of origin is still unresolved, 
  since the Egyptian sources only tell us that they came from 
  overseas. Four main hypotheses have been put forward: (1) 
  the region of Sardis in western Anatolia; (2) the Semitic 
  East; (3) the Ionian coast; and (4) the island of Sardinia in 
  the western Mediterranean.
  The first is argued by analogy with the fact that ancient 
  authors trace the original homeland of the Tyrsenians to 
  Lydia, so the Sherden are also likely to originate from 
  western Anatolia, where we find the Lydian capital named 
  Sardis, and related names such as Mount Sardena and the 
  Sardanion plain. Accordingly, the Sherden were considered 
  to be on their way from their original home in Lydia to 
  their later home in Sardinia at the time of the upheavals of 
  the Sea Peoples. However, this thesis rests upon nothing 
  more than a perhaps spurious resemblance of names.
  Evidence favouring the second hypothesis is the dirk-
  sword used by the Sherden. This is illustrated in cylinder 
  seals from the East centuries before the first encounter with Egypt, and was 
  among the weapons of the Hittites, thus perhaps indicating a Semitic or 
  Hurrian origin for the Sherden. Furthermore, one Sherden personal name 
  may support this theory: the father of a Sherden on an Ugarit tablet bears a 
  Semitic name, ‘Mut-Baal’. It may also be relevant that the image of a captured 
  Sherden chief represented at Medinet Habu closely resembles those of Semites 
  as the Egyptians habitually portrayed them.
  According to the third thesis the Sherden might be equated with the 
  Sardonians of the Classical era, a renowned warrior people from the Ionian 
  coast. In the 14th–13th centuries BC the Sherden had already earned a 
  reputation as seaborne raiders.
  Archaeological 
  evidence 
  presented for the fourth theory 
  draws 
  attention 
  to 
  some 
  similarities of the Egyptian 
  depictions of Sherden with statue-
  menhirs from southern Corsica; 
  these depict so-called torre-
  builders, who are identical with 
  the nuraghe-builders from nearby 
  Sardinia. They give the impression 
  of a society proud of its martial 
  qualities and hence a plausible 
  supplier of mercenaries, in which 
  capacity we encounter the Sherden 
  in the Egyptian and Levantine 
  sources. Furthermore, there are 
  several similarities between 
  Egyptian depictions of Sherden 
  and some of the 11th to 6th-
  century BC bronze statuettes 
  attested in Sardinia, as well as 
  ship representations and some 
  Bronze Age weapons found in the 
  ���������������������
  �������������c.������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������
  �������������������������
  ����������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  island settlements. It is worth mentioning that a 9th/8th-century BC stele 
  from the ancient Sardinian city of Nora bears the word Srdn in Phoenician 
  symbols, and seems to be the oldest so far identified in the 
  western Mediterranean.
  However, even on the basis of the combined evidence from Corsica and 
  Sardinia, it is difficult to conclude with any confidence if the Sherden 
  originated from or later moved to this part of the Mediterranean. For a start, 
  the Greek sources agree that the original name of the island of Sardinia was 
  in fact Ichnussa; and the description in the Great Karnak Inscription of the 
  Sherden as being circumcised, together with their close resemblance to 
  Semites in Egyptian imagery, makes the second theory more reasonable.
  The Peleset (Pw-r-s-ty) 
  These were one of the most significant among the groups that attacked Egypt 
  in Years 5 and 8 of Ramesses III. The name Peleset, which has no earlier 
  occurrence in the Egyptian sources, was identified with the Biblical Philistines 
  by Jean-François Champollion soon after his decipherment of Egyptian 
  hieroglyphics. Nowadays the Philistines are generally considered to have 
  been newcomers in the Levant, settling in their towns of Ashdod, Askelon, 
  Gaza, Ekron, and Gath at the time of the upheavals of the Sea Peoples.
  In the Medinet Habu reliefs Ramesses III fights against the Peleset both 
  at sea and on land, and in his battles against the Libyans some warriors who 
  may be identified as Peleset have been recruited (together with Sherden) into 
  the Egyptian army. In the Papyrus Harris, Ramesses III claims to have settled 
  vanquished Sea Peoples, among them the Peleset, in strongholds ‘bound in 
  his name’. This has led some scholars to assume that the settlement of the 
  Philistines in Canaan took place under Egyptian supervision. Furthermore, 
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������
  A
  B
  C
  D
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  the continuity of Egyptian influence in the hinterland of the Philistine 
  pentapolis might suggest that the Egyptian pharaoh maintained a nominal 
  claim on the land conquered by the Philistines, and considered them as 
  vassals guarding his imperial frontiers. After their settlement in Palestine the 
  Philistines rose to a position of power in the region owing to their military 
  superiority over the local population, as exemplified by the many military 
  engagements described in the Bible.
  There are many theories as to the origin of the Peleset-Philistines (Greece, 
  Crete, Illyria, western Anatolia, ‘Lands to the East’, etc). Based on the various 
  sources, it seemed reasonable to suggest that the Peleset-Philistines did not 
  reach Palestine directly from their original homes but only after a period of 
  wandering Asia Minor and the coasts of the Near East. One theory linked 
  the Peleset to the Homeric Pelasgians, allies of Troy of whom one group lived 
  in Thrace, north-east of Greece. Those Pelasgians would have migrated south, 
  overrunning and fatally damaging Achaean Greek civilization. Shortly 
  afterwards, many would have sailed further south to Crete, where Homer’s 
  Odyssey mentions Pelasgians. Furthermore, many Biblical passages (Jeremiah 
  47, Amos 9, Ezekiel 25 & 26) refer to the Philistines’ origin as the ‘Island of 
  Caphtor’; and in 608 BC they are clearly called Cretans (Sofonia, II, 5). 
  Since many scholars identify Caphtor with Crete, it is widely accepted today 
  that the Peleset were originally Cretan Greeks of the Late Bronze Age. This 
  theory is also supported by the many finds of pottery on Philistine sites that 
  are closely related in ware, shape, paint and decorative concept to examples 
  of the LHIIIC period attested in Greece and the Aegean islands.
  A striking piece of evidence from the Near East is the typical ‘feather’-
  topped headdress that recurs on human-shaped coffins discovered in several 
  parts of Palestine. The headdresses moulded on these clay coffins are 
  reminiscent of the Medinet Habu reliefs; minor individual differences in the 
  decoration of the headbands – circles, notches, and zig-zags – might suggest 
  different tribes or clans.
  The Tjekker (T-k-k(r)) 
  The Tjekker people took part in the campaign against the Egyptians in Year 
  8 of Ramesses III, and are another major group depicted in the reliefs at 
  Medinet Habu. The Tjekker are also mentioned in the Wen-Amon papyrus 
  of the 11th century BC: the author recalls visiting the city of Dor in modern 
  Israel, which he calls ‘a town of the Tjekker’, where he was forced to approach 
  its ruler Beder with a complaint about gold stolen from his ships. The Tjekker 
  ����������������������
  ������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������
  A
  B
  C
  D
  E
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  warriors fight with short swords, long spears, and round shields. 
  Archaeological evidence from Dor supports Wen-Amon’s claim of Tjekker 
  settlement; Stern’s excavations discovered a large quantity of Philistine-style 
  bichrome pottery on the site, as well as cow scapulae and bone-handled iron 
  knives similar to those found at Philistine sites. Stern believes this is evidence 
  of a Tjekker (which he calls Sikel) presence at Dor.
  Some scholars trace the origins of this group to the Troad, the eastern 
  coastal region of Asia Minor, where they connect the Tjekker with the Teucri 
  people possibly displaced after the Trojan War. Sandars also suggests a 
  connection to the hero Teucer, the traditional founder of a settlement on 
  Cyprus. It is suggested that the Tjekker may have come to Canaan from the 
  Troad by way of Cyprus, and some depictions of warriors found on Cyprus 
  might suggest some connection or shared culture between the Tjekker, 
  Anatolian and Aegean peoples. Some scholars point out that most of the 
  evidence for the origins of the Tjekker people suggests that they came from, 
  or shared a culture with, the people of the Aegean. Redford’s conclusions 
  from the reliefs at Medinet Habu also suggest an Aegean connection; he 
  notes that the ships identified as ‘Tiakkkr’ are more in the Aegean style than 
  any other. The Tjekker warriors are depicted with what he calls ‘hoplite-like 
  plumes’ on their helmets, often identified as of Greek origin. The 
  archaeological evidence leads to the conclusion that these people were not 
  simply raiders, but a group looking for a place to settle.
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������ 
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The Denyen (D-y-n-yw-n) 
  Based on New Kingdom Egyptian texts, the Denyen are considered 
  as one of the major groups of the Sea Peoples, and as outstanding 
  seamen and warriors. They are known by many differing names from 
  Egyptian, Hittite, and Classical sources: Danuna, Danunites, Danaoi, 
  Danaus, Danaids, Dene, Danai, and Danaian. The earliest Egyptian 
  text is one of the Amarna letters (mid-14th C BC), relevant to Pharaoh 
  Amenhotep IV’s vassal Abi-Milku, the king of the Phoenician city of 
  Tyre. Letter No. 151 mentions the death of a king of ‘Danuna’; his 
  brother has succeeded him, and his land is at peace. The Denyen next 
  appear on the temple walls at Medinet Habu during the reign of 
  Ramesses III (early 12th C BC), as part of the Sea Peoples’ confederacy 
  attacking Egypt. They are also mentioned in the Papyrus Harris, where 
  Ramesses III himself tells us of his victory. The text of the Onomasticon of 
  Amenemope mentions the ‘Dene’, which Gardiner identifies with the 
  Danuna-Danaoi, perhaps referring to a tribe living on the plain of Argos.
  Besides Egyptian texts, Hittite and Classical sources mention the Danuna. 
  The 8th-century BC bilingual inscription from Karatepe tells how King 
  Azitawadda expanded the Plain of Adana and restored his people, the 
  Danunites. In Greek mythology Egypt played an important part in the story 
  of the wanderings of Io and the tragedy of her descendants, the Danais. 
  Various theories as to the homeland of the Denyen have suggested (1) eastern 
  Cilicia, (2) Mycenae, or (3) Canaan.
  The first theory is based on the name of Adana, a city in eastern Cilicia, 
  which was known under the name Adaniya by the Hittite king Telepinus 
  (r.1525–1500 BC). According to Barnett, the Denyen lived in Cilicia in the 
  9th century BC, and caused alarm to the neighbouring Amanus, Kalamu of 
  Sam’al. The ‘islands’ where Ramesses III situated the Denyen were tiny islets 
  and capes off the Cilician coast. The Denyen are also known from the 
  Karatepe inscription, which mentions the legendary Greek hero Mopsus who 
  is said to have founded Aspendos, which is identified as the town of 
  Azitawadda in Cilicia.
  Direct evidence of the settlement of this group is found in the Medinet 
  Habu inscription, where the land called Kode, conquered by the Sea Peoples, 
  is the Egyptian term for Cilicia. Furthermore, a good deal of Achaean-style 
  THE FIRST EGYPTIAN CAMPAIGN, 1207 BC
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������� ����������� ��� ��������� ��� ���� ������� �������
  �������������
  1: Lukka warrior 
  ����� ��������� ��� ������� ����� ���� ������ �������� ��� �������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������ ����������� ������� ����� �� ������� �������� ��� �����
  ����������� ����� ���� ������� ���� ������ �������� �������� ��� ���
  �������������������������������
  2: Teresh warrior 
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  3: Ekwesh warrior 
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ��������� ����� ������� ��� ����� �������� ��� ��� ���������� ���
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���� ����������� ��� ���� ���������� ����� ������ �� �������� ���
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������
  4: Egyptian guardsman, Pdt n šmsw   
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  The klaft������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������� 
  C
  a
  Ram
  attack
  Rame
  Amen
  Danu
  Be
  The 8
  Azita
  Danu
  of the
  Vario
  Cilici
  Th
  whici h
  (r.152
  9th ce
  Sam’a
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  1
  2
  3
  4
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  pottery of various periods has been found in Cilicia, some of it locally made, 
  and this has been suggested as indicating the arrival of Aegean elements, 
  perhaps as invaders. This event, according to the later Greek sources, is 
  supposed to have happened after the fall of Troy VII in 1180 BC.
