The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit ...

On the basis of the combined evidence from Corsica
and Sardinia, the one presenting the closest parallels for
Sherden as depicted in the Egyptian memorial at Medinet
Habu and the other furnishing evidence for contacts with
the eastern Mediterranean during the later Bronze Age, it
seems viable to conclude that the Sherden originated from
this part of the Central Mediterranean.
Shekelesh 575
The earliest attestation of the Shekelesh concerns their partaking
as allies or mercenaries in the Lybian campaign
against Egypt as recorded for the fifth year of Merneptah
(= 1208 BC). 576 In the count of the dead bodies after the
battle, the Shekelesh – together with the Ekwesh, Teresh,
and Sherden, and in contrast to the Peleset from the time of
Ramesses III – , are specified as being circumcised. 577
Next, a representative of the Shekelesh turns up in
maritime trade as recorded by Cypro-Minoan cylinder
seals from Kalavassos (K-AD 389) and Enkomi (Inv. no.
19.10), which we have seen reason in section 8 above to
assign to the period of the Hittite domination of Cyprus/Alasiya
during the reign of Suppiluliumas II (1205-
1180? BC). 578 The man in question, Sanemas, singles himself
out as the author of the Kalavassos seal, and hence can
be shown to master the Luwian language.
This peaceful episode is followed by one of maritime
agression. A first indication of this is formed by a letter
from the destruction layer of Ras Shamra/Ugarit (RS
34.129), in which the Hittite great king, who must be identified
as Suppiluliumas II, urgently requests information
about the Šikaly “who live in boats” and about their
homeland Šikila from a certain Lunadusu or Ibnadusu who
had been taken prisoner by them. 579 (Note in this connection
that Sikalayu and Sikela are variant forms of Shekelesh
without the additional suffix -sh also attested for
Ekwesh and Weshesh, 580 and that we have seen reason not
to follow Elmar Edel in his proposal to identify Sikela with
575 Lehmann 1979: 492-4.
576 See note 551 above.
577 Widmer 1975: 71, note 23.
578 Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145; Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6.
579 Dietrich & Loretz 1978; Hoftijzer & van Soldt 1998: 343.
580 Wainwright 1961: 72; see section 8, note 212 above.
114
Tjeker.) 581 Little later, we encounter the Shekelesh among
the Sea Peoples who invaded Egypt in the eighth year of
Ramesses III (= 1176 BC). 582 In the memorial for
Ramesses III’s victory at Medinet Habu, the Shekelesh are
distinguished by a special headdress, the “nach hinten gebogene
Mutze”. 583
As to the origin of the Shekelesh, two suggestions
have been put forward. In the first place, de Rougé proposed
to identify them as inhabitants of the island of Sicily.
584 As opposed to this, Maspero rather connected the
name of the Shekelesh with the place name Sagalassos in
Pisidia – a region in between the Hittite province
Tar®untassa and the Lukka lands in southern Anatolia. 585
Like in the case of the Sherden, the Shekelesh were assumed
according to this view to be on their way from their
original home to their later home Sicily at the time of the
Sea Peoples. Maspero’s Anatolian thesis was enthousiastically
received by H.R. Hall, who wrote: “The next tribe,
the Shekelesha, are undoubtedly, as Maspero concluded
twenty years ago, the Sagalassians of Pisidia. (…) The
identification absolutely hits the nail on the head. (…) And
the Sagalassians are not too far off, as de Rougé’s Sicels
were.” 586 It echoes on into recent literature, as in, for example,
Ronald Redford’s monograph on Egypt’s relations
with the Levant. 587 The problem with Maspero’s Anatolian
thesis, however, is that, as we have seen above, the Hittite
great king Suppiluliumas II happens to be unacquainted
with the Sikalayu or Shekelesh, whereas, as we have seen
earlier (see section 8), he is in full control of western Asia
Minor. In other words: if the Shekelesh were Sagalassians,
the Hittite great king would have known them. Consequently,
it seems preferable to opt for de Rougé’s solution
and identify the Shekelesh with the inhabitants of Sicily in
the central Mediterranean.
Now, Sicily was in contact with the Mycenaean world
during the Late Bronze Age, as Mycenaean pottery has
been found in Sicilian sites. As argued by Pålsson Hal-
581 Edel 1984; see section 13 above.
582 Pritchard 1969: 262-3; cf. Breasted 1927: Vol. IV, no. 64; Edgerton
& Wilson 1936: 53; Strobel 19 76: 14; Drews 1993: 51.
583 Widmer 1973: 73-4.
584 See note 555 above.
585 Maspero 1873: 84-6; Maspero 1910: 432, note 2.
586 Hall 1901-2: 181.
587 Redford 1992: 246.