Chronicle 20. THE ENIGMATIC SEA PEOPLES

Chronicle 20. THE ENIGMATIC SEA PEOPLES

/ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ/ Χρονικό 20. ΟΙ ΑΙΝΙΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΙ ΛΑΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΑΣΣΑΣ

● Bronze Age Collapse Due to Famine ● Trojan War and Anatolian
Sea Peoples ● Merneptah Stele and Exodus ● Hittites and Luwians

Michales Loukovikas

The “Great Green” Mediterranean, the “Sea of Hellenes”

BEFORE WE VOYAGE WEST, we need to sail off onto the “Great Green” of the “Sea of Hellenes” (Egyptian terms referring to the Mediterranean), in search of the Sea Peoples, meeting more migrant-refugee bands on the way. Voyaging in space and time, in history, legend or myth, let us go back to the explosive finale of the 17th century BCE, i.e. the “big bang” of the Minoan volcanic eruption on Thera, as it occurred very close to the period that the Sea Peoples initially appeared in Egypt. If we take into account the wrecking of the Minoan navy policing the seas, we can presume that these peoples were then nothing but pirates, and we also realize how interdependent the great powers were in the ancient world, as well.

Ancient ship, Egyptian papyrus painting

Later the Egyptians started identifying various bands of Sea Peoples in their own style, and one of the first they mentioned were the Sherden, or Shardana, a large group of pirates. They disrupted trade in the late 13th century and contributed greatly to the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization. Nonetheless, they are not mentioned in either Hellenic or Hittite legends or documents, suggesting that they did not originate from either sphere of influence. Many scholars relate the Shardana to Sardinia due to the similarity between the two words. Based on the same principle, the archaeologist Margaret Guido proposed that the Shardana might have ultimately derived from Sardis, and the Sardinian plain nearby, in Lydia, and perhaps migrated later to Sardinia. It seems that many people, and not only the Trojans that would become Romans, left Anatolia and the Aegean for the Italian peninsula and its islands due to the Bronze Age collapse rather than before. There is evidence that gives credit to Virgil’s Aeneid – but without excluding the possibility of earlier migrations. Recent genetic studies indicate that the populations not only of people, but even of cattle, in several Italian regions, especially in Tuscany, are more related to Asia Minor, and mainly in the northwest, than to anywhere else.

A famous passage from Herodotus, quoted by scholars quite often, portrays the migration and drifting of Lydians in the Mediterranean because of famine:

Etruscans dancing, painting on a tomb

“Their king divided the people into two groups, so that the one should remain and the other leave the country. His son, Tyrrhenus, was to be the head of those who departed. They went down to Smyrna and built themselves ships. After sailing past many countries they came to the Umbri, where they founded cities and called themselves Tyrrhenians.”

We can’t but remember that Anatolia faced the same acute problem of famine in the time of the collapse and, as a result, the Sea Peoples, then a coalition of seagoing migrants, closed ranks seeking relief from scarcity. Drought could have easily precipitated socio-economic problems and wars. As regards the story told by Herodotus and its link to the Sea Peoples, some scholars contend that those people called Teresh by the Egyptians were none others than the Tyrrhenians, or Tyrsenians, who are often identified with the Tusci (hence Tuscany), the Latin exonym for the Etruscans, or Ras(en)na, as they called themselves. The Tyrsenian linguistic family, together with Etruscan, includes the Lemnian language, spoken on the Aegean island of Lemnos to the 6th century BCE. Another Aegean tongue possibly related to the Etruscan was the Minoan Cretan. A third Aegean island close to Asia Minor mentioned as their possible origin by Thucydides is that of Lesbos. The Romans, as Virgil’s readers, identified the Teresh with the Trojans. There are clues to support this view. Several writers, e.g. Andrea Salimbeti in The Greek Age of Bronze: Sea Peoples, comment that a Trojan connection in the case of the Teresh (or Tursha) should be at first taken under consideration:

The double-headed eagle, the Byzantine symbol of Empire, was used before by Mycenaeans and Hittites, e.g. this relief at Alaca Höyük (1400 BCE)

“Troy appears in a Hittite record as Taruisa. It is a reasonable assumption that the people of Taruisa called themselves by some name close to this; stripped of vowels so that it can be compared to the Egyptian spelling”.

The Troad (or Troas) was outside the territory but within the sphere of influence of Hatti. Nevertheless, another Hittite record points to a different location, for it contains a list of cities, among them Tarsa, most likely Tarsus. These toponyms and corresponding ethnicities would be written down in Egyptian hieroglyphs, or in any cuneiform script, as “T-r-s” or “T-r-sh” – i.e. without vowels.⁽¹⁾

• ⁽¹⁾ A very good example of how important the Greek innovation with the vowels in the alphabet has been. If the Egyptian script had vowels, as well, the enigma of the Sea Peoples might have long since been solved!

“The Sea Peoples may well have been Troy and its confederated
allies, and the literary tradition of the Trojan War may well reflect
the Greek effort to counter those raids.” (Eberhard Zangger)

Anatolian amalgam: the most important regions and peoples

Anatolian connections have been suggested for other Sea Peoples, too, such as the Lukka (Lycians). Most striking is that they mostly seem to have descended from the Troad. Thus the Swiss geoarchaeologist,⁽²⁾ Eberhard Zangger, thinks that “the Sea Peoples may well have been Troy and its confederated allies, and the literary tradition of the Trojan War may well reflect the Greek effort to counter those raids.” This is what the Iliad seems to reflect.⁽³⁾

• ⁽²⁾ Geoarchaeology uses techniques and subject matter of geography, geology, and other Earth sciences, to examine topics which inform archaeological knowledge. Geoarchaeologists study the natural processes that affect archaeological sites, such as geomorphology, as well as soil and sediments, to contribute to archaeological studies.

• ⁽³⁾ According to this scenario, the Trojan War was “just” and defensive on the part of the Greeks, not intended for conquest and destruction of the city controlling the passage to the Black Sea.

Ilium/Troy: the wider area and, below on the right, the modern coastline in red and, therefore,
the floodplain that interested Zangger – on the strategic straits and close to the border area.

Eberhard Zangger

Eberhard Zangger’s Anatolian Hypothesis

● In his Anatolian hypothesis, Eberhard Zangger caused a sensation because of his controversial identification of Troy as Atlantis. Zangger’s point of view is that Plato used an Egyptian version of the story about Troy for his famous report on Atlantis. He based his argument on comparisons between the Mycenaean culture and Plato’s account of the Hellenic civilization facing Atlantis, as well as parallels between the recollections of the Trojan War and the one supposedly fought between Greeks and Atlanteans (a Titanomachy variation). He interpreted the legend of the Trojan War to be the memory of the momentous chaos leading to the Bronze Age collapse, and arrived at the conclusion that Troy must have been much bigger than scholars had presumed, with artificial harbours inside the modern floodplain. In order to prove it, he prepared a helicopter-based geophysical exploration of the plain to locate layers of settlement and artificial port basins, using ground-penetrating techniques. Having granted an “exclusive excavation license” for Troy to Manfred Korfmann, a German archaeologist, the Turkish government rejected Zangger’s request. Disappointed, the latter summed up his theory giving a lecture in the Heidelberg Academy of Science. In my view, his ambitious project was undermined not by Korfmann’s… exclusive rights to excavate for Troy (! – Zangger’s plan did not entail any real excavations) but rather by Turkey’s unwillingness to authorize any disclosure of sensitive military data in an area close to the border for the sake of science.

The historicity of the Iliad

Trojan War scenes on pottery

Despite the attempts of several historians to discredit the historicity of the Iliad, the Trojan War is considered a historical event; in addition, it is a key to grasp the underlying causes of all these epoch-making developments. “For sure, the Sea Peoples’ movement was one of the largest and most important migrations in history that changed the face of the ancient world more than any other single event before the time of Alexander the Great”, remarks Andrea Salimbeti. This long, ravaging war, in combination with the widespread famine in the entire peninsula, created the explosive conditions leading to the collapse. Under the circumstances, many Trojans, allies or neighbours, became refugees, and some survived by their wits or swords. Archeological evidence leads to the conclusion that the Sea Peoples were not pirates anymore, nor raiders plundering and pillaging established cities, but instead a mass of people looking for a place to settle, in search of a home. This was obvious since their first invasion of Egypt under Libyan leadership, when they were accompanied by their families and belongings. The Libyan tribes also played a role in the first campaigns against Egypt. Herodotus and Hecataeus mentioned one of them centuries later. It was the Berber tribe of the Maxyes or Mazyes, the Mazaces to the Romans, or the Meshwesh to the Egyptians – who claimed to have Trojan blood in their veins…

A Peleset headdress, and a similar (?) Phaestos disc symbol (below on the right)

Pelasgians and Philistines (Peleset)

An important Sea People have been the Peleset, identified with the Philistines, or in a broad sense, the Palestinians:

“One of the theories”, says Salimbeti, “links them to the Pelasgians who were allies of Troy and one group of them lived in Thrace. Those Pelasgians would have migrated south, overrunning and fatally damaging Achaean Greek civilization. Shortly after, many would have gone farther south to Crete.”

