Emanuel War at Sea Iawc 2013

War at Sea (IAWC 2013)
1
War at Sea: The Advent of Naval Combat in the Late Bronze-Early Iron Age
Eastern Mediterranean
Jeffrey P. Emanuel, Harvard University
International Ancient Warfare Conference 2013
National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth, September 18-20
The transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age (LH IIIB-C) in the Eastern
Mediterranean, Aegean, and Near East was marked by the destruction of empires and the
migratory movement of populations. This time of upheaval was also marked by a change in
the iconography of warriors and warfare, particularly in Egypt and in the Aegean world,
including the first representations of true naval combat. Warriors in feathered headdresses,
never before seen in Helladic or Egyptian art, are shown on Aegean pottery and in
Egyptian relief taking part in battles on both land and sea, and the Helladic oared galley
makes its first appearance at this time as an instrument of naval warfare. This paper
investigates these earliest representations of naval combat, with a special emphasis on the
appearance and employment of new maritime technology and its effect on maritime
operations and naval warfare. Also considered are what changes in fighting, if any, had to
be made in order to adapt to this early form of ship-based combat.
Seaborne threats existed in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean long before the chaotic
transition from the Bronze Age to the Age of Iron ca. 1200 BC. Like all sailing in the ancient
Mediterranean, piracy was a seasonal pursuit, and in many cases the same groups seem to have
partaken in it on an annual basis, with Cyprus and perhaps Egypt, among others, serving as
common land-based targets. In the Late Bronze Age alone, this can be seen from references in
Amarna Letters,
1
Hittite documents, and Egyptian inscriptions to maritime marauders
intercepting ships at sea, conducting blockades, and carrying out coastal raids. Militaries were
mobilized to defend coastal settlements against these raiders, while merchant ships seem to have
taken on an ancient version of private security contractors to defend against encounters with
pirates while at sea.
2
However, it was not until the transition from the 13
th
to the 12
th
century
from the Late Bronze Age to the Age of Iron that fleets seem to have been sortied against
these marauders, to preempt their piratical efforts and fight against them in the open sea.
It should not, of course, be surprising that a robust underworld of pirates and brigands
thrived just beneath the surface during such an unprecedentedly affluent, internationalist period
as the Late Bronze Age in the eastern Mediterranean.
3
After all, piracy is naturally most
successful when coastal settlements and trade routes are present, regular, and prosperous.
4
The
balance between respectable merchant activities and piracy which is itself another stage of
commerce, albeit a debased one
5
may be seen in the entrepreneurial nature of commerce in the
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
2
Late Bronze Age. The use of private intermediaries, itinerant sailors, traders, and in some cases
mercenaries may have begun as an effort by states to expand their economic influence and
regional prowess, and to gain an edge on their partners and rivals; however, over time, the
symbiotic relationship between employers and these employees may have matured and mutated
to such a degree that these middlemen became integral parts both of international
communication and of national economic activity.
6
In the words of Michal Artzy, they became
an essential part of a trade network, a position obtained because of their peculiar expertise:
capital in the form of a boat and knowledge of navigation, the requirement for successful
maritime commerce.
7
However, as the LBA wore on and the economic situation became less
favorable from the point of view of some fringe merchants and mariners, a number may have
reverted to marauding practices, and the image of Sea Peoples familiar to us from the
Egyptian sources emerged.
8

It should be no surprise that those who depended most on the sea for their livelihoods may
have been among the earliest adopters of innovative maritime technology. Hara Georgiou has
thus declared that the island and coastal populations of the Aegean, the pirates, the raiders and
the traders were surely the most innovative and experimental boat designers
9
a statement that
is likely accurate, if unnecessarily restrictive visvis geography. As will be discussed shortly,
the piratical element of these nomads of the sea may have driven the development of superior
warships, raiding craft, and tactics whose technological needs were often at odds with the
merchant vessels upon which they may have preyed.
10

Existential Threats, Palatial Destructions, and Sea Peoples
As remarkable as the internationalism of the Late Bronze Age was in the eastern
Mediterranean, the regional collapses and sea changes that struck the region in the years around
1200 BC were equally so. Referred to as a watershed event by William Hallo
11
and labeled
with the catchall of the catastrophe by Robert Drews,
12
the series of events that took place
over a significant temporal period and across a wide geographic area left in its wake an eastern
Mediterranean world that bore little resemblance to that which immediately preceded it.
Palaces, cities, and empires from the Aegean to Anatolia and the Levant were destroyed;
Egypts New Kingdom was set on an inexorable path toward decline; migratory peoples were on
the move by land and sea; the ethnic composition of localities and territories was altered; and
the sociopolitical and coreperiphery economic systems which had fueled the palatial world of
the Late Bronze Age came to a relatively abrupt end. As Oliver Dickinson has described it,
3
over a period that might have covered a generation or more the world of the [LBA] effectively
disintegrated, never to be seen again in such form.
13

Already in the LH IIIB12 transition (ca. 1230 BC) there are signs of growing unease
within the Helladic palaces, perhaps in response to looming physical threats. Particular evidence
for this may be seen in Linear B tablets from the last days of Pylos. This key palatial center in
the Peloponnese was destroyed in LH IIIB2 or LH IIIC Early, and abandoned along with the
entire Messenian hinterland.
14
Three wellknown sets of tablets, commonly grouped together,
have been seen by some scholars as communicating an effort to coordinate a largescale
defensive action or evacuation in response to an existential threat from the coast.
15
The first
group, known as the oka tablets, list the disposition of military personnel both watchers and
eqeta (= !"#$%) assigned to the task of guarding the coastal areas, perhaps in the citys
waning days.
16
The second, a single tablet (Jn 829), records the collection of bronze from Pylian
temples for the purpose of forging points for spears and javelins another martial reference,
and a further suggestion of increased military readiness in response to an increasing coastal
threat.
The third relevant record from Pylos is comprised of three texts
17
commonly grouped
together and referred to as rower tablets for their references to ereta (= &'"#$() rowers being
called up to man what was most likely a fleet of galleys.
18
Consensus about the nature, and even
the existence, of the crisis reflected by the Pylian tablets is elusive. As Thomas Palaima has
noted, the evidence is ambiguous, and we do not know if the measures recorded in these
tablets were standard operating procedurein the Late Bronze Age or extraordinary
adjustments to emergency conditions.
19
However, Cynthia Shelmerdine more recently
approached a middle ground on the issue by positing that what has been painted as a crisis in
the past may instead be better categorized as a general climate of wariness in the weeks
immediately preceding the destruction, which came about as a result of a very human threat.
20

The Rower Tablets will be discussed further below with regard to what type of ships they
may have been written in reference to. However, it is worth considering at the present what
actions they may signify if indeed they do reflect a palatial response to a coastal threat. The first
is a general evacuation.
21
Though the depopulation of Messenia in the wake of the palatial
destruction is suggestive of some organized movement of peoples from the area at this time, this
was unlikely to have been logistically feasible nor does it seem logically desirable to sail ships
laden with the people of Pylos together with their servants, their belongings and their
livestock
22
directly into the teeth of an existential seaborne threat.
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
4
The second is an evacuation organized by, and limited to, palatial elite, who sought to
escape as their situation became precarious late in the LH IIIB. There is little doubt that the
highest level of Mycenaean Greeces stratified society suffered most from the collapse of the
palatial system; as Shelmerdine has noted, The key elements lost in the disasters were the
trappings of those in power: the megaron proper, the enriching contact with other cultures, the
elaborate administrative system, and, with nothing to record, the art of writing.
23
Demetrius
Schilardi and Vassos Karageorghis have suggested that Mycenaean elites may have fled to the
Cyclades in advance (or in the wake) of the destructions in the LH IIIB2 and LH IIIBIIIC
transition.
24
An example of such a site may be Koukounaries on Paros, which was founded in
transitional LH IIIB2IIIC Early.
25
The site boasts a fortified mansion or palatial structure on
an acropolis, complete with storerooms and prestige items that support both prosperity and
trading activity.
26
The possible arrival of highstatus immigrants from the Greek mainland may
have resulted in the transference of a smaller form of the palatial system to a small number of
these islands, where it remained in place and functioning through the 12th century.
27
However,
as Tristan Barako has noted, one must wonder if preparations made under such duress would
have been written down.
28
Further, the presence of the palatial elites and their retinues, who
controlled the art of writing in the Mycenaean world, may be contradicted by the lack of written
records attesting their presence.
29

A third possible purpose of the Rower Tablets, which may be more likely in light of
concurrent evidence from around the eastern Mediterranean, may have been to call up
crewmembers in preparation for a direct and ultimately failed naval action against an
existential seaborne threat.
Sea Peoples and Naval Battles
An increase in alarm about maritime threats is also seen in Egyptian inscriptions and reliefs,
and in texts from the last years of )atti and Ugarit. Itamar Singer has characterized the threat
during the Late BronzeEarly Iron transition as the same in nature as during the preceding Late
Bronze Age, but with a change in the scale of [seaborne] movement, which was accompanied
by a change in the ability of the established powers to cope with the problem.
30
Evidence from
several sources suggests that seaborne threats increased in number and severity as the age of
Bronze gave way to that of Iron, perhaps playing a central role in the widespread palatial
destructions that marked this watershed period in history.
31

5
Somewhere into these events fit the so-called Sea Peoples, a heterogeneous series of
coalition-like groups mentioned primarily in records from Ramesside Egypt (the 13
th
and early
12
th
centuries BC). The most famous representations of these warriors come from Medinet
Habu, the well-known mortuary temple of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramesses III (ca. 1183-1152
BC), where two massive battles one on land and one at sea are recorded in monumental
relief. The land battle relief
32
depicts ox-carts, women, and children amidst the Sea Peoples
warriors,
33
suggesting that the invasion may have been part of a migratory movement from the
Aegean and western Anatolia.
34
The naval battle,
35
widely considered the first ever depicted
(and perhaps the first ever engaged in), is integral to this study and will be discussed in great
detail below.
Though almost always ascribed to Ramesses IIIs eighth year (ca. 1175 BC), these migratory
land and sea invasions were important enough to be mentioned in no fewer than five
inscriptions at Medinet Habu. Five Sea Peoples are named in them: the PrSt Peleset (=
Philistines), TAkAr (also TAkkAr) Tjeker or Sikil, !AkrwSA Shekelesh, WASASA Weshesh, and the
DAiniwnA Denyen or Danuna, who perhaps are to be associated with the *$+$,( or Adana. A
later inscription of Ramesses III, on a rhetorical stele in Chapel C at Deir el-Medineh, also
mentions the Peleset and the Twr" Teresh among up to 24 groups, 22 of whom have been lost,
as defeated enemies who had sailed in the midst of t[he s]ea.
36
The slight change in Ramesses
enemies list seen in the Medineh stele namely, the addition of the Teresh, who are not
mentioned in the Medinet Habu inscriptions can also be seen in another, later document. The
Great Harris Papyrus (P. Harris I), a posthumous res gestae of Ramesses III, omits the
Shekelesh from the narrative of the pharaohs encounters with the Sea Peoples, replacing them
instead with the Sherden.
As noted above, though he boasts the best known of our available inscriptions and images,
Ramesses III was not the first pharaoh to encounter groups associated with the Sea Peoples. In
the formulaic Aswan stele of his second year (ca. 1277 BC), Ramesses II claims among other
conquests to have destroyed
37
the warriors of the Great Green (Sea), so that Lower Egypt can
spend the night sleeping peacefully.
38
Ramesses Tanis II rhetorical stele, discussed in further
detail below, mentions the defeat and impressment of seaborne Sherden warriors in what is
assumed to be the same battle as that referenced in the Aswan stele, though there is no actual
evidence that this is the case.
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
6
Following this, Sherden appear in the Egyptian army (and perhaps as advisers to the
pharaohs navy, an unwritten possibility that will be discussed further below), and the threat to
Egypt from this and other Sea Peoples groups seems to dissipate - judging from written records
for the remainder of Ramesses IIs reign. One reason for the reduced threat may be the series
of forts Ramesses II established in the western Delta, from Memphis to the Mediterranean
coast, and along the North African coastal road as far west as Zawiyet Umm el-Rakham, some
300 km from Alexandria. These fortresses may have served multiple purposes, including
protecting water sources
39
and serving as depots or processing centers into Egypt from beyond
her borders.
40
However, whatever their additional activities, it seems clear that these fortresses
served to protect the desert coast and the fertile Nile Delta from marauding Sea Peoples,
restless, eastward-looking Libyans, or a combination of both.
41

The threat to Egypt became much more immediate in Merneptahs fifth regnal year, ca.
1207 BC, when a migratory coalition tens of thousands strong of Libyans and Sea Peoples
invaded from the west, managing to occupy a portion of the western Delta for one month
before being routed by the pharaohs army in the six-hour Battle of Perire. The battle is
recounted in two inscriptions, the Athribis stele and the monumental Great Karnak Inscription.
It is in the latter that the origin of the term Sea Peoples can be found. Five of these groups are
named in Merneptahs records: the Sherden (!rdn), Ikw" Ekwesh (perhaps to be identified with
A--iyawa or the ./$(,(?), !kr" Shekelesh, Twr" Teresh, and Rkw Lukka with all but the
latter being referred to as n nA #Aswt n pA ym of the foreign countries of the sea. The lack of
such designation for the Lukka is interesting, given their association with seaborne raiding since
at least the reign of Akhenaten, though the most recent mention of this group in Egyptian
records prior to Merneptah comes from Ramesses IIs account of the Battle of Qid, where they
are listed among the land-based troops of the Hittite king Muwatalli II. However, the Athribis
stele omits this designation for all groups save for the Ekwesh, which is the only one said to be
[of] the countries of the sea. Further, the other two inscriptional references to this battle, on
the Cairo Column and Heliopolis Victory Column, contain between them the mention of only
one Sea Peoples group, the Shekelesh, whose naming is followed with and every foreign
country.
42

Threats to !atti, Ugarit, and Cyprus
Though well documented in pharaonic records, Egypt was, of course, not the only Eastern
Mediterranean power that appears to have been threatened by maritime foes in the waning years
7
of the Late Bronze Age. The Hittites in particular, who were not historically inclined toward
maritime affairs, seem to have been forced to look to the sea with more interest at this time,
possibly as a result of the threat posed by an increase in coastal raiding. Two texts from the early
12
th
century especially seem to show increased Hittite concern with threats from the
Mediterranean coast and beyond, with the latter serving along with Ramesses IIIs naval battle
inscription as the earliest literary evidence for a true sea battle. In the first, RS 34.129, the
Hittite king writes to the prefect of Ugarit about the !ikala who live on ships, and requests
that a Ugaritian who had been taken captive by them be sent to )attua so that the king can
question him about this people and their homeland. The !ikala
43
have been connected to two
groups of Sea Peoples from the aforementioned records of Merneptah and Ramesses III,
discussed above: the !kr" = "kal"a Shekelesh
44
and the !kl = "kaar Sikil or Tkr Tjeker.
45

The second text, attributed to the last Hittite king, uppiluliuma II, who reigned from ca.
1207 to 1178 BC, mentions a series of three naval skirmishes against the ships of Alaiya,
followed by a land battle, presumably against the same people he had fought at sea:
The ships of Alaiya met me in the sea three times for battle, and I smote them;
and I seized the ships and set fire to them in the sea.
But when I arrived on dry land(?), the enemies from Alaiya came in multitude
against me for battle. I [fought] them, and [] me []...
KBo XII 38
46