  A second theory, favoured by many scholars, equates the Denyen with the 
  Danaoi from mainland Acheaen Greece, because all Greeks were referred to 
  as Danaans by Homer. This is a credible suggestion; the Danaans came from 
  Mycenae, and Greek tradition suggests that the Danaoi settled in Argos and 
  were named after the Danaos.
  According to the third theory the Denyen originated in Canaan. By this 
  hypothesis the Denyen and other Sea Peoples returned to the Levant as a 
  counter-migration, while other Denyen went to the Aegean and Mycenae and 
  became known as Danaans. The Denyen were a major part of the confederation 
  in the Levant that attacked Egypt with the other Sea Peoples, especially the 
  Peleset, and participated in the sea battle against Ramesses III. Others went to 
  Asia Minor, and some of the Sea Peoples returned to the Levant, where these 
  Denyen were accepted into the confederation of the tribes of Israel called Dan.
  The Biblical data shows that at a certain stage of its settlement the Tribe 
  of Dan was very close to the People of the Sea. From the historical and 
  mythological sources, it is possible to construct the following theory. The 
  tribe of the Danai originated in the East, and the introduction of the alphabet 
  to Greece is attributed to it. Its members were outstanding seamen who had 
  a special connection with sun worship. The association with the Tribe of Dan 
  is because they formed two different tribes (the Danites and the Danai) with 
  identical names and similar characteristics, who operated in the same 
  geographical region and period, or had a strong link between them, and 
  possibly a certain measure of identity.
  The Shekelesh (S’-r’-rw-s’) 
  This is one of the most obscure groups, but it is clear that they played an 
  important role in the military conquests of the Sea Peoples’ coalition. They 
  are only mentioned in passing in the ancient texts, such as the annals of 
  Ramesses III from Medinet Habu and the Ugaritic texts. The group is also 
  mentioned in the Kom el-Ahmar Stele from the reign of Merneptah.
  The Shekelesh officially make an appearance attacking Egypt in around 
  1220 BC, and again, invading the Delta, in 1186–1184 BC. One of the 
  earliest mentions of them occurs early in the reign of the Pharaoh Merneptah. 
  When he confronted the Libyan invasion he faced not just one hostile tribe, 
  but an alliance of Sea Peoples groups: the Meshwesh, the people of the island 
  of Kos, and the Lycians, who were the major forces and urged smaller tribes 
  like the Sherden, Tyrsenoi, and Shekelesh to assist in the fight against the 
  Egyptians. When the two armies met the Egyptians, although suffering major 
  losses, eventually slaughtered over 9,000 of the Sea Peoples’ coalition, and 
  Merneptah records that he killed 222 Shekelesh warriors. Years later, 
  Ramesses III would finish the job that Merneptah began and (or so he claims) 
  completely wipe out the Sea Peoples.
  The reliefs and inscriptions at Medinet Habu only mention the Shekelesh 
  briefly, but we are able to get a glimpse of what a Shekelesh soldier might 
  have looked like. Among the other groups the Shekelesh (and the Teresh) 
  stand out as wearing cloth headdresses and a medallion on their breasts, and 
  carry two spears and a round shield. However, because the inscription related 
  to the sea battle only mentions the Peleset, the Weshesh (normally associated 
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ���������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  with the ‘feathered’ headdress), and the Shekelesh, some scholars suggest that 
  the warriors with horned helmets, normally identified with the Sherden, 
  could instead have been the Shekelesh. They also suggest that the Sherden are 
  probably the men represented with horned helmets incorporating a central 
  disk or knob.
  The Shekelesh’s place of origin has been considered to be Sagalassos in 
  Pisidia. Some scholars, such as N.K. Sandars, believe that the Shekelesh came 
  from south-eastern Sicily. Other sources tell us that the ‘Sikeloy’ were not the 
  original inhabitants of Sicily, but migrated there from peninsular Italy. In the 
  8th century BC Greek colonists on Sicily came across a group of people 
  known as the Sikels, who they believed had come from Italy after the 
  Trojan War.
  The Ekwesh (‘-k-w’-s’) 
  Scholars generally accept that the name Ekwesh or Akwash is the Egyptian 
  equivalent of Achaean and Ahhiyawa in Hittite texts, so forming another 
  group of Bronze Age Greeks among the Sea Peoples. According to the best 
  reading of the numbers inscribed at Karnak, there were 1,213 Ekwesh 
  casualties in Merneptah’s 1207 BC campaign; they were the largest group 
  among the Sea Peoples, and formed the core of this force. Further, the Karnak 
  inscriptions clearly imply that the Akwash/Ekwesh were circumcised. Hardly 
  anyone thinks that the Greeks of the Bronze Age were circumcised, but of 
  course, no one really knows. It is certainly possible that the Ekwesh were 
  Achaeans, but which Achaeans? Not only were there Achaeans on the 
  mainland and Crete but also in Cyprus, on the Anatolian coast and on the 
  island of Rhodes.
  As far as Cyprus is concerned, it is possible that at the time when the major 
  Achaean centres in the Peloponnese were destroyed or abandoned, the 
  fortified settlements at Maa-Palaeokastro, Hala Sultan Tekke near Larnaca, 
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������
  �������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������
  �������
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  and especially Enkomi were constructed or re-colonized by people from both 
  the Greek mainland and Crete (Peleset?), who may also have brought 
  Anatolians with them. Refugees may have settled near major urban centres in 
  Cyprus (with which they or their forefathers were already familiar from 
  earlier trade connections), and gradually expanded into these centres. The new 
  wave of immigrants brought with them the so-called ‘Mycenaean IIIC1’ 
  pottery style, which is found at all the major Late Bronze Age centres in 
  Cyprus (Enkomi, Kition, Palaeopaphos, etc). The same pottery is also found 
  in the first settlements of the Peleset in the Levant and in the Fertile Crescent. 
  These Achaeans, together with other groups of Achaeans from Anatolia and 
  nearby islands, were probably the Ekwesh of the Egyptian sources. 
  This interpretation is strengthened by the very similar material culture shown 
  in Late Bronze Age Cyprus and the representations of the Sea Peoples group 
  in the Egyptian sources.
  In their settlements on the Anatolian coast the Achaeans were neighbours 
  of the Lukka, and might have allied with that group in various ventures. 
  Legends preserved by the Greeks remember close contacts with the Lukka or 
  Lycians. It is thus believable that Achaeans from the Anatolian coast could 
  have been caught up with their Lukka neighbours in events, whatever they 
  may have been, that impelled them to sail for the coast of Libya or Egypt. 
  A possible reference that the Achaeans were among Egypt’s attackers is from 
  the Odyssey (Book XIV):
  I had been home no more than a month, enjoying my family and 
  wealthy estate, when the spirit urged me to fit out some ships and set 
  sail for Egypt, along with my godlike comrades. Nine ships in all were 
  readied, and quickly the great crew gathered, for six days… On the 
  fifth day we came to the great Egyptian river, and there in that fair-
  flowing stream we moored our ships. Then I told my trusty companions 
  to stay by the ships and guard them, and I sent some scouts to high 
  vantage points to get the lay of the land. But the crews gave way to 
  wanton violence, and, carried away by their strength, they began to 
  pillage and plunder the fine Egyptian farms. They abducted the women 
  and children and murdered the men. But their cries were heard in the 
  city, and at dawn the whole plain was full of foot-soldiers and chariots 
   SEA BATTLE OFF ALASHIYA, CYPRUS, 
  c.1200–1190 BC
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������
  1: Alashiyan priest-king 
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������
  2: Cypriot aristocratic eqeta 
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �����
  3: Ekwesh warrior 
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������� ����� ����� ����������� ������ ��� ����� ��������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������
  4: Alashiyan Ekwesh warrior 
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  kiton�����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������
  D
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  1
  2
  3
  4
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  and the flashing of bronze… Thus, with keen bronze, their men cut us 
  down by the dozen, and they led up others to their city as slaves…
  Of course, it cannot be known if this passage preserves a memory of the 
  invasion of Egypt during the reign of Merneptah, or of other raids on Egypt 
  by Greeks of the Late Bronze Age.
  The Teresh (Tw-ry-s’) 
  The Teresh or Tursha are mentioned during Year 5 of Merneptah’s reign 
  (c.1207 BC), in the Great Karnak Inscription, as being among the enemy 
  coalition faced by Egypt. During the reign of Ramesses III a Teresh chief is 
  shown together with other captive Sea Peoples in the Medinet Habu reliefs. 
  Furthermore, in Tomb 23 from Gurob the archaeologist W. Flinders Petrie 
  found the mummy of An-en-Tursha, a Teresh butler at the court of Ramesses 
  III. This well-preserved mummy still shows fair hair, confirming that he was 
  not native to Egypt or Africa.
  Several possibilities exist which may identify the Teresh as Anatolians. 
  First to be considered are the Trojans: Troy appears in a Hittite record as 
  ‘Taruisa’, and it is a reasonable assumption that the people of Taruisa called 
  themselves by some name close to this. The period of the attack of the Sea 
  Peoples’ coalition is compatible with some of the military events that occurred 
  in the area of Troy. It is to be expected that there were many Trojan refugees, 
  among whom some would attempt to survive by their wits and their swords.
  A second possibility might be the Tyrsenians, a group of pirates with ‘well 
  decked ships’ mentioned in two works of about 700 BC, and in a poem 
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������
  ���������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  known as Hymn to Dionysus which tradition attributes to Homer. During 
  the Classical period Herodotus and Thucydides mention them under the 
  name Tyrrhenians. Herodotus places these people in Lydia, and Thucydides 
  remarks that they were known to live on the island of Lesbos, offshore from 
  Lydia. Lydia is the Classical-period name for the land which in the Bronze 
  Age was Arzawa, and possibly part of the Seha River Land, an area located 
  not far south of Taruisa. Some scholars suggest that the Tyrsenians may be 
  related to the Etruscans: in fact the Tyrrhenian Sea – the name is derived from 
  a Greek term – still survives as a name for the waters between western Italy, 
  Corsica and Sardinia.
  A third theory shifts the geographic focus to the south-east coast of 
  Anatolia. In a Hittite record containing a list of cities the names Kummanni, 
  Zunnahara, Adaniya and Tarsa appear together. The last two are most likely 
  the cities of Adana and Tarsus, and it is certain that Tarsus was in existence 
  in the Bronze Age. If the Egyptians were to ask a man of Tarsus where he 
  came from, he might point in a northerly direction and answer ‘from Tarsa’, 
  ‘Tarsha’ or ‘Tarssas’, and this would be written down by Egyptians as T-r-s 
  or T-r-sh. Tarsus is close to the coast, and in later times was an important 
  port; furthermore it is not a great distance from the coast of Lycia/Lukka, 
  and there was probably frequent contact between these peoples.
  The Karkisa
  The Karkisa appear to be one of the minor tribes; most of the ancient 
  references are only passing mentions, and in many cases it is unclear whether 
  they are referring to a group of people or a geographical region.
  The first mentions of Karkisa occur during the reigns of Ramesses II of 
  Egypt and Muwatalli of the Hittite Empire. In the former case, in both the 
  bulletin and the poem referring to the battle of Kadesh the Karkisa are 
  mentioned in lists of tribes that had joined forces with the Hittites, without 
  further details. The Hittite record reinforces the idea of this alliance; the 
  annals mention that Muwatalli sent a person to the people of Karkisa, whom 
  he paid to protect this man from his own brothers. The man then sided with 
  an enemy of Muwatalli, but when captured he begged to become once again 
  a vassal of the great Hittite king. In this story the Karkisa are represented as 
  allies of the Hittites, which fits their description by Ramesses II. They make 
  one final appearance in ancient literature, being mentioned in the 
  Onomasticon of Amenemope in a exclusively geographical reference to the 
  land of Lukka. Some scholars place the Karkisa in south-west Asia Minor; 
  Barnett mentions specifically that the Karkisa are associated with the Hittite 
  area of Caria, which is on the south-western tip of Anatolia.
