Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o.

1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 21

Α Ι ΓΑ Ι Α ΚΕΣ ΣΠΟΥΔΕΣ
A e g e an s t u d i e s
N o. 1 | 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6
O N L I N E p u b li c ation 
DE C E M B E R 1 , 2 0 1 4

Sea Peoples, Egypt, and

the Aegean: The Transference
of Maritime Technology
in the Late Bronze–Early Iron
Transition (LH IIIB–C)
Jeffrey P. Emanuel

Abstract
The appearance of the brailed rig and loose–footed sail at the
end of the Late Bronze Age revolutionized seafaring in the east-
ern Mediterranean. The most famous early appearance of this
new technology is found in history’s first visual representation
of a naval battle, on the walls of Ramesses III’s mortuary temple
at Medinet Habu, where both Egyptian and Sea Peoples ships
are depicted with this new rig, as well as top–mounted crow’s
nests and decking upon which shipborne warriors do battle.
The identical employment of these innovative components of
maritime technology by opposing forces in this battle suggests
either some level of previous contact between the invaders
and those responsible for designing and constructing Egypt’s
ships of war, or shared interaction with a third party, perhaps
on the Syro–Canaanite coast. This article examines the evidence
for the development of the brailed rig in the eastern Mediter-
ranean, and explores the possibility that at least one group of
Sea Peoples, who may have comprised a key part of the interna-
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 22

tional economy of the Late Bronze Age in their role as “pirates,

raiders, and traders” (Georgiou 2012: 527) – Artzy’s “nomads of
the sea” (1997) – played a similarly integral role in the transfer-
ence of maritime technology between the Levant, Egypt, and
the Aegean.

ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ
Κατά το τέλος της Ύστερης Εποχής του Χαλκού η εμφάνιση του
τετράγωνου ιστίου που δεν διαθέτει κάτω ιστό με τον εξαρτισμό
του έφερε την επανάσταση στην πλοήγηση στην Ανατολική
Μεσόγειο. Η νέα αυτή τεχνολογία παρουσιάζεται για πρώτη
φορά σε αναπαράσταση ναυμαχίας, στους τοίχους του ταφικού
ιερού του Ραμσή Γ΄ στο Medinet Habu. Στην αναπαράσταση
αυτή εικονίζονται πλοία των Αιγυπτίων και των Λαών της
Θάλασσας με αυτόν τον εξαρτισμό, καθώς και με εξέδρες
ψηλά στο κατάρτι ή στο κατάστρωμα από όπου επόπτευαν
οι επιβαίνοντες πολεμιστές προκειμένου να διεξάγουν μάχη.
Η πανομοιότυπη χρήση αυτών των καινοτόμων στοιχείων
θαλάσσιας τεχνολογίας από τις αντίπαλες δυνάμεις σε αυτή
τη μάχη υποδηλώνει, είτε κάποιου είδους πρότερη επαφή
μεταξύ των εισβολέων και των υπευθύνων για το σχεδιασμό
και την κατασκευή των πολεμικών πλοίων της Αιγύπτου, ή
αμοιβαία αλληλεπίδραση με μία άλλη εθνότητα, ίσως στην
Σύρο-Χαναϊτική ακτή. Αυτό το άρθρο εξετάζει την ανάπτυξη
του τετράγωνου ιστίου με τον εξαρτισμό του στην ανατολική
Μεσόγειο και διερευνά την πιθανότητα ότι τουλάχιστον
ένα φυλετικό σύνολο των Λαών της Θάλασσας, το οποίο
διαδραμάτιζε, πιθανότατα, ενεργό ρόλο στη διεθνή οικονομία
της Ύστερης Εποχής του Χαλκού ως «πειρατές, επιδρομείς και
έμποροι» (Georgiou 2012: 527) – «νομάδες της θάλασσας»
του Artzy (1997) – έπαιξε εξίσου πρωταγωνιστικό ρόλο στη
μεταφορά της ναυτικής τεχνολογίας ανάμεσα στην Ανατολή,
την Αίγυπτο και το Αιγαίο.
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 23