As noted, the latter is reminiscent of Ramesses IIIs aforementioned claims to have fought land
and sea battles against migratory Sea Peoples, which would have taken place at generally the
same time. This similarity in chronology and narrative raises the possibility that uppiluliuma
may have been facing repeated waves of raiders or migrant warriors (perhaps the same ones
mentioned in Egyptian records), while clearly reinforcing the need for the eastern
Mediterraneans Late Bronze Age empires to take to the sea and engage in historys first naval
battles in an effort to ward off this growing maritime threat.
New Warriors for a New Type of Warfare?
Along with the evidence for an increase in coastal threats and piracy discussed above, this
period is also marked by the sudden appearance of a new type of warrior in Eastern
Mediterranean iconography, as well as the first known descriptions and representations of naval
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
8
battles. These new warriors, who are pictured wearing feathered headdresses, appear
seemingly ex nihilo at this time. Though commonly referred to as feathers in scholarship and
thus, for consistency, in this paper these headdresses could also represent leather, folded linen,
rushes, or hair stiffened with lime.
47
These warriors appear in martial scenes on land and at sea
across the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean beginning in transitional LH IIIB2IIIC Early,
and have typically been associated with the Sea Peoples who are so well known from
Ramesside Egyptian and other contemporary records.
Ramesses IIIs reliefs at Medinet Habu portray these headdresses, and the warriors wearing
them, in great detail.
48
The plumed portions are largely identical, but individual groups of
warriors seem to be differentiated from each other by the patterns on the headbands beneath the
feathers. These include zigzag, circular, and crosshatched patterns, with some headdresses
featuring two courses of the same pattern
49
and one or two featuring both circular decoration
and crosshatching.
50
Characters painted on Mycenaean vases, on the other hand, are often
shown in silhouette, and are always portrayed far more schematically and stylistically, and in less
detail, than their companions in Egyptian relief. In the case of the feathered headdresses
depicted at Medinet Habu, therefore, the Aegean analog appears to be a much less detailed set
of dark spikes or lines protruding from the head, sometimes set above a checkered or zigzag
band. Most examples of the latter style take the form referred to as the hedgehog helmet for
its similarity to Aegean portrayals of hedgehogs in similar media, though representations from
the Dodecanesian island of Kos provide slightly different portrayals of this headdress. Arne
Furumark suggested that these helmets were actually made of hedgehog skin because of how
curiously similar they were to the hedgehog appearing alongside these helmets on the LH
IIIC Middle painted Warrior Stele from Mycenae,
51
though it seems more likely that the
resemblance, even if intentional, was more clearly communicated in iconography than it was the
result of fashioning headwear out of hedgehogs, particularly in light of the Near Eastern
analogues discussed here
52
and the aforementioned representations from Kos.
The bestknown example of the hedgehogstyle headdress, and the most complete picture
of warriors in full complementary combat gear, comes from the Warrior Vase, found by
Heinrich Schliemann in the noweponymous House of the Warrior Vase at Mycenae.
53
This
vessel, which like almost all examples of this motif is dated LH IIIC Middle, features two
processions of warriors one on each side. On the obverse are six bearded
54
soldiers marching
in step to the right. Each carries a nearlycircular shield, a leather ration bag, and a single
spear with a leafshaped point on his right shoulder, and they wear corslets, kilts,
55
greaves, and
9
horned helmets with plumes flowing from the crest (see further below). The five soldiers on the
reverse are identical except for the placement of their spears (they are cocked in each soldiers
right arm in preparation for throwing), the absence of the ration bags, and the composition of
their helmets, which are hedgehog in style instead of horned. This latter scene finds a nearly
identical analogue in the aforementioned Warrior Stele, also from Mycenae.
56

Several further comparanda come from Mycenae, all of which date to LH IIIC Middle.
These include a fragment of larnax with up to three hedgehoghelmed warriors on it
57
and
three krater fragments, one of which may be the only known example of a helmet
simultaneously adorned with horns and hedgehog motif.
58
The second may show two warriors
with spears and round shields walking in front of a horse,
59
while the last either shows two
soldiers in hedgehog helmets or a soldier and an actual hedgehog.
60
Of particular interest in
the present discussion are fragments of another larnax
61
and krater
62
from Mycenae, each of
which show a warriors head with a zigzag band around the bottom of the headdress, similar
to that on some of the feathered hats from Medinet Habu.
63

Examples of this headdress motif have been found elsewhere on the Greek mainland, as
well, including on a krater from Iolkos in Thessaly that shows three warriors wearing such
headdresses, two of whom carry spears (one shield also remains) and the third of whom may be
wearing a metal corslet.
64
A rhyton or stirrup jar from Tiryns shows a soldier in full armor,
including greaves, corslet, kilt, and hedgehog helmet, and armed with a short sword, who may
be in the act of leaping, while krater fragments from Tiryns and from Amarynthos on Euboea
show a hedgehoghelmed warrior carrying a spear over his shoulder and a man in the same
type of headdress following what may be a chariot and driver, respectively.
65
Additionally, two
LH IIIC Middle krater rim fragments of unknown geographic provenience show hedgehog
headdresses, one of which is clearly a helmet.
66
A LM IIIC Middle figurine fragment from
Faneromeni Cave in eastern Crete may also be an example of this motif.
67

Warriors with this style of headdress also appear suddenly in Cyprus and the Levant at this
time, as well as in the aforementioned reliefs from Ramesses IIIs mortuary temple. On Cyprus,
an oftcited seal from Level IIIB at Enkomi, dated to LH IIIC Middle,
68
shows a bearded,
shieldbearing warrior wearing a feathered hat with a beaded band. An ivory game box from
Tomb 58 at Enkomi, dated to the 12th c. BC, depicts a chariotborne hunting scene that
includes two footmen who wear kilts and beadbanded feather headdresses identical to those
worn by several of Ramesses IIIs enemies at Medinet Habu, as well as to that on the
aforementioned seal.
69
In the Levant, a seal from Tomb 936 at Tell elFaraah (S), a 12
th
c.
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
10
chamber tomb, shows what has been interpreted as a featherhatted person presenting an
offering to the Egyptian god Amun,
70
and a Philistine bichrome krater from Ashkelon (late
12
th
-early 11
th
c.) shows two warriors with feathered headdresses in the hedgehog tradition.
71

Additionally, five anthropoid clay coffins from the Egyptian fortress at Beth Shan bear a clear
resemblance to the featherhatted warriors from Medinet Habu. These coffins may represent
Egyptianizing burials of a small number of Sea Peoplesrelated mercenaries serving in the
garrison there in the 12
th
century,
72
and as such they may combine with the Ashkelon krater and
the Faraah seal to serve as the only known self-representations of Sea Peoples in what scholars
consider to be their traditional regalia.
It may therefore be no coincidence that some of the earliest representations of these warriors
can be found in the earliest known scenes of naval combat, and in conjunction with oared
galleys, which will be further discussed momentarily. The earliest known representation of this
type of headdress from the Aegean and the East AegeanWest Anatolian Interface is on an
unstratified locallymade krater from Bademgedii Tepe (ancient Puranda) in southwestern
Anatolia, a site that appears to have been reinhabited at the end of the 13
th
c. after a settlement
hiatus, with locallymade LH IIIC pottery appearing among the ceramics used by its new
inhabitants.
73
Penelope Mountjoy has dated the Bademgedii krater to transitional LH IIIB2
IIIC or LH IIIC Early based on the appearance of the rowers, while Mario Benzi, on the other
hand, appears to date it to LH IIIC Middle.
74
If accurate, Benzis date would make this vessel
and its representation synchronous with two other key naval representations those from
Pyrgos Livanaton north of modern Livanates in east Lokris, an area known to Homer as
Kynos,
75
and from Seraglio on Kos as well as with almost all other known feathered headdress
and hedgehog helmet representations.
76
However, Mountjoy has recently suggested that her
dating of the Bademgedii krater may necessitate a redating of the Koan sherds from LH IIIC
Middle to at least LH IIIC Early.
77
If accurate, this would place the earliest representations of
featherhatted warriors in southwestern Anatolia and the Dodecanese less than a quarter
century (at most) prior to their appearance in Egyptian relief, and well before their appearance
on the Greek mainland in LH IIIC Middle. This, in turn, may provide further support for the
possibility that at least some of these warriors originated in the area of southwestern Anatolia
and the Dodecanese, and spread from there westward to the Aegean and south- and eastward to
Cyprus and the Levant.
Both the Bademgedii and Kynos kraters appear to depict naval battles between spear
wielding warriors aboard antithetic oared galleys. Interestingly, if the feathered headdresses of
11
the warriors on these vessels do in fact mark them as Sea Peoples, then these may not only be
Sea Peoples vessels, but participants in a battle scene portraying combat between ships manned
by Sea Peoples. The naval battle relief at Medinet Habu is the only representation from this
period that includes nonSea Peoples participants evidence, perhaps, that only Egypt was able
to successfully defend against these foes at sea (though their victory was shortlived, as the
events of this period set the Egyptian empire on a course toward inexorable decline).
Boars Tusks, Horsehair Crests, and Horned Helmets
Additionally, given the stylistic differences between LH IIIC Mycenaean vase painters and
Egyptian artists, it may be that the soldiers in horned helmets on the obverse of the Warrior
Vase
78
were intended to represent something akin to the Sherden, who are depicted in horned
helmets with center-mounted discs in the reliefs of Ramesses II and Ramesses III.
79
Warrior
headgear in the Aegean Late Bronze Age took many different forms, from relatively
straightforward bronze helmets to the famous boars tusk headgear. The most heavily
customized zone of these different types of Mycenaean helmet appears to have been the crest,
atop which a knob was frequently mounted, to which could be attached a vertical tusk, or crests
and plumes of various shape, size, color, and texture.
80
The variety of this helmet adornment
even within a single representation is striking; for example, in both the north wall frieze of the
miniature fresco at Akrotiri (eight examples) and the Mycenaean battle krater from Shaft Grave
IV (seven remaining examples), no two boars tusk helmets feature identically-depicted
accouterments.
The most common flair attached to the knob at the crest of these helmets appears to have
been a horsehair plume or a large, circular crest with a feathered appearance, both of which are
visible in the battle krater scene. With its circular shape, the latter provides an interesting analog
to the disc mounted atop the crest of Sherden helmets in Egyptian relief. One of the most
remarkable Mycenaean-style helmets to have entered the archaeological record to date includes
both horsehair plume and circular accouterment along with, perhaps most interestingly,
horns.
81
This image comes from an inscribed bowl from the Hittite capital at Boazki/)attua,
which has been dated to ca. 1400 BC.
82
Expected stylistic differences aside, the warrior
represented on this Hittite bowl is strikingly similar to the horn-helmed soldiers depicted on
the LH IIIC Middle Warrior Vase from Mycenae.
The 2 centuries that separate these two depictions are interesting to consider. On the one
hand, this seems to demonstrate a striking, long-lived continuity of some aspects of Mycenaean
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
12
warrior dress and equipment. On the other hand, though, this type of dress in particular, the
horned helmet is only seen in these two periods (the 15
th
/14
th
and the 12
th
centuries), and in
both cases an association with Anatolia can be argued. While this is obvious in the case of the
Boazki bowl due to its provenience, the representation of horn-helmed warriors on the
Warrior Vase is connected to Anatolia more indirectly: via the image on the reverse of the vase,
the hedgehog-helmed warriors whose earliest known appearance is at Bademgedii Tepe (and
perhaps Kos) in the Interface. Rather than a sign of a westward movement by Anatolian
warriors, this may demonstrate the martial assertion of people from the Interface at the end of
the Late Bronze Age. Certainly, as shown above, the feather-hatted warriors appear in the
Eastern Mediterranean first in the late 13
th
c. and appear to spread westward across the Aegean
through the 12
th
c., while the horn-helmed warriors on the obverse of the Warrior Vase are both
new to LH III imagery, and nearly identical to the Mycenaean warrior pictured on the
Boazki bowl two centuries prior.
The Helladic Oared Galley and the Brailed Sail
Thus far, we have discussed the growing maritime threat that faced the eastern
Mediterranean civilizations at the end of the Late Bronze Age, the unprecedented naval
engagements that the regions great powers entered into in an effort to stave off this threat, and
the new type of warrior that appeared for the first time amidst this chaos. At this point, it is
important to change gears somewhat, and to consider both the type and the potential capacity
of the ships used in these actions, particularly in light of the new maritime technology that
appears to have been introduced in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean at this time.
Traditional Bronze Age Aegean ship design, typified by Minoan and Egyptian sailing
vessels, carried over into the Mycenaean period, with iconography providing evidence for its
adoption by mainland polities. This can be seen in particular in a LH IIBIIIA1 fresco from
Iklaina
83
and LH IIIA2IIIB painted ship representations from Hall 64 of the southwestern
building in the palace complex at Pylos.
84
Alongside this, though, the LH IIIA2IIIB period
saw the development and introduction of an altogether new type of vessel: the Helladic oared
galley. A long, narrow, light craft propelled primarily by rowers and designed specifically for
speed, the galley was a vessel best suited for martial purposes, including raiding, piracy, and
naval warfare.
85
Its invention has been called the single most significant advance in the
weaponry of the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean.
86

13
The first depictions of the vessel type that is most relevant to this discussion appear late in
the LH IIIB.
87
Michael Wedde has placed the galleys development as early as the LH IIIA
(14
th
c. BC), though he admittedly bases this on an assum[ption] that the pictorial evidence
postdates the actual invention by some time.
88
This assumption is almost certainly true, but
the arbitrary value of some time does not allow for terribly accurate dating. Although his
chronology for the beginning of galley development may be high based on present evidence,
though,
89
Wedde is correct in viewing the Mycenaean galley as representing a true break with
the preceding development of sailing vessels, typified by Minoan ships like the craft depicted
on the Akrotiri miniature fresco, which in turn were descended from Cycladic longboats via the
earliest known Minoan vessels.
90
Unlike these earlier ships, the galley is a vessel built around its
human motor a crew of oarsmen and its development is marked by the struggle to place
as many rowers as possible into as small a hull as practical.
91
This principle is opposite that
governing merchantmen, on which the hull [is]designed for maximum capacity and rowers
are unpractical because crew and equipment occupy space at the expense of cargo.
92

Iconographic evidence from Egypt and the Aegean suggests that, sometime around the LH
IIIBIIIC transition the transition from the Late Bronze to the Early Iron Age this vessel
type began to be outfitted with the brailed rig and loosefooted sail. This combination, which
would become a mainstay of eastern Mediterranean sailing vessels for the next two millennia,
93

was probably developed in the area of the Syro-Palestinian littoral and diffused from there to
the south and west via the aforementioned raiders and traders of the LBA. Certainly the
earliest representation of a loose-footed sail, and top-mounted crows nest, like those seen at
Medinet Habu, seems to be found on an early 13
th
c. relief from Saqqara showing a ship from
which Canaanite amphorae are being unloaded. The brailing system consisted of lines attached
to the bottom of a sail and run vertically through rings called brails, which were sewn into the
front of the sail. From there, they were run vertically over the yard and aft to the stern, where
they were controlled by the steersman. Using this system, sails could be easily raised, lowered,
and otherwise manipulated in a manner similar to a set of Venetian blinds.
94

If the introduction of the Helladic oared galley was, to quote Wedde, a strategic inflection
point in ship architecture,
95
the development of the loosefooted, brailed squaresail was a
technological revolution in Mediterranean seafaring, as to this point sailing craft had relied on
large square sails held fast by upper and lower yards, referred to as boomfooted squaresails
(the yards that secured the square sail at top and bottom are referred to as a yard and a
boom, respectively). At least 33 representations of vessels with boomfooted squaresails are
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
14
known from the Bronze Age Aegean, including the sailing vessel in the Akrotiri Miniature
Fresco.
96
While clearly an advantage over oared propulsion alone, the windward sailing limit of
vessels outfitted with the boomfooted squaresail was likely between four and seven points into
the wind,
97
thus limiting its usefulness for propulsion almost entirely to downwind travel.
98

Because of the boomfooted squaresails limitations with regard to windward sailing,
merchantmen in the LBA Eastern Mediterranean were largely forced to travel in a
counterclockwise circuit,
99
with ships sailing from the Aegean likely departing the key port site
of Kommos on the southern coast of Crete
100
and sailing south to Marsa Matruh
101
or the
Ramesside fortress of Zawiyet Umm elRakham
102
on the Marmarican coast before proceeding
eastward to Egypt.
103
Ships departing Egypt, or seeking to travel in a western direction more
generally, in turn, would likely have sailed up the Canaanite littoral, perhaps putting in at
Cyprus or Ugarit before traveling west along the Anatolian coast and entering the Aegean that
way, as demonstrated by the late 14
th
c. Uluburun shipwreck.
104

The manipulation of the sail made possible by the addition of brails and removal of the
lower yard (boom), on the other hand, allowed for much greater maneuverability, as well as the
ability to sail much closer to the wind.
105
Another advantage of the loosefooted sail, noted by
Christopher Monroe,
106
can be seen in the Medinet Habu naval relief: warriors would not be
obstructed by [the lower yard] as they moved about the decks, throwing spears, shooting arrows,
etc. Thus, once outfitted with the brailed rig and loosefooted sail, the Helladic oared galley
became an ideal vessel for rapid travel, for lightningfast raids on coastal settlements, and for
combat in the open sea. As Owain Roberts has characterized it:
In the beginning the brailable square sail allowed hull forms quite unsuited to
propulsion by sail of the Theratype the opportunity to extend their cruising range
due to the lightness of gear and ease of control. Skills learnt in handling the rig
coupled with improvements in gear and fittings enabled effective courses to be
sailed in a wide range of directions other than before the wind. The ability to
conserve the strength of the rowing crew [and the ability to sail in most directions
economically with small crews, given a slant of wind] opened greater horizons to
military adventurers.
107