  The Lukka (Rw-kw) 
  The Lukka were mentioned in some ancient texts, but rarely in any source 
  more detailed than simple lists. There is no clear evidence of where exactly 
  the Lukka (Lycian) lands were, but scholars have proposed some possibilities.
  One theory is that the Lukka were scattered in western Anatolia, Caria 
  being one of several areas where they were found. Over time they broke 
  down the rule of the Hittites by persistent raiding. In the Ugarit tablets we 
  find letters from the Ugarit king to the king of Alashiya, stating that the 
  former will send a fleet to the coast of Lukka to defend the passage from the 
  Aegean to the Mediterranean; Lukka territory reached the ‘coast’, but it is 
  unclear if he means the Aegean or the Mediterranean coast. These Lukka 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  lands are also referred to as the Xanthos Valley. The Lycians had a series of 
  kingdoms, called Arzawa lands, under Hittite suzerainty; these seem to have 
  had no real political power, since there is no evidence of treaties with the 
  Hittites or of any named Lukka king.
  According to Hittite texts the Lukka were a rebellious people, sea-goers, 
  and easily swayed by foreign influences. During the mid-15th century BC, 
  early in the Egyptian New Kingdom, Lukka was part of an alliance against 
  the Hittites with 22 other countries, called the Assuwan confederacy, but this 
  was defeated by the Hittite king Tudhaliya I. From Pritchard, we have a 
  translation of a Hittite prayer in which the Lukka are referred to as denouncing 
  the Hittite sun goddess Arinna. In this same prayer the Lukka are said to be 
  attacking and destroying the Hatti land, along with other peoples. These 
  examples tell us that the Lukka were in the area, were belligerent, and had 
  some measure of power. They made yearly attacks by sea on the king of 
  Alashiya’s lands, and so were considered as pirates. The Amarna letters include 
  an appeal for aid from the Alashiyan king to the Pharaoh Akhenaten, and 
  reassurance that the former was not siding with these Lukka people.
  From the time of Ramesses II, the poem from the battle of Kadesh 
  mentions the Lukka as being an ally of the defeated prince of Kheta. The 
  Great Karnak Inscription of Merneptah, related to his victory over the 
  invading Libyans and their northern seaborne allies, gives a supposed number 
  of 200 casualties inflicted on the Lukka (which is insignificant in comparison 
  to the 6,539 Libyans claimed as killed). Barnett notes that though there are 
  many depictions of Sea Peoples, none exist of the Lukka.
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������� ���������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The Weshesh (W-s-s) 
  The Weshesh were part of the combined force of Sea Peoples that attacked 
  Egypt during the reign of Ramesses III. Little is known about them, though 
  once again there is a tenuous link to Troy. The Greeks sometimes referred to 
  the city of Troy as Ilios, but this may have evolved from the Hittite name for 
  the region, Wilusa, via the intermediate form Wilios. If the people called 
  Weshesh by the Egyptians were indeed the Wilusans, as has been speculated, 
  then they may have included some genuine Trojans. Some scholars associate 
  the Weshesh with Iasos, Assos or Issos in Asia Minor, or with Karkisa (Caria).
  The ‘Lost Tribes of Israel’ have proved irresistibly attractive to many 
  scholars, and some have even theorized that the Weshesh, like the Denyen, 
  became part of the Israelite confederacy, in this case as the Tribe of Asher, the 
  eighth son of Jacob, who settled in Egypt. The tribe may be the same as the 
  Weshesh mentioned in Egyptian accounts (the ‘W’ of Weshesh is a modern 
  invention for ease of pronunciation, and Egyptian records refer to the group 
  as the Uashesh). By this hypothesis, the Weshesh were thus the Semitic part 
  of a tribal confederation that also included Peleset (Philistines), Danua 
  (possibly Tribe of Dan), Tjekker (thought to mean ‘of Acco’, and thus possibly 
  referring to Manessah), and Shekelesh (thought to mean ‘men of Sheker’, and 
  thus perhaps referring to Issachar).
  Mercenary service: a summary of the evidence
  Possible early evidence of Aegean mercenaries within the Egyptian army is a 
  fragment of papyrus found in December 1936 by John Pendlebury, in HR43.2 
  on the eastern edge of the Central City at El-Amarna, in association with 
  diverse items including a complete Achaean vase. The fragment appears to be 
  from a purely pictorial papyrus depicting a battle between Egyptians and 
  Libyan warriors. Coming to the aid of the Egyptians are a number of warriors 
  who, while wearing typical Egyptian white kilts, are equipped with helmets, 
  and various types of what may plausibly be argued to represent fabric or 
  leather armour. Neither the helmets nor the two identifiable types of armour 
  are present elsewhere in the Egyptian iconographic record, and they thus seem 
  to identify a people other than those usually depicted in Egyptian paintings.
  It has been forcefully argued that the headgear depicted on the papyrus 
  ���������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  should be identified as boar’s-tusk helmets. Made principally of leather but 
  covered with pieces of sliced boar tusks, these are strongly associated with 
  Achaean elite warriors between 1600 and 1250 BC. This identification is 
  strengthened by the find of a piece of boar’s tusk, with perforations for attaching 
  it to a leather base, during excavations at Qantir, the site of the Ramessid capital 
  Pi-Ramesse in the eastern Delta. The body protection worn by the warriors has 
  close parallels with known Aegean types of corselets. Consequently, the warriors 
  depicted on the papyrus most probably represent Achaean Greeks, apparently 
  in the service of the pharaoh. This interpretation is supported by the recent 
  discovery at Kanakia, on the island of Salamina (Salamis), of a bronze scale 
  from a corselet bearing the stamp of Pharaoh Ramesses II.
  These finds would seem to offer evidence that Achaean mercenaries were 
  serving in the Egyptian army at different periods. During the 19th Dynasty 
  the Egyptians made extensive (and risky) use of non-native troops to make up 
  for a decline in military enthusiasm under the previous dynasty. As we have 
  seen, one group who served in this capacity were the Sherden, who had been 
  in mercenary service since at least the reign of Akhenaten (Amarna letters). 
  The first evidence for the submission of captured Sherden to Ramesses II is 
  found in the Stele of Tanis; the Kadesh inscription mentions them in regular 
  service, and they appear at the siege of the Syrian cities of Tunip and Dapur. 
  In the Papyrus Anastasi, where the presence of foreign troops in the Egyptian 
  army is attested, the Sherden are part of a group of ‘specialists of war’ which 
  also includes Libyans, Nubians and Kehek. The Medinet Habu inscriptions 
  mention them as mercenaries under Ramesses III, when they were involved in 
  the land battle against the other Sea Peoples and in the bloody war against the 
  Labu (Libyans). A more complex situation is described in the Papyrus Harris 
  I (reign of Ramesses IV), where Sherden are mentioned both among the 
  Egyptian auxiliary troops and among the prisoners of war forcibly recruited 
  by the pharaoh and settled in garrisons scattered throughout his empire.
  The social importance of Sherden mercenaries in the Egyptian world is 
  recorded, apart from the already-quoted Papyrus Amiens, in a second 
  important document, the Papyrus Wilbour. Here 42 Sherden are mentioned 
  as beneficiaries of land grants of the same type as given to officials and 
  priests. This was an important professional benefit, ensuring all rights of 
  ownership including, for instance, the employment of farmers and servants. 
  This document also suggests equal treatment between the Sherden and their 
  Egyptian officers, the ‘standard bearers’. Unlike other groups of mercenaries 
  these warriors are not led by an Egyptian regular officer but are organized 
  into companies specifically commanded by a ‘standard bearer of the Sherden’, 
  i.e. by an officer from among their number.
  The successful social integration of Sherden mercenaries at the end of the 
  20th Dynasty (reign of Ramesses XI) is highlighted in other documents, 
  including the Papyrus of the Adoption, the Onomasticon Golenisheff, the 
  Papyrus of Turin 2026 and the Papyri British Museum 10326 and 10375. 
  The last relevant document is the Stele of Donation from Helwan, dating 
  from Year 16 of the reign of Osorkon I in the 9th century BC, which mentions 
  a donation of lands including ‘the Sherdens’ fields’.
  Outside Egypt, the presence of Sherden mercenaries is first attested in the 
  Amarna letters, where Rib-Hadda of Byblos says that he has killed rebels, 
  and makes reference to the presence (perhaps within his garrison) of am [êlu]
  si-ir’-da-nu. A second group of documents mentioning Sherden mercenaries 
  are the Ugaritic texts dating from the 14th to 12th centuries BC; here the 
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Sherden are beneficiaries of land grants, and serve as mdrglm and tnnm, 
  ‘fighters’. A final reference to the presence of Sherden in Ugarit is in letter 
  KTU 2.61 (2114) addressed to the drdn of the city and mentioning dangerous 
  incursions by marauders (Sea Peoples?) against an Ugaritic city. The context 
  of this purely military message has convinced some scholars that the 
  Sarridanu (drdn) could have been the commander of the Ugarit garrison, 
  perhaps residing in the ‘Minor Palace’ of the city.
  Piracy
  Piracy or raids against Egypt were not unusual between the 14th and 12th 
  centuries BC. As early as the 14th century BC one of the Amarna letters has 
  the king of Egypt probably accusing people from Alashiya of participating in 
  raids against Egypt. The 13th-century BC Tanis Stele of Ramesses II describes 
  the Sherden as pirates who conduct raids from ships. A 12th-century BC 
  Ugarit document shows that seaborne raids seem to have been on a larger 
  scale, probably employing as many as 20 ships, with the number of men 
  between 400 and 1,000. Sailing time would have been relatively short: 
  probably five to seven days at sea from the Dodecanese, south-western 
  Anatolia or the southern Levant, and 10–13 days returning. If the raiders 
  established a forward base camp in the islands of the Delta (perhaps ‘the 
  islands in the middle of the Great Green’), the duration of the entire 
  expedition could have reduced to at most 20 days – short enough to have 
  been worth the risk of leaving home.
  CLOTHING & EQUIPMENT
  Clothing
  The implication of the Egyptian 
  inscriptions at Medinet Habu is that all 
  the confederated peoples – Peleset, 
  Tjekker, Shekelesh, Denyen and Weshesh 
  – were represented at the land battle, but 
  in appearance the warriors depicted in the 
  reliefs are (except for some specific details) 
  noticeably homogeneous; for instance, all 
  wear the ‘feathered tiara’ headdress, and 
  none the distinctive horned helmet. Since 
  the Egyptians were normally fairly careful 
  in recording such details, we may infer 
  that this representation is close to reality, 
  and thus that the coalition of Sea People 
  warriors present on this occasion 
  displayed common costume and 
  weaponry and perhaps shared a similar 
  material culture.
  Mostly the Sea People are represented 
  with simple tunics, below which hangs an 
  Aegean/Anatolian-style 
  kilt. This 
  sometimes terminates in strings decorated 
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������
  A
  C
  D
  B
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  with tassels, as often found in Aegean contexts (as in the warrior graves at 
  Kos, variously dated between 1300 and 1200 BC). These tasselled strings are 
  often disposed in five groups of three, at the sides and centre of the kilt. Some 
  kilts, divided into two or more vertical and horizontal rows of coloured 
  panels, perhaps indicate distinctive groups. The Sherden serving Ramesses II 
  as mercenaries or bodyguards are represented with typical Egyptian infantry 
  outfits of a long kilt and sometimes a quilted corselet, while all except one of 
  those serving Ramesses III at the storm of Tunip wear the Aegean/Anatolian 
  kilt. Some well-preserved Egyptian reliefs show the Sea Peoples’ clothing as 
  very colourful, in various designs and shades of red, white, blue and green – 
  again, very similar to contemporary Aegean patterns – and alternating panels 
  of red and blue are divided by white bands. Sometimes the kilt is the only 
  garment worn by warriors who seem be bare-chested, but the present state of 
  the reliefs does not allow an accurate identification of possible upper garments. 
  The feet are bare or shod with short sandals.
  Sometimes beards of Aegean type are visible, as for instance in the pointed 
  beards of the Tjekker prisoners presented to the god Amon-Re by Ramesses 
  III in a relief at Medinet Habu.