Introduction
Figure 1. Naval battle relief from The well–known relief from Medinet Habu showing Ramess-
Ramesses III’s mortuary temple at es III’s troops overwhelming a fleet of ships manned by so–called
Medinet Habu (MH I pl. 39).
‘Sea Peoples’ (Epigraphic Survey 1930 pls. 37–39, henceforth
MH 1; Figure 1) is not just history’s first representation of a naval
battle: it also serves as a monumental “coming out party” of sorts
for several new features of maritime technology, each of which is
Figure 2a. Egyptian ship from portrayed identically on both sides’ ships (Figure 2). These fea-
the Medinet Habu naval battle tures include the brailed rig and loose–footed squaresail, the
(illustration by the author). top–mounted crow’s nest, and at least partial decking upon which
Figure 2b. Sea Peoples ship from
opposing warriors are shown slinging missiles and brandishing
the Medinet Habu naval battle swords. Each would become a key component of both Greek and
(illustration by the author). Phoenician shipbuilding traditions in the Iron Age and beyond,
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 24

with the brailed squaresail being used in the Mediterranean for

two millennia before finally being displaced (Roberts 1991: 59;
Wachsmann 1998: 174). While analogs exist in Aegean and Sy-
ro–Canaanite ship iconography for these components (the latter
appearing almost exclusively in Egyptian art; Sasson 1966: 128;
Stieglitz 2000: 12; see also below), individually or in various com-
binations, the images at Medinet Habu provide evidence for their
development, while also presenting them together in a seagoing
“package” for the first known time – remarkably, in identical form
and use on vessels representing two distinctly different cultures.

Contact and Conflict in the Late

Bronze Age Eastern Mediterranean
Seaborne threats to coastal polities, even from small num-
bers of ships, were a significant threat in the Late Bronze Age (in-
ter alia, Baruffi 1998: 10–13, 188; Beckman 1994a: 27; 1994b: 31
no.33; Emanuel 2012a; forthcoming B; Singer 1983: 217; Wachs-
mann 1998: 320–321), as either the Sea Peoples themselves or
what may to be a precursor to them can be found in the Amarna
Letters and Hittite documents, intercepting ships at sea (e.g. EA
105, 114), conducting blockades (e.g. EA 126), and carrying out
coastal raids around the Eastern Mediterranean, including on the
maritime gateway to Egypt, the Nile Delta (e.g. CTH 147, 181;
EA 38; cf. Emanuel 2012a; forthcoming B; Lambdin 1953; Linder
1970: 317–324; Wachsmann 1998: 130). This state of affairs is per-
haps to be expected in such an affluent, internationalist period
as the Late Bronze Age; after all, piracy is naturally most success-
ful when coastal settlements and trade routes are present, regular,
and prosperous (Horden & Purcell 2000: 157). The balance be-
tween respectable merchant activities and piracy may be seen in
the entrepreneurial nature of commerce in this period: while the
use of private intermediaries, itinerant sailors, traders, and in some
cases mercenaries may have begun as an effort by states to ex-
pand their economic influence and regional prowess, and to gain
an edge on their partners and rivals, the symbiotic relationship
between the parties involved may have matured and mutated to
such a degree that these middle–men became integral parts both
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 25