Maritime Innovation in Action: The Medinet Habu Naval Battle Relief
Brailed sails are first shown on galleys in the naval battle depiction from Medinet Habu,
which was carved no later than Ramesses IIIs twelfth year, ca. 1171 BC. This relief serves as a
15
monumental coming out party for several other new features of maritime technology, as well,
including the top-mounted crows nest and partial decking, from which warriors could engage
enemy vessels with spears and grapnels. Remarkably, these attributes including sail and
rigging are presented identically on both the Sea Peoples and the Egyptian vessels.
In this depiction, rowers are only shown aboard the Egyptian ships. However, this does not
mean (as has previously been posited) that sail was the Sea Peoples ships sole means of
propulsion; in fact, this was almost certainly not the case, as Shelley Wachsmann has previously
shown that the Sea Peoples vessels are, in fact, modeled after the Helladic oared galley.
108
True,
the Sea Peoples vessels are not actively utilizing any means of propulsion at the time of the
battle, as no oars are shown and the sails, as on the Egyptian vessels, are clearly brailed up.
However, the reason rowers are absent from this scene is likely because the Sea Peoples are
being shown as victims of a surprise attack by the Egyptian fleet. This is supported by the
accompanying inscription, which refers to the Sea Peoples as being capsized and overwhelmed
where they are.
109
Thus, the Egyptian surprise attack left the enemy rowers no time to run out
their oars and attempt to escape. This is also supported by the relief, which shows the Sea
Peoples vessels pinned against land, with the Egyptian fleet as waterborne aggressors and a
supporting force on land both firing arrows and collecting prisoners at waters edge.
110
Thus,
rather than being engaged in open water even in a riverine environment the Sea Peoples
ships were most likely at anchor when Ramesses III capsized and overwhelmed them.
111

Once oars have been properly returned to the Sea Peoples vessels, it becomes clear that
Kynos A, the most complete vessel on the aforementioned Kynos krater, is an almost exact
match to the Medinet Habu ships. Though the yard and sail are not depicted on the former, the
two deadeyes atop the mast show that this vessel was outfitted with the loose-footed, brailed
sail, as seen on the Medinet Habu ships. Aside from the absent rigging, the most notable
difference between Kynos A and the Sea Peoples ships may be the lack of a crows nest atop the
formers mast. Though it should be kept in mind that the absence of a feature in iconography
does not necessitate its physical or historical absence, the crows nest is neither a feature of
Helladic ships, nor of Egyptian vessels in the preMedinet Habu period.
112
The first crows
nests to appear in LBA representations of seagoing ships come from depictions of Syro
Palestinian vessels in two Egyptian tombs, the 18
th
dynasty tomb of Kenamun (TT 162) and the
19
th
20
th
dynasty tomb of Iniwia. However, unlike the Medinet Habu vessels, the crows nests
depicted on these ships are sidemounted, being hung from the masthead or affixed to the
forward face of the mast.
113
Because Egyptian depictions of SyroPalestinian vessels are the only
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
16
source of representations prior to the 12
th
c. B.C., it has been suggested that the crows nest
originated from this area.
114
Given their regular contact with the SyroPalestinian littoral, as
well as the clear value of a lookout on a raised platform for raiding and paramilitary functions, it
is perhaps unsurprising that the Sea Peoples may have adopted the crows nest from Levantine
seafarers just as they seem to have adopted the brailed rig from this area.
115

If correctly dated to the late 18
th
or early 19
th
dynasties, the first quarter of the 13
th
c. BC,
116

an important but rarelycited
117
portion of a relief from Saqqara
118
may support the Syro-
Palestinian origin of the crows nest, loosefooted sail, and brailed rig, while providing a crucial
missing link between SyroPalestinian ship construction and the technology utilized by both
sides of the naval battle. The mast, furled sails, downwardcurving yard, and topmounted
crows nest of the seagoing ship depicted in the relief are identical to those from Medinet Habu.
The downwardcurving yard in this case, likely the result of a light yard responding to
downward pressure from the furled sails
119
is primarily seen in depictions of SyroPalestinian
seagoing vessels in the LBA,
120
such as a ship from the 14
th
century tomb of Nebamun at
Thebes and a 13
th
c. scaraboid from Ugarit,
121
and it disappears from Egyptian iconography
following its appearance at Medinet Habu. Along with the yard, brailed sail, and crows nest,
the SyroPalestinian origin of this vessel is strongly suggested by the reliefs depiction of
Canaanite amphorae being unloaded at an Egyptian port,
122
and its date, while perhaps roughly
a century earlier than Medinet Habu, is consistent with late 18
th
and early 19
th
dynasty
references to Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, including Ramesses IIs early 13
th

century defeat of rebellioushearted Sherden off the Egyptian coast. A SyroPalestinian
provenience of the topmounted crows nest and downwardcurving yard helps explain both
their absence on galleys depicted in their native Aegean milieu and their presence on Sea Peoples
vessels of Helladic oared galley type that are shown in the area of the Levant and Egypt, while
the development of the brailed rig in the area of the Canaanite littoral could also explain its
nearly simultaneous appearance on Egyptian and Aegean ships at a slightly later date, in the
early-to-mid 12
th
c.
123
The brailed sails spread, in turn, can be credited without much difficulty
to those people, mentioned in Ch. 1, who are referred to by Michal Artzy as the nomads of the
sea
124
and by Georgiou as pirates, raiders, and traders,
125
whose travels took them around the
Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean, and whose livelihoods depended on effective maritime
technology.
Relevant differences having been noted, it is clear that Kynos A, if not identical to the Sea
Peoples vessels depicted at Medinet Habu, is an extremely close relative and it can be
17
cautiously suggested that the Bademgedii vessels are, as well, despite the lack of a visible mast
or rigging. Mounting the yard and furling the sail on Kynos A in the manner shown at Medinet
Habu, and adding the missing oars to the Sea Peoples vessels, produces two nearly identical
ships. The Aegean association of the Philistines, if not of most Sea Peoples,
126
along with the
importance of maritime technology to their lives and livelihoods, provides a logical basis for
their use of the Helladic oared galley, while the welldocumented travels of these groups
throughout the Eastern Mediterranean may explain their exposure to and adoption of the top
mounted crows nest and brailed rig (only the latter of which appears on Aegean and Interface
ships at this time). Further, while exceedingly few nautical references have been found in
Philistine material culture, the connection between Sea Peoples and the brailed rig is further
attested ceramic evidence from Ekron (modern Tel Miqne). Sherds of a 12
th
c. Philistine
Monochrome krater feature the characteristic semicircles of a furled brailed sail, along with the
horizontal line of the yard and three vertical lines, which likely represent a mast and halyards or
brails. Additionally, s well as one of the 13
th
11
th
c. boats incised on the cliffs above the Mearot
river in northern Israel, which appears to display a brailed, loosefooted sail on downward
curving yard, along with what may be a forwardlooking birdhead finial on the stem.
127

How, though, did Egypt come to acquire and adopt these innovative components of
maritime technology, which appear on their ships at the same time as those of the Sea Peoples?
It may have been through direct contact with those same pirates, raiders, and traders during
the century prior to Ramesses IIIs famous battle.
128
The first direct mention of seaborne threats
against Egypt during the Ramesside period can be found in the aforementioned Aswan and
Tanis II stelai of Ramesses II, which refer to sea raiders and Sherden, respectively.
129
If the early
13
th
century date is correct for several Ugaritic texts thought to refer to Sherden individuals,
130

and if the Trtn(m) and srdnn(m) found at Ugarit are in fact to be identified with the Ramesside
Srdn,
131
then Tanis II in particular seems to support the contemporaneous movement and/or
dispersion of these people along the eastern Mediterranean coast early in the 13
th
century, albeit
with widely differing levels of integration.
132
As previously noted, trade emporia dotted the
region in this period, with shipping lanes and anchorages alike doubtless serving as tempting
targets for skilled privateers and opportunities for similarly skilled swordsforhire to defend
those potential targets.
133
Thus, we should not be surprised to find warshipsailing Sherden of
the Sea at various locations around the eastern Mediterranean particularly if their maritime
exploits were by this time based in some part on piratical activity, as Ramesses IIs inscriptions,
along with those of Merneptah and Ramesses III, have traditionally been read as reporting.
Further, if the encounter with the Sherden recorded in Tanis II took place while they were
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
18
engaged in such marauding, then it stands to reason that they may have employed ships and/or
sailing tactics that were similar in construction and nature to other sea raiders operating in the
eastern Mediterranean at this time. Certainly the characterization of the Sherden as those
whom none could ever fight against suggests that they, like their fellowtravelers the Lukka,
134

had been engaging in such activities for some time by this point.
A New Term for New Technology?
A noteworthy element of the Tanis II inscription is the fact, first observed by Yoyotte and
subsequently followed by Kitchen, that the encounter it describes was unique enough that it
apparently forced the Egyptians to invent a new term for warship in order to commemorate it.
The result was the somewhat clumsy aHaw aHA mHryib pA ym ships of fighting in the heart of
the sea. As seagoing ships had been used for some time in the Egyptian military,
135
the need to
fabricate a new term suggests a certain lack of prior experience either with the type of vessel
sailed by the Sherden, with the capabilities of those vessels, or with the tactics used by these
raiders. Thus, the term employed on Tanis II may have been intended to describe Sherden
vessels as maritime fighting platforms (as the literal translation of the Tanis term may suggest),
or it may have been a reference to a method of coastal marauding that made use of specialized
ships or sailing techniques to conduct lightningfast raids and then disappear back into the sea
and over the horizon before military forces could be mobilized against them.
Success in raiding and the very survival of raiding parties required not only the adoption
of new sailing technology, but also the development of tactics that could satisfy such a lifeand
death need for stealth and celerity. One such tactic was the deliberate beaching of vessels, which
allowed attackers to disembark and conduct their raid as quickly as possible. The fastest way to
land, and disembark from, a vessel is to row it bow first directly up onto the beach. The
aforementioned keel extensions seen on some depictions of Helladic oared galleys, on the Sea
Peoples vessels in the naval battle at Medinet Habu, and on the Gurob shipcart model the
latter of which will be discussed momentarily may have served as beaching aids, allowing
raiders ships to sail more easily up onto land for the purpose of facilitating a rapid
disembarkation.
136

The prominence of these extensions, which also appear at the waterline in Late Helladic
depictions, would become a standard feature of oared galleys in the Iron Age, serving as the
delineating feature between Weddes Type V and Type VI.
137
While these keel extensions may
eventually have morphed into the Iron Age ram, so well known from Classical naval battles,
19
there is no evidence for the presence of rams on ships prior to at least the 9
th
c. BC.
138
Instead,
the mode of fighting in these earliest naval engagements is nearly identical to that seen on land
at this time and for centuries prior: standoff weaponry arrows and thrown spears was
employed when the warring vessels were still at some distance from each other, and then, when
in close enough proximity to board, close combat techniques were employed.
139
The techniques
of fighting on the sea, then, were different than those on land only insofar as the method of
approach (by ship as opposed to by chariot or on foot) was different: infantry fought as infantry,
but with slightly different firing platforms, and with the added risk of a hostile element the
sea surrounding them.
140
This is clearly seen in the earliest illustrations of true naval conflicts,
on the Kynos and Bademgedii kraters, and on the walls of Ramesses IIIs mortuary temple at
Medinet Habu, with the chief exception to this being the ingenious employment by the
Egyptians of the grapnel, which was used to capsize Sea Peoples vessels where possible, by
catching the enemy ship, then swiftly rowing backwards while perpendicular to the captured
vessel.
141
This way, ship-based soldiers could be defeated without even needing to engage in
close combat.
Sea Peoples as Drivers of Maritime Innovation?
The aforementioned change in Egyptian terminology (including the use of determinatives)
following their 13
th
century encounter with the Sherden suggests that the ships of war depicted
at Medinet Habu were developed after the defeat of this rebellioushearted foe early in the
13
th
century. Further, the striking similarity between the two fleets in the naval battle raises the
possibility that Ramesses IIs capture of Sherden warriors resulted not just in an increase in the
ranks of Pharaonic conscripts, but in the transference of maritime technology as well. An
example of such transference, during a military conflict that took place a millennium later, can
be seen in Romes ingenious reverseengineering of Carthaginian warship design in the First
Punic War. As Polybius tells it in his wellknown account of the genesis of the Roman navy:
When they first took in hand to send troops across to Messene they not only had
no decked vessels but no warships at all, not so much as a single galley: but they
borrowed quinqueremes and triremes from Tarentum and Locri, and even
from Elea and Neapolis; and having thus collected a fleet, boldly sent their men
across upon it. It was on this occasion that, the Carthaginians having put to sea in
the Strait to attack them, a decked vessel of theirs charged so furiously that it ran
aground, and falling into the hands of the Romans served them as a model on
which they constructed their whole fleet. And if this had not happened it is clear
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
20
that they would have been completely hindered from carrying out their design by
want of constructive knowledge.
Polyb. Hist. 1.20
142

The Egyptian ships depicted in the naval battle were neither Helladic galleys nor traditional
Egyptian vessels. Instead, they were evidently developed by combining elements of the new Sea
Peoples vessels and old, familiar riverine traveling ships into a hybrid form of warship.
Though a lack of hogging trusses, seen on earlier Egyptian vessels, points to a sturdier hull than
previous Egyptian boats and ships, the shape (other than the traditional papyriform stern)
143
and
shellfirst construction evidenced by throughbeams,
144
the fore and aftercastles, and the
lions head stem are consistent with the Egyptian shipbuilding tradition.
145

As the first Sea Peoples group to be specifically named as such in the Egyptian sources
and the first whose capture and impressment is documented it is worth considering that
elements of the ships sailed by the Sherden at the time of their initial defeat by Ramesses II may
have been used as prototypes for the hybrid Egyptian vessels that were sailed against the
maritime component of the latter invasion. Though the Saqqara relief suggests that Egyptians
may have come into contact with this sail type and rigging system (as well as the topmounted
crows nest) via SyroPalestinian traders in the late 18
th
or 19
th
Dynasties, it is possible that the
full value of such a technological package only truly became apparent when the Sherden and
their aHaw aHA mHryib pA ym were encountered and defeated early in Ramesses IIs reign.
Of course, as Artzy, Georgiou, and Horden and Purcell, among others, have noted, the
distinction need not be binary, as both the Sherden and those aboard the ship offloading
Canaanite amphorae in the Saqqara relief may belong to the population elements variously
referred to as pirates, raiders, and traders or as nomads of the sea. Further, they may be
related or even identical groups; we simply lack the evidence, at present, to make such clear
identifications and to draw such fine distinctions between the various individuals and groups
operating in such capacities at this time. However, appropriating this technology from these
rebellioushearted enemies in the first quarter of the 13th c. would have allowed for a
breaking in period of roughly a century prior to the flawless integration of these components
seen in the Egyptian ships whose naval triumph is memorialized at Medinet Habu.
Pentekonters and Fleet Sizes
21
Painted pottery provides evidence for the use of pentekonters, or galleys rowed by fifty men
(twentyfive on each side), as early as transitional LH IIIB2IIIC Early in the Aegean.
146
A LH
IIIC pyxis from Tholos Tomb 1 at Tragana near Pylos features a ship with twentyfour vertical
stanchions,
147
thereby separating the rowers gallery into twentyfive sections. A LM IIIB larnax
from Gazi on Crete features a large ship with what appears to be twentyseven stanchions,
which could signify a ship crewed by even more than fifty men; however, as the horizontal
ladder motif used to represent rowers galleries on Late Helladic ship depictions also seems to
have served to address a certain horror vacui on the part of Mycenaean artists,
148
it seems more
likely that the Gazi painter intended to portray a pentekonter than a ship with fiftyfour
oarsmen.
149
Kynos A, one of the aforementioned ship representations found at Pyrgos
Livanaton, features 19 oars and schematicallyrendered rowers. The odd number of rowers,
combined with the need to fit two antithetic vessels onto a single side of a krater, suggests that
this vessel was also intended as a pentekonter that the artist was forced to abbreviate due to space
constraints.
150

