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

campaign. 206 Now, most of the inscriptions in Cypro-
Minoan date to the period of Hittite rule, say c. 1210-
1180? BC, if not actually from the last days before the
conquest by the Sea Peoples. The larger texts among the
inscriptions are bills of lading, registering the sea-borne
traffic between western Anatolia and the Near East, especially
Ras Shamra/Ugarit. 207 What really strikes us about
these documents is the absence of Greek names. Of course,
a Greek trader may be hidden behind geographically inspired
indications like “Iasos” or “the Samian”, but the
same absence of Greek names also characterizes the much
more substantial archives at Ras Shamra/ Ugarit. 208 At any
rate, it is clear that the responsible persons specified by
ethnonyms are men like Pi®as, 209 trader from Lycia,
Sanemas, 210 representative of the Shekelesh, or Akamas,
representative of Ephesos and a place plausibly situated in
the Troad (see section 13) – members of Sea Peoples who
later knew their way to the Orient, but decidedly no
Greeks! Accordingly, the evidence amounts to a serious
ban of the Mycenaean Greeks from the waters bordering
the Anatolian peninsula in the west and the south during
the final phase of the Hittite Empire period. 211
Just antedating the coming to power of Suppiuliumas
II, in year 5 of Merneptah (= 1208 BC), the Akhaians in
form of Ekwesh – the final -sh is likely to be identified as a
suffix also present in Shekelesh (= Sicels) and Weshesh (=
Ausones or Osci) 212 – are recorded to have taken part in
the campaign of the Libyan king Meryey against Egypt. In
this campaign the Akhaians served as foreign allies or
206 Güterbock 1967; Woudhuizen 1994: 524-6; Woudhuizen
1994-5: 175; Woudhuizen 2004a: 32; the memorial in question is
Nianta in Boazköy/Hattusa, see Woudhuizen 2004a: 72-5.
207 Woudhuizen 1992a: 94-145; Woudhuizen 1994.
208 Astour 1964; Sandars 1980: 35; 46. Note, however, that Ugaritic
Yman likely refers to Ionia, see Dietrich & Loretz 1998: 337-
46, of which the related ethnonym, contrary to the opinion of Dietrich
& Loretz 1998: 344, is already attested for Linear B in form
of Ijawone “Ionians”, see Ventris & Chadwick 1973, glossary, s.v.
and cf. Driessen 1998-9.
209 For Luwian hieroglyphic seals bearing testimony of the MN
Pi®as, see Güterbock 1942: 68, no. 66; Kennedy 1959: 160, no.
39.
210 Note that this name is strikingly paralleled for a Cretan hieroglyphic
sealing from Gortys (# 196), reading, with the cross at the
start and hence from right to left, 019-061-E74 sa-ná-ma.
211 Cf. Cline 1991.
212 Wainwright 1961: 72; Redford 1992: 252, note 54; cf. Hittite
Karkisa alongside Karkiya “Caria”. On the identification of the
Sea Peoples in question, see section 14 below.
73
mercenaries alongside the Teresh, Lukka, Sherden, and
Shekelesh. The only one planning to settle in the Egyptian
delta was the Libyan king himself who is reported to have
been accompanied by his family and to have carried with
him all his possessions. 213 As such the Libyan campaign
is clearly distinct from the later attacks by the Sea Peoples
in the reign of Ramesses III (years 1179 and 1176 BC),
when, according to the reliefs at Medinet Habu, the Sea
Peoples themselves carried with them ox-drawn carts with
their wives and children. 214 Interesting to observe in this
connection is that the Greeks are referred to in the Egyptian
records of the Libyan campaign by a reflex of their
Hittite name, A®®iyawa, instead of their usual Egyptian
designation Tanayu, which in variant form Denye(n) is reintroduced
by Ramesses III (see section 9). Another
strange thing is that the fallen of the Ekwesh are explicitly
stated to have been circumcized (hence their hands were
cut off as a trophy instead of their penises) – a rite wellattested
for the Egyptians and the Semites, but so far not
for the Mycenaean Greeks. 215
The period of the Mycenaean koin ends in massive
destructions and/or abandonment of sites on the Greek
mainland: in southern and central Greece 10 important
sites show a destruction layer at the end of Late Helladic
IIIB (c. 1185 BC), 216 5 of which are abandoned afterwards,
whereas at least 9 more important sites are just
abandoned at the time (see Fig. 11 on the previous
page). 217 In view of these figures, the transition from Late
Helladic IIIB to Late Helladic IIIC is much more discontinuous
than preceding periods of an archaeological break
discussed in the foregoing section (but note that the density
of the Late Helladic IIIB sites is higher than ever before).
Yet, as we know from later records, the language spoken in
Greece remains Greek and the inhabitants of the Early Iron
Age and following periods are Greeks, thus in this sense –
213 Sandars 1980: 101.
214 Sandars 1980: 117, afb. 77; 118-20. As we have seen in section
4 above, the given distinction was particularly made by Hölbl
1983.
215 Barnett 1969: 11; note that the Philistines from Crete were also
not circumcized, see section 12.
216 Warren & Hankey 1989: 161 association of Late Helladic IIIB
with Tewosret 1188-1186 BC at Deir ‘Alla.
217 Hope Simpson & Dickinson 1979; cf. Shelmerdine 1997: 581.
See also Betancourt 1976: 40 with even larger figures, but without
specification of the names of the sites in question.