of international communication and of national economic activity

(Artzy 1997: 2). In Artzy’s words, they became “an essential part of
a trade network, a position obtained because of their peculiar ex-
pertise: capital in the form of a boat and knowledge of navigation,
the requirement for successful maritime commerce” (Artzy 1998:
445; Monroe 2010: 29). However, as the Late Bronze Age 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” (Artzy
1997: 12).
It should be no surprise that those who depended most
on the sea for their livelihoods may have been among the earli-
est adopters of innovative maritime technology (Georgiou 2012:
527). The piratical element of these “nomads of the sea” (Artzy
1997; 2003: 245) may have driven the development of superior
warships, raiding craft, and naval tactics whose technological needs
were often at odds with the merchant vessels upon which they
may have preyed. While the primary purpose of merchantmen,
whose travel throughout the Late Bronze Age Eastern Mediterra-
nean is attested both textually and archaeologically, the seagoing
ships that were used for raids and other piratical activity, as well
as in naval battles, had significant speed and maneuverability re-
quirements in addition to the storage space needed to transport
booty back from raids (see above). Thus, while the development
of vessels for raiding and warfare was driven at least in part by
what Wedde (1999: 465) terms “the struggle to place as many
rowers as possible into as small a hull as practical” for the purpose
of that speed and maneuverability, the presence of a rowing crew
aboard merchant ships would have been at the expense of cargo
1 Tiboni (2005: 127, 130) partly
(Georgiou 1991; Crielaard 2000: 56).
credits the introduction of brails, This pursuit reached its most advanced state around the
and the “great development in Late Helladic (LH) IIIB–IIIC transition (ca. 1200 BC) with the devel-
sailing all around the Mediterra- opment of the Helladic oared galley and the pairing of this vessel
nean basin” in the Late Bronze Age,
with the brailed rig and loose–footed squaresail.1
to changes in weaving technology
that allowed for the creation and This system consisted of lines attached to the bottom of a
use of twill sails. sail and run vertically through rings sewn into the front of the sail.
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 26

From there, they were run over the yard and to the stern. Using this
system, sails could be easily raised, lowered, and otherwise manip-
ulated in a manner similar to a set of Venetian blinds (cf. Roberts
1991 pls. XVIIa, XIX–XX; Wachsmann 1998: 251; Mark 2000: 130
fig. 5.8). To this point, sailing craft had relied on large square sails
held fast by upper and lower yards. While clearly an advantage
over oared propulsion alone, the boom–footed squaresail was
most effective for downwind travel, as the lower yard prevented
the trimming of the windward edge (Casson 1971: 273–274; Rob-
erts 1991: 55, pls. XVIIIa, XX; Sølver 1936: 460; but see Georgiou
1991). The loose–footed sail, on the other hand, offered much
greater maneuverability, as well as the ability to sail much closer to
the wind. Reconstructive evidence of this can be seen in the voy-
age of the Kyrenia II, a replica of a Hellenic sailing vessel, which was
able to sail close–hauled at 60 degrees off the wind on its journey
from Paphos to Piraeus – an angle roughly comparable to mod-
ern yachts (Cariolou 1997: 92–93; cf. also Katzev 1990; Roberts
1991:57–59; 1995: 314).
A true break with prior ship design (as typified by Minoan
sailing vessels and Cycladic craft like those depicted on the fa-
mous miniature fresco from the West House at Akrotiri), the Hel-
ladic oared galley has rightly been called both “a strategic inflec-
tion point in ship architecture” and “the single most significant
advance in the weaponry of the Bronze Age Eastern Mediterra-
nean” (Wedde 1999: 465). Thus, once outfitted with the brailed
rig (perhaps ca. 1200 BC; Wachsmann 1998: 157), the galley be-
came an ideal vessel for rapid travel and lightning–fast raids on
coastal settlements:

“In the beginning the brailable square sail allowed hull forms
quite unsuited to propulsion by sail of the Thera–type the
opportunity to extend their cruising range due to the light-
ness 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
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 27

directions economically with small crews, given a slant of

wind] opened greater horizons to military adventurers” 
(Roberts 1991: 59).2

The Sea Peoples and

the Helladic Oared Galley
In Ramesses III’s naval battle relief, rowers are only shown
aboard the Egyptian ships.  However, this does not mean that the
Sea Peoples ships depended on wind as their sole means of pro-
pulsion; rather, as Wachsmann (1981) convincingly demonstrated
thirty years ago, the Sea Peoples ships pictured at Medinet Habu
were patterned closely after Helladic oared galley prototypes
(also Wachsmann 1982; 1998: 164–172; 2000: 116–122; 2013:
33–84; contra, e.g., O’Connor 2000: 85). No oars are shown and
the sails, as on the Egyptian vessels, are clearly brailed up at the
time of the battle; however, the more likely reason rowers are ab-
sent from this scene is because it was meant to depict a surprise
attack by the Egyptian fleet, which pinned the Sea Peoples’ ves-
sels against land and prevented their escape (Nelson 1943: 46;
Wachsmann 1981: 188; Barako 2001: 138). This is supported by
the accompanying inscription, which refers to the Sea Peoples as
being “capsized and overwhelmed where they are”:

“Now then, the northern countries which were in their is-

lands were quivering in their bodies.  They penetrated the
channels of the river–mouths.  Their nostrils have ceased (to
function, so) their desire is to breathe the breath. …They are
capsized and overwhelmed where they are. …Their weap-
ons are scattered upon the sea.  His arrow pierces whom of
them he may have wished, and the fugitive is become one
2 As Monroe (1990: 87) has noted, fallen into the water.”
another advantage of the loose– Naval Battle Inscription
footed sail is that “warriors would (Wilson 1974: 263, henceforth ANET)
not be obstructed by [the lower
yard] as they moved about the
decks, throwing spears, shooting Further support for connecting warriors in the ‘Sea Peoples’
arrows, etc.” tradition to an adapted form of the Helladic oared galley design can
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 28

Figure 3a. Sea battle illustration on be found on fragments of a decorated LH IIIC Middle krater from
a LH IIIC Middle krater from Pyrgos Pyrgos Livanaton (Homeric Kynos), which combine to depict a naval
Livanaton (after Mountjoy 2011
battle between spear–wielding warriors aboard antithetic oared gal-
fig. 2).
leys (Dakoronia 1990: 117–122; 2006; Wachsmann 1998: 130–132;
Figure 3a). Though its sail, yard, and backstay are not pictured, the
nearly complete ship at right, referred to as ‘Kynos A’ (Wedde 2000
no 6003, henceforth W6003; Figure 3b), bears a circular masthead
from which a forestay and two brails are suspended, thus demonstrat-
ing that this vessel is outfitted with the brailed rig (cf. also a ship painted
in silhouette on a LH IIIC stirrup jar from Skyros; W655). The spiked
headgear worn by the Kynos warriors, who stand on an at least partial
deck, appears to be an example of the “hedgehog helmet” motif that
is commonly interpreted as being the Aegean representation of the
Figure 3b. “Kynos A” vessel from feathered headdresses seen at Medinet Habu (Sandars 1985: 134;
Pyrgos Livanaton (illustration by the Vermeule & Karageorghis 1982: 132; Mountjoy 2005: 425; Yasur–Lan-
author). dau 2013: 30, 34). These “feather–hatted” and “hedgehog–helmeted”
warriors appear around the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean at
this time (Yasur–Landau 2013: 27; Emanuel forthcoming A; forthcom-
ing B), and it may be no coincidence that some of their earliest repre-
sentations can be found in the earliest scenes of naval combat, and in
conjunction with oared galleys (Emanuel forthcoming A; forthcoming
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 29