Further evidence for the use of pentekonters in the years surrounding the Late Bronze
Early Iron transition, and for the employment of such vessels by the Sea Peoples, may be found
in a remarkable recentlypublished model of a Helladic oared galley from Tomb 611 at Gurob
in Middle Egypt.
151
The model was paired with a wheeled cart, and its cultic affinities are
suggested both by its cart and by its hole for a pavois, to which bars were attached for priestly
porters to shoulder as they carried a cultic ship over land.
152
Like the vessels shown on LH IIIB
and IIIC pottery, the shipcart model features stanchions and a stempost with an upturned
finial, similar to those on the ships pictured on Mycenaean pottery.
153
Flanking the model just
below the caprails are rows of black dots, interpreted by Wachsmann as oarports, whose number
and spacing make it probable that the vessel after which the model was patterned was also a
fiftyoared pentekonter. Also present is a bow projection at the junction of stempost and keel,
discussed earlier, which would become a standard feature of oared galleys in the Iron Age (see
further below).
Radiocarbon dating of the Gurob shipcart model returned a 20 calibrated age range of
1256 to 1054 BC,
154
and as Wachsmann has noted, its appearance is most similar to
iconography from the 13
th
and 12
th
centuries.
155
The model was painted with a base layer of
white, over which were added black, covering the bottom half of the hull, and red, a stripe of
which appears just below the caprail and above the oarports.
156
In all, seven pigments were
detected.
157
This preserved polychrome schema not only makes the model unique among known
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
22
representations of Helladic ships,
158
but it aligns with Homers description of the Achaeans
ships as &1$% black or 23$+4'5',% darkprowed and, remarkably, with the poets
description of Odysseus ships specifically as (1#,6'7,% redcheeked.
159
The phrase &1$(+$
+$8% black ship is a common epithet in Homer, appearing 81 times in Iliad and Odyssey
combined,
160
while +$8% 23$+4'5',% dark-prowed ship appears a further eleven times.
161
This
reference alludes to the coating of hull planking with dark pitch or asphalt, a practice which,
though known from at least the Bronze Age,
162
is seen in physical representation for the first
time on the Gurob shipcart model.
163
References to the use of pitch or asphalt to seal wooden
ships can be seen in such diverse ancient examples as the biblical instructions for building
Noahs Ark (Gen. 6:14), and a more chronologically relevant letter (KUB III 82) from
Ramesses II to the Hittite king )attuili II in the mid13th c. BC, in which the pharaoh
apparently writes that he is sending a pair of ships to the Hittite king so that the latters
shipwrights can draw a copy of them for the purpose of building replicas, which they are
instructed to coat with asphalt so the vessels will remain seaworthy.
164

Crews of roughly pentekonter size may also be attested in the aforementioned Rower Tablets
from Pylos. Tablet An 610 records approximately 569 oarsmen, a number that Chadwick (1987:
77) reconstructed as 600, while An 1 lists thirty rowers to go to Pleuron (Chadwick 1973:
1867, 431), being summoned to man what is likely a single ship, a 30rower triakonter.
165

When ship numbers are considered in light of likely crew sizes, the danger that raiding parties
made up of small fleets could pose to unwary coastal settlements is clear. For example, if the
ships crewed by the men of An 610 were pentekonters, the 600man force would be enough to
man only twelve ships. Even if they were triakonters, like the vessel crewed by the An 1 rowers,
there would only be enough to fully man twenty ships.
Two late 13
th
early 12
th
c. texts from Ugarit attest to the panic small numbers of ships could
create in the inhabitants of coastal targets. The first is addressed from King Ammurapi of
Ugarit to the King of Alaiya (Cyprus):
My father, now the ships of the enemy have been coming. They have been setting
fire to my cities and have done harm to the land. Doesnt my father know that all of
my infantry and [chariotry] are stationed in )atti, and that all of my ships are
stationed in the land of Lukka? They havent arrived back yet, so the land is thus
prostrate. May my father be aware of this matter. Now the seven ships of the enemy
which have been coming have done harm to us. Now if other ships of the enemy turn
up, send me a report somehow(?) so that I will know.
23
RS 20.238
166

The second is addressed from the prefect of Alaiya to King Ammurapi:
But now, (the) twenty enemy ships even before they would reach the mountain
(shore) have not stayed around but have quickly moved on, and where they have
pitched camp we do not know. I am writing you to inform and protect you. Be
aware!
RS 20.18
167

The seven ships mentioned in RS 20.238 may have contained between 210 and 350 rowers, and
the twenty mentioned in RS 20.18 may have contained between 600 and 1000, if they were
composed of triakonters, pentekonters, or some combination thereof. Thus, the number of
rowers and potential combatants aboard the enemy ships mentioned in these two Ugaritic
texts are clearly enough to create havoc on an unprepared or lightly defended coastal settlement.
Further, based on the texts and representations cited earlier in this paper, they seem to have
been enough to draw navies into the water for the first time to engage in battles in the open sea.

