1

Investigating the Sea Peoples:

Nomadic tribes and causes of migration from Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age

As the Bronze age was coming to an end (ca. 1200 BCE), the eastern Mediterranean
experienced a series of upheavals and disruptions. Major kingdoms and city-states, many of which had
previously served as sources of political and economic stability for the region, were destroyed by
sudden and severe economical decline and abrupt losses of political control. Large, established
societies, such as the Mycenaeans in the Aegean and the Hittites in the northern Levant, collapsed and
left formerly thriving civilizations, like the palaces at Knossos and the trade center of Ugarit, empty
and abandoned. The so-called catastrophe1 that ended the Bronze Age left in its wake enough
destruction and chaos that the culturally sparse period immediately following the Bronze Age has been
termed the Dark Ages, especially in reference to the Aegean region. War was rampant in the eastern
Mediterranean for several hundred years leading up to and following the end of the Bronze Age, and
trade was growing complicated and difficult. The fragile state of the region was further threatened by
natural disasters and famine. Peoples became displaced as civilizations faltered, and mixed with
existing nomadic tribes, often working as mercenaries or traders to support themselves. Contemporary
texts, especially Egyptian inscriptions, allude to the involvement of mercenary tribes in wars and
political clashes, referring to some groups of tribes as peoples of the sea. Documents referring to
battles or invasions named tribes that had not been mentioned in earlier surviving texts, and scholars
were quick to accept the conclusion that the collapse of the Bronze Age could be attributed to ruthless
invasions by foreign barbaric tribes, including the Sea Peoples. However, an examination of
1 Robert Drews, The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1993), p. 3.

2
archaeological and historical evidence suggests that the collapse of the Bronze Age was due more to
existing political and economical shortcomings, in combination with natural disasters and famine, than
to any sort of invasion. The mysterious Sea Peoples are revealed to be struggling landless tribes from
across the Anatolian region, displaced by the fall of civilizations. Their movements are not motivated
by military or political invasions, but rather by a search for new land on which to resettle and rebuild.
We can begin our examination of the state of the Eastern Mediterranean region at the end of the Bronze
Age ca. 1286 BCE, at the Battle of Kadesh on the Orontes river. The battle marks the beginning of the
culmination of issues in the Levantine regions, and is the first major event with which many tribes in
the region are mentioned in connection. The full list of Hittite allies is given in an inscription of
Rameses II at Luxor,2 and includes several tribes that are included in records of battles in the eastern
Mediterranean from this point on. The battle was between Hatti (the kingdom of the Hittites) and the
Egyptians, and is recorded as a Hittite victory which ends in a peace treaty between Hatti and Egypt.
Almost immediately after this victory, however, Hatti is constantly under threat on all borders and
begins to lose political control in the region. Depictions of the Battle of Kadesh reveal a key detail of
the Hittite empire their army is largely a professional chariot army.3 While this enabled the Hittites to
achieve military superiority and political command in the Levant throughout the Bronze Age, it also
served as a weakness that undermined Hatti's position as a stable force in the region. The chariot army
required large amounts of arable land to raise and train horses. While Hatti held control in the region, it
could depend on its surrounding territories and allies for land. As Hatti lost control and many of its
allies became its enemies, the Hittites found it more and more difficult to maintain their army. Hatti's
allies at the battle of Kadesh included many tribes and cities from the territories surrounding the Hittite
kingdom, but the support of these peoples did not last long past the battle itself. The Lukka are listed as
Hittite allies, and were a maritime peoples, often described as pirates or raiders. They were likely
2 James Henry Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. III (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), 298-304.
3 N. K. Sandars, The Sea Peoples (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978), p. 32.