There are also Biblical references to the Philistines as coming from a place called Caphtor, identified by several scholars with Crete:⁽⁴⁾

• ⁽⁴⁾ According to Wikipedia: “Caphtor is a locality mentioned in the Bible and related literature. The people of Caphtor are called Caphtorites (Caphtorim) and are named as a division of the ancient Egyptians. Traditional Hebrew sources place Caphtor in the region of Pelusium [in the Nile Delta]. Other sources [?] associate Caphtor with localities outside Egypt e.g. Cilicia, Cappadocia, Cyprus or Crete.” The least probable scenario is “hard truth” for some scholars… (See Chronicle 27, footnote 10).

The Nile Delta with Pelusium in the East, the Hellenic colony Naucratis in the West, and further on the location Alexandria was to be built. The ancient canal linking the Mediterranean and the Red Seas is also shown.

“This theory”, adds Salimbeti, “has been somewhat strengthened by the discovery in Crete of the Phaestos disc. One of the symbols shows the head of a man crowned with feathers – very similar to the feather-topped helmets of the Peleset depicted” at the Temple of Ramses III.⁽⁵⁾

• ⁽⁵⁾ Well, it was certainly unavoidable: “The similarity [of the Peleset helmet] with Maya and Aztec feather headdresses is truly amazing, given the distance that separated the Mesoamerican culture” from the Mediterranean… Galloping imagination somewhere in the Internet Sea, while far in the distant horizon the land of Atlantis is gradually emerging…

● Well, what about the language of the Philistines? Wikipedia informs us of “possible relations to Indo-European languages, even Mycenaean Greek, [which supposedly] support the independently-held [?!] theory that immigrant Philistines originated among ‘Sea Peoples’.” And what do we know about the Pelasgian language(s)? “In the absence of certain knowledge about the identity (or identities) of the Pelasgians, various theories have been proposed. Since Greek is classified as an Indo-European language, the major question of concern is whether Pelasgian was an Indo-European language”. For more information, we are forwarded to the Aegean language family, proposed by Giulio M. Facchetti, due to some alleged similarities between Etruscan, Lemnian, and some other languages of the area, such as Minoan Cretan, Eteocretan, Eteocypriot, and Philistine. These languages could constitute a pre-Indo-European phylum stretching from Canaan to the Alps. But this is not a view held in common; there are attempts to link Eteocretan and Eteocypriot with Semitic.

Pelasgian Cycladic civilization: on this “frying pan”’s design (2800 BCE), some imaginative people see a map of Atlantis!

Surely, all the above are nothing but hypotheses, as Facchetti himself admits. What counts is the idea the ancient Hellenes had about the Pelasgians, who had survived even in the classical period in several locations of mainland Greece, Crete and other Aegean islands. People identified as “Pelasgian” spoke a language or languages that the Hellenes described as “barbaric” – that is, they were incomprehensible to them. A tradition also survived that many parts of Greece had once been Pelasgian before being Hellenized. Hence, we can relish watching all scholarly theorizations crumbling and crashing down… (On the Pelasgians see Chronicle 15, footnote 7).

Another “Trojan” Sea People might have been the Weshesh. Again, the scarcity of information led… “necessarily” to speculation about possible links between their name and that of Ilion, as the city of Troy was also called by the Greeks – Wilusa (or Wilusiya) by the Hittites – after king Ilus (thence the Iliad). “The W of Weshesh”, notes Salimbeti, “is a modern invention for ease of pronunciation; the Egyptian records refer to Uashesh.” Some scholars associate this people with Assos, also in the Troad, or with Iassos in Caria, or with Issus (Issos) in Cilicia. Others have theorized that they became part of the Israelite confederacy as the tribe of Asher. Another people connected with the Hebrews were the Tjeker. Moving to Canaan, they captured the city-state of Dor and turned it into a large, well-fortified capital of their kingdom. Dor was violently destroyed in the mid-11th century BCE by the expanding Phoenicians, who were initially checked by the Philistines, and then by the Hebrews. King David (if he was something more than just a mythological figure) supposedly conquered Dor and the Tjeker were mentioned no more.

Teucer (Teucrus) of the Troad and Salamis

Achilles and Ajax playing a dice game: an amphora
by painter-potter Exekias, ca 540-530 BCE

A possible linguistic connection has been proposed between the Tjeker and the Tekrur, identified with the Teucri, a tribe described by some ancient sources as inhabiting northwest Anatolia to the south of Troy. Tradition offers basically two candidates for their homeland: Crete or Attica. Legend links all three places and goes even further, following two heroes with the same name: Teucer (Teucrus). According to Virgil, the older Teucer was from Crete but left the island with a third part of its inhabitants during a great famine (how many such stories…). They eventually settled near a river, named Scamander after his father. On the contrary, Dionysius of Halicarnassus claims Teucer had gone to the Troad from Attica. Scamander (or Xanthos) was a river-god, a son of Oceanus. According to Homer, he fought on the side of the Trojans after Achilles insulted him. He was the personification of the river that flowed by Troy. The Hellenes had set up their camp near its mouth, and their battles with the Trojans were fought on its plain. The land was initially called Teucria, after Teucer. When Dardanus arrived there, it was renamed as Dardania (thence Dardenelles), and later Troad (from king Tros). But these toponymic changes would not deter the Trojans to often call themselves Teucrians. Aeneas e.g. is described as “the great captain of the Teucrians”.

The Judgement of Paris (1904), by Enrique Simonet: Aphrodite, the winner in this ancient beauty pageant, stepping forward triumphantly naked, while Hera and Athena stay behind humiliated…

Teucer the younger, or “bastard”, was half-Trojan because his mother, Hesione, a concubine of king Telamon, was a princess of Ilion. His father had arrived from Aegina to Salamis, as he was sent away by his own father for he had accidentally killed his brother. Teucer also fought in the Trojan War, but on the side of the Hellenes, having his half-brother, Ajax, as a co-fighter, while his cousins, Hector and Paris, and his uncle Priam, were “enemies”. After all, war was a family affair – let alone for Teucer Jr. On his return to Salamis, however, his father accused him for not bringing Ajax’s body back home. He was in his turn disowned, exiled and set out to find a new home. With his departing words that Horace turned into a moving ode, he exhorted his companions to “despair in no way… tomorrow we shall set out upon the boundless sea”.⁽⁶⁾ This speech, related later to the theme of voyages of discovery, is also found in Dante’s Inferno and Tennyson’s Ulysses. Teucer eventually joined king Belus of Tyre in a Phoenician campaign against Cyprus, and when the island was seized, the king handed it over to Teucer as a reward. He founded there the city of Salamis, named after his homeland.

• ⁽⁶⁾ Horace, Odes: “Wherever fortune may bear us, kinder than my father, | We shall go, o men and comrades! | Despair in no way with Teucer as your leader and as protector, | Surely resolved Apollo has promised uncertain | Future to Salamis in a new world. | O men, who with me often have endured | Worse fortunes, now, banish cares with wine; | Tomorrow we shall set out upon the boundless sea!”
  (Quo nos cumque feret melior fortuna parente, | ibimus, o socii comitesque. | Nil desperandum Teucro duce et auspice Teucro; | certus enim promisit Apollo ambiguam tellure nova Salamina futuram. | O fortes peioraque passi | mecum saepe viri, nunc vino pellite curas; | cras ingens iterabimus aequor.”)

Leda and the Swan, from the Sanctuary of Aphrodite,
Paphos, Cyprus (3rd century CE)

The “copper island”, a vital node in the trade networks, experienced two waves of Grecian settlement: the initial wave consisted of Mycenaean traders, c. 1400 BCE. Towards the end of this period, great amounts of Mycenaean pottery were produced in Cyprus. A major second wave, connected with Teucer’s story, took place after the Bronze Age collapse, c. 1100 BCE, with the island’s predominantly Hellenic character dating from this era, due to the invasion of Helladic refugees. Apart from Salamis, Teucer is credited as a founder of other cities, too. A local legend in Galicia, in northwestern Iberia, relates the foundation of Pontevedra to “Teucro”. The legend seems to be based on the conjecture that Greek traders might have arrived there in ancient times. Though legends appear for a certain reason, historians and archaeologists tend to agree that the initial settlement was probably formed when Gallaecia was integrated into the Roman Empire (1st century BCE). Pontevedra, i.e. “old bridge”, in reference to an old Roman bridge across the Lérez river, is sometimes poetically called “The City of Teucro”, and its inhabitants teucrinos – just like the Trojans!⁽⁷⁾ (See Chronicle 26, Odysseys in the Aftermath of the Trojan War: Colonization of Iberia).