Jeffrey P. Emanuel
24
Bibliography
Adams, M. J. and M. E. Cohen. 2013. The Sea
Peoples in Primary Sources. The Philistines
and Other Sea Peoples in Text and
Archaeology (eds. A. E. Killebrew and G.
Lehmann) 645664. Atlanta.
AhlbergCornell, G. 1971. Fighting on Land and
Sea in Greek Geometric Art. Stockholm.
AndreadakiVlasaki, M. 1991. The Khania
Area, ca 1200700 B.C. Transizione dal
Miceneo allAlto Archaismo: Dal Palazzo Alla
Citt. Atti del Convegno Internazionale,
Roma, 1419 Marzo 1988 (eds. D. Musti, A.
Sacconi, L. Rocchetti, M. Rocchi, E. Scafa,
L. Sportiello and M. E. Giannotta) 403
423. Rome.
Artzy, M., 1988. War/Fighting Boats in the
Second Millennium BC in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Reports of the Department of
Antiquities, Cyprus 1988: 181186.
. 1997. Nomads of the Sea. Res Maritimae:
Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean from
Prehistory to Late Antiquity: proceedings of the
Second International Symposium Cities on the
Sea, Nicosia, Cyprus, October 1822, 1994
(eds. S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W.
Swiny) 116. American Schools of Oriental
Research archaeological reports 4. Atlanta.
. 1998. Routes, Trade, Boats, and Nomads
of the Sea. Mediterranean Peoples in
Transition, Thirteenth to Early Tenth
Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor Trude
Dothan (eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar and E.
Stern) 439448. Jerusalem.
. 2001. The Medinet Habu Boat
Depictions: Can We Trust Ramses III?
TROPIS VI: 6th International Symposium on
Ship Construction in Antiquity, Lamia 1996
(ed. H. Tzalas) 3544. Athens.
. 2003. Mariners and their Boats at the End
of the Late Bronze Age and the Beginning
of the Iron Age in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Tel Aviv 30: 232246.
. 2013. On the Other Sea Peoples. The
Philistines and Other Sea Peoples in Text and
Archaeology (eds. A. E. Killebrew and G.
Lehmann) 329344. Atlanta.
Bachhuber, C. and R. G. Roberts (eds). 2009.
Forces of Transformation: The End of the
Bronze Age in the Mediterranean: Proceedings
of an International Symposium Held at St.
John's College, University of Oxford 256th
March, 2006. BANEA Themes from the
Ancient Near East 1. Oxford.
Barako, T. 2001. The Seaborne Migration of the
Philistines. PhD dissertation, Harvard
University.
Bard, K. A. and S. B. Shubert (eds). 1999. The
Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient
Egypt. London.
Baruffi, J. T. 1998. Naval Warfare Operations in
the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean. PhD
dissertation, University of Chicago.
Basch, L. 1987. Le Muse Imaginaire de la Marine
Antique. Athens.
. 2009. Were the Hittites Able to Build a
Replica of an Egyptian Ship According to
Their Own Drawings? Creating Shapes in
Civil and Naval Architecture: A Cross
Disciplinary Comparison (eds. H. Nowacki
and W. Lefvre) 6572. Leiden.
Bass, G. F. 1987. Oldest Known Shipwreck
Reveals Bronze Age Splendors. National
Geographic 172: 693733.
. 1998. Sailing Between the Aegean and the
Orient in the Second Millennium B.C. The
Aegean and the Orient in the Second
Millennium, Proceedings of the 50th
Anniversary Symposium, University of
Cincinnati, 1820 April 1997 (eds. E. H.
Cline and D. HarrisCline) 183191.
Aegaeum 18. Lige.
Baumbach, L. 1983. An Examination of the
Evidence for a State of Emergency at Pylos
c. 1200 B.C. from the Linear B Tablets.
Res Mycenaeae: Akten des VII. Internationalen
Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Nrnberg
vom. 6.10. April 1981 (eds. A. Heubeck
and G. Neumann) 2840. Gttingen.
Beckman, G. M. 1994a. Akkadian Documents
from Ugarit. Sources for the History of Cyprus
II: Near Eastern and Aegean Texts from the
Third to the First Millennia B.C. (eds. P. W.
25
Wallace and A. G. Orphanides) 2628.
Nicosia.
. 1994b. Hittite Documents from )attua.
Sources for the History of Cyprus II: Near
Eastern and Aegean Texts from the Third to
the First Millennia B.C. (eds. P. W. Wallace
and A. G. Orphanides) 3135. Nicosia.
. 1996. Hittite Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta.
Benzi, M., 2013. The Southeast Aegean in the
Age of the Sea Peoples. The Philistines and
Other Sea Peoples in Text and Archaeology
(eds. A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann)
509542. Atlanta.
Betancourt, P. P., V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur
and WD. Niemeier (eds). 1999.
Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Prehistory
Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he Enters
his 65th Year. Aegaeum 20. Lige.
Bietak, M., E. Czerny and I. Forstner-Mller
(eds). 2010. Cities and Urbanism in Ancient
Egypt: Papers from a Workshop in November
2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences.
Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 60.
Wien
Birney, K. J., 2007. Sea Peoples or Syrian Peddlers?
The Late Bronze Iron I Aegean Presence in
Syria and Cilicia. PhD dissertation, Harvard
University.
Bittel, K. 1976. Tonschale mit Ritzzeichnung
von Boazky. Revue Archologique 1: 9-14.
Blegen, C. 1962. The Mycenaean Age: The Trojan
War, the Dorian Invasion, and Other
Problems. Cincinnati.
Braunstein, S. L. 1998. The Dynamics of Power in
an Age of Transition: An Analysis of the
Mortuary Remains of Tell elFarah (South) in
the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages. PhD
dissertation, Columbia University.
Breasted, J. H. 1906a. Ancient Records of Egypt II.
Chicago.
. 1906b. Oriental Exploration Fund of the
University of Chicago, First Preliminary
Report of the Egyptian Expedition.
American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literatures 23: 164.
Bryce, T. R. 1992. Lukka Revisited. Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 51: 121130.
. 1998. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford.
. 2011. The Late Bronze Age in the West
and the Aegean. The Oxford Handbook of
Ancient Anatolia: 10,000323 B.C.E. (eds. S.
R. Steadman and G. McMahon) 363375.
Oxford.
Caminos, R. A., 1954. Late Egyptian Miscellanies.
London.
Capart, J., 1931. Documents Pour Servir Ltude
De L'art gyptien II. Paris.
Casson, L. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the
Ancient World. Princeton.
Chadwick, J. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean
Greek. Cambridge.
. 1976. The Mycenaean World. Cambridge.
Cline, E. H. 1994. Sailing the Wine Dark Sea:
International Trade and the Late Bronze Age
Aegean. BAR International Series 591.
Oxford.
. 1996. Assuwa and the Achaeans: The
Mycenaean Sword at Hattusas and its
Possible Implications. Annual of the British
School at Athens 91: 137-151.
. 2009. Rethinking Mycenaean
International Trade with Egypt and the
Near East. Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II
(eds. M. L. Galaty and W. A. Parkinson)
190200. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology
Monographs 60. Los Angeles.
(ed). 2010. The Oxford Handbook of the
Bronze Age Aegean (ca. 3000-1000 BC).
Oxford.
Cline, E. H. and D. HarrisCline (eds). 1998.
The Aegean and the Orient in the Second
Millennium, Proceedings of the 50th
Anniversary Symposium, University of
Cincinnati, 1820 April 1997. Aegaeum 18.
Lige.
Cline, E. H. and D. OConnor. 2003. The
Mystery of the Sea Peoples. Mysterious
Lands (eds. D. OConnor and S. Quirke)
107138. Encounters with Ancient Egypt.
Portland.
. 2012. The Sea Peoples. Ramesses III: The
Life and Times of Egypts Last Great Hero
(eds. E. H. Cline and D. OConnor) 180
208. Ann Arbor.
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
26
(eds). Ramesses III: The Life and Times of
Egypts Last Great Hero. Ann Arbor.
Cline, E. H. and A. YasurLandau. 2007.
Poetry in Motion: Canaanite Rulership and
Aegean Narrative Art at Tel Kabri. EPOS:
Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze
Age Archaeology: Proceedings of the 11th
International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles,
UCLA The J. Paul Getty Villa, 2023 April
2006 (eds. S. P. Morris and R. Laffineur)
157166. Aegaeum 28. Lige.
Cosmopoulos, M. B. 2010. Iklaina Archaeological
Project: 2010 Internet Report.
http://iklaina.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/2
010report.pdf
Cohen, Y., A. Gilan and J. R. Miller (eds). 2010.
Pax Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and
Their Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer.
Studien zu den BoazkyTexten 51.
Weisbaden.
Coleman, J. E. 1965. Excavations in Ceos.
Classical Journal 61.1: 2-4.
Crouwel, J. H. 1991. Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery.
Well Built Mycenae 21. Oxford.
. 2006. Late Mycenaean Pictorial Pottery.
Lefkandi IV: The Bronze Age: The Late
Helladic IIIC Settlement at Xeropolis (ed. D.
Evely) 233-256. BSA Supplements 39.
London.
Dakoronia, F. 1990. WarShips on Sherds of
LHIIIC Kraters from Kynos. TROPIS II:
2nd International Symposium on Ship
Construction in Antiquity, Delphi 1987 (ed.
H. Tzalas) 117122. Athens.
. 1996. KynosFleet. TROPIS IV: 4th
International Symposium on Ship Construction
in Antiquity, Athens 1991 (ed. H. Tzalas)
159172. Athens.
. 2006. Mycenaean Pictorial Style at Kynos,
East Locris. Pictorial Pursuits: Figurative
Painting on Mycenaean and Geometric Pottery:
Papers from Two Seminars at the Swedish
Institute at Athens in 1999 and 2001 (eds. E.
Rystedt and B. Wells) 2329. Skrifter
Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 53.
Stockholm.
Dakoronia, F. and P. Mpougia. 1999. 9,+ :$(',
#;+ <32=+$(;+ 0#= >?(;#(@$. Lamia.
Davis, D. 2013. Ship Colors in the Homeric
Poems. The Gurob ShipCart Model and Its
Mediterranean Context (S. Wachsmann)
219224. College Station.
de Roug, E. 1877. Inscriptions Hiroglyphices
Copies en gypte Pendant la Mission
Scientifique de M. le Vicomte Emmanuel de
Roug. Paris.
de Souza, P. 1999. Piracy in the Greco-Roman
World. Cambridge.
Demand, N. H. 2011. The Mediterranean Context
of Early Greek History. Malden.
DegerJalkotzy, S. 1978. EQETA. Zur Rolle
des Gefolgschaftwesens in der Sozialstructure
Mykenischer Reich. Vienna.
Desborough, V. R. dA. 1973. Crete in the First
Half of the Twelfth Century BC: Some
Problems. "#$%&'(% )*+ , -.#/(*01
2$3)*4*&.5*0 6+(#7$8*+ 1: 6269.
Dever, W. G. and S. Gitin (eds). 2003. Symbiosis,
Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan,
Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the
Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina.
Jerusalem.
Dickinson, O. T. P. K. 1986. Homer: Poet of
the Dark Age. Greece & Rome 33: 2037.
. The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge.
. 2006. The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron
Age: Continuity and Change between the
Twelfth and Eighth Centuries B.C. London.
. 2007. Aspects of Homeric Geography.
EPOS: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean
Bronze Age Archaeology: Proceedings of the
11th International Aegean Conference, Los
Angeles, UCLA The J. Paul Getty Villa, 20
23 April 2006 (eds. S. P. Morris and R.
Laffineur) 233238. Aegaeum 28. Lige
Dietrich, M. and O. Loretz. 1972. Die
Schardana in den Texten von Ugarit.
Antike und Universalgeschichte: Fs. Hans
Erich Stier zum 70 (eds. R. Stiehl and G. A.
Lehmann) 3942. Mnster.
Dothan, T. K. 1982. Philistine Material Culture.
New Haven.
. 1998. Initial Philistine Settlement: From
Migration to Coexistence. Mediterranean
Peoples in Transition, Thirteenth to Early
27
Tenth Centuries BCE: In Honor of Professor
Trude Dothan (eds. S. Gitin, A. Mazar and
E. Stern) 148161. Jerusalem.
Dothan, T. and A. Zukerman. 2004. A
Preliminary Study of the Mycenaean IIIC:1
Pottery Assemblages from Tel Miqne
Ekron and Ashdod. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 333:
154.
Drews, R. 1993. The End of the Bronze Age:
Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca.
1200 BC. Princeton.
Earle, J. W. 2008. Trade and Culture in the
Cycladic Islands During the Late Bronze Age.
PhD dissertation, New York University.
Easton, D. F. 1984. Hittite History and the
Trojan War. The Trojan War: Its History
and Context (eds. L. Foxhall and J. K.
Davies) 2344. Bristol.
Edel, E. 1994a. Die gyptischHethitische
Korrespondenz aus Boghazki I: Umschriften
und bersetzungen. Abhandlungen der
RheinischWestflischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 77a. Opladen.
Edel, E. 1994b. Die gyptischHethitische
Korrespondenz aus Boghazki II: Kommentar.
Abhandlungen der Rheinisch
Westflischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften 77b. Opladen.
Eder, B. 2006. The World of Telemachus:
Western Greece 1200-700 BC. Ancient
Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the
Age of Homer
Edgerton, W. F. and J. A. Wilson. 1936.
Historical Records of Ramesses III: Texts in
Medinet Habu III. Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilizations 12. Chicago.
Efkleidou, K. 2002. The Status of Outsiders
within Mycenaean Pylos: Issues of Ethnic
Identity, Incorporation and Marginality.
Minos 37: 123.
Emanuel, J. P. 2012a. rdn of the Sea: A
Reassessment of the Sherden and their Role
in Egyptian Society. Archaeological
Institute of America annual meeting, Jan. 5
8, Philadelphia, PA.
. 2012b. rdn of the Strongholds, rdn of
the Sea: The Sherden in Egyptian Society,
Reassessed. American Research Center in
Egypt annual meeting, April 2729,
Providence, RI.
. 2012c. Egypt, the Sea Peoples, and the
Brailed Sail: Technological Transference in
the Early Ramesside Period? American
Schools of Oriental Research annual
meeting, Nov. 1417, Chicago, IL.
. 2013. rdn from the Sea: The Arrival,
Integration, and Acculturation of a Sea
People. Journal of Ancient Egyptian
Interconnections 5: 1427.
. forthcoming A. The Sea Peoples, Egypt,
and the Aegean: Transference of Maritime
Technology in the Late BronzeEarly Iron
Transition (LH IIIBC).
. forthcoming B. War at Sea: The Advent
of Naval Combat in the Late BronzeEarly
Iron Age Aegean and Eastern
Mediterranean. Proceedings of a Workshop on
Ancient Warfare at Aberystwyth University,
Wales. Cambridge.
EmlynJones, C. 1986. True and Lying Tales in
the Odyssey. Greece & Rome 33: 110.
Epigraphic Survey. 1930. Medinet Habu I: Earlier
Historical Records of Ramses III. Oriental
Institute Publications 8. Chicago.
. 1932. Medinet Habu II: Later Historical
Records of Ramses III. Oriental Institute
Publications 9. Chicago.
. 1970. Medinet Habu VIII: The Eastern High
Gate with Translations of Texts. Oriental
Institute Publications 94. Chicago.
Ergin, G. 2007. Anatolian Women in the
Linear B Texts: A General Review of the
Evidence. Belkis Dinol ve Ali Dinola
Armaan: VITA: Festschrift in Honor of Belkis
Dinol and Ali Dinol (eds. M. Alparslan, M.
DoanAlparslan and H. Peker) 269284.
Istanbul.
Evans, A. J. 1900. Mycenaean Cyprus as
Illustrated in the British Museum
Excavations. Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute 30: 199220.
Evely, D. (ed). 2006. Lefkandi IV: The Bronze
Age: The Late Helladic IIIC Settlement at
Xeropolis. BSA Supplements 39. London
Eyre, C. J. 1992. The Adoption Papyrus in
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
28
Social Context. Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 78: 207221.
Faulkner, R. O. 1941. Egyptian Military
Standards. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
27: 1218.
. 1953. Egyptian Military Organization.
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 39: 3247.
Filos, C. 2012. Steadfast in Multiform
Tradition: AA@,% and $0B$1=% in Homer
and Beyond. Donum Natalicium Digitaler
Confetium Gregorio Nagy Septuagenario a
Discipulis Collegis Familiaribus Oblatum (eds.
V. Bers, D. Elmer, D. Frame, and L.
Muellner). Washington, DC.
http://chs.harvard.edu/wa/pageR?tn=Article
Wrapper&bdc=12&mn=4713
Finkelberg, M. 1988. From Ahhiyawa to
./$(,(. Glotta 66:127134.
. 2000. The Cypria, the Iliad, and the
Problem of Multiformity in Oral and
Written Tradition. Classical Philology 95.1:
111.
. 2005. Greeks and PreGreeks: Aegean
Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition.
Cambridge.
(ed). 2010. Homer Encyclopedia. Malden.
Finley, M. 1957. Homer and Mycenae: Property
and Tenure. Historia: Zeitschrift fr Alte
Geschichte 6: 133159.
Fisher, K. D. 20067. The Aegeanization of
Cyprus at the End of the Bronze Age: An
Architectural Perspective, Scripta
Mediterranea 2728: 81103.
Forrer, E. 1924. Vorhomerische Griechen in
den Keilschrifttexten von Boghazkoi.
Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient
Gesellschaft 63:22.
Furumark, A. 1941. The Mycenaean Pottery:
Analysis and Classification. Stockholm.
Gardiner, A. H., 1941b. Adoption
Extraordinary, JEA 26: 2329.
. 1941b. Ramesside Texts Relating to the
Taxation and Transport of Corn. Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 27: 1973.
. 1948a. The Wilbour Papyrus II:
Commentary. London.
. 1948b. The Wilbour Papyrus III:
Translation. London.
. 1960. The Kadesh Inscriptions of
Ramesses II. Oxford.
Genz, H. 2013. No Land Could Stand Before
their Arms, fromHatti.on? New Light
on the End of the Hittite Empire and the
Early Iron Age in Central Anatolia. The
Philistines and Other Sea Peoples in Text
and Archaeology (eds. A. E. Killebrew and
G. Lehmann) 469478. Atlanta.
Georganas, I. 2010. Weapons and Warfare. The
Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean
(ca. 3000-1000 BC) (ed. E. H. Cline) 305-
314. Oxford
Georgiou, H. S. 1991. Bronze Age Ships and
Rigging. Thalassa: l'Ege Prhistorique et la
Mer: Actes de la Troisime Rencontre genne
Internationale de lUniversit de Lige, Station
de Recherches SousMarines et
Ocanographiques (StaReSO), Calvi, Corse,
2325 Avril 1990 (eds. R. Laffineur and L.
Basch) 6171. Aegaeum 7. Lige.
. 2012. Bronze Age Sailing and Homeric
Evidence. Archaeology and Heinrich
Schliemann: A Century After His Death (eds.
G. S. Korres, N. Karadimas and G. Flouda)
523530.
http://www.aegeussociety.org/images/uploa
ds/publications/schliemann/Schliemann_20
12_523530_Georgiou.pdf
Goody, J. 2000. The Power of Written Tradition.
Smithsonian Series in Ethnographic
Inquiry. Washington, DC.
Gordon, C. H. 1992. The Mediterranean
Synthesis. The Crisis Years: The 12th
Century B.C. from Beyond the Danube to
the Tigris (eds. W. A. Ward and M. S.
Joukowsky) 188196. Dubuque.
Gray, D. 1968. Homer and the Archaeologists.
Fifty Years (and Twelve) of Classical
Scholarship (ed. M. Platneuer) 2431.
Oxford.
Gterbock, H. G. 1967. The Hittite Conquest
of Cyprus Reconsidered. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 26: 7381.
. 1983. The Hittites and the Aegean
World: Part 1. The Ahhiyawa Problem
Reconsidered. American Journal of
29
Archaeology 87.2: 133138.
. 1984. Hittites and Akhaeans: A New
Look. Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 128: 114122.
. 1986. Troy in the Hittite Texts? Troy and
the Trojan War: A Symposium Held at Bryn
Mawr College, October 1984 (ed. M. J.
Mellink) 3344. Bryn Mawr.
. 1992. Survival of the Hittite Dynasty.
The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from
Beyond the Danube to the Tigris (eds. W. A.
Ward and M. S. Joukowsky) 5355.
Dubuque.
Habachi, L. 1980. The Military Posts of
Ramesses II on the Coastal Road and the
Western Part of the Delta. Bulletin de
lInstitut Franais dArchologie Orientale 80:
13-30.
Haider, P. 2012. The Aegean and Anatolia.
Ramesses III: The Life and Times of Egypts
Last Great Hero (eds. E. H. Cline and D.
OConnor) 151-159. Ann Arbor.
Hallo, W. W. 1992. From Bronze Age to Iron
Age in Western Asia: Defining the
Problem. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century
B.C. from Beyond the Danube to the Tigris
(eds. W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky) 1
9. Dubuque.
Hafford, W. B. 2001. Merchants in the Late
Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean: Tools,
Texts, and Trade. PhD dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.
Haggis, D. C. and K. Nowicki. 1993.
Khalasmeno and Katalimata: Two Early
Iron Age Settlements in Monastiraki, East
Crete. Hesperia 62: 303337.
Halbwachs, M. 1950. La Mmoire Collective.
Paris.
Hall, H. R. 1911. A Note on the Phaistos Disk.
Journal of Hellenic Studies 31: 119123.
Hankey, V and Warren, P. 1974. The Absolute
Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze
Age. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical
Studies of the University of London 21: 142
152.
Harrison, T. P. (ed). 2007. Cyprus, the Sea
Peoples, and the Eastern Mediterranean:
Regional Perspectives of Continuity and
Change. Scripta Mediterranea 2728.
Toronto.
Hasel, M. G. 1996. Domination and Resistance:
Egyptian Military Activity in the Southern
Levant During the Late Bronze/Early Iron
Age Transition. PhD dissertation, University
of Arizona.
Hawass, Z. and L. P. Brock (eds). 2003.
Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty
First Century. Cairo.
Hawkins, J. D. 1990. The New Inscription from
the Sdburg of Boazky)attua.
Archologischer Anzeiger 1990: 305314.
. 1995. The Hieroglyphic Inscription of the
Sacred Pool Complex at !attua
(SDBURG). Studien zu den Boazky
Texten 3. Wiesbaden.
. 2009. Cilicia, the Amuq, and Aleppo:
New Light in a Dark Age. Near Eastern
Helck, W. 1958. Urkunden des gyptischen
Altertums IV: Urkunden der 18. Dynastie
XXI. Liepzig.
. 1971. De Beziehungen gyptens zu
Vorderasiens im 3. Und 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr.
Wiesbaden.
. 1979. De Beziehungen gyptens zu
Vorderasiens zur gis: bis ins 7. Jahrtausend
v. Chr. Wiesbaden.
Heltzer, M. 1979. Some Questions Concerning
the Sherdana in Ugarit. Israel Oriental
Studies 9: 916.
Heltzer, M. 1994. Trade Between Egypt and
Western Asia: New Metrological Evidence.
Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient 37: 318321.
Heubeck, A. and G. Neumann (eds). 1983. Res
Mycenaeae: Akten des VII. Internationalen
Mykenologischen Colloquiums in Nrnberg
vom. 6.10. April 1981. Gttingen.
Hckmann, O. 2001. The Kynos SeaFighters:
Exception or Rule? TROPIS VI: 6th
in Antiquity, Lamia 1996 (ed. H. Tzalas)
223234. Athens.
Hoffmeier, J. K. 2001. Military. The Oxford
Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (ed. D. B.
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
30
Redford) 400412. Oxford.
Hoffner, H. A. 1992. The Last Days of
Khattusha. The Crisis Years: The 12th
Century B.C. from Beyond the Danube to the
Tigris (eds. W. A. Ward and M. S.
Joukowsky) 4652. Dubuque.
. 2009. Letters from the Hittite Kingdom.
Writings from the Ancient World 15.
Atlanta.
Hoftijzer, J., and W. H. Van Soldt. 1998. Texts
from Ugarit Pertaining to Seafaring.
Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the Bronze
Age Levant (S. Wachsmann) 333344.
College Station.
Holland, L. B. 1929. Mycenaean Plumes.
American Journal of Archaeology 33.2: 173
205.
Hood, S. 1995. The Bronze Age Context of
Homer. The Ages of Homer: A Tribute to
Emily Townsend Vermeule (eds. J. B. Carter
and S. P. Morris) 2532. Austin.
Hooker, J. T. 1967. The Mycenae Siege Rhyton
and the Question of Egyptian Influence.
281.
. 1982. The End of Pylos and the Linear B
Evidence. Studi Miceneied EgeoAnatolici
23: 209227.
. 1987. Titles and Functions in the Pylian
State. Studies in Mycenaean and Classical
Greek: Presented to John Chadwick (eds. J.
Killen, J. Melena and J. P. Oliver) 257268.
Minos 2022. Salamanca.
Houwink ten Cate, P. H. J. 1994. Urhi-Tessub
Revisited. Bibliotheca Orientalis 51: 233-
259.
Hurwit, J. 1985. The Art and Culture of Early
Greece, 1100480 B.C. Ithaca.
Iakovidis, S. 1983. Late Helladic Citadels on
Mainland Greece. Leiden.
. 1986. Destruction Horizons at Late
Bronze Age Mycenae. Philia ep eis
Gergion E. Mylnan: Dia ta 60 et tou
Anaskaphikou tou Ergou (ed. G. E. Mylonas)
233260. Athens.
Jackson, A. 2002. War and Raids for Booty in
the World of Odysseus. War and Society in
the Greek World (eds. J. Rich and G. Shipley)
6476. London.
Jasink, A. M. and M. Marino. 2005. The West
Anatolian Origins of the Que Kingdom
Dynasty. 6th International Congress of
Hittitology, Rome, 59 September 2005.
http://kubaba.univ
paris1.fr/recherche/antiquite/mopsoinglese
m.pdf
Janko, R. 1982. Homer, Hesiod and the Hymns:
Diachronic Development in Epic Diction.
Cambridge.
. 1992. The Iliad: A Commentary IV.
Cambridge.
. 1998. The Homeric Poems as Oral
Dictated Texts. Classical Quarterly 48: 1
13.
Jones, D. 1988. A Glossary of Ancient Egyptian
Nautical Titles and Terms. London.
Jones, D. 1995. Boats. London.
Kamarinou, D. 2002. On the Form of
Mycenaean Ships. TROPIS VII: 7th
in Antiquity, Pylos 1999 (ed. H. Tzalas) 445
460. Athens.
Kanta, A. 1980. The Late Minoan III Period in
Crete: A Survey of Sites, Pottery, and Their
Distribution. Gteborg.
Karageorghis, V. 1982. Chronique des Fouilles
et Dcouvertes Archologiques Chypre en
1981. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellnique
106: 685744.
. 1983. Chronique des Fouilles et
Dcouvertes Archologiques Chypre en
107: 905953.
. 1984a. Chronique des Fouilles et
108: 893966.
. 1984b. New Light on Late Bronze Age
Cyprus. Cyprus at the Close of the Late
Bronze Age (eds. V. Karageorghis and J. D.
Muhly) 1922. Nicosia.
31
109: 897967.
110: 823880.
. 1992. The Crisis Years: Cyprus. The
Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from
Beyond the Danube to the Tigris (eds. W. A.
Ward and M. S. Joukowsky) 7986.
Dubuque.
. 2001. Patterns of Fortified Settlements in
the Aegean and Cyprus c. 1200 B.C.
Defensive Settlements of the Aegean and the
Eastern Mediterranean After c. 1200 B.C.:
Proceedings of an International Workshop Held
at Trinity College, Dublin, 7th9th May,
1999 (eds. V. Karageorghis and C. E.
Morris) 112. Nicosia.
Karageorghis, V. and M. Demas. 1988.
Excavations at MaaPaleokastro 19761986.
Nicosia.
Katary, S. L. D. 1989. Land Tenure in the
Ramesside Period. London.
Keel, O. 1997. Corpus der StempelsiegelAmulette
aus Palstina/Israel. Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 83. Gttingen.
Keel, O. and C. Uehlinger. 1998. Gods, Goddesses
and Images of God in Ancient Israel.
Edinburgh.
Kelder, J. M. 2010a. The Kingdom of Mycenae: A
Great Kingdom in the Bronze Age Aegean.
Bethesda.
. 2010b. The Egyptian Interest in
Mycenaean Greece. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente
Lux 42: 125-140.
. 2012. Ahhiyawa and the World of the
Great Kings: A Re-evaluation of Mycenaean
Political Structures. Talanta 45: 1-12.
Killebrew, A. E., and G. Lehmann. 2013. The
Philistines and Other Sea Peoples in Text and
Archaeology. Atlanta.
Killen, J. T. 1983. PY An 1. Minos 18: 7180.
Kirk, G. S. 1949. Ships on Geometric Vases.
Annual of the British School at Athens 44: 93
153.
Kitchen, K. A. 1996. Ramesside Inscriptions
Translated and Annotated: Translations II.
Cambridge.
. 1999. Ramesside Inscriptions Translated and
Annotated: Notes and Comments: Volume II:
Ramesses II, Royal Inscriptions. Cambridge.
. 2000. Regnal and Genealogical Data of
Ancient Egypt (Absolute Chronology I):
The Historical Chronology of Ancient
Egypt, a Current Assessment. The
Synchronisation of Civilizations in the Eastern
Mediterranean in the Second Millennium BC:
Proceedings of an International Symposium at
Schloss, Haindorf, 1517 November 1996 and
at the Austrian Academy, Vienna, 1112 May
1998 (ed. M. Bietak) 3952. Contributions
to the Chronology of the Eastern
Mediterranean 1. Vienna.
. 2004. The Victories of Merenptah, and
the Nature of their Record. Journal for the
Study of the old Testament 28: 259272.
Korrs, G. S. 1989. Representation of a Late
Mycenaean Ship on the Pyxis from Tragana,
Pylos. TROPIS I: 1
st
International
Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity,
Piraeus 1985 (ed. H. Tzalas) 177202.
Athens.
Kuentz, C. 1928. La Bataille de Qadech: Les Textes
(Pome de Pentaour et Bulletin de Qadech) et
les BasReliefs. Mmoires Publis par les
Membres de l'Institut Franais
d'Archologie Orientale du Caire 55. Cairo.
Kurt, C. 1979. Seemnnische Fachausdrcke bei
Homer: Unter Bercksichtigung Hesiods und
der Lyriker bis Bakchylides. Ergnzungshefte
zur Zeitschrift fr Vergleichende
Sprachforschung 28. Gttingen.
Lackenbacher, S. and F. MalbranLabat. 2005.
Ugarit et les Hittites dans les Archives de la
Maison dUrtenu. Studi Micenei ed Egeo
Anatolici 47: 227240.
Laffineur, R. (ed). 1999. Polemos: Le Contexte
Guerrier en ge l'ge du Bronze: Actes de la
7e Rencontre genne Internationale,
Universit de Lige, 1417 Avril 1998.
Aegaeum 19. Lige.
Laffineur, R. and L. Basch (eds). 1991. Thalassa:
l'Ege Prhistorique et la Mer: Actes de la
Troisime Rencontre genne Internationale de
lUniversit de Lige, Station de Recherches
SousMarines et Ocanographiques (StaReSO),
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
32
Calvi, Corse, 2325 Avril 1990. Aegaeum 7.
Lige.
Laffineur, R. and W.D. Niemeier (eds). 1995.
Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean
Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 5th
International Aegean Conference / 5e
Rencontre genne Internationale, University
of Heidelberg, Archologisches Institut, 1013
April 1994. Aegaeum 12. Lige.
Laffineur, R. and E. Greco. 2005. Emporia:
Aegeans in the Central Mediterranean:
Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean
Conference, Italian School of Archaeology,
Athens, 1418 April 2004. Aegaeum 25.
Lige.
LambrouPhillipson, C. 1991. Seafaring in the
Bronze Age Mediterranean: The Parameters
Involved in Maritime Travel. Thalassa:
l'Ege Prhistorique et la Mer:Actes de la
Calvi, Corse, 2325 Avril 1990 (eds. R.
Laffineur and L. Basch) 1120. Aegaeum 7.
Lige.
Landstrm, B., 1970. Ships of the Pharaohs: 4000
Years of Egyptian Shipbuilding. Garden City.
Laroche, E. 1971. Catalogue des Textes Hittites.
Paris.
Lehmann, G., 1979. Die Sikilaju: Ein Neues
Zeugnis zu den SeevlkerHeerfahrten im
Spten 13 Jh. v. Chr. (RS 34.129). Ugarit
Forschungen 11: 481494.
Levy, T. E. (ed). 1995. The Archaeology of Society
in the Holy Land. London.
Latacz, J. 2004. Troy and Homer: Towards a
Solution of an Old Mystery. Oxford.
Lehmann, G. 1979. Die Sikilaju: Ein Neues
Zeugnis zu den SeevlkerHeerfahrten im
Spten 13 Jh. v. Chr. (RS 34.129). Ugarit
Forschungen 11: 481494.
Linder, E. 1973. Naval Warfare in the El
Amarna Age. Marine Archaeology (ed. D. J.
Blackman) 317324. Hamden.
. 1981. Ugarit: A Canaanite Thalassocracy.
Ugarit in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Ugarit and
Ugaritic (ed. G. D. Young) 3142. Winona
Lake.
Liverani, M., 1969. Il Corpo di Guardia del
Palazzo di Ugarit. Rivista degli Studi
Orientali 44: 194195.
. 1977. Le Chne de Sherdanu. Vetus
Testamentum 27: 212216.
Loretz, O. 1995. Les Sardanu et la fin
dOugarit: A Propos des Documents
dgypte, de Byblos et dOugarit Relatifs
aux Shardana. Le Pays dOugarit Autour de
1200 av. J.C., Colloque International Paris,
28 Juin1 er Jouillet, 1993 (eds. M. Yon, M.
Sznycer and P. Bordreuil) 125136. Ras
Shamra 11. Paris.
Lorton, D. 1974. Terminology Related to the
Laws of Warfare in Dyn. XVIII. Journal of
the American Research Center in Egypt 11:
5368.
Louden, B. 2006. The Iliad: Structure, Myth, and
Meaning. Baltimore.
MacGillivray, J. A. and R. L. N. Barber (eds).
1984. The Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions
to a Workshop on Cycladic Chronology.
Edinburgh.
Maggidis, C. 2006. Mycenae in Depth: Recent
Excavations and Systematic Geoprospection
Survey in the Citadel and Lower City
Preliminary Results and Prospects. New
York Aegean Bronze Age Colloquium,
Institute of Fine Arts, New York, 7 April
2006.
Malamat, A. 1971. The Egyptian Decline in
Canaan and the SeaPeoples. The World
History of the Jewish People III: Judges (ed. B.
Mazar) 2338. New Brunswick.
Manassa, C., 2003. The Great Karnak Inscription
of Merneptah: Grand Strategy in the 13
th