3
present in the region as early as the 14 th century, and were often hired as mercenaries; they held no
strong political ties to Hatti or any other kingdoms in the region. The Mitanni, the next tribe listed as
Hittite allies, were strong supporters of Hatti, with whom the Hittites had well-established trade
connections, but were engulfed by the Assyrians soon after the Battle of Kadesh. The Assyrians were
an enormous political threat to the Hittites, and absorbing the Mitanni allowed them to approach Hatti's
eastern border. The Arzawa, to the north-west of Hatti, are suddenly described as threatening, despite
the fact they were allied with Hatti at the Battle of Kadesh. The Kashka, to the north of Hatti, were
listed as Hittite allies at the Battle of Kadesh, but soon become one of the greatest threats to the Hittite
kingdom. As political stability in Hatti wanes through a long series of succession of power, the Kashka
repeatedly attack the Hittite border, eventually successfully carrying out invasions and raiding
expeditions. The Kashka loot Hittite towns, kidnapping citizens, musicians, and priests and selling
them as slaves. Arnuwandas IV, one of the last true Hittite kings, records the desperate situation
during his reign and describes bribing the Kashka with large gifts of luxury goods to persuade them not
to raid Hatti's lands.4 The borders between Hatti and the surrounding enemy lands were heavily
patrolled, which occupied significant portions of the Hittite army. Essentially, approaching the end of
the Bronze Age, Hatti was threatened on every border, and was struggling to continue to support
military forces that were spread thin across the region. As the decline of Hittite power and control
threatened the stability of the Levantine region, problems were also brewing to the west in the Aegean.
Mycenaean kingdoms, the main source of economical and political stability in the Aegean region
through out the Bronze Age, experienced growing difficulties that ultimately led to their collapse at the
end of the Bronze Age. Trials plaguing the Mycenaeans arose mainly from the fact that they had
developed into a highly specialized economy that depended on too heavily on economic surplus. 5
Mycenaean kingdoms were also dependent upon palace society as a political force, and relied on
4 Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 36.
5 Sandars, The Sea Peoples, pp. 55-79.

4
central bureaucracies to organize and control political and economical matters. As trade in the region
grew complicated and the population in the Peloponnese grew rapidly, resources became scarce and the
surplus of people in the region became a problem rather than a source of economic success. Internal
conflicts and natural disasters such as earthquakes prompted most of the Mycenaeans to abandon their
palaces and cities, and the kingdoms ultimately collapsed completely. One of the Mycenaeans' major
weaknesses was that they were far removed from centers of trade in the region, but the increasingly
complex nature of trade networks also threatened civilizations along the eastern coasts of the
Mediterranean. Alashiya (Cyprus), as well as Ugarit and Nami (cities on the Levantine coast just south
of Hatti) were the main centers of trade in the eastern Mediterranean. These civilizations depended
largely on maritime trade to economically support their existence; so much so, in fact, that stone
anchors have been found dedicated to gods in temples at some sites on Cyprus. 6 Recently excavated
shipwrecks, including the Uluburun shipwreck and the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck, provide strong
evidence in their cargoes of flourishing commerce between Cyprus and the rest of the eastern
Mediterranean. The Uluburun shipwreck's cargo, for instance, included both finished luxury goods and
raw materials such as copper, tin, and glass ingots. It also included beads of Baltic origin, Cypriot oil
lamps, logs of blackwood from Africa, swords of Canaanite, Mycenaean, and Italian origin, Egyptian
scarabs, and foodstuffs from across the region.7 The enormous complexity of trade networks at the end
of the Bronze Age was a serious issue that threatened Hatti and many other civilizations throughout the
eastern Mediterranean. Such a complicated system required a great deal of security and control. 8
Improvements in maritime technology facilitated more efficient and more intricate trade routes.
Demand for luxury goods, such as lapis lazuli from Babylon, increased. The trade routes that brought
these goods to trade centers like Ugarit and Cyprus was long and crossed many political and
6 Ibid, p. 44.
7 Cemal Pulak, The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27 no. 3
(1998), pp. 188-224.
8 Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 49.