Oil lamp, Tróia

• ⁽⁷⁾ It seems as if Tróia, across Setúbal, Portugal, was named after Troy but we do not know why. Tróia peninsula has been inhabited since prehistoric times when it was an island called Acalá. In the 1st century CE, the Romans built a town and named it Cetóbriga. It served as a fishery centre until 412, when it was destroyed completely by an earthquake with tsunami. If the town’s initial name had been Tróia, we could think that the Romans, as originating from the Trojans, decided to build a “Troy” in the vicinity of the city of Odysseus – Olisipo, Lisbon! According to José Pedro Machado, Tróia – in the Onomastic-Etymologic Dictionary of the Portuguese Language – is not a toponym found exclusively in the area of Setúbal. There are more Tróias in Portugal and a Troya in Galicia. Their “godfathers” were probably inspired by the Iliad. Based on an article in the Great Portuguese and Brazilian Encyclopedia, Machado expressed the idea this name to originate from Cetóbriga: > Cetóbria > Cetróbia > Cetróia > Xetróia > Atróia – though it seems too much of an adventure for a toponym… Or perhaps the name comes not from Troy but from either Troyes or Truyes, two cities of France; or its origin is the Latin phrase “Trogia (villa)”, from the Celtic name Trogus – which is the most likely explanation.

Mosaic in Conímbriga

Thracian and Celtic Coincidences

● Cetóbriga is apparently a Celtic toponym, too. But because of the reports on the presence of even Thracians in Iberia, who also had the suffix –briga in their tongue, let’s have a look at that possibility, too. This suffix is very common in several toponyms of the peninsula. The most well-known city with such a name is Conímbriga, one of the greatest Roman settlements in Portugal. During pre-Roman times, the Conii (or Cynetes, who settled later in southern Portugal) occupied the settlement. After the town was destroyed by Suebi c. 465-468 CE, several of its inhabitants went to live in the neighbouring Aeminium that was gradually renamed as Coimbra. The word Conímbriga is not related to the Conii; it is formed by the native term conim (rock) and the Celtic suffix –briga (citadel), deriving from the Celtic Brigantes, who had Brigantia, N. England, under their control in pre-Roman times. Ptolemy wrote that the Brigantes also lived in SE Ireland, while Strabo mentioned the Brigantii as a subtribe of the Vindelici on the Alps. There was a Brigantium (Coruña) in Galicia, and a Brigaecium in Asturias. But there were also the Bryges, or Brigantes, a numerous Thracian people, whose cradle was perhaps the land of the Cicones, a Homeric tribe, between the Hebrus (Maritsa) and Nestos rivers, or the area around the Prespes or Brygeides lakes. The Bryges were ancestors of the Phrygians (‘B’ turned into ‘Ph’), who originally lived in the Balkans, and then settled in Asia Minor. The land of the Cicones, according to Herodotus, was initially called Briantica. The Bryges spread to N. Epirus (c. 700 BCE), to Paeonia, to Illyria (as Scymnus of Chios wrote in his Periēgēsis), to the Adriatic (in the area of the Brygeides islands), and later to West Europe, campaigning as followers of Dionysus. According to Hesychius, the suffixes –briga, or –bria, were typical in the names of the Thracian Brigantes’ towns (See Chronicle 26, Odysseys in the Aftermath of the Trojan War: Colonization of Iberia).

Trojan Horse: its oldest known depiction
on the Mykonos vase; ca 670 BCE

UP TO NOW, excluding Teucer, who attacked Cyprus in collaboration with the Phoenicians, representing all those who found refuge there, we have seen no Hellenes fighting alongside the Sea Peoples, or their allies, but rather against them in the Trojan War. It is what Sanford Holst already told us in the previous Chronicle:

“The Mycenaeans attacked the Anatolian people from the seaward side. To deal with this problem, warriors and ships in the Sea Peoples confederacy poured from Anatolia and the Black Sea into the Aegean, where they ravaged the Mycenaeans.”

Let us try to verify this in Wikipedia:

“The invaders, that is, the replacement cultures at those [Mycenaean] sites, apparently made no attempt to retain the cities’ wealth but instead built new settlements of a materially simpler cultural and less complex economic level atop the ruins. For example, no one appropriated the palace and rich stores at Pylos, but all were burned up, and the successors (whoever they were) moved in over the ruins with plain pottery and simple goods. This demonstrates a cultural discontinuity.”

This may demonstrate a logical discontinuity, as well! The question of who the invaders might have been is left open. However, the author identifies them with “the replacement cultures”, who were stupid enough to “burn up the palace and rich stores”, instead of appropriating them. Quite simply, those invaders had no intention to settle there; they went there just to destroy: for sure, they were not “the replacement cultures”!

Captive Sea Peoples in Egypt

The Anatolians were prevalent among the Sea Peoples but they were not alone. Several tribe names in the Egyptian files have a dubious or unknown origin – i.e. the Shekelesh, perhaps the Siculi, who moved to Sicily from the Italian mainland.

“There was a gigantic series of migratory waves”, Michael Grant remarks, “extending all the way from the Danube valley to the plains of China”; and Moses Finley agrees: “A large-scale movement of people is indicated… The original centre of disturbance was in the Carpatho-Danubian region of Europe… pushing in different directions at different times.”

But if we have faith in Michael Wood, they were… “essentially” [?!] Hellenes:

“Were the Sea Peoples in part actually composed of Mycenaean Greeks – rootless migrants, warrior bands and condottieri on the move? Certainly there seem to be suggestive parallels between the war gear and helmets of the Greeks and those of the Sea Peoples”. Moreover, he reminds us that “there were migrations of Greek-speaking peoples to [Sardinia and Sicily] at this time”, and therefore, he includes the Sherden and Shekelesh among the “villains”. Troy, he concludes, “was sacked by essentially Greek Sea Peoples”…⁽⁸⁾

• ⁽⁸⁾ It’s a pity there were “essentially” no Britannic “condottieri on the move”. Or else this… “thinking woman’s crumpet” (as Wood was humorously dubbed by British newspapers for his good looks most appealing to women) would have found Hellenic colonies even on Mars!

Cycladic head: a Pelasgian who is suspect as an “islander”: he has deformed his features!

Michael Wood is not alone, either. The identification of the Denyen and Ekwesh with the Danaans and Achaeans respectively are long-standing issues in Bronze Age scholarship, as the “suspects” also lived “in the isles”…⁽⁹⁾ Were the Egyptian scribes so naïve to use two names for one and the same people? What species of Bronze Age scholars are they if they (pretend to) ignore that Achaeans and Danaans are synonymous terms? Have they not been schooled in the Iliad? Homer mentions the name Achaeans 598 times; Danaans 138 times; Argives 182 times; and Hellenes only once. According to a version of the myth, they were ancestors of the Greeks and their tribes: Hellen, Graecus, Magnes, and Macedon (Makednós) were sons of Deucalion and Pyrrha, the only survivors of the Great Flood. Sons of Hellen were Dorus, Xuthus, and Aeolus; sons of Xuthus were Ion and Achaeus. Danaus, coming from Egypt, Pelops, from Anatolia, and Cadmus, from Phoenicia, gained a foothold in Greece, were assimilated and Hellenized. At least for the Danaans, perhaps due to their “Egyptian” origin, there is some “flexibility”: they are identified with the people of Adana in Cilicia, or possibly related to the land of the Danuna, near Ugarit, in Syria, or it is rumoured they joined Hebrews to form one of the original 12 tribes of Israel, that of Dan.

• ⁽⁹⁾ Although the connection of the Hittite toponym Ahhiyawa, or Ahhiya, with Achaea is strongly disputed (cf. Wikipedia: “the exact relationship of the term Ahhiyawa to the Achaeans beyond a similarity in pronunciation is hotly debated by scholars”; see also the conclusion of this Chronicle), the… “Wikipedists” are absolutely sure about the identification of the Achaeans with the Ekwesh. So, if you search for the entry “Ekwesh”, you are redirected to the “Achaeans”… As for the phrase “in the isles”, used by the Egyptians when referring to Sea Peoples and quoted by scholars as an argument, it ends up meaning: “Whoever is not a landsman is a suspect”!

THE MAJOR EVENT DURING PHARAOH Merneptah’s reign (1213–1203 BCE) was a war against a confederacy, termed the “Nine Bows”, under the leadership of the king of Libya. The pharaoh declared that he defeated the invasion, killing 6,000 soldiers and taking 9,000 prisoners. To be certain of the numbers, among other things, he took the penises of all uncircumcised dead and the hands of all the circumcised.⁽¹⁰⁾ We mention this macabre detail because, as it turned out, the so-called “Achaeans”, the Ekwesh, were circumcised, a fact that would certainly have obliged any serious Bronze Age scholar to “acquit” the Grecian Achaeans!⁽¹¹⁾

• ⁽¹⁰⁾ Imagine those poor soldiers who were assigned to count all these penises and hands…

• ⁽¹¹⁾ …“a fact causing some to doubt they were Greek,” is what we actually read in Wikipedia! They were circumcised as a… camouflage! Or just to baffle our Bronze Age scholars! What they do remember is Virgil’s aphorism: “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes”; i.e. “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” – in this case: bearing circumcision! Our scholars have been schooled in the Aeneid, at least… Note that not only the Ekwesh, but also the Shekelesh and Shardana were circumcised, as the Egyptians made clear (pity, they did not inform… Michael Wood)! Thus these two peoples had also been Oriental in origin and settled in Sicily and Sardinia only later. Those who were not circumcised were the Peleset. (“Aha!”, I can hear you chuckling, my dear scholars…)

Merneptah stele: the Zionist usurpers… usurped it from
another usurper!