Century BC. New Haven.
Mark, S. E. 2000. Homeric Seafaring. PhD
dissertation, Texas A&M University.
Maspero, G. 1885. Notes sur Quelques Points
de Grammaire et dHistoire. Zeitschrift fur
A!gyptische Sprache und Alterthumskunde 19:
116131.
McDonald, W. A. and G. R. Rapp. 1972. The
Minnesota Messenia Expedition:
Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional
Environment. Minneapolis.
Millet, N. B. 1987. The First Appearance of the
33
LooseFooted Squaresail Rig in the
Mediterranean. Journal of the Society for the
Study of Egyptian Antiquities 17: 8991.
Monro, D. B. 1886. Homers Odyssey I. Berkeley.
Monroe, C. 1990. The Boatbuilding Industry of
New Kingdom Egypt. MA Thesis, Texas
A&M University.
. 2007. Vessel Volumetrics and the Myth of
the Cyclopean Bronze Age Ship. Journal of
the Economic and Social History of the Orient
50, 118
. 2010. Sunk Costs at Late Bronze Age
Uluburun. Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 357: 1933.
Moran, W. L. 1992. The Amarna Letters.
Baltimore.
Morris, S. P. 1989. A Tale of Two Cities: The
Miniature Frescoes from Thera and the
Origins of Greek Poetry. American Journal
of Archaeology 93.4: 511535.
. 2003. Islands in the Sea: Aegean Polities
as Levantine Neighbors. Symbiosis,
Symbolism, and the Power of the Past: Canaan,
Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the
Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina
(eds. W. G. Dever and S. Gitin) 316.
Jerusalem.
Morris, S. P. and R. Laffineur (eds). 2007.
23 April 2006. Aegaeum 28. Lige.
Mountjoy, P. A. 1998. The East AegeanWest
Anatolian Interface in the Late Bronze Age:
Mycenaeans and the Kingdom of
Ahhiyawa. Anatolian Studies 48: 3367.
. 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pottery
(2 vols). Rahden.
. 2001. Mycenaean Pottery: An Introduction.
Oxford University School of Archaeology
Monographs 36. Oxford.
. 2005. Mycenaean Connections with the
Near east in LH IIIC: Ships and Sea
Peoples. Emporia: Aegeans in the Central
Mediterranean: Proceedings of the 10th
International Aegean Conference, Italian
School of Archaeology, Athens, 1418 April
2004 (eds. R. Laffineur and E. Greco) 423
. 2007. A Definition of LH IIIC Middle.
LH IIIC Chronology and Synchronisms II: LH
IIIC Middle: Proceedings of a Workshop held at
the Austrian Academy of Sciences at Vienna,
October 29th and 30th, 2004 (eds. S. Deger
Jalkotzy and M. Zavadil) 221242.
Denkschriften sterreichische Akademie
der Wissenschaften 362. Vienna.
. 2011. A Bronze Age Ship from Ashkelon
with Particular Reference to the Bronze Age
Ship from Bademgedii Tepe. American
Journal of Archaeology 115: 483488.
. 2013. The Late LH IIIB and LH IIIC
Early Pottery of the East AegeanWest
Anatolian Interface. The Philistines and
Other Sea Peoples in Text and Archaeology
(eds. A. E. Killebrew and G. Lehmann)
563584. Atlanta.
Mountjoy, P. A. and R. Gowland. 2005. The
End of the Bronze Age at Enkomi, Cyprus:
The Problem of Level IIIB. Annual of the
British School at Athens 100: 125214.
Murray, A. S., A. H. Smith and H. B. Walters.
1900. Excavations in Cyprus: Bequest of Miss
E. T. Turner to the British Museum. London
Nelson, H. H. 1929. The Epigraphic Survey of the
Great Temple of Medinet Habu (Seasons
1924-25 to 1927-28). Oriental Institute
Communications 5. Chicago.
. 1943. The Naval Battle Pictured at
Medinet Habu. Journal of Near Eastern
Studies 2: 4055.
Nougayrol, J. 1955. Le Palais Royal d'Ugarit III.
Paris.
Nowacki, H. and W. Lefvre (eds). 2009.
Creating Shapes in Civil and Naval
Architecture: A CrossDisciplinary
Comparison. Leiden
Nowicki, K. 1996. Arvi Fortetsa and Loutraki
Kandilioro: Two Refuge Settlements in
Crete. Annual of the British School at Athens
91: 253285.
OConnor, D. 2000. The Sea Peoples and the
Egyptian Sources. The Sea Peoples and Their
World: A Reassessment (ed. E. Oren) 85102.
University Museum Monographs 108.
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
34
Philadelphia.
OConnor, D. and S. Quirke (eds). 2003.
Mysterious Lands. Encounters with Ancient
Egypt. Portland.
Olivier, J. P. (ed). 1992. Mykenaka: Actes du IXe
Colloque International sur les Textes Mycniens
et gens Organis par le Centre de Lantiquit
Grecque et Romaine de la Fondation
Hellnique des Recherches Scientifiques et
lEcole Franaise dAthnes (Athnes, 26
Octobre 1990). Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellnique Supplments 25. Paris.
Oren, E. D. 1973. The Northern Cemetery of
Beth Shan. Leiden.
(ed). The Sea Peoples and Their World: A
Reassessment. University Museum
Monographs 108. Philadelphia.
Ormerod, H. A. 1924. Piracy in the Ancient
World. Baltimore.
Palaima, T. G. 1991. Maritime Matters in the
Linear B Texts. Thalassa: l'Ege
Prhistorique et la Mer: Actes de la Troisime
Rencontre genne Internationale de
Laffineur and L. Basch) 273310. Aegaeum
7. Lige.
. 1995. The Last Days of the Pylos Polity.
Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean
Bronze Age: Proceedings of the 5th
International Aegean Conference / 5e
Rencontre genne Internationale, University
of Heidelberg, Archologisches Institut, 1013
April 1994 (eds. R. Laffineur and W.D.
Niemeier) 623633. Aegaeum 12. Lige.
. 2007. Mycenaean Society and Kingship:
Cui Bono? A CounterSpeculative View."
23 April 2006 (eds. S. P. Morris and R.
Laffineur) 129140. Aegaeum 28. Lige.
Palmer, L. R. 1980. Mycenaeans and Minoans:
Aegean Prehistory in the Light of the Linear B
Tablets. Westport.
Parry, M. 19531979. Serbocroatian Heroic Songs.
Cambridge.
Peden, A. J. 1994. Egyptian Historical Inscriptions
of the Twentieth Dynasty. Aegyptica 3.
Jonsered.
Perlman, P. 1992. One HundredCitied Crete
and the Cretan Politeia. Classical Philology
87: 193205.
Petrie, W. M. F. 1905. Ehnaysia, 1904. London.
. 1933. Egyptian Shipping (Continued).
Ancient Egypt III-IV: 6575.
Pirenne, H. 1940. Economic and Social History of
Medieval Europe. New York.
Podany, A. H. 2010. Brotherhood of Kings: How
International Relations Shaped the Ancient
Near East. Oxford.
Poehlmann, E. 2012. Homer, Mycenae, and
Troy: Problems and Aspects. Archaeology
and Heinrich Schliemann: A Century After His
Death (eds. G. S. Korres, N. Karadimas and
G. Flouda) 357364.
http://www.aegeussociety.org/images/uploa
ds/publications/schliemann/Schliemann_20
12_357364_ Poehlmann.pdf
Pomey, P. 2009. On the Use of Design in
Ancient Mediterranean Ship Construction.
Creating Shapes in Civil and Naval
Architecture: A CrossDisciplinary Comparison
(eds. H. Nowacki and W. Lefvre) 4963.
Leiden.
Popham, M. 1994. The Collapse of the Aegean
Civilization at the End of the Late Bronze
Age. The Oxford Illustrated History of
Prehistoric Europe (ed. W. Cunliffe) 277
303. Oxford.
Prior, C. A. 2013. Radiocarbon Age Analysis of
the Gurob ShipCart Model. The Gurob
ShipCart Model and Its Mediterranean
Context (S. Wachsmann) 239242. College
Station.
Pritchard, J. B. (ed). 1974. Ancient Near Eastern
Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Princeton.
Pulak, C. 1987. The Late Bronze Age Shipwreck
at Ulu Burun: Preliminary Analysis (1984
1985 Excavation Campaign). MA thesis,
Texas A&M University.
. 1988. The Bronze Age Shipwreck at Ulu
Burun, Turkey: 1985 Campaign. American
Journal of Archaeology 92.1: 137.
35
. 1998. The Uluburun Shipwreck: an
Overview. International Journal of Nautical
Raban, A. 1989. The Medinet Habu Ships:
Another Interpretation. International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 18: 163171.
Raban, A. 1995. The Sea Peoples and Thera
Ships. TROPIS III: 3
rd
International
Athens 1989 (ed. H. Tzalas) 353366.
Athens.
Raban, A. and R. Stieglitz. 1991. The Sea
Peoples and Their Contributions to
Civilization. Biblical Archaeology Review
17.6: 3442.
Rainey, A. F. 1982. Toponymic Problems. Tel
Aviv 9: 130136.
Redford, D. B. 1992. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in
Ancient Times. Princeton.
. 2006. The Tjeker. Cyprus, the Sea Peoples,
and the Eastern Mediterranean: Regional
Perspectives of Continuity and Change (ed. T.
P. Harrison) 914. Scripta Mediterranea
2728. Toronto.
Roberts, O. T. P. 1991. The Development of
the Brail into a Viable Sail Control for
Aegean Boats of the Bronze Age. Thalassa:
l'Ege Prhistorique et la Mer: Actes de la
Lige.
. 1995. An Explanation of Ancient
Windward Sailing Some Other
Considerations. International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology 24: 307315.
Robinson, A. 2009. Lost Languages: The Enigma
of the Worlds Undeciphered Scripts. London.
Roug, E. de. 1877. Inscriptions Hiroglyphices
Copies en gypte Pendant la Mission
Scientifique de M. le Vicomte Emmanuel de
Roug. Paris.
Sandars, N. K. 1985. The Sea Peoples: Warriors of
the Ancient Mediterranean. London.
SveSderbergh, T. 1946. The Navy of the
Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty. Uppsala.
. 1957. Four Eighteenth Dynasty Tombs.
Oxford.
Schilardi, D. U. 1984. The LH IIIC Period at
the Koukounaries Acropolis, Paros. The
Prehistoric Cyclades: Contributions to a
Workshop on Cycladic Chronology (eds. J.
A. MacGillivray and R. L. N. Barber) 184
206. Edinburgh.
. 1992. Paros and the Cyclades after the
Fall of the Mycenaean Palaces. Mykenaka:
Actes du IXe Colloque International sur les
Textes Mycniens et gens Organis par le
Centre de Lantiquit Grecque et Romaine de la
Fondation Hellnique des Recherches
Scientifiques et lEcole Franaise dAthnes
(Athnes, 26 Octobre 1990) (ed J. P. Olivier)
621693. Bulletin de Correspondance
Hellnique Supplments 25. Paris.
. 1999. The Mycenaean Horseman (?) of
Koukounaries. Meletemata: Studies in
Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H.
Weiner as he Enters his 65th Year (eds. P.
Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur
and WD. Niemeier) 751756. Aegaeum
20. Lige.
Schofield, L. and R. B. Parkinson. 1994. Of
Helmets and Heretics: A Possible Egyptian
Representation of Mycenaean Warriors on a
Papyrus from ElAmarna. Annual of the
British School at Athens 89: 157170.
Schulman, A. R. 1968. A Private Triumph in
Brooklyn, Hildesheim, and Berlin. Journal
of the American Research Center in Egypt 7:
2735.
Sethe, K. 1909. Urkunden des gyptischen
Altertums IV: Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV.
Liepzig.
Seymour, T. D. 1914. Life in the Homeric Age.
New York.
Shaw, J. W. 1981. Excavations at Kommos
(Crete) During 1979. Hesperia 50: 211
251.
. 1984. Excavations at Kommos (Crete)
During 19821983. Hesperia 53: 251287.
Shaw, M. C. 2001. Symbols of Naval Power at
the Palace at Pylos: The Evidence from the
Frescoes. Ithak: Festschrift fr Jrg Schfer
zum 75. Geburtstag am 25. April 2001 (eds.
S. Bhm and KV. von Eickstedt) 3743.
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
36
Wrzburg.
Shelmerdine, C. W. 1997. Review of Aegean
Prehistory VI: The Palatial Bronze Age of
the Southern and Central Greek Mainland.
585.
. 1999. Pylian Polemics: The Latest
Evidence on Military Matters. Polemos: Le
Contexte Guerrier en ge l'ge du Bronze:
Actes de la 7e Rencontre genne
Internationale, Universit de Lige, 1417
Avril 1998 (ed. R. Laffineur) 403410.
Aegaeum 19. Lige.
Sherratt, A. and E. S. Sherratt. 1998. Small
Worlds: Interaction and Identity in the
Ancient Mediterranean. The Aegean and the
Orient in the Second Millennium, Proceedings
of the 50th Anniversary Symposium,
University of Cincinnati, 1820 April 1997
(eds. E. H. Cline and D. HarrisCline)
Siddall, R. 2013. Analysis of the Pigments from
the Gurob ShipCart Model. The Gurob
ShipCart Model and Its Mediterranean
Context (S. Wachsmann) 243247. College
Station.
Singer, I. 1983. Western Anatolia in the
Thirteenth Century B.C. According to the
Hittite Sources. Anatolian Studies 33: 205
217.
Snape, S. R. 1997. Ramesses IIs Forgotten
Frontier. Egyptian Archaeology 11: 23-24.
. 1998. Review of S. T. Smith, Askut in
Nubia: The Economics and Ideology of
Egyptian Imperialism in the Second
Millennium B.C. Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 41.4: 503505.
. 2000. Imported Pottery at Zawiyet Umm
elRakham: Preliminary Report. Bulletin de
Liaison du Groupe International dtude de la
Cramique gyptienne 21: 1721.
. 2010. Vor Der Kaserne: External Supply
and Self-Sufficiency at Zawiyet Umm el-
Rakham. Cities and Urbanism in Ancient
Egypt: Papers from a Workshop in November
2006 at the Austrian Academy of Sciences (eds.
M. Bietak, E. Czerny and I. Forstner-
Mller) 271-288. Denkschriften der
Gesamtakademie 60. Wien.
Slver, C. V. 1936. Egyptian Shipping of About
1500 B.C. Mariners Mirror 22: 430469.
Spalinger, A. J. 2005. War in Ancient Egypt: The
New Kingdom. Malden.
Spiegelberg, W. 1896. Rechnungen aus der Zeit
Setis I. Strassburg.
Stadelmann, R. 1967. Syrisch-Palstinische
Gottheiten in gypten. Probleme der
gyptologie 5. Leiden.
Stager, L. E. 1991. Ashkelon Discovered: From
Canaanites and Philistines to Romans and
Moslems. Washington, DC.
. 1995. The Impact of the Sea Peoples in
Canaan (11851050 BCE). The Archaeology
of Society in the Holy Land (ed. T. E. Levy)
332348. London.
Stager, L. E. and P. A. Mountjoy. 2007. "A
Pictorial Krater from Philistine Ashkelon."
Up to the Gates of Ekron: Essays on the
Archaeology and History of the Eastern
Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin
(eds. S. White Crawford, A. BenTor, J. P.
Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar and J.
Aviram) 5061 .Jerusalem.
Stager, L. E., J. D. Schloen and D. M. Master
(eds). 2008. Ashkelon 1: Introduction and
Overview. Winona Lake.
Steadman, S. R. and G. McMahon (eds). 2011.
The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia:
10,000323 B.C.E. Oxford.
Steffy, J. R. 1994. Wooden Ship Building and the
Interpretation of Shipwrecks. College Station.
Stone, B. J. 1995. The Philistines and
Acculturation: Culture Change and Ethnic
Continuity in the Iron Age. Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 298: 7
32.
Swiny, S., R. L. Hohlfelder and H. W. Swiny
(eds). 1997. Res Maritimae: Cyprus and the
Eastern Mediterranean from Prehistory to Late
Antiquity: proceedings of the Second
International Symposium Cities on the Sea,
Nicosia, Cyprus, October 1822, 1994.
American Schools of Oriental Research
Archaeological Reports 4. Atlanta.
Tartaron, T. F. 2013. Maritime Networks in the
Mycenaean World. Cambridge.
37
Taylour, L. W. 1983. The Mycenaeans. London.
Thomas, S. 2003. Imports at Zawiyet Umm el
Rakham. Egyptology at the Dawn of the
TwentyFirst Century (eds. Z. Hawass and
L. P. Brock) 522529. Cairo.
Tilley, A. F. and P. Johnstone. 1976. A Minoan
Naval Triumph? International Journal of
Nautical Archaeology and Underwater
Exploration 5.4: 285-292.
Tsountas, Ch. 1886. Grapt Stl ek Myknn.
Ephemeris Archaiologik 4: 122.
. 1888. Anaskaphai Taphn en Myknais.
Ephemeris Archaiologik 6: 119180.
Tzachili, I. 1999. Before Sailing: The Making of
Sails in the Second Millennium B.C.
Meletemata: Studies in Aegean Archaeology
Presented to Malcolm H. Weiner as he Enters
his 65th Year (eds. P. Betancourt, V.
Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and WD.
Niemeier) 857862. Aegaeum 20. Lige.
Tzalas, H. (ed). 1989. TROPIS I: 1st
in Antiquity, Piraeus 1985. Athens
(ed). 1990. TROPIS II: 2nd International
Delphi 1987. Athens.
(ed). 1995. TROPIS III: 3rd International
Athens 1989. Athens.
(ed). 1996. TROPIS IV: 4th International
Athens 1991.
(ed). 1999. TROPIS V: 5th International
Nauplia 1993. Athens
(ed). 2001. TROPIS VI: 6th International
Lamia 1996. Athens
(ed). 2002. TROPIS VII: 7th International
Pylos 1999. Athens.
Van de Mieroop, M. 2009. The Eastern
Mediterranean in the Age of Ramesses II.
Malden.
Vercoutter, J. 1954. Essai sur les Relations entre
gyptiens et Prhellnes. LOrient Ancien
Illustr 6. Paris.
. 1956. Lgypte et le Monde gen
Prhellnique: tude Critique Des Sources
gyptiennes, Du Dbut de la XVIIIe la Fin
de la XIXe Dynastie. Institut Franais
d'Archologie Orientale: Bibliothque
d'tude 22. Cairo.
Vermeule, E. T. and V. Karageorghis. 1982.
Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting.
Cambridge, MA.
Vitale, S. 2006. The LH IIIBLH IIIC
Transition on the Mycenaean Mainland:
Ceramic Phases and Terminology. Hesperia
75.2: 177204.
Vlachopoulos, A. 2007. Mythos, Logos and
Eikon: Motifs of Early Greek Poetry in the
Wall Paintings of Xeste 3. EPOS:
Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze
Age Archaeology: Proceedings of the 11th
International Aegean Conference, Los Angeles,
UCLA The J. Paul Getty Villa, 2023 April
2006 (eds. S. P. Morris and R. Laffineur)
Wachsmann, S. 1981. The Ships of the Sea
Peoples. International Journal of Nautical
. 1982. The Ships of the Sea Peoples
(IJNA, 10.3: 187220): Additional Notes.
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology
11: 297304.
. 1996. Bird Head Devices on
Mediterranean Ships. TROPIS IV: 4th
in Antiquity: Athens 1991 Proceedings (ed. H.
Tzalas) 539572. Athens.
. 1998. Seagoing Ships and Seamanship in the
Bronze Age Levant. College Station.
. 1999. The Pylos Rower Tablets
Reconsidered. TROPIS V: 5th International
Nauplia 1993 (ed. H. Tzalas) 491504.
Athens.
. 2000. To the Sea of the Philistines. The
Sea Peoples and Their World: A Reassessment
(ed. E. Oren) 103143. University Museum
Monographs 108. Philadelphia.
. 2013. The Gurob ShipCart Model and Its
Mediterranean Context. College Station.
Wainright, G. A. 1961. Some Sea Peoples.
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
38
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47: 71-90.
Ward, W. A. and M. S. Joukowsky (eds). 1992.
The Crisis Years: The 12th Century B.C. from
Beyond the Danube to the Tigris. Dubuque.
Watrous, L. V. 1975. An Archaeological Survey of
the Lasithi Plain in Crete from the Neolithic to
the Late Roman Period. PhD dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.
. 1992. Kommos III: The Late Bronze Age
Pottery. Princeton.
Wedde, M. 1991. Aegean Bronze Age Ship
Imagery: Regionalisms, a Minoan Bias, and
a Thalassocracy. Thalassa: LEge
Prhistorique Et La Mer: Actes de la Troisime
Rencontre genne Internationale de
l'Universit de Lige, Station de Recherches
Calvi, Corse (2325 avril 1990) (eds. R.
Lige.
. 1999a. War at Sea: The Mycenaean and
Early Iron Age Oared Galley. Polemos: Le
Contexte Guerrier en ge l'ge du Bronze:
Actes de la 7e Rencontre genne
Internationale, Universit de Lige, 1417
Avril 1998 (ed. R. Laffineur) 465476.
Aegaeum 19. Lige.
. 2000. Toward a Hermeneutics of Aegean
Bronze Age Ship Imagery. Mannheim.
. 2002. Birdshead Revisited: The Bow
Morphology of the Early Greek Galley.
TROPIS VII: 7th International Symposium on
Ship Construction in Antiquity, Pylos 1999
(ed. H. Tzalas) 837856. Athens.
. 2005. The Mycenaean Galley in Context:
From Fact to Ide Fixe. Emporia: Aegeans
in the Central Mediterranean: Proceedings of
the 10th International Aegean Conference,
Italian School of Archaeology, Athens, 1418
April 2004 (eds. R. Laffineur and E. Greco)
White, D. B. 1986. Excavations on Batess
Island, Marsa Matruh, 1985. Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 23: 5184.
. 1999a. Water, Wood, Dung and Eggs:
Reciprocity in Trade along the LBA
Marmarican Coast. Meletemata: Studies in
Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H.
Weiner as he Enters his 65th Year (eds. P.
Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur
and WD. Niemeier) 931935. Aegaeum
20. Lige.
. 1999b. Marsa Matruh. The Encyclopedia
of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (eds. K. A.
Bard and S. B. Shubert) 469473. London.
. 2002. Marsa Matruh: The University of
Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology's excavations on Bates's
Island, Marsa Matruh, Egypt, 19851989.
Prehistory Monographs 1. Philadelphia.
White Crawford, S., A. BenTor, J. P. Dessel,
W. G. Dever, A. Mazar and J. Aviram
(eds). 2007. Up to the Gates of Ekron: Essays
on the Archaeology and History of the Eastern
Mediterranean in Honor of Seymour Gitin.
Jerusalem.
Wilson, J. A. 1974. Egyptian Historical Texts.
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the
Old Testament (ed. J. B. Pritchard) 227263.
Princeton.
Wright, J. C. 1994. The Mycenaean Entrance
System at the West End of the Akropolis of
Athens. Hesperia 63: 323360.
YasurLandau, A. 2010a. The Philistines and the
Aegean Migration at the End of the Late
Bronze Age. Cambridge.
. 2010b. On Birds and Dragons: The Sea
Peoples and Mycenaean Ships. Pax
Hethitica: Studies on the Hittites and Their
Neighbours in Honour of Itamar Singer (eds.
Y. Cohen, A. Gilan and J. R. Miller) 399
410. Studien zu den BoazkyTexten 51.
Weisbaden.
Yon, M. 1992. The End of the Kingdom of
Ugarit. The Crisis Years: The 12th Century
B.C. from Beyond the Danube to the Tigris
(eds. W. A. Ward and M. S. Joukowsky)
111122. Dubuque.
Youssef, A. A-H., C. Leblanc and M. Maher.
1977. Le Ramesseum IV: Les Batailles de
Tounip et de Dapour. Cairo.
Yoyotte, P. J. 1949. Les Stles de Ramss II a
Tanis: Premire Partie. Kmi 10: 6575.
Yurco, F. J. 1999. Sea Peoples. Encyclopedia of
the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt (eds. K. A.
Bard and S. B. Shubert) 876879. London.
39
Notes

