The intention of this site is to share the results of a reassessment conducted from a different perspective. An attempt has been made to take a more critical, less exotic, I hope more accurate view towards the interpretation of a selection of ancient texts.
The focus will always be to take the inscriptions verbatim and avoid, where possible, the usual tendency to add details that were not actually part of the texts. Once we identify the hyperbole and avoid the self agrandization, what we are left with can quite often be extremely informative.

[This page is temporary, only to provide an insight into the subject matter of the future website]

The prime textual sources are the inscriptions and reliefs adorning the temple walls and pillars at Medinet-Habu. A close second to this is the Historical Section of the papyrus Harris - recorded in hieratic script. Both sources are attributed to the exploits of Ramesses III. Another important but less detailed source is that provided on the temple walls at Karnak, coupled with a portion of text on a granite column residing in the Cairo Museum and another granite Stela found at Athribis, all three sources provide accounts of the troubles that pharaoh Merneptah had in dealing with these foreigners. Finally, a simple fleeting mention of Peleset and Tursha can be found at Dier el-Medina. These six sources comprise the entire corpus of Egyptian inscriptions concerning what we call the Sea Peoples texts.
An abstract of a more literal interpretation of the Egyptian texts concerning the Sea Peoples is provided here for consideration.

ABSTRACT

Whence and whither the Sea Peoples?
(revised May 17, 2005)

How it all began..

The very idea of a Sea Peoples invasion of the near East was born in the creative minds of Maspero, Chabas & DeRouge in the latter half of the 19th century, that is to say, in the Old Empire days of European political history.

In this period there was a distinct recognition that the near East was the ancient center of civilization. And in consequence, Europe was seen as a backwater to the power brokers of the ancient world. Hence, the desire to see, or find, a role for Europeans in the ancient theater of operations had a distinct appeal all of its own. This is not the place to list all the contradictions that years of archaeological research have enumerated against Maspero's original concept, but suffice to say, we are precious little nearer to identifying the participants of this great upheaval than we are to identifying any cause. And, one unfortunate consequence of this repeated failure is that culpability has in some cases been laid squarely at the door of Ramesses III. This regretable situation is due to the fact that historians have been unable to verify much of the story presented by Ramesses III he is thereby accused of plagiarizing the exploits of others. This charge, I suspect, is not warranted. It is not the record which is at fault, but our interpretation of that record.

One of the most frequently quoted phrases attributed to Ramesses III, yet perhaps least understood, is the claim that Khatti, Kode, Carchemish, Yereth (Arzuwa or Arvad) & Yeres (Alishaya) were destroyed by an onslaught of 'Northerners' who apparently swept across Anatolia leaving a path of death and destruction in their wake. Archaeology paints a different picture.

Khatti appears to have fallen victim to another foe not at all connected with Aegeans, the Kaska, in fact the only significant sites betraying any noticeable devastation are very much in the vicinity of Hattusha itself, by and large Anatolia is left unmarked by this swath of destruction (Bittel, 1983:25-47). Carchemish, at the strata related to this period betrays no signs of destruction that we might associate with any Sea Peoples event. The Hittite royal house, while possibly no longer extant at Hattushas certainly survived for some time after at Carchemish (Hawkins, 1988) and at Malatya, perhaps even by a couple of generations (Hoffner, 1992; Gutterbock, 1992; Singer, 2000).

The Pottery Evidence..

Both Monochrome & Bichrome pottery found in the Levant so distinctly associated with an arrival of foreigners from the Aegean, can now be seen to have appeared some 50? years too late to be associated with the settlement of the enemies of Ramesses III.
Besides, the dubious tendency to connect pottery to ethnicity "has a rather long and disreputable history" (Muhly, 1992:13) and should be dismissed as untrustworthy, such reliance has the potential to cause more problems than it solves.