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������
  �������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Defensive equipment:
  Helmets
  The Medinet Habu reliefs are 
  fundamental 
  to 
  any 
  reconstruction of the war gear 
  of the Sea Peoples. The battle 
  scenes provide a wealth of 
  information 
  about 
  the 
  appearance of the various 
  groups, and provide hints as to 
  their ethnic backgrounds.
  Both Sherden and (perhaps) 
  Shekelesh wear horned helmets, 
  but the Sherden (always?) also 
  incorporate a knob or disc. The 
  ‘Egyptian mercenary’ Sherden typically wear helmets topped with horns and 
  a disc, and are equipped with spears, swords, and round embossed shields. 
  The Sea Peoples named at the famous battle of the Delta are the Peleset, 
  Shekelesh, and Weshesh of the Sea; the contingents shown on the monuments 
  are probably of these peoples, even if warriors wearing horned helmets are 
  clearly depicted. Such helmets were probably worn by other Sea Peoples 
  apart from the Sherden, as attested by the wide range of horned helmets 
  represented in LHIIIC Anatolian and Aegean figurative art.
  The simultaneous presence of ‘free’ Sherden among the invaders is 
  confirmed by the representation at Medinet Habu of a captive called ‘Sherden 
  of the Sea’, probably to distinguish this group from the Egyptian-employed 
  mercenaries – yet he too wears a horned helmet with a central disc. A similar 
  prisoner, wearing the same helmet, is brought before the god Amon-Re 
  among other captive leaders. Most relevant archaeological evidence for 
  horned helmets comes from Cyprus, where, at Enkomi, a settlement of 
  Achaean Sea People flourished in about 1200 BC.
  Also at Enkomi, some military headgear 
  represented on ivory items seems to recall the 
  helmet worn by the Achaean mercenaries 
  pictured in the above-mentioned fragmentary 
  papyrus from Tel el-Amarna, attesting its 
  use from c.1350 until at least the end of the 
  Bronze Age. (An alternative interpretation 
  of the striped appearance of the bowl of this 
  helmet would suggest not slices of boar’s tusk 
  but a simpler construction of leather or felt, as 
  in Plate A3.) 
  The ‘feathered’ or ‘reed’ headgear is associated 
  with the Peleset, Tjekker, Denyen and Weshesh. 
  Many warriors on the Medinet Habu reliefs wear 
  this typical Aegean/Anatolian headdress, also 
  visible 
  on 
  more-or-less 
  contemporary 
  representations from Cyprus, Crete, Malta and 
  Sardinia. It was formed on a bronze headband 
  embossed with studs, rings, triangles or vertical bars 
  (according to Yadin, possible distinctions of different 
  groups or ranks). From this, a level-topped array of 
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������
  ear 
  e 
  as
  ted 
  sh. 
  wear 
  also
  ary 
  and
  band 
  l bars 
  ferent 
  ray of 
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  ‘floppy strips’ of leather, reeds, straw, horsehair, or perhaps sometimes 
  feathers, protrudes upwards. Traces of light blue paint are visible on this part 
  of a man’s headdress from Medinet Habu. Metal headbands for such ‘feathered 
  headgear’ are attested in several contemporary images from Aegean areas as 
  well as the south, east and central Mediterranean. For example, the still 
  undeciphered Phaistos disk dated to c.1700 BC shows the head of a man 
  crowned with possible feathers very similar to the headgear of the Peleset 
  depicted at Medinet Habu; beside him is a possibly embossed shield like some 
  of those shown in the Egyptian reliefs. These elements may also support the 
  theory that the Peleset were originally Cretans.
  This ‘tiara-like’ helmet was sometime equipped with neck protection, and 
  was secured with a chinstrap fastened by two small strings. Important finds 
  of bronze elements for such helmets have been made in warrior graves dated 
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ������������������������������
  THE FALL OF THE HITTITE EMPIRE, 
  c.1200–1180 BC
  1: Lukka prince 
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������Iliad���������
  �������������������������������������������������������Iliad��
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  2: Weshesh warrior  
  ����� ������ ������������ ������� ��� ������� ����� �������� ����
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������ ����� ���� ����������� ��������� ��������� ���������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������ ������ ����� �������� ��� �������� ���� ����� �������
  �����������������������������������������
  3: Tjekker warlord 
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ����������� ��� ������������ ��� ����� ��� ���� ����� ��������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������
  4: Hittite commander of the Tuhuyeru 
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������ 
  E
  A
  G
  H
  B
  C
  E
  F
  D
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  1
  2
  3
  4
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  to about LHIIIC in Kallithea, Portes and Praisos-Foutoula. Bronze rings 
  intended as part of the helmets’ lower edge are also mentioned by Homer 
  (VII, 12; X, 30; XI, 96), whose term stefani, i.e. ‘crown-helmet’, probably 
  refers to this type. It is interesting to remember that Herodotus and Strabo 
  also mention sailors from the Aegean coasts and Asia Minor being long 
  known for their ‘feathered crest’ headgear.
  In the Egyptian iconography of victory celebrations the Shekelesh and/or 
  perhaps the Tjekker are shown wearing cloth headdresses. A Shekelesh prince 
  is shown bearded, with a low turban or cap, wearing an armour composed 
  of bands of organic material of different colours. The Denyen are sometimes 
  illustrated with a low headgear whose shape recalls that of the ‘tiara’ helmet 
  without the plumes. The clearly-identified leader of the Peleset wears a 
  similar low turban, perhaps a sort of felt cap that could be worn under a 
  helmet as padding.
  Shields
  In a relief from Luxor related to the battle of Kadesh, some Sea People 
  warriors (probably Karkisa or Lukka) are shown bearing medium-sized 
  round shields with two lateral cuts. Similar shields are also well attested in 
  contemporary Hittite and Aegean representations. However, nearly all the 
  Sea Peoples carry large or medium round shields with one or two handles, 
  sometimes with bronze bosses attached. Protected by their shields, they hurl 
  javelins from a short distance while attacking, and then draw their sword or 
  dagger and fall upon the enemy. The bosses represented on some of the 
  Sea Peoples’ shields in reliefs from Medinet Habu might be associated with 
  two specimens from Pyla-Kokkinokremos in Cyprus, dated to 1200–1100 
  BC; of 88mm (3.46in) diameter, these have a single central hole. For what it 
  may be worth, two bronze statuettes representing warriors with small round 
  shields have been found at Delos (dated LH IIIA-B, about 1350 BC) and at 
  Enkomi (dated about 1200 BC). These show typical elements of both the 
  Sea Peoples and the Near East, e.g. a horned helmet and a sickle sword.
  A large circular or oval shield, carried by a warrior with the typical 
  ‘feathered tiara’ headdress, is well represented in a domed seal from Enkomi, 
  Cyprus, dated around 1190–1180 BC. The texture on the shield’s external 
  surface has been interpreted as a wicker structure; however, it has a large 
  central boss, and we cannot exclude the possibility that the external surface 
  of the shield might be made of sheet metal with embossed relief decorations, 
  like the shields of Achilles and Agamemnon described by Homer.
  Body armours
  The first possible evidence of an Aegean mercenary wearing body armour 
  comes from the Tel el-Amarna Papyrus, where one of the warriors seems to 
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������
  �����������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  OPPOSITE
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������kiton�������������
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������
  ������������������������������
  A
  B
  C
  D
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  be equipped with a short-cropped corselet which leaves the stomach bare. 
  These corselets are not represented in any other Egyptian images of soldiery, 
  but are visible in some Aegean pottery representations, especially from 
  Cyprus. The corselets shown on the papyrus have another relevant feature: a 
  green copper-based paint has been used to suggest the presence of metal 
  reinforcements at the corselet’s neck, upper arms, and lower edge over the 
  stomach (see Plate A3). Tablets in Linear B from Knossos (L693) attest the 
  employment of linen tunics (ki-to) reinforced with bronze or copper fittings 
  (e-pi-ko-to-ni-ja). Short corselets with possible metallic neck collars and 
  other fittings were still represented in several warrior statuettes from Sardinia 
  dating from the 11th to 8th centuries BC.
  Some of the Sherden mercenaries or royal bodyguards in Egyptian service 
  are represented at the battle of Kadesh with the typical Egyptian quilted 
  corselets, probably made of linen or thin leather and presumably constructed 
  in padded layers.
  The upper bodies of some warriors represented in the Medinet Habu 
  reliefs are covered with corselets apparently made of wide bands of organic 
  material or bronze, disposed in V or inverted-V shapes. Several hypotheses 
  have been advanced about these banded so-called ‘lobster-style’ and ‘ribbon’ 
  corselets; they were probably made of bronze, linen and leather, similar in 
  their shapes but differing widely in details.
  Many scholars (Yadin, Stillman and Tallis, Gorelik, Connolly, Andrikou, 
  Cassola Guida, Snodgrass, etc) believe that the ‘lobster armours’ could have 
  been of bronze in V-band arrangements. They appear to be similar in 
  conception to one of the hypothetical reconstructions of the Achaean armour 
  pieces found in Thebes and Nichoria, with narrow bands of plate around the 
  body and rounded shoulder-pieces. The full bronze armour might have 
  comprised chest-and-back plates, lower bands, and shoulder/upper arm 
  defences. Some cuirasses with bronze chest-and-back plates and lower bands 
  seem to be worn over a kiton of linen or other organic material. The 
  composite cuirasses might also have had bronze chest-and-back plates and 
  shoulder-pieces, with bands of quilted material around the lower torso. 
  Similar V-banded corselets are also represented on warriors engraved on 
  worked ivory from Cyprus and other Aegean localities. Other corselets 
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  A
  B
  C
  D
  E
  F
  G
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  depicted might simply be made of bands of coloured leather, mainly of red, 
  blue and light blue, arranged horizontally around the torso and abdomen.
  Scale armour was also probably used. The shipwreck excavation at Uluburun 
  near Kas on the southern Turkish coast has yielded a large bronze scale 30mm 
  wide by 90mm long (roughly 1.25in x 3.5in). Other finds in this cargo ship, 
  dated to about 1300 BC, include several Canaanite, Cypriot and Achaean 
  manufactured goods as well as raw materials, weaponry and ceramics. A bronze 
  scale 61mm (c.2.5in) long has also been found at the important Achaean 
  settlement site of Pyla-Kokkinokremos in Cyprus, together with weapons, bronze 
  objects and shield bosses. All these elements are dated to LHIIIC.
  On Aegean-style krater fragments from Ugarit in Syria, dated to around 
  1200 BC, some warriors with horses seem to be equipped with a short cuirass 
  possibly made of metal scales, plus neck protection, a conical helmet, a belt 
  or mitra, greaves and a sword. While the artistic stylization allows several 
  interpretations of the cuirass, a number of bronze scales also found in the 
  same area may be significant.
  Weapons:
  Spears and javelins
  Most of the Sea Peoples represented in the land battle on the Medinet Habu 
  relief are equipped with long spears or medium-length javelins. Some 
  warriors, as also attested by late Aegean pottery, are depicted fighting with 
  two javelins. This is important: exactly at the end of the Bronze Age, warrior 
  graves including two javelin heads begin to appear all over the Aegean area. 
  The leaders of the Denyen and Tjekker shown being slaughtered by Ramesses 
  III (north tower, east face of the temple) are in fact holding two javelins in 
  their hands. The Egyptians’ Sherden mercenaries shown in the same battle 
  are armed with medium-long shafted spears having a foliate head.
  Swords, daggers and maces
  Most of the Sea People represented in Egyptian art are equipped with long 
  or medium swords and sometimes with daggers. Among Near Eastern swords 
  in the archaeological record is a specimen 90cm (35.43in) long found at Beth 
  Dagan near Jaffa, Israel, dated to about 2000 BC, and probably similar in 
  shape to some of the swords represented at Medinet Habu. Analysis of this 
  huge blade has shown it to consist of almost pure copper with a small 
  addition of arsenic. A 30cm (11.81in) dagger found in the same area shows 
  a similar shape. About 30 similar swords dated to around 1600 BC have also 
  been found in a remarkable cave grave near St Iroxi on the island of Sardinia, 
  and these have the same material composition as the Beth Dagan specimen.