Merneptah Stele and Exodus

● The pharaoh’s victories over the Libyans and their Sea People allies are glorified on the Merneptah Stele, a black granite slab over three meters high, that Flinders Petrie discovered in Thebes in 1896. There is, however, a kind of footnote in the final two of the 28 lines, which refers to a separate campaign in Canaan. There the king boasts of defeating and destroying four cities, the fourth one being most probably a city and valley in northern Canaan, called Jezreel – a word so similar to… Israel! For sure, that would be far more convenient and beneficial for all: the entire Jewish diaspora, the emerging Zionism, formally established as a movement the next year after the discovery, for many Christians, especially the clergy, and of course, for Petrie himself! That day he wondered: “Won’t the reverends be pleased?” and then he prophesied: “This stele will be better known in the world than anything else I have found.” He was not a fool: if this set of hieroglyphs on Line 27 could be read as… “Israel”, instead of “Jezreel”, it would present the first documented instance of this name in the historical record, and the only mention in ancient Egypt!

Although the readings in many places are illegible due to the rough surface and the poor cutting (Petrie’s own translation of the text contains dozens of question marks; only next to the controversial word the mark is missing…), most biblical archeologists accept Petrie’s version. So, his find was also proclaimed as… “Israel Stele”;⁽¹²⁾ based on a disputed word in the penultimate line of a text dealing with another subject! What a disgrace for Merneptah: a proud pharaoh boasting of a triumph over a handful of poor villagers! There were no more than about 25 villages then on the highlands of Canaan. Archaeologists and historians have attempted to trace the origins of these villagers but it’s been impossible to identify any distinctive features that could define them as specifically Israelite. “It is probably… during Iron Age I” (1200–1000 BCE), says archaeologist Paula McNutt, that “a population began to identify itself as ‘Israelite’.” The Kingdom of Israel emerged as an important, worth-mentioning local power even later, by the 9th century BCE, before falling to the Assyrians in 722. Thus, there was no “Israel” for Merneptah to mention – unless he was as prophetic as Petrie himself!

• ⁽¹²⁾ Merneptah is also to blame: he “appropriated” the stele from his predecessor, Amenhotep III, turned it round and wrote his controversial text on its rough surface. He could never imagine how this text would be distorted. For sure, he was not a prophet like Petrie!

Departure of the Israelites, by David Roberts (1829)

● This “misspelling” trick was some kind of “compensation” for the historical “error” of the Egyptians to mention neither the notorious Exodus nor the calamitous Biblical plagues. The archeologists are equally “guilty”, as they failed to find any evidence to support the “story” of the Jews in Egypt and the Sinai. The consensus among biblical scholars is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible. According to the book of Exodus, arguably the most important in the Bible, the Jews leaving the country would have numbered some 2 million – compared with an entire Egyptian population of around 3 to 3.5 million in 1250 BCE! Marching ten abreast and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 240 kilometers long! No evidence has been found that Egypt ever suffered such a demographic and economic catastrophe, or that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds… The date proposed initially of an Exodus around 1450 BCE is also problematic: digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneous destruction of Canaanite cities c. 1400 BCE – and in fact many of them, such as Jericho, the first one to fall to the Israelites according to the Bible, were then uninhabited. A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence that can be directly related to the captivity, and the escape and travels through the wilderness, and most archaeologists have abandoned their investigation of Moses and the Exodus as “a fruitless pursuit”. Archaeologist William Dever says that there is “no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness.”

Flinders Petrie’s “fine, Caucasian, dynastic race” invading Egypt…!

● Flinders Petrie, who could possibly “address the issue”, died a long time ago and was buried on Mount Zion, in Palestine. Besides, he remains a controversial figure as a committed advocate of “eugenics” and of the “superiority” of the white, Northern peoples over the Latinate and Southern peoples, as well as for his affiliation with a variety of fascist groups and anti-democratic thought in England. His archaeological views were equally racist: he contended that the Egyptian civilization was derived from a “fine”, invading “Caucasian Dynastic Race”, which had conquered Egypt in pre-dynastic times of late prehistory and introduced the pharaonic, dynastic culture to the “inferior” “mulatto” race then inhabiting the country. These views spilled over into disputes with E. A. Wallis Budge. The British Museum‘s Egyptologist declared that the ancient Egyptians were an African people with roots in eastern Africa and their religion was essentially identical to the religions of the peoples of northeastern and central Africa. However, all but some of his colleagues followed Petrie – a most revealing fact about the dominant ideology at the time, at least among intellectuals. Thus Petrie and his followers derided Budge’s ideas as impossible and “unscientific”…

NEXT ROUND in this protracted war against the Sea Peoples, marking the Bronze Age collapse, took place some three decades later, during the reign of Ramses III (1186–1155 BCE), the last great pharaoh of Egypt. His inscriptions state that the “Nine Bows” re-appeared as another “conspiracy in their isles”… Most Sea People tribes were there again; we are also informed that at least two great battles were fought, one on the sea, and the other on land.

The pharaoh proudly presented his captives (from L to R): the Libyan, Nubian, Syrian, Shasu, and Hittite (the… Hellene probably escaped!)

“When it was over”, says the Wikipedia article on the Sea Peoples, “several chiefs were captive: of Hatti, Amor, and Shasu among the ‘land peoples’, and the Tjeker, ‘Sherden of the sea’, ‘Teresh of the sea’ and Peleset or Philistines (in whose name some [?] have seen the ancient Greek name for sea people: Pelasgians)”…⁽¹³⁾

• ⁽¹³⁾ Pelasgian is related to πελός and Πέλοψ (Pelops: dark-skinned), or to πέλας (the fellow man, or the one nearby) and πελάζω-πλάζω (approach), or to περάω and πέρα (cross to the other side, as a migrant tribe). Once more, the scholars are wrong, as there is no connection with the sea, specifically πέλαγος (pelagos < πλήσσω or πλήττω, i.e. hit).

What conclusions can we draw? We are surprised, first of all, since our scholars were not… surprised at all when they read about a Hittite chief among those captive. Hatti had been a Sea Peoples’ arch-enemy – and one of their greatest victims. But scholars are usually aware of such “details” and are not taken by surprise. Besides, the same thing happened before and the pharaoh’s official complaints were forwarded to the Hittite monarch – as long as this empire still existed. OK, but why don’t they bother to explain, instead of wasting their time trying to involve the Greeks in this… “conspiracy theory”?

Ramses III vs the Sea Peoples

Eventually, we realize that the destruction of the established civilizations, mainly the Hittite and Mycenaean, was a deliberate tactic of the Sea Peoples to garner more strength at sea and amass land forces, as well. After all, the empires were of the aristocracies, Hittite or Mycenaean. What else could a desperate Hellene or a destitute Anatolian do, under the circumstances, but follow and stand by the peoples with whom he shared the same aspirations for a better life?

What else could a desperate Hellene or a destitute Anatolian do but follow the peoples with whom he shared the
same aspirations for a better life?

But what a pity for our scholars: not even one Greek among the captive chiefs… He probably escaped! The other captives were chiefs of the Amorites, who lived in Syria and part of Mesopotamia, and possibly of the Hebrews: Shasu is a term for nomad wanderers, and at least one of the tribes worshipped the Jewish god Yahweh. The rest were sea captains.

The pharaoh concluded his report as follows: “I slew the Denyen in their isles” and “burned” the Tjeker and Peleset… Therefore, he implied some maritime raids of his own, or some punitive expeditions elsewhere in the Mediterranean. In the Aegean? Where, what and whose were these “isles”? Whatever the answers, the chain reaction of the raids went on; it was the Egyptians’ turn to destroy – but destruction bears no signature…

Lady of Mycenae (fresco)

Homer mentions an Achaean attack upon the Nile delta, while Menelaus speaks of that in the Odyssey, recounting his voyage back home from the Trojan War. It was not, however, the only such marauding action by Mycenaeans against Egypt where they went “just for the fun of it” – and some gain, of course!