B). The earliest representation of this type of headdress from the Ae-
gean and the East Aegean–West Anatolian Interface3 may be found
on a locally–made krater from Bademgediği Tepe (ancient Puranda),
which Mountjoy has dated to the Transitional LH IIIB2–IIIC or LH IIIC
3 Following Mountjoy (1998: 33),
the East Aegean–West Anatolian
Early (Meric & Mountjoy 2002: 92; Mountjoy 2005; 2011: 484, 487;
Interface (henceforth “the Inter- see Benzi 2013: 521 for a LH IIIC Middle date). Like the Kynos krater
face”) is defined as “an area which (and like the Medinet Habu relief more broadly), the Bademgediği
forms an entity between the Tepe vessel features a scene of naval combat, albeit an unfortunately
Mycenaean islands of the central
fragmentary one. Two ships face each other, and atop each deck is a
Aegean and the Anatolian hinter-
land with Troy at its northern row of warriors holding spears and round shields (Figure 4). We can-
extremity and Rhodes at its not see either ship’s rigging, but the ship on the left (facing right) clearly
southern one”.  depicts rowers manning oars on a level below that of the warriors, thus
confirming the presence of at least partial decking, as on the Kynos
4 Though the rowers are not
identical, the Bademgediği krater vessels.4 If the feathered headdresses of the warriors on the Kynos and
and the fragments from Kos are Bademgediği kraters do in fact mark them as Sea Peoples, then these
similar in their depiction of these may not only be Sea Peoples vessels, but participants in a battle scene
crewmembers, while only the bent portraying combat between ships manned by Sea Peoples. What this
backs of the rowers on Kynos A
are shown in the form of “lunettes”
means is open to interpretation, but it may provide further evidence
(Wachsmann 1998: 131–2, esp. fig. for the chaotic nature of the LH IIIB–IIIC (Late Bronze–Early Iron) tran-
7.9; 2013: 74–5). sition in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean.

Figure 4. Sea battle illustration on a Transitional LH IIIB2–IIIC Early (or LH IIIC) krater from Bademgediği Tepe
(after Mountjoy 2011 fig. 3).
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 30

As might be expected given their different media and the

fact that they are products of different cultures, there are noticeable
differences between the representations from Kynos, Bademgediği
Tepe, and Medinet Habu (see also above). For example, the Kynos
warriors (and perhaps those from Bademgediği) wear loose gar-
ments on their upper bodies, while the images at Medinet Habu
show the Sea Peoples wearing cuirasses and kilts. Additionally, the
Kynos warriors bear hourglass–shaped shields, while the shields
shown on the Bademgediği krater and at Medinet Habu are cir-
cular. There are also structural differences between the Kynos A
vessel and the Sea Peoples prototype depicted at Ramesses III’s
mortuary temple. For example, while the single quarter rudder de-
picted on Kynos A, characteristic of Mycenaean ships (Wachsmann
5 Wachsmann (1998: 175) notes 1998: 157), is paralleled on Sea Peoples ships N2 and N4, ships N1
that there may be multiple reasons and N5 have two quarter rudders. On the former, both are on the
for this inconsistency: “Presumably, starboard quarter, while the latter has a rudder on either quarter,
the normal complement was two
while no quarter rudder is depicted on ship N3.5
steering oars, and those missing are
attributable to loss during battle. Additionally, aside from the yard and sail so clearly shown at
In this matter they differ from Medinet Habu but altogether missing from the Kynos vessels, the most
contemporaneous representations notable difference between Kynos A and the Sea Peoples ships may
of craft from the Aegean but seem be the lack of a crow’s nest atop the former’s mast. Though it should
to herald the use of the double
steering oars that were to become
be kept in mind that the absence of a feature in iconography does not
common equipment on Geometric necessitate its physical or historical absence, the crow’s nest is neither a
craft. Alternately, the Sea Peoples feature of Helladic ships, nor of Egyptian vessels in the pre–Medinet
may have adopted the use of a Habu period (cf. Wachsmann 1998: 253). Rather, the first crow’s nests
pair of quarter rudders after
to appear in Late Bronze Age representations of seagoing ships come
encountering and capturing
Syro–Canaanite and Egyptian from depictions of Syro–Canaanite vessels in two Egyptian tombs, the
seagoing ships that normally used 18th dynasty tomb of Kenamun (TT 162) and the 19th–20th dynasty
two steering oars, one placed on tomb of Iniwia (Landström 1970 figs. 403, 406). Because of this, it
either quarter.” These cases may be
has been suggested that the crow’s nest originated in the area of the
simultaneously correct; if so, this
would be yet another example Syro–Canaanite littoral (e.g. Davies & Faulkner 1947: 43; Wachsmann
of technological transference 1981: 214; 1998: 51, 56). Given their regular contact with the region,
involving the Sea Peoples. as well as the clear value of a lookout on a raised platform for raid-
ing and paramilitary functions, it is perhaps unsurprising that the Sea
6 Αs previously suggested by
Wachsmann 1981: 214–216; 1998:
Peoples may have adopted the crow’s nest from Levantine seafarers
252; 2013: 262n.135; cf. Raban just as they may have adopted the brailed rig from this area.6
1989: 170; see also below. If correctly dated to the late 18th or early 19th dynasties
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 31