1
E.g. EA 38, 105, 113, 126, 155
2
Cf. the mercenaries aboard the Uluburun ship (Pulak 1998: 219)
3
Cf., e.g., Linder 1970: 321; Artzy 1997; 1998; 2003; 2013; contra de Souza 1999: 15-22
4
Horden and Purcell 2000: 157
5
Pirenne 1940: 22; Hafford 2001: 70n.27; Earle 2008: 200
6
Artzy 1997: 2; Sherratt and Sherratt 1998: 34041; cf. Earle 2008: 133
7
Artzy 1998: 445; Monroe 2010: 29
8
Artzy 1997: 12; cf. Morris 2003: 10
9
Georgiou 2012: 527
10
Artzy 1997; 2003: 245
11
Hallo 1992: 2
12
Drews 1993
13
Dickinson 1994: 308
14
McDonald and Rapp 1972: 1423; Shelmerdine 1997: 581 n.277; Mountjoy 1999: 343355, figs.
116120; Vitale 2006: 190191; but see Popham 1991: 322
15
Chadwick 1976: 141; Palmer 1980: 14367; Popham 1994: 2878; Dickinson 2006: 43, 46, 55;
Tartaron 2013: 645
16
DegerJalkotzy 1978: 14; Hooker 1987: 264
17
PY An 610, An 1, and An 724
18
Palmer 1980: 1434; Palaima 1991: 286; Wachsmann 1998: 15961; 1999; Tartaron 2013: 645
19
Palaima 1995: 625; also Hooker 1982: 20917; Shelmerdine 1997: 583
20
Shelmerdine 1999: 40510
21
Baumbach 1983; Wachsmann 1999
22
Wachsmann 1999: 498
23
1997: 584
24
Schilardi 1992; Karageorghis 2001: 5
25
Schilardi 1984; 1999
26
Earle 2008: 192
27
Schilardi 1992
28
Barako 2001: 136 n.21
29
Schilardi 1992: 637
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
40