  Elongated ‘triangular’ swords and daggers of Aegean style seem to have 
  been the favourite weapons of several groups of Sea Peoples, e.g. the Sherden 
  and Peleset. Some of the stout bronze swords of the Sea Peoples excavated 
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  by Flinders Petrie are similar to some variants of the Naue II swords of 
  Aegean origin. However, some scholars consider the long swords represented 
  at Medinet Habu to be derived from the Achaean Type B attested in the 
  Aegean area in 1600–c.1300 BC. The Egyptian version of these swords, 
  represented in the painted tomb of Ramesses III, shows a gilded hilt. These 
  swords were suspended by a baldric passing over the right shoulder, letting 
  the sword hang in a diagonal position on the breast. The Egyptian 
  representations are notable for the absence of scabbards, which are visible in 
  contemporary Aegean representations and well attested by archaeology.
  The war-staff or mace is depicted only in the hands of those Sea Peoples 
  fighting as Egyptian mercenaries, being an Egyptian weapon. Its employment 
  against Libyans and Aegean invaders is well attested in the Medinet 
  Habu relief.
  MILITARY ORGANIZATION
  The land-battle and sea-battle scenes at Medinet Habu provide a wealth of 
  information on the military styles of the Sea Peoples, even making it possible 
  to extrapolate some hints as to their organization and tactics.
  The reliefs depicting the land battle show Egyptian troops, chariots and 
  auxiliaries fighting enemies who also use chariots, very similar in design to 
  Egyptian ones. Ox (zebu)-drawn carts containing women and children are 
  highlighted in an uppermost tier of the reliefs, chariots in the central tier, and 
  only infantry in the lower – all indications of a relatively high degree of 
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������pithos�����������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  organization on the part of the Sea Peoples. Moreover, in the upper and 
  lower left corners of the relief retreating warriors maintain their organization, 
  being formed into ranks probably typical of their entire infantry before the 
  Egyptian attack. Their host is composed of three main bodies:
  (1) Non-combatant civilians, including women and children, are carried 
  inside large square carts with two solid wheels, and with a single warrior as 
  a guard. Four oxen are harnessed abreast; the carts are crude affairs built on 
  wooden frames, possibly with woven-reed infill panels.
  (2) Chariots using six-spoke wheels and pulled by two horses, very similar 
  in design to Egyptian or Hittite chariots.
  THE ISLAND CONSPIRACY: ‘WAR OF THE EIGHTH 
  YEAR’, 1191/1178 BC 
  1: Peleset leader 
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������� ������� �������� ������������� �������� ������ �� to-ra-ka 
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ������ ������ ��� ���� ������� ��� �������� ��� ����� ������� ����
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������Po-se-i-ta-wo������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������
  2: Sherden leader 
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������to-ra-ka���������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������� ���������� ���� ���� ���� ������� ���������� ���� ���
  ����������������������
  3: Shekelesh leader 
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������� 
  F
  ���������������������
  ����������������������c.���������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������
  ����������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  1
  2
  3
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  (3) Infantrymen armed with a pair of long spears or javelins, who 
  sometimes seem to be arrayed in small ‘proto-phalanxes’ of four or more men. 
  Some of them carry long straight swords, some only a short dagger. It is 
  interesting to recall here the proto-phalanxes described by Homer for the 
  Achaeans, and the proto-phalanx of Minoan warriors depicted in the Thera 
  frescoes (see Osprey Warrior 167, Early Aegean Warrior 5000–1450 BC).  
  In the land-battle representation the Peleset or other Sea Peoples are 
  shown fighting from Near Eastern-style chariots equipped with lateral 
  quivers for bow and arrows. Interestingly, however, the warriors on the 
  chariots are armed only with spears and shields like most Aegean chariot 
  troops, instead of the bows that were typical of Near Eastern chariot crews.
  Leadership
  Some scholars have argued a lack of centralized leadership from the apparent 
  absence of Sea Peoples’ leaders in the Egyptian sources. However, the Egyptians 
  refer (in general terms) to ‘leaders’ and ‘great ones’ of the Sea Peoples, and the 
  tower of Medinet Habu bears emblematic representations of foreigners most 
  of whom are identified as political and military leaders. The representatives of 
  the Tjekker and Peleset are also specifically identified as ‘great ones’ – a kind 
  of leadership perhaps associated more with mobile 
  groups like the Sea Peoples (the same title is also applied 
  to leaders of the Shasu, a nomadic people of Canaan). 
  The organized military initiatives by the Sea Peoples 
  suggest that, even if confederated, they had developed 
  military and political leadership to a substantial degree. 
  Major military expeditions on both land and sea such as 
  those against the Egyptians would have required, if not a 
  single ‘commander-in-chief’, then at least commanders 
  for each group acting in a degree of co-ordination with 
  each other.
  In the sea-battle reliefs we have a further possible 
  representation of Sea Peoples’ leaders, indicated by the 
  manacles that they wear after capture. The manacle was 
  a relatively comfortable and efficient means of restraint; 
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������klaft 
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  for example, all the Sea Peoples warriors captured during the sea battle are 
  shown as manacled, seated in the Egyptian ships. Once on shore and being 
  prepared for presentation to the pharaoh, prisoners have their manacles 
  removed, and their arms are cruelly forced together and tied behind their 
  backs, or even above their heads (as was typical during such ceremonies – see 
  Plate C2). However, some of prisoners continue to wear the more comfortable 
  and less degrading manacles, perhaps indicating a recognition of special 
  status; for example, Mesher, son of Kepher, leader of the Meshwesh, is treated 
  in this way. Moreover, these manacles are uniquely lion- or fish-shaped (while 
  all the others are plain), emblematic of pharaonic power and hence of the 
  captives’ subordination to the pharaoh. The men thus represented might be 
  the senior leaders of the Sea Peoples.
  �������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������
  �������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  TACTICS
  War chariots
  The Sea Peoples’ war chariots in the land-battle relief from Medinet Habu 
  are depicted with a crew of three, a driver and two fighting men, while the 
  Egyptians have only one or occasionally two. They are armed only with 
  javelins or spears in Late Aegean style. From the tactical point of view, the 
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������
  �����������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Egyptian reliefs show us that some warriors probably specialized in the 
  protection of the chariots and their horse-teams – an important element of 
  ‘connection’ between the two main elements of Late Bronze Age armies, the 
  cavalry and infantry. The ‘running warriors’ protected the chariots both 
  when they were deployed against infantry ranks and against other chariots. 
  In the former case, at the moment of penetrating the enemy ranks there was 
  a high risk of chariot crews being dismounted and attacked from several 
  directions; and when fighting against enemy chariots the ‘running warriors’ 
  went into action against their crews in advance. Some Sherden mercenaries 
  in Egyptian service may also have specialized in such tactics.
  An ivory gaming box from Enkomi, Cyprus (see photograph, page 23) 
  shows a chariot with a mix of Aegean/Anatolian features; it has six-spoke 
  wheels, and bears the driver and a bow-armed warrior with a scale cuirass. 
  Another hunter-warrior running near the chariot is armed with an axe, and 
  wears the typical Sea Peoples ‘feathered’ headdress.
  Siege warfare
  One possible hypothesis for the destruction of Troy VII is that the city was 
  besieged and sacked in around 1180 BC by a coalition of the Sea Peoples 
  mainly formed by Aegean Greeks. The possible siege tactics can be partly 
  deduced from the Homeric poems, which clearly describe the techniques 
  typical of the Late Bronze Age.
  The attackers arrived in their ships and established a base camp protected 
  by a fortification; they knew that a siege might be prolonged, and that they 
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ships represented in the 
  �������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  must defend themselves and their beached ships from counter-attacks. Unlike 
  armies of later ages they did not have the numbers or the means to completely 
  cut off the defenders from resupply or movement. To prevent the city 
  receiving help, and to feed themselves, the attackers conducted a series of 
  raids against neighbouring towns, as described in Hittite tablets, and the 
  clashes that these occasioned might develop into major battles. Neither did 
  they have sophisticated siege engines, and when groups of warriors attempted 
  to climb the walls they did so with bare hands or simple ladders, while the 
  defenders shot arrows and dropped stones.
  Naval warfare and seaborne raids
  From Cypriot, Hittite and Egyptian documents we learn of the methods 
  employed by the Sea Peoples during their naval raids. They seem to have 
  avoided direct confrontation at sea when possible. When they were forced to 
  fight a sea battle they fared poorly, as is evident from their naval engagements 
  against the Hittites under Suppiluliuma II: ‘I, Suppiluliuma II the Great King, 
  immediately crossed [reached?] the sea. The ships of Alashiya [Cypriot Sea 
  Peoples] met me in battle at sea three times, and I smote them; I seized the 
  ships and set fire to them on the sea.’ The Sea Peoples were similarly 
  unsuccessful against Egyptian fleets under Ramesses II and Ramesses III.
  Instead these maritime marauders appear to have preferred hit-and-run 
  raids, falling upon coastal communities to pillage and burn and then escaping 
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  A
  A
  B
  C
  D
  B
  E
  F
  E
  F
  A
  B
  C
  D
  B
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  before the local military force could respond effectively. They seem to have 
  been constantly on the move, and hard to catch; their incessant evasive 
  movements would have led them to appear to the other Mediterranean 
  cultures as ‘peoples of the sea’ who ‘live on their ships’. They seem to have 
  operated in small flotillas of between seven and 20 ships, at least during the 
  period when they were active in the north-east Mediterranean prior to their 
  arrival on the coast of Egypt. These modest numbers are interesting when 
  contrasted with the massive, 150-ship fleet that Ugarit was asked to supply.
  The clearest representations of ships associated with the Sea Peoples are 
  the five vessels carved on the temple walls at Medinet Habu. In this scene 
  both the possible Sherden and Peleset ships are well represented; they are of 
  a uniform type, with a single mast with a crow’s-nest, and a high prow and 
  stern terminating in so-called ‘duck’s-head’ carvings. The Sea Peoples’ vessels 
  have no visible oars (they were probably stowed inside the ships, since in this 
  scenario they were already anchored inside a bay), and only the raised sail is 
  shown. The ships are steered by means of a large paddle. This type of vessel 
  shows close similarity with the ship depicted on a stirrup jar from Skyros and 
  on a krater sherd from Tiryns (both dated LHIIIC); some Central European 
  Urnfield ornaments represent double bird’s-headed boats, as do Early Iron 
  Age ship models from Sardinia.
  The type of ship used is believed to offer crucial evidence for the identity 
  of the Sea Peoples and for the aim of their attacks. According to some 
  scholars, these vessels find their best parallel in Achaean oared galleys, the 
  most detailed example being the representation on a krater from Kynos (by 
  Dr Wedde’s classification, Type V of Achaean galleys). While providing a 
  fighting platform at sea, it was also designed to transport soldiers and 
  plunder. Because this kind of oared ship needed a full rowing crew for 
  operations, and because it was only partially decked, the number of 
  passengers or amount of cargo that could be carried was rather limited – 
  perhaps only ten or so men in addition to rowers and other crew, with no 
  extra space for cargo. This, combined with the fact that only male warriors 
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  appear in the Medinet Habu scene, clearly indicates a force of a different 
  character than the ‘colonization’ party shown in the land-battle relief – an 
  all-male raiding force such as that which attacked Ugarit, and recalling 
  Odysseus’s nine-ship raid on Egypt (Od. 14: 245–9).
  An exhaustive analysis of the Sea Peoples’ ships has been made by Shelley 
  Wachsmann of the Institute of Nautical Archaeology, College Station, Texas. 
  The vessels represented at Medinet Habu, carrying about 30 fighters each, 
  have no cut-water, but vertical stem and stern posts topped with bird heads 
  similar to some Aegean ships represented on LHIIIC pottery. Two structures 
  for fighting purposes are erected above the deck level, while a rail running 
  round the sides of the vessel protects the rowers. A curved upper yard hangs 
  from the single mast, which terminates at the top in a crow’s-nest for a look-
  out. Wachsmann proposes the presence of additional fighting decks on these 
  ships, basing this upon analysis of the reliefs.