5
geographical borders. As political stability across the region falters, lawlessness, robbery, and murder
becomes rampant on caravan routes and piracy becomes common on the sea. Rulers, particularly the
king of Ugarit, struggle to maintain security for traders, not only because robbery meant loss of
merchandise and therefore wealth, but also in fear of the fact that clashes between trading clans could
escalate into vendettas or rivalries, and even full-fledged wars. The expanding movements of
transhumaning and nomadic tribes across the region served to further complicate matters.
Transhumaning tribes, or peoples that wandered and lived a mostly herding-based lifestyle, were
common in the Levantine and Anatolian region and had existed there since the beginnings of
Mesopotamian civilizations. Many of these tribes, in an effort to support themselves economically,
transformed themselves from mere herdsmen into entrepreneurs and legitimate economic forces,
creating additional competition among traders and upsetting delicate traditional balances in trade
networks.9 Two main groups of wandering tribes are also mentioned commonly as mercenaries. 10
Hittite texts refer to the hubshu, semi-nomadic wandering bands that were known for plundering,
looting, and generally being eager for fighting. The hubshu lifestyle was changeable, and while they
often lived as nomadic herdsman, they also occasionally developed agricultural settlements to
supplement their resources by raising crops. The hubshu were often hired as mercenaries by multiple
armies in the region, as they were recognized as a constant, stable source of hireable manpower.
Egyptian texts frequently mention the hapiru, literally, landless peoples or peoples who had no
political ties to a particular land. These peoples had no consistent lifestyle they sometimes wandered,
sometimes settled in one place for a time, and often latched on to traveling or warring armies in hopes
of being hired as footsoldiers. Forces of nature were also important factors influencing the instability of
the eastern Mediterranean. Cities in the Canaanite region especially were closely packed and frequently
destroyed by natural disasters or war. Other key cities, including Knossos and Ugarit, were repeatedly
9 Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 26-33.
10 Sandars, The Sea Peoples, pp. 49-53.

6
razed by earthquakes. Throughout the Bronze Age, these cities were rebuilt after each instance of
destruction, but as the region grew less stable and restoration became economically unfeasible, cities
were abandoned and peoples took to wandering. Additionally, there is strong evidence supporting the
theory that the Anatolian region was experiencing a severe famine at the end of the Bronze Age, which
might have significantly influenced the downfall of the Hittites and surrounding kingdoms. Herodotus
famously describes the Lydians wandering from Anatolia and migrating southward in an effort to
escape famine.11 Both the Merneptah Stele12 and texts from Ugarit13 mention large shipments of grain
being brought into Hatti, perhaps to relieve famine. Recent research on weather patterns 14,15 also
suggest that the Anatolian region was likely experiencing severe drought conditions at the end of the
Bronze Age. Though drought is the the scourge of the Mediterranean, it is important to remember that
many of the plains in the region are equally threatened by flooding. 16 This risk is especially present
when forests are cleared for farming, which was a common practice in the Bronze Age. Cleared fields
could quickly revert to nature and become marshy, and it is likely that diseases such as malaria were
also factors of the decline and depopulation of the eastern Mediterranean.
It is only after this complete examination of the eastern Mediterranean region in the years
leading up to the collapse of the Bronze Age, and consequently a better understanding of the context in
which the Sea Peoples and other tribes existed, that we can turn to an investigation of the Sea Peoples
themselves. Much of the mystery and confusion that surrounds the identity of the Sea Peoples, who are
often traditionally regarded as mysterious foreign pirates responsible for the abrupt ends of many
11 Herodotus, The Histories, with English translation by A.D. Godley (Harvard University Press, 1920), I.94.
In the days of Atys, the son of Manes, there was a great scarcity through the whole land of Lydia ... So the king
determined to divide the nation in half ... the one to stay, the other to leave the land. ... the emigrants should
have his son Tyrrhenus for their leader ... they went down to Smyrna, and built themselves ships ... after sailing
past many countries they came to Umbria ... and called themselves ... Tyrrhenians.
12 Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, 856-859.
13 Drews The End of the Bronze Age, p. 83.
14 Barry Weiss, The decline of Late Bronze Age civilization as a possible response to climate change, Climate Change 4
no. 2 (1982), pp. 173-198.
15 Brian M. Fagan, The Long Summer: How Climate Change Change Civilization (Basic Books, 2004).
16 Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 21.