Israel Finkelstein reviews the Philistine Settlement situation in a recent publication, The Sea Peoples and Their World, following his review of the alternate High, Middle and Low chronologies offered by such as Dothan, Mazar & Ussishkin respectively, Finkelstein summarizes his thoughts on the issue:
"To sum up, as long as Monochrome ware is not found in a clear Twentieth-Dynasty context, one cannot escape the conclusion that this pottery type, which represents the initial settlement of the Philistines, did not appear until the later days of Ramesses VI, or after his reign. The earliest date for the appearance of the Monochrome pottery is therefore ca. 1135 B.C.E. The Bichrome Philistine pottery should accordingly be dated to the eleventh century and possibly to the beginning of the tenth century.
There are only two ways to interpret the above mentioned chronological data. One would be to argue that the Philistines settled in southern Canaan right after the eighth year of Ramesses III, but for almost half a century did not leave any identifiable remains (e.g. McClellan 1979:73). This seems quite improbable, as the presence of Aegean-related groups in Philistia is well attested to two generations later by several singular finds......The second track to interpret the low chronology suggested here for the Monochrome pottery is to argue that the Philistines settled in the southern coastal plain several decades, in fact half a century, after Ramesses III's battles with the Sea Peoples." (Finkelstein, 2000:164-165).

(Note: Finkelsteins second option is entirely in keeping with my interpretation of the provenance of this Bichrome Philistine pottery. My argument has been that the strata below the destruction levels at the various Levantine sites which contain Myc. IIIB pottery is the actual strata of the Peleset/Philistines. The levels of destruction have been due, in my opinion, to the actions of Ramesses III in his attempt to disperse the rebels throughout the hill-countries of Djahy, as stated in his inscriptions. These sites, those which were rebuilt were done so in the same Egyptian design as existed in the previous levels, as at Beth Shean, Megiddo, Tel Sera, Tel Mor, etc, which is a somewhat reasonable indication that the rebuilders were also the destroyers. Where sites were not immediately reoccupied, they were left uninhabited for some unspecified period before being repopulated by another generation of Aegeanized Canaanites who, by now perhaps two generations later, brought with them their foreign experiences and the Monochrome pottery which eventually evolved into the Bichrome ware we see today. It is this return, in my view, which has been erroneously interpreted as a new arrival.)

The Aegean argument..

As far as evidence on the Levantine front goes findings are not consistant with the invasion scenario, we are some distance from establishing anything tangible with which to support the ailing Sea Peoples hypothesis. How then is the picture in the Aegean itself?, quite predictably the same, no real evidence of any mass departures, or mass arrivals in Sardinia, in Sicily, neither on the Greek mainland, in fact in recent years the suggestion that another encroachment of distinctly different 'Northerners' had swept through northern Greece to give impetus to an equal southerly movement into the Aegean, has also come under fire as no longer supportable (Muhly, 1992: 10-26).
Then what of the ethnica - Sherden, Sheklesh and Tursha?, critical research turns up the fact that the island we know today as Sardinia, presumed on phonetic similarity alone to have been the home of the Sherden, was actually known as Ichnusa prior to the arrival of the Phoenicians in the 9th c. B.C.E. The Sikloi, who inhabited the island of Sicily and are presumed to have been the Sheklesh, actually appear to have spread to the island from the Italian mainland. The Etruscans, who we have been led to believe may be the Tursha, were actually known as Rasenna (Vagnetti, 2000: 319), so all things considered, when we place the Sea Peoples hypothesis under a microscope, regardless in which direction we look, we find the theory does not fit the facts.

Literary support..

Seeing as how archaeology repeatedly comes up short with respect to anything with which to support the hypothesis, what about any literary support by ancient historians? What does Thucidydes have to say about this Aegean coalition?, he does inform the reader that the action against Troy was the first time an Aegean coalition was assembled. This remark in itself might suggest he was familiar enough with ancient records to make that claim in writing. Therefore, if we are correct in assuming Troy happened before the time of Ramesses III then Thucidydes must have been cognizant of records for this 'Sea Peoples' period. We are left to ponder why he makes no mention of this singularly Aegean-wide enterprise. Taking a look at Manetho through Josephus, and again at Diodorus, Herodotus, etc., all the ancient historians of any repute, all caveats duly noted, it appears strange that none of these writers, as well versed as they were, make any mention of an Aegean-wide coalition moving en-mass to invade Egypt, not to mention the numerous nations and city-states which appear to have fallen to their single-minded onslaught.