Taking into account the continuous turbulence among or within the sovereign Mycenaean royal families, the hypothesis that they may have utterly destroyed themselves is long-standing, and seems to find support by the reputable Greek historian Thucydides:

“For in early times the Hellenes and the barbarians of the coast and islands… were tempted to turn to piracy, under the conduct of their most powerful men… They would fall upon a town unprotected by walls… and would plunder it… no disgrace being yet attached to such an achievement, but even some glory”…

Hittite chariot

The “Achaeans” through Hittite eyes

VARIOUS HITTITE ACCOUNTS, from c. 1400 to c. 1220 BCE, mention a land in western Anatolia, named Ahhiyawa (or Ahhiya). The term is thought to be a Hittite rendition of the word “Achaea”, with the broader meaning of “the Achaeans’ land”. This idea was strongly disputed by other Hittitologists (see e.g. footnote 9). In addition, a precise geographical location of this land cannot be drawn from the texts. In any case, it seems that “Achaea” and Hatti evidently dealt with each other both on a diplomatic and a military level. We can read a letter that the Hittite king sent to his “Achaean” counterpart, where the latter is recognized as a “Great King”, and of equal status with the other contemporary great Bronze Age rulers: the kings of Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria. Referring to Millawanda (or Milawata: Miletus?) as a city within the “Achaean” domain,⁽¹⁴⁾ the Hittite monarch mentions an earlier “Wilusa episode”, within his own area, where the “Achaeans” lined up with his enemies. We have seen that Wilusa was most probably Troy (cf. the archaic Ϝίλιον, and later Ilion, i.e. the Trojan acropolis). This “episode” is possibly connected with the Trojan War.⁽¹⁵⁾

The Love of Helen and Paris, by
Jacques-Louis David (1788)

• ⁽¹⁴⁾ The Minoans had created in Miletus perhaps their most important settlement on Anatolian soil. The Mycenaeans inherited it, when they replaced the Cretans as the leading power in the Aegean. The city grew and became prosperous, as it is attested not only from the archaeological evidence, but also these Hittite records, which indicate that Miletus was the most important base for “Achaean” activity in Asia Minor ultimately reaching Iassos, Ephesus, and other cities.

• ⁽¹⁵⁾ Unfortunately, we cannot cross-check the available evidence because the Mycenaeans, unlike the Hittites, did not bother to write down such… “details”! The records in Linear B just refer to administrative bureaucratic issues of the palace. Even commerce is curiously absent from the written sources in Linear B! That’s why it’s impossible to reconstitute from texts in Linear B the late Bronze Age’s political developments. (Hittites vs. Mycenaeans: 1–0!)

In the second half of the 13th century, a long anti-Hittite revolt broke out with “Achaean” support, and headed by Piyama-Radu, who married his daughter to the vassal ruler of “Miletus”. His case is of particular interest since it appears to intertwine with that of the Trojan War. It was a remarkable revolt for its duration, having spanned at least 35 years, during which time he posed a considerable threat to three consecutive Hittite kings; it caused a great deal of turmoil in the areas of Wilusa, Arzawa,⁽¹⁶⁾ and Seha, and led to an invasion of Lazpa (Lesbos?), which passed under “Achaean” control. The aforementioned letter was sent in this period, as the Hittite king tried to persuade his “Achaean” counterpart to restore peace. Among other things, he mentions a brother of the “Achaean” monarch, named Tawagalawa, or… Eteocles,⁽¹⁷⁾ according to several imaginative scholars! Much more controversial is the “identification” of Piyama-Radu: it is speculated that he “corresponds to the archetype” of the Trojan king Priam… What’s next? They will probably… rewrite the Iliad!

• ⁽¹⁶⁾ “Achaea” and Arzawa joined forces several times against the Hittites. Arzawa was a kingdom, or a confederacy of local rulers, in western Anatolia, with Apasa, later Ephesus, as a capital.

• ⁽¹⁷⁾ The story of Oedipus’ son and king of Thebes is part of the Theban Cycle that is unrelated to the Trojan (Epic) Cycle and the Atreides. Eteocles’ brother was Polynices, with whom he fought for the throne and both were killed. The tragedy culminated with their sister Antigone’s death.

Places mentioned in this Chronicle (counter-clockwise): Wiluša, Lazpa, Seha, Mira, Apaša, Millawanda, Arzawa, Hapalla, Lukka, Alašiya, Ugarit, Amurra,Tarša, Hatti, Hattuša.

Warfare between “Achaeans” and Hittites began c. 1400 BCE. Hittite records mention the operations of the “Achaean” warlord Attarsiya in southwestern Asia Minor, possibly in Lycia, against Hittite vassals. It is the first recorded “Achaean” military activity on the Anatolian mainland, and is associated with an increase of Mycenaean findings in Miletus in this period (early 14th century BCE), indicating that a number of Greeks moved from mainland Hellas to this region. Attarsiya used the city as a military base, and hostilities continued until circa 1250 BCE. “Achaean” activity was to interfere in Asia Minor, with the support of anti-Hittite uprisings, or through local vassal rulers that the “Achaean” king used as agents for the extension of his influence. Speculation, of course, is also present here: It has been suggested by several scholars that the warlord was none other than Atreus, a mythical king of Mycenae, and father of Agamemnon. Others, noting that the Hittites do not speak of the “high king of Achaea”, argue that he should have been some general, named Atreus, or with a similar name, or finally that Attarsiya means Atreidēs, i.e. he was a member of the royal dynasty.

In order to undermine the Hittites, the warlord intervened in Anatolian affairs attacking Hittite vassals, such as Madduwatta from Arzawa (Luwia),⁽¹⁸⁾ whom he repeatedly defeated, as the army he deployed included 100 war chariots. But he eventually withdrew from Asia Minor to prepare a campaign against Alashiya (Cyprus?). He had the Lukka (“Lycians”) on his side, providing him the necessary naval support, together with a number of his Anatolian allies, even Madduwatta, who decided to switch camps. This worried the Hittites, since they considered the island one of their dependencies. The invaders finally defeated them, and thus Alashiya passed under their control. The Mycenaean presence in Cyprus is also corroborated by archaeological evidence, as we have seen, for Mycenaean finds dating from that time were unearthed there.

Anatolian hieroglyphs

• ⁽¹⁸⁾ The Luwians lived in central, western, or southern Asia Minor, as well as the northwestern part of the Levant, in the Bronze and Iron Ages. They spoke the Luwian language, an Indo-European Anatolian tongue written in cuneiform of Mesopotamian origin, or a unique native hieroglyphic script, which was sometimes also used by the linguistically related Hittites.

The following decades were a period of Mycenaean expansion on the Anatolian coast (c. 1380–1320 BCE). In 1320-1315, there was another anti-Hittite rebellion in Arzawa, in cooperation with “Miletus”, and supported by the “Achaeans”, who appeared to be in control of a number of islands in the Aegean, an impression also supported by archaeological evidence. Finally, the Hittites were victorious. The king of Arzawa managed to escape to “Achaean”-controlled territory, and his land was split into three provinces: a southern province, Mira, would later become known as Caria; a northern province, Seha, would be renamed as Lydia; and an eastern province called Hapalla (the Grecian Pisidia). That was the finale of this kingdom’s history, which had passed into oblivion, and came back on the surface thanks to the Hittite texts.

If, indeed, the information contained in these archives corresponds up to a point to historical facts, it seems that the Mycenaean and Hittite palatial civilizations of the Aegean and Anatolia were “bored” (to death) by the same woodworms…

The Luwian Civilization: The Missing Link in the Aegean Bronze Age

ALBEIT BELATEDLY, I’VE STUDIED Eberhard Zangger’s book,⁽¹⁹⁾ The Luwian Civilization / The Missing Link in the Aegean Bronze Age (2016). I feel it is useful to outline his main points regarding the Sea Peoples:

• ⁽¹⁹⁾ Since 1994 Zangger has been advocating the view that a Luwian civilization existed in Western Asia Minor during the 2nd millennium BCE. In 2014 he established the international non-profit foundation Luwian Studies.

The Luwian Civilization / The Missing Link in the Aegean Bronze Age. Cover: probably an Atlantis-like reconstruction of Troy, the most prominent Luwian city, as Eberhard Zangger imagined it.

“Over twenty years ago, I proposed a chronological reconstruction of the political and economic development in the countries around the Eastern Mediterranean during the 13th century BCE. It causally links three wars comprised of reciprocal attacks. First, the so-called Sea Peoples’ invasions took place, during which the navy of allied Luwian petty states from the eastern shore of the Aegean Sea advanced to the southeast. The Luwians were then attacked a few years later by allied Greek forces – and this is memorialized in the tradition of the so-called Trojan War. And finally, a civil war… broke out in Greece.”

“Perhaps the trigger for the [Luwians’] decision to engage in war was [Hatti’s] conquest of Cyprus… possibly to get access to its copper resources. The Luwians in western Asia Minor played an active role in long-distance trade and may have depended on Cyprus as a port of call. Therefore they entered into a military alliance and built a fleet of fast, agile vessels for invasions. Instead of moving against the Hittite forces over land, they dashed across the sea and reached the important Hittite borderlands of Cyprus and Syria. The acclaimed mercenary armies of the Lukka and Sherden had become marine forces which no longer fought alongside the Hittite king but against him – they had formed the coalition known as the Sea Peoples… [Eventually] the capital Hattuša was wiped out overnight – and with it the Hittite Empire.”

Sphinx Gate at Hattusa

“The petty states from western Asia Minor suddenly controlled an area stretching from Macedonia across Anatolia to Syria and Canaan, where it touched upon the Egyptian dominion… Together with this vast territory, the Luwians now dominated almost all ore deposits in the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as the trade routes on land and at sea… Both the access to the Black Sea region as well as the connection through Cyprus and Syria to Mesopotamia were now under Luwian control. Considering the distribution of mineral resources, arable land, the path of the perennial rivers and of the trade routes, the Mycenaeans were about to face a superior force for an extended period of time. To avoid complete dependence… they engaged in a coalition themselves with the ultimate purpose to raid western Asia Minor… About ten years later, united Greek forces attacked western Asia Minor – and this was later remembered as the ‘Trojan War’… which was thus a counterattack against the previously victorious Sea Peoples.”