7
Bronze Age civilizations, may stem from the name Sea Peoples itself. The first historian to call the
tribes listed in Egyptian texts by the name peoples of the sea was historian Gaston Maspero, in the
late nineteenth century AD.17 The name stuck and was unquestioningly accepted, and led many people
to think of these tribes as pirates, strictly maritime peoples, or peoples who had traveled to Egypt long
distances over the sea. This view of these sea peoples fit nicely into the popular belief that large
Bronze Age kingdoms, such as the Mycenaeans and the Hittites, were destroyed by an invasion of
foreign tribes. However, the term sea peoples has come under criticism, because it is a misnomer that
stems from a shallow translation of Egyptian texts. Maspero's translation of a few Egyptian characters
into the words sea peoples or peoples of the sea was not an accurate one it did not account for the
depth and multiple layers of meaning inherent in hieroglyphic writing, and it ignored obvious
contextual clues given by other common uses of the phrases. The characters that Maspero poorly
translated more accurately meant foreigners, or foreign peoples. 18 Perhaps the most important
mistake Maspero made was in the translation of the character ym, which meant both sea and green.
The sea peoples were, in the Egyptian texts, peoples from across the great ym, which Maspero
translated as peoples from across the great sea. However, if we take into account other Egyptian texts
that are believed to have have been translated more accurately, we see that the great ym is very rarely
the great sea, and is almost always the great green. More importantly, we see that the great green
most likely refers not to the Mediterranean Sea, but to the Nile Delta. 19 If we reexamine key texts, such
as the Medinet Habu inscriptions, with the idea of the peoples from across the Nile Delta in mind, we
can make many changes to previous translations. The Medinet Habu inscriptions, for example, refer to

17 F. C. Woudheizen, The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples (Ph.D. dissertation, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 2006).
Woudheizen credits Maspero as the first to coin the term peuples de la mer in 1881, and cites Maspero's use
of the term in his monographs Histoire Ancienne des peuples de l'orient classique of 1875 and Struggle of the
Nations, Egypt, Syria, and Assyria of 1910.
18 Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), Vol. I, p. 196.
19 Alessandra Nibbi, The Sea Peoples and Egypt (Park Ridge: Noyes Press, 1975), pp. 4-6.

8
foreign peoples making a conspiracy among their islands. 20 Using the idea of people from across
the Delta, as well as contextual clues from other translated texts, it becomes clear that islands refers
not to actual islands in a sea, but to the raised lands on which many civilizations existed in the Levant
and Anatolia.21 If we do away with Maspero's original faulty translation and take into account the
unstable and chaotic environment in the region, it becomes increasingly clear that the so-called Sea
Peoples were peoples whose origins were just north of Egypt on the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean, who were displaced by the collapse of their civilizations. Egyptian depictions of the Sea
peoples and other tribes, in both text and images, provide evidence that further supports the Anatolian
and Levantine origins of the Sea People and suggests that their reasons for moving into Egyptian
territory had little to do with military invasions. The Egyptians' first clash with foreign tribes in 1220
BCE, when the pharaoh Merneptah fights a war against the Libyans, whose origins are just west of the
Nile Delta, and the Libyans' allies, which include the Sherden, the Ekwash, the Teresh, and the
Shekelesh.22 The fact that the Sherden are listed in this battle, and in several future battles, as allies of
the Egyptians' enemies, is intriguing, as the Sherden were traditionally hired as mercenaries by the
Egyptians. In Merneptah's battle, the Sherden are actually fighting on both sides, as allies of both the
Egyptians and Libyans. This makes clear the fact that the Sherden are purely mercenaries, with no
political ties to any kingdom. Inscriptions at Karnak provide enlightening details about the battle.
Descriptions of the Libyans include that the Libyan king brought with him his entire family, all of his
wealth and treasures, and all of his beasts. 23 This suggests that the Libyans and their allies were not
trying to invade for military purposes, but were trying to resettle their peoples in one of the last stable
and fruitful regions of the eastern Mediterranean. Many subsequent battles will carry similar evidence.
Rameses III engaged in battle with foreign tribes on multiple occasions, and his battles are described in
20
21
22
23

Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, 64.