30
Singer 1983: 217
31
Inter alia, Hallo 1992; Baruffi 1998: 1013, 188; Nowicki 1996: 285; Wachsmann 1998: 32021
32
MH I pls. 32-34
33
Sweeney and Yasur-Landau 1999
34
Yasur-Landau 2010a
35
MH I pls. 36-41
36
Peden 1994: 65
37
f9; also captured
38
de Roug 1877: 253.8; Kitchen 1996: 182
39
Snape 1997: 23; Morris 2001: 821, 827
40
Cf. Askut in Nubia; Smith 1991: 115; 1995: 41-3; Snape 1998: 503
41
Habachi 1980; Yurco 1999: 877; Snape 2010: 273-5
42
Kitchen 2003: 19, 29
43
L.ME KUR.URU.ikalaiu and KUR.URU ikila
44
Lehmann 1979; Yon 1992: 116; Redford 2006: 11
45
Wachsmann 1982: 297; 1998: 359 n.10; Stager 1991: 19 n.23
46
Gterbock 1967: 78
47
Sandars 1985: 134; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 132; Mountjoy 2005: 425
48
MH I pls. 19, 334, 379, 414, 46
49
Oren 1973: 136-7 figs. 9, 18
50
Oren 1973: 136-7 figs. 7, 19
51
Tsountas 1896 pl. 1
52
Furumark 1941: 240 n.5; cf. Holland 1929: 2023
53
Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 13032, 222
54
Furumark 1941: 240; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 131
55
Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 131
56
Tsountas 1896 pls. 12
57
Crouwel 1991 fig. 7a
58
Furumark 1941: 24041, fig. 26; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 222, pl. XI.46
59
Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982 pl. XI.1B
60
Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 222, pls. XI.423, 45
61
Crouwel 1991 fig. 7b
41

62
Furumark 1941: 24041; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 222, pl. XI.47
63
MH I pl. 39
64
Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 223, pl. XI.57
65
Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 223, pls. XI.49, 51, 56
66
Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982 pls. XI.64, 64.1.
67
Kanta 1980 fig. 24.8
68
Mountjoy and Gowland 2005: 165 table 7, 210
69
Murray, Smith and Walters 1900 pl. 1; Evans 1900: 210 fig. 6
70
Keel and Uehlinger 1998: 110, 112 fig. 129; YasurLandau 2010: 20910; compare to the Philistine
prince in MH II pl. 118c; but see Braunstein 1998: 776
71
Stager and Mountjoy 2007; color plate in Stager, Master and Schloen 2011: 270 fig. 15.40
72
Oren 1973: 135-42, figs. 1-19; T. Dothan 1982: 274, figs. 1112
73
Meric and Mountjoy 2002: 82; Meric 2003
74
Meric and Mountjoy 2002: 92; Mountjoy 2005; 2011: 484, 487; Benzi 2013: 521
75
Hom. Il. II 531; Finkelberg 2010: 449
76
Furumark (1941: 448n1) suggested a fragment of decoration at the extreme left of a broken LH IIIB
sherd from Mycenae, characterized by Vermeule and Karageorghis (1982: 132) as the back rim of [a]
spiked hedgehog helmet worn by a soldier leading a horse was part of a helmet of hedgehog type
(Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982: 90, 211, pl. IX.8). Such an identification is problematic due in no
small part to the inherent chronological conflict: if this sherd does in fact portray a hedgehog helmet, it
is the sole example of this motif to appear in the LH IIIB, and predates by as much as a century all other
examples from Mycenae all of which fall in the LH IIIC Middle (ca. 11301070 BC). However, this
sherd may be safely down-dated on stylistic grounds at least to the transitional LH IIIB2-IIIC or LH
IIIC Early, based on comparison with the decoration on a krater rim fragment from Tiryns (Vermeule
and Karageorghis 1982 pl. X.16), thus potentially solving the chronological contradiction. The only
other image of a featherhatted warrior that may antedate the Transitional LH IIIB2IIIC is Sign 2
on the Phaistos Disc, which has been dated to Middle Minoan (MM) III, nearly four centuries prior to
the LH IIIC. Though Evans (1909: 2225) identified this sign with the featherhatted Sea Peoples
pictured at Ramesses IIIs mortuary temple at Medinet Habu (see below), this artifacts uniqueness and
oftdiscussed problems preclude it from having a clear place in the present discussion (cf. Dickinson
1994: 197; Robinson 2009: 297315). Additionally, Halls (1911: 120) suggestion that warriors depicted
on the Siege Rhyton from Shaft Grave IV in Mycenae (16th c. BC) should be connected to the feather
hatted tradition has been largely discarded (Hooker 1967: 270).
77
Mountjoy 2007: 226
78
Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982 pl. XI.42
79
The possible exceptions to the disc motif are three horned helmetwearing warriors from Luxor,
shown fighting alongside Ramesses IIs forces in an assault on Dapur in Amurru (Youssef, Leblanc and
Maher 1977 pl. VII), and those fighting against Ramesses III in the naval battle pictured at Medinet
Habu (MH I pls. 379, 41, 50cd, 51g, 52a, 53d). Also of interest are two other horn-helmed figures
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
42

featured elsewhere in the Dapur reliefs (Youssef, Leblanc and Maher 1977 pls. XXXI-II), at least one of
which may be a Sherden shown either from a different angle than seen in other images, or in a style that
was abandoned when the depiction of these warriors became standardized.
80
Cf. Mylonas 1951: 143 fig. 7
81
Bittel 1976: 9-14
82
Morris 1989: 533; Kelder 2010a: 40
83
Cosmopoulos 2010: 34
84
M. Shaw 1980: 177-8; 2001
85
Wedde 1999: 470; Tartaron 2013: 634
86
Wedde 1999: 465
87
Wedde 1999: 4667; Tartaron 2013: 68
88
Wedde 1999: 468
89
Cf. Wachsmann 2013: 28
90
Wedde 1999: 465-6
91
Wedde 1999: 465
92
Georgiou 1991: 62
93
Roberts 1991: 59
94
Cf. Roberts 1991 pls. XVIIa, XIXXX; Wachsmann 1998: 251; Mark 2000: 130 fig. 5.8
95
Wedde 1999: 465
96
Wedde 2000: 805, nos. 6167
97
Slver 1936: 460
98
Casson 1971: 2734; Wachsmann 1998: 330
99
Vercoutter 1954: 17, 245, 1734; Bass 1987: 6978; Cline 1994: 254
100
Shaw 1981: 219; 1984: 2578; Cline 1994: 290; Watrous 1992: 176
101
Cline 1994: 131; LambrouPhillipson 1991:11; Watrous 1992: 1767; White 1986; 1999a; 1999b:
5647; 2002: 24
102
Snape 2000: 18; Thomas 2003: 528
103
Vercoutter 1956: 41922; Bass 1987: 6979; Pulak 1988: 367; LambrouPhillipson 1991: 14
104
Pulak 1987; 1988; 1998; Watrous 1992: 1756; Bass 1998: 184, 190
105
Roberts 1991: 579; 1995: 314; Wedde 2000: 90; Emanuel forthcoming A
106
Monroe 1990: 87
107
Roberts 1991: 59
43

108
Wachsmann (1981) convincingly demonstrated thirty years ago that the Sea Peoples ships pictured at
Medinet Habu were patterned closely after Helladic oared galley prototypes; since then, see Wachsmann
(1982; 1998: 164172; 2000: 116122; 2013: 3384); contra, e.g., OConnor (2000: 85)
109
Wilson 1974: 263
110
See especially Nelson 1943 fig. 5
111
Nelson 1943: 46; Wachsmann 1981: 188; Dothan 1982: 7; Barako 2001: 138
112
Wachsmann (1998: 253) notes that Kamose (the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty), during his
struggle to expel the Hyksos, was forced to place his lookouts on the cabins of his ships because they
were not equipped with crow's nests.
113
Vinson 1993: 1378. A ship from the 18
th
dynasty tomb of Nebamun (TT 17) features an implement
atop its mast that Davies and Faulkner (1947: 43) identified as a topmounted crows nest, but based on
comparative iconography, it seems more likely that this is a mast cap than a crows nest (Wachsmann
1981: 214; 1998: 4547, 253).
114
Davies and Faulkner 1947: 43; Wachsmann 1981: 214; 1998: 51, 56
115
Raban 1989: 170; Wachsmann 1998: 252; 2013: 262n135; contra Haider 2012: 152
116
Capart (1931: 62), followed by Vinson (1993: 136n12, 1389), assigned this artifact to the late 18
th

dynasty; Schulman (1968: 33) assigned it specifically to the reign of Horemheb (13191292 BC), with
whose term the 18
th
dynasty culminated; Millet (1987), on the other hand, is an outlier, dating the piece
to 1350 BC. The late 18
th
or 19
th
dynasty date is supported by ceramic parallels (see below), and such a
date would place the appearance of this vessel at the same general time as the appearance of the Sherden
on Egypts coast, the significance of which will be discussed below.
117
While Capart (1931: 62) noted the similarity between the topmounted crows nest on Berlin 24025
and the Medinet Habu ships, only Millet (1987) and Vinson (1993: 1389; 1994: 42) have, to my
knowledge, noted the similarity in yard and rigging, and thus the possible true significance of this piece.
118
Berlin 24025
119
Roberts 1991: 55
120
As Wachsmann (1982: 302) has noted, a slight downward curve can be seen in the upper yards of
boomfooted riverine vessels in the Theban tombs of Rekhmire (TT 100), Menna (TT 69), Amenemhet
(TT 82), and Sennefer (TT 96B) (Landstrm 1970 figs. 316, 319, 399).
121
Wachsmann 1981: 214, fig 28
122
Vinson 1993; 1994: 42. On the form and date of the Canaanite amphorae, compare Amiran (1970
pls. 43:5, 9); BenArieh and Edelstein (1977 pl. XII:2); and the description of amphora KW588 from
the Uluburun shipwreck in Pulak (1987: 39, 41).
123
Berlin 24025 seems to demonstrate that the origin of the brailed rig and loosefooted sail is not to be
found in the Aegean, contra Wedde (2000: 89) and Haider (2012: 152).
124
Artzy 1997; 1998; 2013
125
Georgiou 1991: 69; 2012: 527
126
Inter alia, Dothan 1982; Dothan and Dothan 1992; Stager 1995; Stone 1995
Jeffrey P. Emanuel
44

127
Artzy 2003: 241 fig. 13; 2013: 338 fig. 4:5. Stager and Mountjoy (2007) have suggested that a cryptic
circular representation on a krater fragment from Ashkelon may represent the mast top and deadeyes of a
brailed sail. Additionally, cf. a LCIII graffito from Enkomi showing what may be a loosefooted sail
that has been brailed up (Wachsmann 1981: 2069, figs. 22ab).
128
Cf. Artzy 1988; Raban and Stieglitz 1991
129
Redford (1971: 1189) suggests that the Aswan stele may have been written several years after the
date its text claims: Ramesses claims in this text to have defeated the Asiatics, the Libyans, the Sea
Peoples, the Nubians, and in the wake of all this to have been visited by delegations from Babylon and
the Hittites. If the date on the stele is interpreted as the date of writing, the victories claimed here (apart
from the Nubian war) could only be dated to the last five months of the first year, which seems
preposterous.
130
Liverani 1977: 212216; Loretz 1995; Adams and Cohen 2013: 651
131
Liverani 1969: 1945; Dietrich and Loretz 1972: 3942; Heltzer 1979: 916; 1994: 31821
132
Some Sherden living at Ugarit appear to have been significantly integrated into society, including
maintaining multigenerational residency on intergenerationallytenured landholdings (cf. RS
15.167+163; Nougayrol 1955: 124). Some Sherden living in Egypt appear to have achieved a similar
level of integration a century and a half later, as shown by the Wilbour Papyrus (see below).
133
Hafford 2001: 70n.27, 199202; cf. Pulaks (1998: 219) possible mercenaries from the north aboard
the Uluburun ship.
134
Cf. EA 38, the Great Karnak Inscription, and the Athribis stele, quoted above
135
For example, the imw n tA aHt of Seti I and Thutmosis III, which have been glossed warship or
battleship in modern scholarship; Spiegelberg 1896: 82.5; Sethe 1909: 998.1; Jones 1988: 130.5,
131.13; cf. also Faulkner 1941: 18
136
Kirk 1949: 1257; Wedde 1999: 469; Wachsmann 2013: 70
137
Wedde 1999: 467
138
Wachsmann 1998: 157
139
Wachsmann 1998: 317; Crouwel 1999: 457-8
140
Crouwel 1999
141
Wachsmann 1998: 319
142
Shuckburgh 1962
143
Landstrm 1970: 108
144
Casson 1971: 37; Jones 1995: 59
145
Landstrm 1970: 98115
146
Barako 2001: 134
147
Stanchions supported the superstructure and partial decking on galleys, while also serving to divide
the rowers gallery in ship representations.
148
Cf. Wachsmann 1998 figs. 7.7, 7.27, 7.3031
45

149
Wachsmann 1998: 138. A further note on the Gazi vessel: the lower of the two parallel horizontal
lines atop the mast may represent a boom, as Wachsmann (1998: 139) believes; however, if the wavy
lines beneath the boom are intended to represent a sail, then the parallel lines atop the mast are likely a
thick representation of a yard or a yard and upper border of the artists image. The latter would fit with
the motif, in which borders appear to be present on the other three sides. If this is the case, then this
vessel may carry a loose-footed, brailed rig that is reefed, or furled to better allow for oared propulsion.
150
Wachsmann 1998: 132
151
Wachsmann 2013; the model was incorrectly assembled and labeled Pirate Boat? by its excavator,
Flinders Petrie (1933: 74 fig. 85)
152
Wachsmann 2013: xviii, 2021, 28, 202
153
Cf. Wachsmann (2013) 7880 for further discussion, with additional references. The upturned finial
is characteristic of Mycenaean galleys; however, despite the common reference to its form as a birds
head, such an identification has been called into question of late (correctly, in the present authors view).
For recent criticisms of Aegean stempost decoration as bird head representations, see Wedde (2001) and
YasurLandau (2010b), and for a note on the possible inaccuracy of the double bird head motif on the
Sea Peoples vessels pictured at Medinet Habu, see Artzy (2001; 2003).
154
Prior 2013: 241
155
Wachsmann 2013: 28
156
Davis 2013: 219; Siddall 2013: 243
157
Siddall 2013 table 1
158
Davis 2013: 219
159
Il. II 637; Od. ix 125. Odysseus ships are also referred to as B,(+(2,6'7,% purplecheeked (Od. xi
124; xxiii 271) but most noteworthy is the fact that only Odysseus ships are identified by the red and
purplecheeked epithets.
160
Hom. Il. I 141, 300, 329, 433, 485; II170, 358, 524, 534, 545, 556, 568, 630, 644, 652, 710, 737,
747, 759; V 550, 700; VIII 222, 528; IX 235, 654; X 74; XI 5, 824, 828; XII 126; XIII 267; XV 387,
423; XVI 304; XVII 383, 639; XIX 331; XXIV 780; Od. ii 430; iii 61, 360, 365, 423; iv 646, 731, 781; vi
268; viii 34, 51, 52, 445; ix 322; x 95, 169, 244, 272, 332, 502, 571; xi 3, 58; xii 186, 264, 276, 418; xiii
425; xiv 308; xv 218, 258, 269, 416, 503; xvi 325, 348, 359; xvii 249; xviii 84; xxi 39, 307; xxiii 320; xxiv
152.
161
Hom. Il. XV 693; Od. iii 299; ix 482, 539; x 127; xi 6; xii 100, 148, 354; xiv 311; xx 465.
162
Casson 1971: 2112; Kurt 1979: 33; Steffy 1994: 277
163
Davis 2013: 220
164
Edel 1994a: H4, 1994b: 2835; Basch 2009; Pomey 2009; Emanuel forthcoming A
165
This crew size may have a parallel in a Ugaritic text (UT 83), which lists 18 + x rowers from four
locations to man a single vessel (Linder 1970: 321)
166
Hoftijzer and Van Soldt 1998: 343
167
Hoftijzer and Van Soldt 1998: 343

Emanuel War at Sea Iawc 2013

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Emanuel War at Sea Iawc 2013

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

War at Sea (IAWC 2013)

S-ar putea să vă placă și