Finally, Leonard Lesko, quite unknowingly, made an astute observation regarding the lack of literary support for a Sea Peoples invasion, from none other than Ramesses III himself.
"Another possibility, of course, is that the archaeological evidence from Palestine, or should I say the lack of evidence of conquest by Sea Peoples in Palestine during this period may be pointing in the same direction. To quote my colleague "the evidence from Tell esh-Shari'a, Beth-Shan, and Lachish is consistant and demonstrates that Egyptian control in Palestine lasted until at least the end of the reign of Ramesses III." If this is so, how could Sea Peoples have invaded the Delta by land and sea in Ramesses III's 8th year?
One final note on this matter concerns the record of the rest of Ramesses III's reign. Although Medinet-Habu may have been completed by Ramesses III's 12th year, since that is the highest date surviving there, his temple at Karnak was completed near the end of his reign (because it refers to a jubilee which would have been in year 30), but nowhere does this well-preserved temple mention or represent a war against Sea Peoples (Nelson 1936). It has traditional scenes of smiting enemies - specifically, Libyans and Syrians" (Lesko, 1992:154)

The Root of the problem..

The Sea Peoples hypothesis was born out of a particular interpretation of the Medinet-Habu texts, an interpretation I may add which is not only questionable but is also far too grand and exotic to find any practical support in the real world.

"We knew from the Medinet-Habu reliefs that the Philistines had been a maritime people. My own attempts to find significant evidence of Early Iron Age maritime commerce farther up the coast had failed." (Dothan, 1992:121).

(re: Tel Mor) "Frankly, we didn't know what to make of our discoveries: an Egyptian coastal fortress and later a Philistine farming village rather than a flourishing port city. Had we overestimated the Philistines' character as seafarers, made on the basis of the Medinet-Habu relief?" (Dothan, 1992:125)

"Up to the time of our excavations, most scholars dated the beginning of the Philistine invasion to the early twelfth century B.C., using the Medinet Habu reliefs as their main source." (Dothan, 1992:152).

[Italics for emphasis - author]

The problem, lies not with Maspero, et al, though his interpretation was extremely incorrect and has caused a plethora of well intended studies to have been in vain. Neither does the problem lay with archaeology, after all, evidence is evidence. Archaeology cannot be wrong, though interpretations of archaeological findings can be questionable. The problem lies with the current interpretation of the texts at Medinet-Habu.

- Ramesses III makes no mention of Aegeans, no Ioni, no Iamani. The enemies of Ramesses III, as depicted at Medinet-Habu, were entirely Libyan and Asiatic.

- The Peleset, Tjekker, and perhaps Sheklesh, are all described collectively as rebels. Not a term used for foreign armies but a term used by a Pharaoh who understands his enemies are among his own subjects - the Asiatic lands adjacent to his beloved Egypt.

- The depiction of Egyptian forces charging the Peleset in ox-carts with women and children is aptly described on the monument itself. Rameses has put the rebels to route in Djahy, he has scattered the hill-countries, they are "as ashes" (blowing in the wind?), they simply fled before the power of his majesty (H.R.R III, Plates 29-34)

- The 'Sea-borne invasion' in relief at Medinet-Habu is not an invasion. An equally comparable event to this relief is described in a similar action 600 years later when Piankhi ventured down the Nile to deal with a 'Northern' rebellion, once again we read of 'Northerners in the isles', that is the 'Lower Egyptians' (Northerners) who live on the geziras (mounds) in the Delta (example: Xois was such a city on a gezira). Tafnekht ventured south up the Nile with a fleet of ships from the Delta to attack Memphis where a river battle ensued between Piankhi and the rebel forces under Tafnekht, the relief of which, had one survived, must surely have been almost identical to that portrayed at Medinet-Habu which Maspero mistook for an invasion from across the sea (ref. Piankhi Stela, B.A.R. bkIV, #796-883).

- Ramesses informed us that 'they infest the harbor-mouths', Diodorus makes it clear that between Canopus in the west and Pelusium in the east the Egyptian coast was devoid of harbors. This was wholly due to the fact that there was no coast per-se, the land adjacent to the sea was marsh and shallow sealands completely unfavorable for settlement, and treacherous for shipping. The harbors which did exist were adjacent to the cities upriver, well within, that is to say, "in the midst" of the Delta.