(first quarter of the 13th c. BC), an important but rarely–cited por-

tion of a relief from Saqqara (Berlin 24025) may support the Syro–
Canaanite origin of the crow’s nest, loose–footed sail, and brailed
rig, while providing a crucial missing link between Syro–Canaanite
ship construction and the technology utilized by both sides of the
naval battle.7 The mast, furled sails, downward–curving yard, and
top–mounted crow’s nest of the seagoing ship depicted in this
relief are identical to those from Medinet Habu (Figure 5). Part of
the yard, furled sail, and double backstay of a second, identical-
7 Capart (1931: 62), followed by ly–rigged vessel is partially visible on the left edge of the relief.
Vinson (1993: 136n.12, 138–139), Unfortunately, the mast and rigging are all that is shown of these
assigned this artifact to the late ships; no hints are provided as to the hull design and shape.
18th dynasty; Schulman (1968: 33)
Unlike the brailed rig, the downward–curving yard – likely the
assigned it specifically to the reign
of Horemheb (1319–1292), with result of a light yard responding to downward pressure from the furled
whose term the 18th dynasty sails (Roberts 1991: 55) – can also be seen in depictions of Syro–Ca-
culminated; Millet (1987), on the naanite seagoing vessels from the 14th century, such as a sea–going
other hand, is an outlier, dating ship in the tomb of Nebamun at Thebes (TT 17; Figure 6; cf. also a
the piece to 1350 BC. A late 18th
through early 20th dynasty date
13th century scaraboid from Ugarit, Wachsmann 1981 fig. 28b), as well
is supported by ceramic paral- as boom–footed riverine vessels in the tombs of Rekhmire (TT 100),
lels (see below), and such a date Menna (TT 69), Amenemhet (TT 82), and Sennefer (TT 96B) (Land-
would place the appearance of ström 1970 figs. 316, 319, 399; Wachsmann 1982: 302). This feature
this vessel at the same general time
does not appear again in Egyptian iconography after Medinet Habu.
as the first recorded appearance
of the Sherden on Egypt’s coast. Along with the yard, brailed sail, and crow’s nest, the Syro–
While Capart noted the similarity Canaanite origin of the vessel depicted in the Saqqara relief is sug-
between the top–mounted crow’s gested by the Canaanite amphorae being unloaded in the scene,
nest on Berlin 24025 and the
and its date, while possibly a century or more earlier than Medinet
Medinet Habu ships, only Millet
and Vinson (1993: 138–139; 1994: Habu, is consistent with late 18th and early 19th dynasty references
42) have, to the present author’s to Sea Peoples in the eastern Mediterranean (Vinson 1993; 1994:
knowledge, noted the similarity in 42),8 including Ramesses II’s 13th–century defeat of “rebellious–
yard and rigging, and thus the hearted Sherden” (see below). A Syro–Canaanite provenience of
possible true significance of this
piece.
the top–mounted crow’s nest and downward–curving yard helps
explain both their absence on galleys depicted in their native Ae-
8 The storage jars shown here are gean milieu and their presence on Sea Peoples’ vessels of Hellad-
consistent with Killebrew’s (2007: ic oared galley type that are shown in the area of the Levant and
167–173, figs. 1.3, 4.6) Family 11
Egypt, while the development of the brailed rig in the area of the
Form 22, which was in use from the
14th into the 12th centuries BC Canaanite littoral could also explain its nearly simultaneous appear-
(late 18th–20th dynasty in Egypt). ance on Egyptian and Aegean ships at a slightly later date.
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 32

Figure 5a. Relief from Saqqara

showing two vessels with
downward–curving yards, brailed
rigs, and top–mounted crow’s nests
(Berlin 24025).