  The appearance of a flotilla of five ship images in the Medinet Habu 
  reliefs is misleading, as all five of them are demonstrably taken from a single 
  ����������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  prototype. A review of the depictions of similar ships in the Aegean tradition 
  shows that, even if remarkably similar, no two are virtually identical as is the 
  case of the Medinet Habu vessels, and the range of ships in the invading fleet 
  was probably far more diverse than shown in the reliefs. Similarly, only one 
  type of Egyptian ship is represented, four times, while the related inscription 
  mentions three different types of ships as having taken part. There can be no 
  doubt that the Egyptian artists recorded a single foreign ship five times, nor 
  that this depiction was based on actual observation. We know from several 
  sources that artists accompanied military expeditions as well as trading 
  ventures. Presumably, in the aftermath of the battle, the artist made a sketch 
  study of single vessels from each side for use in creating the naval battle scene.
  ‘THE WAR OF THE EIGHTH YEAR’, 
  1191 or 1184 BC
  The invasion
  The royal speech of Usermare Meryamun Ramesses (Ramesses III), engraved 
  in hieroglyphics, records the last attempted invasion of Egypt by the Sea 
  Peoples. It is worth quoting several passages from this primary source, 
  although its interpretation is not always straightforward:
  ‘The Northerners made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the lands 
  were removed and scattered in the fray. Not one stood before their hands, 
  from Hatti, Kode, Carchemish, Arzawa, Alashiya, they were wasted. [They 
  set up] a camp in one place in Amurru. They desolated his people and his 
  land like that which is not [i.e. as if it had never existed].… Their confederation 
  was Peleset, Tjekker, Shekelesh, Denyen, and Weshesh. [These] lands were 
  united, and they laid their hands upon the lands to the very Circle of the 
  Earth. Their hearts were confident, full of their plans, but a net was prepared 
  for them...’. The Papyrus Harris gives the confederate Sea Peoples as the 
  Peleset, Tjekker/Sikila (Shekelesh?), Denyen, Weshesh and Sherden.
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The texts provide the precise date of the conflict – Year 8 of the reign of 
  the pharaoh – and also explain that the invasion of Egypt by the Sea Peoples 
  was only the last phase in successive waves of destruction that had disturbed 
  most of the Late Bronze Age. The general direction of this invasion was 
  probably from the area of the Aegean and southern Anatolia towards Egypt. 
  Two main bodies of invaders were on the move, according to a pre-established 
  plan; one group proceeded across Anatolia from the north-west towards the 
  south-east, the other by both land and sea down the coasts from south-west 
  Anatolia. Originally some scholars translated the Egyptian sources as 
  speaking of the land of the Sea Peoples as ‘islands in the middle of the sea’ 
  (specifically for the Danuna), taking this to refer to populations coming 
  directly from the Aegean islands (Crete and/or the Achaean colonies in 
  MERCENARIES DEFEATING LIBYANS 
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������(1 & 4)�����������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������(2 & 
  3)�����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������(5)��������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������
  �����������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������� 
  G
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  1
  1
  2
  3
  4
  5
  5
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Cyprus). Transliteration of Ramesses III’s original text should be read as 
  invaders who ‘came from their countries and from the islands in the middle 
  of the Great Green’. Various interpretations have been argued, citing different 
  historical uses of this latter term.
  For a long time it was believed that it simply referred to the Mediterranean 
  Sea, and that at least during the 18th Dynasty the phrase ‘islands in the 
  middle of the Great Green’ (iww hryw ib nw w3d wr) should be understood 
  as the islands and coasts of the Aegean, possibly even the Greek mainland. In 
  the Decree of Canopus it refers to Cyprus, and on the Rosetta Stone w3d wr 
  is translated in Greek as�������������. Conversely, in an older inscription 
  in Wadi Hammamat Hénu, from Year 8 of Montuhotep III (about 2006 BC), 
  it is used to indicate the Red Sea, and this use continues until the 18th 
  Dynasty. Finally, use of this term in reference to the Nile, its waters and the 
  Delta (green, as opposed to the surrounding deserts) dates back at least to 
  the 5th Dynasty reign of Niuserra. Its specific meaning has varied from time 
  to time, while always maintaining an idea of relative ‘centrality’; with regard 
  to the Delta, it has been used to mean the islands located in its centre. Recent 
  discoveries about the topography of the main lagoon city of the Delta, Avaris 
  (Tel el-Dab’a) are an example of how different locations could legitimately 
  be described as ‘islands in the middle of the Great Green’. With regard to the 
  Sea Peoples, this interpretation allows the hypothesis that some of the 
  invaders established a base camp among the islands in the Delta.
  To return to the Egyptian records of the War of the Eighth Year: they tell 
  us that the ancient kingdoms of Sapalulu and Khâtusaru crumbled to pieces 
  under the shock of invasion, and that Ugarit on the Syrian coast was 
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  destroyed in about 1193 BC. It is noteworthy that in the Ugarit sources the 
  invaders are called ‘the Shikala who live on the ships’. Shortly afterwards 
  Hattusa was also sacked, and Cyprus (Alashiya) ravaged, perhaps by a civil 
  war in which the Sea Peoples were involved. The invaders spread over the 
  valley of the Orontes, burning and devastating the countryside. A possible 
  reference to scorched-earth tactics can be found in the records: ‘They came 
  with fire prepared before them, forward to Egypt’. The Hittite vassal state of 
  Amurru (Amor), located close to the border of the Egyptian empire, was 
  sacked, and the invaders constructed there a camp for their women and their 
  booty. Some of their predatory bands, having ravaged the Bekâa Valley, 
  attacked the subjects of the pharaoh, and their chiefs dreamed of an invasion 
  of Egypt itself. Archaeology offers evidence that in exactly this period the 
  cities of the southern coast of Canaan were ravaged by the Philistines. An 
  inscription from Medinet Habu confirms that the Philistines were already in 
  possession of at least one city, indicating that the occupation of the pentapolis 
  by the Peleset/Philistines began in this period.
  The land battle
  According to the Egyptian sources, these populations made concerted attacks 
  by land and by sea, and two distinct battles are illustrated in the sculptural 
  reliefs. Based on the order of the inscriptions and images along the wall of 
  Medinet Habu, it appears that the ‘land battle of Djahi’ (Zahi) occurred first. 
  Ramesses ordered a massive mobilization in order to stop the invaders’ march 
  towards Egypt. He crossed the frontier with Canaan and advanced by forced 
  marches to attack the enemy’s camp. His aim was presumably to contain the 
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ����������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  attempted conquest of Canaan by the Sea Peoples who had already seized or 
  were attacking its coastal towns. He encountered the invaders somewhere not 
  far beyond the Egyptian frontier, probably near the coast: ‘His Majesty sets 
  out for Zahi... to crush every enemy... The charioteers selected from among 
  the most rapid warriors... Their horses were quivering in their every limb, 
  ready to crush the [foreign] countries under their feet... Those who reached 
  my boundary, their seed is not; the period of their soul has been fixed forever’.
  In the land-battle scenes the Sea Peoples and Egyptians are represented in 
  chaotic combat, while the pharaoh shoots arrows against the enemy. The 
  Egyptians attack with their chariots and swordsmen, the Sea Peoples resist 
  with javelins; they are shown falling, pierced by many arrows shot by chariot 
  crews, while the Egyptian infantry and their mercenaries mercilessly kill 
  warriors, women and children in a bloody onslaught. The pharaoh carried 
  off from the field, in addition to the treasures of the confederate tribes, some 
  of the carts which had been used for the transport of their families. The 
  survivors of the Sea Peoples made their way hastily north-west towards the 
  sea in order to reach the support of their ships, while followed by the 
  victorious Egyptians.
  SEA PEOPLES IN SARDINIA, c.1100 BC 
  1: Sherden warrior 
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ���������� ��� ��������� ��� ��������� ������� ����� ���� ������
  ���������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  2: Peleset warrior 
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������
  ���������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������� ��� ����������� ������������ ����� ���� �������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ������������������������������������������������������������
  �������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ��������������������������������������������������������������
  ����������������
  3: Sardinian (Sardian) woman  
  �����������������������������������������������������������������
  ������� ���������� ����� ������������ ����� ������� ��� ����
  ������������������������������nuraghe ������������������
  ������������������
  H
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ��������������������������
  �����������������������
  ������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  3
  1
  2
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The sea battle
  Subsequently, the Sea Peoples’ fleet approached the Nile Delta, and the 
  pharaoh marched quickly back to face it. The huge naval clash, one of the 
  first of its scale recorded in history, has been located in widely different 
  possible places by various scholars. For some (e.g. Chabas), it took place 
  close to the Delta, at the mouth of the eastern branch near Pelusium; for 
  others, perhaps off Rafah in the present-day Gaza Strip, or Nahr el-Kelb (Van 
  Muller), or as far north as Magadil in Lebanon (Maspero). The fact that the 
  Egyptians were able to mobilize a great number of troops and ships seems to 
  point towards the first hypothesis, which is supported by the Papyrus Harris: 
  ‘...before the river-mouths’. A naval attack on the mouth of the Pelusiac 
  branch of the Nile would threaten the pharoah’s northern cities and would 
  logically provoke a massive Egyptian response.
  According to Maspero, Ramesses rejoined his ships probably at Jaffa, and 
  sailed to engage the enemy fleet. The Sea Peoples were encamped on the level 
  shore at the head of a bay wide enough to offer to their ships sufficient space 
  to manoeuvre; but they had dropped anchor, unaware of the presence of the 
  Egyptian forces nearby. The latter consisted of both warships, and infantry 
  stationed on the shore commanded by Ramesses himself. The pharaoh drove 
  the enemy foot-soldiers into the water at the same moment that his admirals 
  attacked the combined enemy fleet. Both sides used sails, but the Egyptian 
  oars were fully deployed so they were able to manoeuvre, while those of the 
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ��������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������
  ��������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  1
  2
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Sea Peoples were stowed. The absence of oars in the representation of the Sea 
  Peoples’ ships suggests that they have been caught by surprise in inshore 
  waters, and the accompanying texts seem to describe such a situation: ‘The 
  countries which came from their isles... advanced to Egypt, their hearts 
  relying upon their arms. The net was made ready for them, to ensnare them. 
  Entering stealthily into the harbour-mouth, they fell into it. Caught in their 
  place, they were dispatched and their bodies stripped…’.
  The Egyptian ships were rowed in close to the enemy vessels. Relying on 
  their hand-to-hand combat superiority, the Sea Peoples came armed only 
  with close-combat weapons, and this was a fatal mistake. Despite their 
  armour the composite bows of the Egyptians slaughtered them before they 
  could get to hand-to-hand range. From crow’s-nests on the Egyptian ships 
  slingers launched missiles down; other seamen used boarding-pikes at the 
  bow to fend off enemy warriors as the vessels collided. Then the Egyptians 
  boarded the enemy ships, attacking the already weakened crews. Egyptian 
  sailors positioned in the prow threw grappling hooks into the enemy’s 
  rigging. Armed with thrusting spears and javelins, and supported by archers 
  and slingers, the Egyptians boarded the Sea Peoples’ vessels in a fierce mêlée. 
  Some of the Aegean galleys capsized and sank when Egyptian ships rammed 
  them with their sharp prows, and many warriors drowned; others were taken 
  prisoner and chained aboard ship. The Sea Peoples were forced towards the 
  shore, only to be picked off by the massed archers commanded by Ramesses 
  and his sons. The invaders perished in the surf, or were taken prisoner as they 
  emerged from the water, to be sent to join the line of 
  captives. Egyptian officers seized each prisoner’s wrist and 
  pressed against his right shoulder a branding-iron heated in 
  a brazier of live coals. This tool bore the name of the 
  pharaoh, showing that the branded captives were now his 
  slaves (Papyrus Harris, 77, 5–6: ‘...branded, made into 
  slaves and stamped with my name...’). The leaders of the Sea 
  Peoples and of other nations involved in their coalition were 
  presented in chains in front of the god Amon-Re by the 
  triumphant Pharaoh Ramesses III:
  ‘As for those who had assembled before them on the sea, 
  the full flame was in their front, before the river-mouths, 
  and a wall of metal upon the shore surrounded them. They 
  were dragged, overturned, and laid low upon the beach; 
  slain and made heaps from stern to bow of their galleys, 
  while all their things were cast upon the water. [Thus] I 
  turned back the waters to remember Egypt; when they 
  mention my name in their land, may it consume them... I 
  permit not the countries to see the boundaries of Egypt... As 
  for the Nine Bows, I have taken away their land and their 
  boundaries; they are added to mine. Their chiefs and their 
  people [come] to me with praise...’.