Towards a solution..

Medinet-Habu records a very local rebellion among neighboring Asiatic countries along the Levantine coast, involving peoples within the Egyptian Delta and, I believe, instigated by the Hittites themselves, as had been the case under Merneptah, Ramesses II and previously as recorded in the Amarna tablets inciting Pharaoh's Asiatic subjects to turn against Egypt. Ramesses III actually lists his enemies in his Asiatic war in the typical 'south to north' sequence we are accustomed to when following Egyptian terms of reference. Ramesses writes, "Their confederation was the Peleset, Tjekker, Sheklesh, Denyen and Weshesh". We know from an inscription at Dier el-Medina that the Tursha were also involved, though they do not receive a mention at Medinet-Habu, nor on the p.Harris.
We also know from other sources (Onomastica of Amenemope, Wenamun, etc.) that the coastal communities started at the southern limit of the Levantine coast with the Peleset (Philistines), and around Dor we meet the Tjekker. The Sheklesh are also portrayed with the same fluted headgear and listed here as north of the Tjekker. We are now at the Asiatic northern limit of the Egyptian domain.

Crossing the Orontes we move into the Hittite sphere of influence. The Amarna tablets mention Danuna which may be equated with the Cilician city state of Adana, therein we have the Denyen of Ramesses inscriptions.
Taking a lesson from the well known Ilion = Wilion = Wilusa (I = W), suggested for Troy, we might see in the Hittite satellite city-state of Issus on the bay (of Iskanderun), near modern Dortyol, the identity of the long elusive Weshesh of the Sea.
Looking west from Adana, another Hittite satellite city-state, that of Tarsus, may be the home of the Tursha.
These communities then are all coastal peoples, which is what Ramesses III said, "As for the foreign countries, they made a conspiracy in their isles/coasts." In Egyptian as in the Semitic, "i/iw" not only means 'isle' but also 'coast/shore'. Our mistake is to have settled on the limited interpretation of "isles", the rebellious nations occupied the coasts.

So what role did the Hittites play in this massive uprising?, they are depicted at Medinet-Habu as defending "Tunip of Hatti". Another relief depicts a Chief of Hatti as prisoner along with a Chief of Kode. Although we have traditionally passed off any association between Ramesses III and the Hittites as plagiarizing, perhaps we have been too hasty. The Hittites were still in power at Carchemish & at Milatya, but we did not know this in the time of Maspero. In fact we were under the distinct impression that Ramesses had already told us that Khatti had been destroyed by Sea Peoples. But as recent research has shown, this has been an incorrect interpretation all along. So what does that highly illustrative phrase mean? "No land could stand before their arms, from Khatti, Kode, Carchemish, Yereth (Arzuwa or Arvad) & Yeres (Alishaya)" I suggest this is not a list of city-states who fell victim to any elusive Sea People invasion, this is a list of Hittite allies. Ramesses III faced an Asiatic rebellion supported by an alliance of Hittite city-states.
The designation "their arms" does not refer to the foreign countries in the first line, but to the Hittite alliance of Khatti, Kode, Carchemish, Yereth & Yeres, described above.

Should this new interpretation stand up to scrutiny we may find that future discoveries will at last begin to fall into place.
Finding evidence of Aegean influence throughout the Levantine littoral is only to be expected considering the extent of Aegean trading practices but this presence is purely peacefull, industrious and indicative of assimilation & integration with the indiginous Canaanites, not, as the hypothesis requires, indicative of foreign invasion, domination and oppression.
There never were any marauding Aegeans we call Sea Peoples, no mass invasions either in Anatolia, Egypt nor Philistia. The Hittites did not vanish, though Hattushas was sacked as were many 12th century sites. But these sites suffered from more local conflicts as opposed to one singular cause. The Peleset/Philistines were not Aegeans, they were no different to their coastal neighbors to the north, the Phoenicians. We somehow have failed to see the Peleset as Aegeanized Canaanites, and yet we have no problem seeing the Phoenicians as precisely this.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Jon Smyth
Independent Researcher.
driver40386@yahoo.ca