“While the Mycenaean kings were fighting at Troy, their wives and less competent deputies had taken their thrones. When the surviving victorious kings returned, many of these deputies did not want to give up their power. A civil war broke out and consumed progressively one citadel after another… Pylos – and later Ithaca – may have been among the last palaces to fall into the hands of the insurgents.” (Eberhard Zangger, The Luwian Civilization / The Missing Link in the Aegean Bronze Age; see Chronicle 26, Odysseys in the Aftermath of the Trojan War: Colonization of Iberia).

• >> Chronicle 21. IBERIAN “EL DORADO”
• << Chronicle 19. PHOENICIA’S STROKE OF FORTUNE

Next Chronicle 21. IBERIAN “EL DORADO” ● Minoans, Mycenaeans, Phoenicians in Iberia ● Fortunate Isles, Hesperides ● Sardinia ● Odysseus, Calypso, Ophiussa ● Tartessos

Mycenaean gold diadem

Chronicle 19. PHOENICIA’S STROKE OF FORTUNE

Chronicle 19. PHOENICIA’S STROKE OF FORTUNE

/ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ/ Χρονικό 19. ΦΟΙΝΙΚΗ: Η ΕΥΝΟΙΑ ΤΗΣ ΤΥΧΗΣ

● Phoenicians and Sea Peoples ● Minoan Eruption on Thera ● Trojan War and Bronze Age Collapse (B)

Michales Loukovikas

PARADOXICALLY ENOUGH, “A CRITICAL TURNING POINT in history, an important element mentioned by many sources, and yet given consideration by virtually none, is the simple fact that – in the midst of a cataclysm which destroyed almost every city in the area of the eastern Mediterranean – the Phoenician cities remained untouched… accorded a special status by the invading peoples”.

Such is the standpoint of Sanford Holst, a specialist on Phoenicia, in his analysis on Sea Peoples and the Phoenicians: A Critical Turning Point in History, adding equally unequivocally:

“There was a relationship or partnership of some nature between the Sea Peoples and the Phoenicians”…

“A critical turning point in history mentioned by many sources, and yet given consideration by virtually none, is that, in the midst of a cataclysm destroying almost every city in eastern Mediterranean, Phoenicia remained untouched, accorded a special status by the invading peoples… There was a relationship or partnership between the Sea Peoples and Phoenicians”. (Sanford Holst)

Warship and winged hippocamp
on a Phoenician coin

However, as he is “Philo-Phoenician”, he tries to minimize the importance of the Minoans in his text regarding the Origin of the Phoenicians, Interactions in the Early Mediterranean Region. Reversing historical periods, he opts to portray the Minoans as the Phoenicians’ “pupils”, and uses the usual “beautiful” phrases as a cover-up:

“Around 2000 BC”, he maintains (but in reality, circa 3000 BCE), “the beautiful Minoan civilization arose on Crete, accompanied by many indications of ‘Eastern influence’. By that time the Phoenicians had long been established as major sea traders on the Mediterranean. [!] That the Minoans received influences from them and others in the form of specific pottery, architectural practices, social practices, legends and language are very much in evidence”…

Such assertions, by the way, were made by the great archaeologist Leonard Woolley, but eventually, they backfired and were discarded as entirely erroneous (see Chronicle 27. An Archaeologist’s Waterloo).

Ship with dolphins: wall painting replica
from Minoan Thera (17th century BCE)

The Phoenicians may be the “darlings” of most historians; but none would ever dare to claim that their civilization was older than that of the Minoans. Consequently, the latter were the real masters, and their good pupils, as it turned out, were not the Mycenaeans but the Phoenicians, when the Cretans voyaged to Canaan very often for trade.

“The Phoenicians began to develop as a seafaring, manufacturing, trading nation when the Cretans – the first masters of the Mediterranean – were overthrown by the Greeks”, R. A. Guisepi points out in his text on The Phoenicians.

The Minoan Eruption on Thera

They probably ventured out on the open sea some time before, in the early 16th century, trying to profit from the misfortunes of the Cretans (mainly due to the Minoan eruption), but in vain: the Minoans were still standing, and afterwards they were succeeded by the Mycenaeans…

“The Late Minoan I period as a whole [1600-1450 BCE] represents the zenith of Minoan civilization”, W. Sheppard Baird contends in his study about The Bronze Age Eruption of Santorini and Late Minoan IB Destruction Event, and then explains: “Their cultural and maritime economic influence throughout the Mediterranean and Black Sea would never be exceeded. This was a time of great social and political cohesion and commercial and industrial prosperity. Their only economic rival in the Mediterranean was the Egyptians. The Minoans at this time ruled the seas with the largest navy and commercial fleet ever seen in the Mediterranean. Then it all came crashing down with the incredible eruption of the Theran marine volcano”…

● The Minoan eruption was one of the largest volcanic events in recorded history (and probably the second biggest after Tambora, Indonesia, in 1815 CE), devastating Thera, nearby islands and parts of Crete. The eruptions, generating tsunamis and preceded by earthquakes, provided a basis for or inspired Plato’s Atlantis story and the Titanomachy in Hesiod’s Theogony. The exact date has been difficult to determine. The initial date of 1500 BCE appeared to be incorrect, as radiocarbon dating analysis indicated that the eruption occurred at least a century before, c. 1627-1600. A volcanic winter after the eruption provoked the collapse of the Xia dynasty in faraway China, following “yellow fog, a dim sun, frost in July, famine, and the withering of all five cereals”. Heavy rains and storms that ravaged Egypt have been attributed to short-term climatic changes caused by the eruption. W. Sheppard Baird suggests the idea that at least one pyroclastic surge of superheated steam travelled at a very high speed over 110 kilometers of sea water to incinerate large areas of Crete spreading destruction, havoc and death. The Mycenaean conquest of the island occurred about 150 years after the catastrophe; therefore, many archaeologists speculate that it induced a grave crisis in the Minoan civilization that made things far easier for the Mycenaeans. The internal political conflict hypothesis is also presented here. It is a realistic scenario because of the instability the catastrophe provoked. It could also be a factor that might have paved the way for the Mycenaeans. Their operation in Crete lasted from c. 1450 to 1375 BCE, when Knossos finally fell.

An island volcano similar to that of Thera

W. Sheppard Baird refers to this “big bang” on Santorini, even when he is more concentrated on The Origin of the Sea Peoples:

“When the Theran volcano exploded in the Aegean”, he suggests, “it would have been difficult enough for the surviving Minoans to resurrect the Mediterranean trade routes amid the incredible devastation. The effective Minoan policing of the old trade routes from piracy that was in place before the eruption might have never again been achieved”. Describing the aftermath of the Sea Peoples’ raids, he concludes: “By this time all of the great Bronze Age powers that had existed before the volcanic eruption, except the Egyptians, lay shattered, depopulated, and would never recover. In sharp contrast, the Phoenicians survived completely unscathed and invigorated. It was the beginning of the ‘Age of the Phoenicians’ in the Mediterranean. What did they do? They headed straight for the gold, silver, and tin of southern Iberia to establish trading outposts [emporia] and colonies.”

Mycenaeans and Hittites vs. Phoenicians and Sea Peoples

Seal of Tarkummuwa, king of Mera, surrounded by Hittite hieroglyphs and cuneiform script: this bilingual inscription provided the first clues for deciphering Hittite hieroglyphs.

Not “what did they do?” but “how did they make it?” should be the first question to ask – followed by the crucial query: “Who were the Phoenicians’ adversaries?” Sanford Holst explains:

“The Phoenician people had been dominant sea traders in the Mediterranean prior to 1500 BC [in fact, they had attempted unsuccessfully to establish themselves as such after the Minoan eruption]. Then the rise of the Mycenaeans caused sea trade to fall into the hands of that new power. This pushed the Phoenicians backward from the west. The growth of Ugarit as a major sea trader located just north of the Phoenicians exerted additional pressure from that direction. Immediately beside that powerful city were the Hittites.”

Hattusa, Lion Gate

The Phoenicians’ adversaries, therefore, were the Mycenaeans and the Hittites, including Ugarit. A war between Egypt and Hatti in the early 13th century was inconclusive and the Hittites kept all the lands they had taken. Then the great pharaoh Ramses II died in 1213 BCE, and the Sea Peoples appeared on the scene four years later, waging their first doomed raid against Egypt, “the breadbasket which had been supplying the Hittites with wheat via Ugarit”. The hungry Sea Peoples wanted bread and the breadbasket was Egypt, but this did not serve the Phoenicians’ interests. It was urgent for them that the Sea Peoples’ attention be turned elsewhere: to the Aegean and Anatolia, to the Mycenaeans and Hittites…

The hungry Sea Peoples wanted bread, the breadbasket was Egypt, but
this did not serve the Phoenicians’ interests. The Sea Peoples’ attention
should be urgently turned elsewhere: to the Aegean and Anatolia…

“What led to the special treatment the Phoenicians seem to have been given by the Sea Peoples? What services could the Sea Peoples possibly have received from these maritime traders?”, Sanford Holst wonders.