Nibbi, The Sea Peoples and Egypt, pp. 47-51.
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, 856-859.
Ibid, Vol, IV, 35-58.

9
detail in the inscriptions at Medinet Habu, his mortuary temple. One particular inscription shows a row
of labelled chieftains from various tribes, bound as if they had been captured. 24 These captives were
probably not from any specific real battle, but were meant to be symbolic of Rameses' overall victories
over the tribes depicted.25 The Egyptians are very consistent in their images of foreigners, and use
strongly differentiated types, which allows us to understand different tribes' participation in various
battles by recognizing them in depictions of various events. The inscription showing the captured
chieftains serves as a guide for identifying members of key tribes the Sherden have horned helmets
and short kilts, the Shekelesh have thin faces and swept-back turbans, the Teresh have distinctive facial
features including a short nose and thick lips, and do not wear any hat or turban, and Hittites are
depicted with round noses and weak, unbearded chins. Rameses' first battle took place in 1189, against
the Libyans and raiders in the Delta. In depictions of Egyptian troops, we see the horned helmets of
the Sherden, with circles (perhaps insignias) between the horns. These circles are absent when the
Sherden are depicted among the enemy. We also see that the footsoldiers carrying bows have sweptback turbans similar to those of the Shekelesh. Perhaps the Shekelesh are mercenaries who easily
change alliances, like the Sherden. It is in Rameses' 1189 battle that we see a specific type of headdress
for the first time a stiff, tall headdress commonly referred to as a feathered crown. 26 Rameses goes
to battle again in 1186, entering into a two-part war that inscriptions refer to as the great land and sea
battles. The events leading up to these battles are described in a well-known section of the Medinet
Habu inscriptions
The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the
lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before
their arms, from Hatti, Qode [Kizzuwatna], Carchemish, Arzawa, and
Alashiya on, being cut off one at a time. A camp was set up in one place
in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which
has never come into being. They were coming forward toward Egypt,
24 Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 111, fig. 68-69.
25 Ibid, p. 111.
26 Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 118.

10
while the flame was prepared before them. Their confederation was the
Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen, and Weshesh, lands united. They laid
their hands upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts
confident and trusting: 'Our plans will succeed.'27
The enemies in these battles are depicted28 with the feathered crown headdress, and also with the short
kilt and large shield characteristic of Sherden warriors. Rameses' land battles take place first, in 1186.
Enemies are frequently depicted wearing the feathered crowns. What is unusual in depictions 29 of this
battle is that the enemies appear to be traveling in mostly ox-drawn carts, with a very few chariots also
shown. Oxcarts are typically used to move heavy loads long distances very slowly, and are not suited
for battle, as they are unwieldy and difficult to maneuver quickly. Additionally, the passengers of many
of the oxcarts appear to be women and children. The fact that Rameses' enemies are traveling with oxdrawn carts and bringing with them their women and children suggests that, like the Libyans in
Merneptah's battle, these peoples are not attempting a military invasion, but are moving their whole
civilization with the intention of resettling. The presence of chariots, as well as the fact that the people
in the oxcarts are depicted with features very similar to those of the Hittite chieftain mentioned above,
suggest that the tribes here are from Hatti or a nearby region. Following the land battles were a series of
sea battles. The ships depicted in Medinet Habu inscriptions provide us with further insight into the
identity of the foreign tribes with whom Rameses was fighting. The Egyptian ships 30 in these battles are
basic vessels with a crescent-shaped hull, characteristic of typical Egyptian ships loose-footed sail, and
10-12 rowers per ship. The presence of rowers indicates that the Egyptians were prepared for this
battle, as rowers give ships great maneuverability, speed, and power. The enemy ships in the sea
battles31 have a typical Levantine shape, with a shallower hull and decorated vertical stem and
27
28
29
30
31

Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, 64.

Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 120, fig. 75.
Ibid, pp. 122-123, fig. 76-78.
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 126, fig. 81.
Ibid, p. 127, fig. 82.

11
sternposts. They have sails, but no rowers, and they also have multiple decks, which suggests that they
were relatively large vessels.32 The enemy is also depicted wearing the feathered crowns, and some of
the enemy are also depicted with the Sherden horned helmets and shields. The absence of rowers makes
the enemy appear unprepared for a real naval battle, and the size of the ships suggest that the enemy is
moving large cargos or large numbers of people. Again, it appears that the Egyptian's enemies were not
seeking a military battle, but were attempting to move and resettle their peoples. The style of the ships
also makes it clear that the enemies were likely from Syria or the northern Levant. Other details in the
depictions of foreign tribes reinforces the idea that their origins are likely along the eastern coast of the
Mediterranean. The Sherden particularly can be traced back to Mesopotamia, due to their distinct
characteristics in Egyptian depictions. They wear short kilts and carry large, circular shields, but are
identified most reliably by their horned helmet. The helmet is of a basic, practical shape that covers the
back of the neck and ears, and it is adorned with two curved horns protruding from the sides. Horns
were usually indicative of power, and were first used in ancient Mesopotamian depictions of gods as
early as the 14th century BCE,33 and in the 3rd millennium BCE in depictions of ancient Mesopotamian
kings.34 The basic shape of the Sherden helment is nearly identical to helmets found in 3 rd millennium
BCE graves at Ur.35 This evidence provides strong support for placing the Sherden's origins in
Mesopotamia, and suggests that they had existed in the region for millennia and were not foreign
invaders. If we combine the historical context of the events of the end of the Bronze age, the new
perspective gained from correcting the poorly translated term sea peoples, and the evidence from
Egyptian texts, the truth of the end of the Bronze Ages emerges. Large civilizations collapsed due to
internal conflicts and political and economical shortcomings, which disrupted trade and unsettled large
32 S. Wachsmann, The Ships of the Sea Peoples, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 10 no. 3 (1981), pp.
187-220.
33 Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 108, fig. 65.
34 Ibid, fig. 64.
35 Ibid.

12
groups of people. These peoples then became wanderers, migrating southward to escape the famine and
instability in Anatolia. When the foreign tribes reached Egypt, a stable and fruitful kingdom in the
region at the time, they were misguidedly viewed as military invaders and met with hostility and battle.
We have solved the mystery of the sea peoples - not enigmatic pirates or ruthless barbarian invaders,
but struggling displaced peoples fleeing the chaos of a collapsing region.

Works Cited

Herodotus, The Histories, with English translation by A.D. Godley. Harvard University Press, 1920,
I.94.
Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of the Egyptians, Vol. I-V. Chicago: University of Illinois
Press, 2001.

13
Bryce, Trevor. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Drews, Robert. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Fagan, Brian M. The Long Summer: How Climate Change Change Civilization, Basic Books, 2004.
Gardiner, Alan H. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, Vol. I-III. London: Oxford University Press, 1947.
Nibbi, Alessandra. The Sea Peoples and Egypt. Park Ridge: Noyes Press, 1975.
Sandars, N.K. The Sea Peoples. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.
Pulak, Cemal. The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview, The International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 27, no. 3 (1998), pp. 188-224.
Wachsmann, S. The Ships of the Sea Peoples, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 10,
no. 3 (1981), pp. 187-220.
Weiss, Barry. The decline of Late Bronze Age civilization as a possible response to climate change,
Climate Change 4, no. 2 (1982), pp. 173-198.
Woudheizen, F.C. The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples. Ph.D. dissertation, Erasmus Universiteit
Rotterdam, 2006.