  In the Papyrus Harris, Ramesses boasts that ‘I extended 
  the frontiers of Egypt and overthrew those who had 
  attacked them from their lands. I slew the Denyen in their 
  islands, while the Tjekker and the Philistines were made 
  ashes. The Sherden and Weshesh of the Sea were made not-
  existent, captured all together and brought in captivity to 
  Egypt, like the sands of the shore.’
  �������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Aftermath
  A fast warship carried the Egyptian standard north along the coast as far as 
  the regions of the Orontes and Saros. The land troops, following on the heels 
  of the defeated enemy, succeeded in reaching the plains of the Euphrates. For 
  a short time southern Syria returned to Egyptian rule.
  ���������������������
  ������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  c.����������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ���������������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ����������������������������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  The invading forces had been crushed in battle; 
  but it is possible that Egyptian victory in this 
  campaign was not total, since it was followed by 
  treaties. The Egyptians agreed to settle some groups 
  of invaders in Canaan, or to recognize them in 
  territories they had already won before the battle of 
  Zahi. Some would serve as mercenaries, being 
  stationed as frontier garrisons along the Fertile 
  Crescent, including the Philistines who settled in the 
  Shephelah on the southern coastal plain of Palestine 
  (Tel Beith Mirsim, Tel Qasile). In the Papyrus 
  Harris, Ramesses III claims that: ‘Their military 
  classes were as numerous as a hundred thousand. I 
  assigned tributes for them all with clothing and 
  provisions from treasuries and granaries every 
  year… [I] settled them in strongholds, bound in my 
  name.’ Some captives participated, as Egyptian 
  mercenaries, in the campaign against the Libyans in 
  Year 11 of his reign.
  Although Ramesses III gives the impression 
  that he has completely eradicated the Sea Peoples, 
  they remained a major threat in the Mediterranean. 
  Their defeat prevented them from conquering 
  Egypt itself, but the Egyptians were still incapable 
  of expelling them from Canaan completely. 
  Egyptian suzerainty was nominally still strong in 
  inland Canaan until the time of Ramesses IV, but 
  the garrisons in Canaan probably represented an 
  unavoidable Egyptian recognition of the conquests 
  achieved by the Philistines.
  * * *
  Some scholars suggest that the land and sea 
  battles won by Ramesses III were not single 
  events, but represent a series of relatively smaller 
  encounters between the Sea Peoples and Egyptian 
  forces, or a ‘global impression’ of many similar 
  clashes of the kind seen in the Papyrus Harris condensed into a single 
  narrative of pharaonic victory. They support this interpretation by the 
  inconsistencies between some of the named Sea Peoples mentioned in the 
  Medinet Habu inscriptions and the Papyrus Harris, and the people actually 
  shown in the reliefs (e.g., the Sherden are probably shown in the naval-
  battle relief but are not mentioned in the inscription of Year 8 – though 
  their chief is shown elsewhere in the Medinet Habu carvings, and they are 
  mentioned again in Papyrus Harris as ‘the Sherden and the Weshesh of the 
  Sea’). These scholars offer evidence of recurring maritime raids on Egypt 
  during the 13th and 12th centuries BC, thus suggesting that the campaign 
  of Year 8 may not have been an isolated event. In support of this they offer 
  the depiction of warriors with ‘feathered’ headdress already in Egyptian 
  service against Libyans and Nubians in the campaigns of the pharaoh’s 
  Year 5.
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������
  c.�����������������������������
  �����������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������
  �����������������������������
  �������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ��������������������������������
  ����������������������������������
  ���������������������������
  ����������������������
  ������������������������������
  1
  2
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  However, there is nothing remarkable in the idea that some Sea Peoples 
  wearing this headgear had reached Egypt as prisoners and/or mercenaries 
  before Year 5. The date is too late for them to have been prisoners taken 
  during the Libyan campaigns of Merneptah; but the reputation of Anatolian 
  and Aegean mercenaries was already well known, and their ancestors had 
  previously served in Egyptian armies. It is more credible that among various 
  successive clashes between the Egyptians and sea-raiders two decisive 
  engagements, one on land and one at sea, did indeed take place.
  �������������������������
  �������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �����������������������������������
  ������������������������������
  ������������������������
  ����������������������������
  �����������������������������
  ������������������������
  ���������������������������
  �������������������������������
  �������������������������
  ������
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  BIBLIOGRAPHY
  anon, The Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu, Vols I & II, Earlier Historical 
  Records of Ramses III, OIP 8 & OIP 9 (Chicago University Press, 1930 
  & 1932)
  anon, The Epigraphic Survey, Medinet Habu VIII, The Eastern High Gate, 
  OIP 94 (Chicago University Press, 1970)
  Aruz, J., Benzel, K. & Evans, J., Beyond Babylon – Art, Trade and Diplomacy 
  in the Second Millennium BC (New York, 2008)
  Basch, L. & Artzy, M., ‘Ship Graffiti at Kition’, in Karageorghis, V. & Demas, 
  M., Pyla-Kokkinokremos: A Late 13th-Century BC Fortified Settlement in 
  Cyprus; and ‘The Pre-Phoenician Levels: Areas I and II’, in Excavations at 
  Kition, Cyprus, Vol 5 ( Nicosia; Dept of Antiquities, Cyprus, 1984 & 1985)
  Basedow, M., Besik-Tepe: Das spatbronzezeitliche Graberfeld, Studia Troica 
  Monographien 1, (Mainz, 2000)
  Beckman, G.M., Bryce, T.R. & Cline, E., The Ahhiyawa Text (Atlanta, 2011)
  Borchhardt, J., Homerische Helme (Mainz am Rhein, 1972)
  Cabriolu, M., Il popolo Shardana (Cagliari, 2010)
  Cavillier, G., Gli Shardana nell’Egitto Ramesside (Oxford, 2005)
  Colleen, M., ‘The Great Karnak Inscription of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in 
  the 13th Century BC’, in Yale Egyptological Studies 3 (New Haven, 2003)
  D’Amato, R. & Salimbeti, A., Bronze Age Greek Warrior 1600–1100 BC, 
  Warrior No.153 (Oxford, 2010)
  D’Amato, R. & Salimbeti, A., ‘The War of the Eighth Year – The Battle of the 
  Delta’, in Ancient Warfare, IV (2010)
  De Montis, A., Il popolo di bronzo (Cagliari, 2005)
  Dothan, T. & Dothan, M., People of the Sea: The Search for the Philistines 
  (New York, 1992)
  Drews, R., ‘Oxcarts, ships and migration theories’, in Journal of Near Eastern 
  Studies, Vol. 59, No. 3 (July 2000)
  Eisenlohr, A., Der große Papyrus Harris, ein wichtiger Beitrag zur ägyptischen 
  Geschichte, ein 3000 Jahr altes Zeugniss für die mosaische Religionsstiftung 
  enthaltend (Leipzig (1872)
  Emanuel, J.P., ‘Šrdn from the Sea: the Arrival, Integration and Acculturation 
  of a Sea People’, in Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, 5 
  (2013)
  Faucounau, J., Les Peuples de la Mer et leur histoire (Paris, 2003)
  Garcia, A.F., ‘La batalla del Nilo, Egipto contra los pueblos del mar’ in 
  Desperta Ferro, 6 
  Gardiner, R., ed, Conway’s History of the Ship: The Age of the Galley 
  (London, 1995)
  Gorelik, M., Weapons of the Ancient East, IV Millennium BC–IV Century 
  BC (St Petersburg, 2003 - Russian language)
  Grandet, P., Le Papyrus Harris I (BM 9999), 2 vols (Bibliotheque d’etude, 
  Cairo, IFAO, 1994)
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Green, J., ‘Forces of Transformation in Death: The Cemetery at Tell es-
  Sa‘idiyeh, Jordan’, in Bachhuber & Roberts, Forces of Transformation: 
  The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean - proceedings of 
  international symposium, St John’s College, University of Oxford, 25–26 
  March 2006 (Themes from the Ancient Near East, BANEA Publication 
  1, Oxford, 2009)
  Green, J., ‘Creating Prestige in the Jordan Valley: A Reconstruction of Ritual 
  and Social Dynamics from the Late Bronze–Early Iron Age Cemetery at Tell 
  es-Sa‘idiyeh’, in Near Eastern Archaeology in the Past, Present and Future, 
  Vol 1 - proceedings of 6th International Congress of Archaeology of Ancient 
  Near East, 5–10 May 2009, ‘Sapienza’, Università di Roma (Matthiae, P., 
  Pinnock, F., Nigro, L. & Marchetti, N., eds; Wiesbaden, 2009)
  Guidotti, M.C. & Pecchioli Daddi, F., La battaglia di Kadesh (Firenze, 2002)
  Gurney, O.R., ‘The Annals of Hattusilis III’, in AnSt 47(1997)
  Hall, H.R., Keftiu and the Peoples of the Sea (Athens, 1902)
  Hoelscher, U., The Architectural Survey of the Great Temple and Palace of 
  Medinet Habu, Season 1927–28, OIP 5 (Chicago University Press, 1929)
  Houston, M., Ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Persian Costume (New 
  York, 2002)
  Kanta, A., The Late Minoan III Period in Crete: A Survey of Sites, Pottery 
  and their Distribution (Göteborg, 1980)
  Karagheorghis, V., ‘Cyprus in the 11th Century BC’ -:proceedings of 
  international symposium, Archaeological Research Unit, University of 
  Cyprus, & Anastasios G. Leventis Foundation, Nicosia, 30–31 October 
  1993 (Nicosia, 1994)
  Karagheorghis, V., Excavations at Maa-Palaeokastro 1979–1986 (Nicosia; 
  Dept of Antiquities, Cyprus, 1988)
  Karageorghis, V., Early Cyprus, Crossroads of the Mediterranean (Los 
  Angeles, 2002)
  Killebrew, A. & Lehmann, G., The Philistines and other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text 
  and Archaeology (Atlanta, 2013)
  Lilliu, G., Sculture della Sardegna Nuragica (Cagliari, 1966, 2008)
  Murray, S.A., Smith, A.H. & Walters, H.B., Excavations in Cyprus (London, 
  1900)
  Nelson, H.H., The Epigraphic Survey of the Great Temple of Medinet Habu, 
  Seasons 24–25 and 27–28, 1924–28 (Chicago University Press, 1929)
  Nibbi, A., The Sea Peoples and Egypt (Park Ridge, 1975)
  Oren, E.D., The Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment (Philadelphia, 
  2000)
  Rassu, M., Shardana e Filistei in Italia (Cagliari, 2003)
  Robbins, M., Collapse of the Bronze Age: The Story of Greece, Troy, Egypt, 
  and the Peoples of the Sea (Lincoln, 2000)
  Rosellini, I., I monumenti dell’Egitto e della Nubia, tomo primo, monumenti 
  storici (Pisa, 1932) Sandars, N.K., The Sea Peoples (London, 1978)
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  Schaeffer, C.F.A., Les fouilles de Ras Ahamra-Ugarit, Syria 18 (1973)
  Schofield, L. & Parkinson, R.B., ‘Of Helmets and Heretics: A Possible 
  Egyptian Representation of Mycenaean Warriors on a Papyrus from el-
  Amarna’, in BSA 89 (1994)
  Serino, F., L’antico Egitto di Ippolito Rosellini (Seriate, 2003)
  Stillman, N. & Tallis, N., Armies of the Ancient Near East 3000BC–539BC 
  (Worthing, 1984)
  Yadin, Y., The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands (London, 1963)
  Yalouris, N., ‘Mykenische Bronzeschutzwaffen’, in AM 75 (1960)
  Yasur-Landau, A., The Philistines and Aegean Migration at the End of the 
  Late Bronze Age (Cambridge, 2010)
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  ��
  INDEX
  Note: Page references in bold refer to 
  photographs and captions. References 
  in brackets refer to plate captions.