The answer is, of course: bread – if not something more than bread. As for the… “circuses”, well, the investing Phoenicians hoped that they would be rewarding enough; how fruitful they were in fact, not even the most optimistic Phoenician could ever dream of or imagine… Holst has the story unfolding:

The Sea and Land Peoples’ raids

“With the Hittites threatening their northern border, the Phoenicians would reasonably have supported whichever groups among Sea Peoples wanted to shift attacks away from the failed effort at Egypt and toward a more promising one against the Hittites. Though the Hittites themselves had no excess food to offer, they stood between the Sea Peoples and an achievable goal: the land of Canaan, which was second only to Egypt as a source of wheat. In addition, by going through the Hittite land and Canaan, the Sea Peoples would bring a force numbering hundreds of thousands to confront the wheat-rich Egyptians – rather than the handful of warriors who had failed on the first attempt.

“But a problem had to be overcome. The Mycenaeans continued to hold the Aegean and attacked the Anatolian people from the seaward side. To deal with this, warriors and ships in the Sea Peoples confederacy poured from Anatolia and the Black Sea into the Aegean, where they ravaged the Mycenaeans. Following this widespread disruption the Mycenaean cities withered and eventually died. When the Aegean had been thus cleared, the people of western Anatolia were able to turn their full attention to the Hittites.”

“The Mycenaeans continued to hold the Aegean and attacked the Anatolians from the sea. To deal with this, the Sea Peoples poured into the Aegean and ravaged the Mycenaeans [until their] cities withered and died. When the Aegean had been thus cleared, the Western Anatolians were able to
turn their full attention to the Hittites.” (Sanford Holst)

Hector‘s corpse brought back to Troy (detail); Roman
relief from a marble sarcophagus (ca 180–200 CE)

Holst apparently alludes to the Trojan War. If so, it explains why the fighters on the Trojan side, as Homer says, sounded just like the Tower of Babel builders – that is, speaking various languages and thus needing to have orders translated to them by their commanders. It seems, therefore, that the fall of Troy did not seal the end of the war. The Sea Peoples counter-attacked, bringing the war on Hellenic soil.⁽¹⁾

• ⁽¹⁾ So, were the Greeks a part of the Sea Peoples? The answer is evidently negative: “No, they were not!” Or were they? We need to elaborate on that in our next Chronicle.

Let’s compare Eberhard Zangger’s view:

“The Sea Peoples may well have been Troy and its confederated allies, and the literary tradition of the Trojan War may well reflect the Greek effort to counter those raids.” Hence the Iliad may well reflect this conflict.

“The Sea Peoples may well have been Troy and its confederated
allies, and the literary tradition of the Trojan War may well reflect
the Greek effort to counter those raids.” (Eberhard Zangger)

“In 1182 BC Ugarit fell [burned to the ground and left unoccupied thereafter] and the flow of wheat from Egypt was cut off”, says Holst. “Approximately two years later the Hittite empire died. Now nothing stood in the way of the Sea Peoples’ exodus.⁽²⁾ With their wives, children and household possessions in two-wheeled carts, the Sea Peoples – now more properly the Land Peoples – flowed across on their path of destruction and, observing their special relationship with Phoenicia, they by-passed that land. Flowing down through Canaan they destroyed the cities they encountered. Many settled beside the wheat fields and took some of the land for themselves and their families. A very large number of the Land and Sea Peoples continued onward and eventually arrived at the border between Canaan and Egypt. There a great battle was fought and the Sea Peoples were finally stopped.”

The “Horses of St. Mark” in Venice: a tiny part of the incalculable booty pillaged by Venetians and Franks…

• ⁽²⁾ Writing “exodus”, Holst clearly sought “Biblical” connotations. The historical connotations though are more compelling: it is irresistible the urge to compare or find parallels between the Sea Peoples and the First Crusade (1096–1099 CE), especially the so-called People’s, or Peasants’, or Paupers’ Crusade – although, if we wish precision, we need to describe it as the Unruly Mob’s Crusade. If, on the contrary, we try to find analogies with the Phoenicians’ conduct, we need to “flash forward” to the Fourth Crusade (1202–1204), branded as the “Cursed Crusade”, as it was originally intended to conquer Muslim Jerusalem by means of an invasion through Egypt; but instead, in April 1204, the Crusaders mercilessly sacked Christian Constantinople, capital of the Byzantine Empire, which was partitioned among the plunderers, establishing the Latin Empire. The Venetians in this Crusade acted just like the Phoenicians in the Sea Peoples’ raids during the Bronze Age collapse. One day we may get to know who the Phoenician “Enrico Dandolo” was, and how he contributed to this collapse…

● Just a tiny portion of the incalculable booty pillaged by Venetians and Franks in the city is the “Horses of St. Mark” in Venice, a work that some attribute to Lysippos. Napoleon stole later the… stolen horses but, after Waterloo, they were returned to their… legitimate looters!

The Egyptians won the battle but, as we have seen, lost the war. Who else did? The Mycenaeans, the Hittites, Ugarit, and also the peoples of Canaan – except the Phoenicians. Even the militaristic Assyrians can be counted among the losers being obliged to withdraw to their borders for protection. In short, all the great powers of the day. As for the winners, apart from the Sea Peoples themselves, there is no doubt:

“Under the destructive force of the Sea Peoples’ attacks, all of the
Phoenicians’ powerful adversaries had been destroyed. The Phoenician
cities were untouched by this devastation that happened around them,
which left these people in an advantageous position.” (Sanford Holst)

The battle of the Egyptians with the Sea Peoples

“The Phoenicians seem to have gained more than anyone else from the mass migration of the Land and Sea Peoples”, Holst sums up. “Under the destructive force of the Sea Peoples’ attacks, all of the Phoenicians’ powerful adversaries had been destroyed. The Phoenician cities were untouched by this devastation that happened around them, which left these people in an advantageous position.

“The historical record shows their active cities quickly began to expand their domain by placing trading posts in Cyprus, the Aegean, Sicily, Sardinia, North Africa, Algeria, Morocco and Spain. Among the cities they created were these in Morocco: Lixus (modern Larache), Sala (Rabat), Mogador (Essaouira) and Tingis (Tangier); in Spain: Gadir (Cádiz), Malaka (Málaga), Ibisa (Ibiza); in Algeria: Icosia (Algiers); in Tunisia: Utica and Carthage; in Sardinia: Karalis (Cagliari); in Sicily: Panormus (Palermo);⁽³⁾ in Cyprus: Kition (Larnaca). The Phoenicians gave rise to a powerful and wealthy sea-trading empire which stretched from Morocco to the Levant.”

• ⁽³⁾ One of too many similar cases: colonies supposedly founded by the Phoenicians but known by their Greek names as the Canaanite toponyms (if there were such names) were forgotten…

● Therefore, Sanford Holst is absolutely right to underline that “this element turns out to be one of the keys which help to unlock the mystery of the Sea Peoples – an event which changed the course of history.”

Carthage reconstructed

“Age of the Phoenicians”

THE RESULTING POWER VACUUM WAS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for the Phoenicians to take advantage and emerge as true heirs of the Minoans, rising as a great maritime power. Their zenith in history (1200–800 BCE) coincides with the dark ages of all their antagonists. Enjoying almost complete freedom of movement for such a long time, they methodically built their trading empire; and when the tide of history brought the great powers back (Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians), subjugating Phoenicia from the 9th to the 6th centuries BCE, they were prepared to shift the hub of the empire from the Near East to the centre of the Mediterranean, from Canaan to Tunisia.

Under Persian yoke, many Phoenicians migrated to colonies, such as Carthage. There they might realize their dream to become a real empire, achieving military supremacy, as well, which was rather infeasible in the narrow strip of Phoenicia. As for the Hellenes, they gradually woke up from their dark age and, starting in 900 BCE, rushed to make up for lost time founding their own colonies not only in the Mediterranean, but also in the Black Sea, where the Phoenicians never dared to enter. Studying a map of 550 BCE, the Greek superiority is obvious. The Phoenicians faced a very serious problem: lack of manpower. But they enjoyed a crucial strategic advantage: the control of the Pillars of Heracles,⁽⁴⁾ the Strait of Gibraltar,⁽⁵⁾ where Carthage would impose a blockade to secure its monopoly with metal-bearing Iberia, the lost city of Tartessos, and the Atlantic, North and South. Using e.g. gold obtained by their expansion of the African coastal trade in the mid-4th century BCE, the Punics minted gold staters bearing a pattern in the reverse exergue of the coins, which some have interpreted as a map of the Mediterranean with America (or Atlantis?) shown to the West.

Hellenic and Phoenician colonies (in blue and in red respectively) 550 BCE

• ⁽⁴⁾ The Pillars of Heracles of the Hellenes were the Strait of Gibraltar. But in earlier times, when they had not gone so far, this phrase referred to the “strait” between Tunisia and Sicily. Thus the Phoenicians, and later the Punics, sought to control both the “internal” and “external” Pillars.

• ⁽⁵⁾ Gibraltar is the European Pillar of Heracles on Spanish soil but controlled by Britain. The term means “Rock of Tariq” (Gibr al-Tariq), from the name of Tariq ibn Ziyad who led the vanguard of the Arabs that invaded Iberia in 711 CE.

● However, long before the Spaniards, the British and the Arabs, the Visigoths and the Vandals (hence the name of Andalusia), the Punics and the Romans, the Phoenicians or the Greeks, long before the Celts, even the Iberians and locals, the rock was occupied by the Neanderthals. The evidence in Gorham’s cave, between 125,000 and 25,000 years ago, makes it their last known holdout. Similarly on the opposite, African Pillar, Ceuta, in Moroccan territory but controlled by Spain, the oldest traces of human presence go back 250,000 years.

The Punic coin with the exergue supposedly depicting the ancient world, ca 341 BCE

That was the background of Phoenicia’s sea trade enterprise that spread across the seas from 1550 to 300 BCE. The Phoenicians were remarkable in seamanship and famous as “traders in purple”, due to their monopoly on the precious purple dye of the murex snail, once profusely available in the eastern Mediterranean, though exploited to local extinction, and used, inter alia, for royal clothing. In fact, the word Phoenicia derives from the Hellenic words φοῖνιξ and φοινός, i.e. purple, passing to Latin as Punic.⁽⁶⁾ They called their country Canaan, which may also mean Land of Purple. If so, Canaan and Phoenicia are synonyms. Hecataeus said Phoenicia was formerly called Χνᾶ (Khnā). However, the Greek term did not correspond to a cultural identity that would be recognized by the Phoenicians themselves. It is uncertain if and to what extent they viewed themselves as a single ethnicity. It was a civilization organized in city-states, similar to Hellas. They would come into conflict and one city might dominate the others, though they could collaborate in leagues or alliances, as well. In terms of language, life style and religion, there is little to set the Phoenicians apart from other Semitic cultures of Canaan as markedly different.

The Minoan “Phoenician” purple

• ⁽⁶⁾ Seeking information on purple in Wikipedia, you are redirected to the so-called “Phoenician” or “Tyrian” purple, extracted from a spiny sea snail: Murex, or Bolinus, or Haustellum, brandaris. Despite being established as such, nevertheless, purple must have been a Minoan invention; the Phoenicians appropriated it, together with several Cretan innovations, and brought them huge profits after the Bronze Age collapse. As the most expensive and finer dye, purple has long been considered a royal and divine symbol and privilege: the higher one was in political or religious hierarchy, the more purple clothes one was allowed to wear. Therefore, it also meant the purple royal robe and, thence, royal power.*

* Medicine “took revenge” on all those “blue bloods”, terming as purpura (porphyra) a skin disease with red spots. (Etymology of the word purple: < Latin purpura <Greek porphyra (πορφύρα) < of unknown origin; it seems, however, it is perhaps the only Minoan word still in use).

A horse head on a Punic coin (replica)

● Archaeologists have found substantial numbers of murex shells in Crete, dating to the 20th – 18th centuries BCE. Thus, the Minoans must have pioneered the extraction of purple, centuries before the Tyrians, and the Phoenicians in general. An important site was the now uninhabited islet of Chryse (Golden), also known as Gaidouronesi (Donkey isle), 15 km south of Crete off Hierapetra, where archaeologists excavated a Minoan settlement dating to 1800-1500 BCE, with purple dye workshops and many artifacts. The Minoans developed various purple dye tones (from blue to red) depending on the method of processing. Accumulations of crushed murex shells have been found in other parts of the Mediterranean, e.g. Apulia, Magna Gaecia. It seems that Laconia was the place with the best purple production in Europe, the islet Meninx (Djerba) in Africa, and Tyre in Asia.

Apart from purple, the Phoenicians exported textiles, glass, and wine to Egypt, where grapevines would not grow, and obtained Nubian gold, Iberian silver, and British tin. However, what was once thought to be direct trade is now believed it was indirect. Timothy Champion suggests it was under the control of the Celts of Britanny.⁽⁷⁾ In any case, the recovery of the Mediterranean economy after the Bronze Age collapse was largely due to the work of Phoenician traders, who re-established long distance commerce.

• ⁽⁷⁾ This is a very simple but quite interesting idea: Why should any trading sailor, be it Minoan or Mycenaean, Phoenician or Carthaginian, take the risk of travelling around Iberia and then up to Britain, when tin from Cornwall or Brittany could be transported overland through Gaul-France? It is the reason why Carthage tried in vain to prevent the founding of the colony of Massalia: even with Gibraltar blockaded, tin from Cornwall or Brittany was available in the Mediterranean, and Carthage could not impose an all-out monopoly.

While trade and colonies spread, the Mediterranean was split into two with the Phoenicians sailing along and finally dominating the southern shores, while the Greeks were active along the northern coast. This arrangement did not exclude mutual intrusions, as the examples of Cyrenaica and Sardinia indicate. The two cultures clashed rarely, mainly in Sicily (due to its strategic position, opposite Carthage, at the “internal Pillars” of the Mediterranean), and finally settled into two spheres of influence. When the Punics took over, things changed dramatically.

Melqart on a Phoenician silver tetradrachm

Despite the exergues, which supposedly depict America (or Atlantis), what we can see on the other side of the Phoenician “coin” is a certain kind of cultural deficiency. Their art lacks some unique characteristics that might differentiate it from its contemporaries. This is due to its being highly influenced by foreign cultures: primarily Egypt, Assyria, or Hellas. Their art was an amalgam of foreign models and perspectives. In addition, although they are credited for the spread of their “abjad”, from which all major alphabets originated, they used this script mainly for their trade business.⁽⁸⁾ And apart from their inscriptions, they have left almost no other written sources – or they have not survived. We even ignore the name of their “Lord of the Sea”, their “Poseidon” – quite strange for a society of sailing merchants where such a deity is so very important.

• ⁽⁸⁾ The precursor to the “Phoenician alphabet” was likely of Egyptian origin as the Middle Bronze Age abjads from Canaan resemble hieroglyphs or, far more specifically, an early abjad found in central Egypt. In addition to being preceded by proto-Canaanite scripts, the Phoenician abjad also followed the Ugaritic “alphabet” of Mesopotamian origin. Hence, the consonantal Semitic “alphabets” should have originated in Egypt and Mesopotamia.

The same could be said about the Minoans, whose deities we also ignore, if we do not take into account that they represent an older civilization, whose script is still undeciphered. Note that there was a god of the sea and the rivers, named Yam (Yaw), in the Canaanite Pantheon. Was he worshipped by the Phoenicians? It seems that, except Baal (Baal-hamon and his consort Tanit were the patrons of Carthage), the Phoenicians specifically honoured Melqart, patron of Tyre, the founder of most colonies, including Gadir (Cádiz) and Carthage. Gradually, due to mutual influence, Melqart was identified with Heracles. But for sure, none of these gods could substitute Yam-Poseidon. Therefore, the mystery (a people of seamen without a god of the sea) is here to stay…

Semiramis, by Eliseo Fattorini (19th century)

● If we search for the entry “Phoenician mythology” in Wikipedia, we are redirected to a certain Sanchuniathon, a purported author of three lost works in the Phoenician language, supposedly surviving only in partial paraphrase and summary of a Greek translation by Philo of Byblos, according to the bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius. All we know about Sanchuniathon’s work comes from Eusebius, citing the only surviving excerpts from his writings, as summarized and quoted from his supposed translator, Philo. The hypothetical date of the alleged writings take us back to a time before the Trojan War, around the time some other hypothetical persons lived, such as Moses, “when Semiramis was queen of the Assyrians”. Thus Sanchuniathon is placed in the mythic context of an antiquity from which no Hellenic or Phoenician writings have survived. Paradoxically enough, however, the “writer” is made to refer disparagingly to… Hesiod, who lived in the 8th century BCE! Some have suggested that Eusebius’ intent was… “pious” (“eusebeia” means “piety” in Greek): he desired to “discredit polytheism”; others that it was a forgery by Philo himself. Anyone can draw his own conclusions about the real motives of the forgers, whoever they were. At any rate, you are certainly quite astonished when finally a search for “Phoenician mythology” is redirected to a hoax – “pious” or not…

• >> Chronicle 20. THE ENIGMATIC SEA PEOPLES
• << Chronicle 18. MYCENAE: FROM KNOSSOS TO TROY

Next Chronicle 20. THE ENIGMATIC SEA PEOPLES ● Bronze Age Collapse Due to Famine ● Trojan War and Anatolian Sea Peoples ● Merneptah Stele and Exodus ● Hittites and Luwians

Twelve Hittite gods of the Underworld in a sanctuary of Hattusa