  Achaeans, the  5, 22, 23, 23–24, 30, 
  46, 47
  Aegean mercenaries  29, 29–30, 44
  Akhenaten, Pharaoh  28
  Amarna letters, the  30, 31
  Amentohep III, Pharoah  7
  Ammurapi (Hammurabi), King of 
  Ugarit  10–11
  Amor campaign, the  1
  Anastasi Papyrus, the  11, 14
  annals and papyri  12–13, 27, 28, 
  29–30, 36–37, 52
  artefacts and ornamentation  11, 42, 
  59 
  see also pottery
  ‘Athribis Stele,’ the  6
  Azitawadda, King, of the Danuna  20
  battle of Kadesh, the  7, 8, 14, 27, 28, 
  36, 37
  battle of the Delta, the  33
  battles against the Hittites  7
  benefits for mercenaries  30–31
  Biblical passages about the Sea 
  People’s origin  18, 22
  body armours  36, 36–38, 37, 37–38, 
  48, 52, 60, D25(24)
  Bybos obelisk, the  7
  captive warriors  4, 32, 43, 43, 59, 
  C21(20)
  chariots, use of  23, 39, 40, 42, 44, 
  44–45, 54
  chronology of events  6–7
  circumcision as an indicator of ethnic 
  origin  8
  classical literary references to the Sea 
  Peoples  18, 22, 24–26, 26–27, 28, 
  36, 42, 42, 45, E34
  clothing and equipment  17, 18, 22, 
  31–39, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 
  40, 43, 47, 54, E35(34), F41(40), 
  G51(50)
  corselet soft armours  37–38, 48, 52, 
  D25(24)
  crook-sceptre, the  42
  Danuna (Denyen), the  11, 12, 20–22, 
  A9(8), G50–51
  Decree of Canopus, the  52
  destruction of Troy VII, the  45–46
  dirksword of the Sherden  16
  early sources of the Sea Peoples as an 
  ethnic group  7–12
  Egyptian primary sources mentioning 
  Sea Peoples  12–13
  Ekwesh, the  8, 23–24, D25(24)
  Enkomi Seal, the  26, 33, 36
  European migrations to the Near East 
  and Egypt  4–6
  fall of the Hittite Empire, the  E35(34)
  first Egyptian campaign, the  C21(20)
  gold convex disc  11
  Great Karnak Inscription, the  7–8, 17, 
  23, 26, 28
  helmets and headgear  22, 23, 26, 29, 
  34–36, 52, 54, E35(34) 
  ‘feathered’ headdress  4, 5, 18, 18, 
  22–23, 31, 33, 33–34, 34, 36, 40, 
  43, 45, 47, 56, 59–60, 60, F41(40), 
  G51(50) 
  horned helmet of the Sherden  10, 
  17, 33, G51(50), H55(54)
  Hittites, the  7, 27, 47, E35(34)
  Homer  18, 22, 27, 36, 42, 45, E34
  images of warriors  28, D25(24)
  Karkisa, the  27
  Labu, the  8, 10, G51(50)
  land battle of Djahi  53–54
  leadership on military expeditions  
  42–43
  Libyan campaign with Sea Peoples 
  against Egypt  7–8, 22, 24–26, 
  G51(50)
  ‘Lost Tribes of Israel,’ the  29
  Lukka, the  24, 27–28
  Luxor pylon reliefs  8, 10, 14
  Lycians, the  28
  Medinet Habu reliefs and inscriptions, 
  Egypt  10, 17, 20, 22, 26, 40, 59 
  of clothing and equipment  36, 36, 
  37, 38, 39 
  of helmets and headdresses  17, 18, 
  18, 43 
  of land and sea battles  42–43, 44, 
  44–45, 53 
  of mercenaries and warriors  4, 5, 
  14, 29, 30, 31, 49, 52 
  of ships of the Sea Peoples  45, 46, 
  47, 48–49
  mercenaries  16, 23, 44, 47, 49, 60, 
  A9(8), G51(50) 
  Sherden mercenaries  8, 14, 14, 16, 
  29, 30–31, 32, 37, 38, 45, 54, 
  A9(8), B15(14)
  Merneptah, Pharoah  6, 8, 14, 22, 23, 
  38, 60
  Meryey, King  7
  Mesher, Meshwesh leader  43
  Meshwesh, the  8, 22, 43
  military organization  39–40
  Montuhotep III, Pharoah  52
  Muwatilli, Hittite king  27
  ‘Mycenaean IIIC1’ pottery style  24
  naval warfare  46–47
  Nine Bows, the  10, 11
  Odyssey (book)  24–26
  Onomasticon of Amenemope, the  11, 
  14, 20, 27
  origins of the Sea Peoples  4–6, 16–17, 
  18, 19, 20–22, 23, 26–27, 29
  Papyrus Anastasi  30
  Papyrus Harris I (Great Harris 
  Papyrus)  11, 14, 17, 30, 49, 56, 57, 
  59
  Papyrus Wilbour, the  30
  Peleset, the  17–18, 33, 34, 38, 42, 
  G51(50), H55(54)
  Petrie, W. Flinders  26, 39
  Philistines, the  8, 17–18, 57, 59
  piracy  5, 31
  pottery  4, 5, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 34, 
  37, 38, 44, 48, 58, E34, G50
  primary sources from Egypt 
  mentioning the Sea Peoples  12–13
  Ramesses II, Pharoah  7, 11, 14, 23, 
  30, 31, 32, B14
  Ramesses III, Pharoah  4, 6, 11, 12, 14, 
  17, 19, 20, 22, 29, 32, 42, 44, 47 
  in the War of the Eighth Year  10, 
  49, 52, 53–54, 54, 56, 57, 59
  reliefs of battle scenes  39–40, 42
  Report of Wen-Amon papyrus  12
  Rosetta Stone, the  52
  Salamina warriors  23
  Sardinian link to the Sherden  16–17
  scale armour  23, 38, D25(24)
  sea battle of the War of the Eighth 
  Year  56–57
  Sea Battle off Alashiya, Cyprus  
  D25(24)
  Sea People’s confederation, the  10
  Sea Peoples in Sardinia  H55(54)
  Shekelesh, the  8, 22–23, 33
  Sherden, the  5, 7, 8, 11, 12–14, 16, 
  16–17, 22, 52, 59, H55(54) 
  horned helmets of  10, 17, 33, 
  G51(50), H55(54) 
  see also mercenaries
  Sherden guardsmen  16
  shields  36, 47
  ships of the Sea Peoples  45, 46, 
  47–49, 56–57
  siege warfare  45–46
  statue menhirs  16, 59
  Suppililiuma II, King  47, D24
  sword design  37, 38, 38–39, 53, 54
  tactics  44, 44–49, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 
  53, 56–57
  Tanis Stele, the  31
  Tel el-Amarna Papyrus  36
  Teresh, the  26–27
  terracotta head  11
  Tjekker, the  12, 18–19, 42
  Tribe of Asher, the  29
  Tribe of Dan, the  22, 29
  Tudhaliya I, Hittite king  28
  Tyrsenians, the  16, 26–27
  Ugarit letters, Syria  10–11, 16, 27, 31
  ‘War of the Eighth Year’  10, 31, 
  49–59, 53, 54, F41(40)
  weaponry  37, 38, 38–39, 39
  Wen-Amon papyrus, the  18
  Weshesh, the  22–23, 29, 33, 59
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  First published in Great Britain in 2015 by Osprey Publishing
  PO Box 883, Oxford, OX1 9PL, UK
  PO Box 3985, New York, NY 10185–3985, USA
  E-mail: info@ospreypublishing.com
   
  Osprey Publishing is part of the Osprey Group
   
  © 2015 Osprey Publishing Ltd.
   
  All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private 
  study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, 
  Designs and Patents Act, 1988, no part of this publication may be 
  reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by 
  any means, electronic, electrical, chemical, mechanical, optical, 
  photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission 
  of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be addressed to the Publishers.
   
  A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
   
  Print ISBN: 978 1 4728 0681 9 
  PDF ebook ISBN: 978 1 4728 0682 6
  ePub ebook ISBN: 978 1 4728 0683 3
   
  Editor: Martin Windrow
  Index by Fionbar Lyons
  Typeset in Sabon and Myriad Pro
  Originated by PDQ Media, Bungay, UK
   
  © Osprey Publishing. Access to this book is not digitally restricted. In return, 
  we ask you that you use it for personal, non-commercial purposes only. 
  Please don’t upload this ebook to a peer-to-peer site, email it to everyone 
  you know, or resell it. Osprey Publishing reserves all rights to its digital 
  content and no part of these products may be copied, stored in a retrieval 
  system or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, 
  recording or otherwise (except as permitted here), without the written 
  permission of the publisher. Please support our continuing book publishing 
  programme by using this e-book responsibly.
  Every effort has been made by the Publisher to secure permissions to use 
  the images in this publication. If there has been any oversight we would be 
  happy to rectify the situation and written submission should be made to 
  Osprey Publishing.
  www.ospreypublishing.com
  DEDICATION
  To a great woman named Irene
   
  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  The authors would like to thank all the scholars and friends who have 
  helped in the realization of this book, as well as the museums and 
  institutions visited.
  Firstly, the authors express their deep gratitude to the Library of the 
  Egyptian Museum, Turin, whose staff made available the Epigraphic Survey 
  volumes describing the Medinet Habu temple. Particular acknowledgement 
  is due to Dr David Kaniewsky of the Tel Dweini Project for his help in 
  supplying important iconographic material relating to the invasion of 
  Ugarit by the Sea Peoples.
  We would also like to thank the staff of the following: Cyprus Museum, 
  Nicosia; Aghios Mamas Museum, Morphou, Cyprus; British Museum, 
  London; World Museum, Liverpool; IFAO Library, Cairo; and Library of the 
  Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (DAI), Rome and Athens.
  The authors are also deeply grateful to Stefanie Groener, BA, for linguistic 
  and editorial assistance; and to Dr Andrei Negin for his illustrations.
  Finally, special acknowledgement must be given to our illustrator Giuseppe 
  Rava who, once again, has employed his marvellous talent for the 
  reconstruction of the ancient world.
   
  ARTIST’S NOTE
  Readers may care to note that the original paintings from which the colour 
  plates in this book were prepared are available for private sale. 
  All reproduction copyright whatsoever is retained by the Publishers. 
  All enquiries should be addressed to:
   
  Giuseppe Rava, via Borgotto 17, 48018 Faenza (RA), Italy
  www.g-rava.it
  info@g-rava.it
   
  The Publishers regret that they can enter into no correspondence upon this 
  matter.
   
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
  Discover more at www.ospreypublishing.com
  CAM No: 22  �  ISBN: 978 1 85532 300 1
  NVG No: 196  �  ISBN: 978 1 84908 978 4
  WAR No: 153  �  ISBN: 978 1 84908 195 5
  WAR No: 167  �  ISBN: 978 1 78096 858 2
  FOR No: 17  �  ISBN: 978 1 84176 703 1
  NVG No: 119  �  ISBN: 978 1 84176 944 8
  Sign up for the
  Osprey newsletter
  And WIN!
  5 Osprey 
  books
  Go to: www.ospreymailing.com
  Sign up to the Osprey e-newsletter to get all the latest news, great special offers, 
  information about new releases and get an exclusive look inside life at Osprey. You 
  will then be in with a chance to win some great prizes in our monthly prize draw.
  Every month we will be selecting one newsletter recipient who will 
  receive any 5 Osprey books of their choice. A range of other prizes, from 
  exclusive artwork prints to free ebooks, will also be given away throughout the 
  year to newsletter recipients.
  Enter your email address to register
  © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
  
SOURCE: textdata/thevault/Osprey System/Elite (ELI)/Osprey - ELI 204 - Sea Peoples of the Bronze Age Mediterranean 1400-1000BC.pdf