Figure 5b. Detail of the mast, yard,

and rigging of a late 18th–early
19th dynasty relief from Saqqara
(illustration by the author).

Figure 6. Syrian ship from the tomb

of Nebamun (TT 17; illustration by
the author).
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 33

Egypt, the Sea Peoples,

and Technological Transference

Figure 7. (Α) Kynos A with Sea

Peoples rigging added; (Β) Sea
Peoples ship from Medinet Habu,
with oars added (illustrations by
the author).

Relevant differences having been noted, it is clear that

9 Though the ceramic phenomenon Kynos A, if not the exact same ship as the Medinet Habu proto-
associated with the Sea Peoples type, is an extremely close relative (and it can be cautiously sug-
is complex and open to different gested that the Bademgediği vessels are, as well, despite the lack
interpretations (see most recently
of visible mast or rigging). As can be seen in Figure 7, mounting
the essays in Killebrew & Lehmann
2013), archaeological evidence for the yard and furling the sail on Kynos A in the manner shown at
the Philistines in particular points Medinet Habu, and adding the missing oars to the Sea Peoples
to the Aegean as a strong cultural vessels, produces two nearly identical ships. The Aegean associa-
influence (see, inter alia, T. Dothan
tion of at least some Sea Peoples – in particular, the Philistines9 –
1982; 1998; Stager 1995; Stone
1995; Barako 2000; Yasur–Landau provides a certain logic for their use of the Helladic oared galley,
2010). while the well–documented travels of these groups throughout
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 34

Figure 8. Philistine monochrome

sherd from Ekron showing a brailed
sail (after Dothan & Zukerman 2004
fig. 35.10).

the Eastern Mediterranean does the same for their adoption of

the brailed rig and top–mounted crow’s nest (though, as noted
above, only the former appears on Aegean and Interface ships at
this time). Further, while very few nautical references have been
found in Philistine material culture, the connection between Sea
Peoples and the brailed rig is further attested by ceramic evi-
dence from Ekron (modern Tel Miqne). Sherds of a Mycenaean
IIIC:1 krater (Philistine Monochrome, 12th c. BC) feature the
characteristic semi–circles of a furled brailed sail, along with the
horizontal line of the yard and three vertical lines, which likely
10 Additionally, on the possibility represent a mast and halyards or brails (T. Dothan & Zukerman
of such a representation from 2004: 32, 33 fig. 15; Mountjoy 2005: 425; Wachsmann 2013:
Ashkelon, see Stager, Schloen & 64–65; Figure 8).10
Master (2008: 270 fig. 15.40) and
How, though, did Egypt come to acquire and adopt these
Stager & Mountjoy (2007: 50–61).
Cf. a LCIII graffito from Enkomi innovative components of maritime technology, which only ap-
showing what may be a loose– pear on their ships in the early12th century, in the context of a
footed sail that has been brailed naval battle against the identically–equipped ships of the Sea
up (Wachsmann 1981: 206–209,
Peoples? Maritime contact between Egypt and the polities of the
figs. 22a–b), as well as one of the
13th–11th c. boats incised on the Syro–Canaanite littoral is attested from at least the 18th dynasty
cliffs above the Me’arot river in (e.g. EA 101 and 105), with elements of ship construction being
northern Israel, which appears to transferred to Egypt – and ships themselves being appropriated
display a brailed, loose–footed sail – by Thutmose III in the 15th century (Breasted 1906–7 §§454,
on downward curving yard, along
with what may be a forward–looking
460, henceforth BAR II; Säve–Söderbergh 1946: 35; Sasson 1966:
bird–head finial on the stem (Artzy 128n.12; Wachsmann 1998: 313, 321, 330). Further, Thutmose
2003: 241 fig. 13; 2013: 338 fig. 4:5). III’s shipyards, located in the Memphite district of prw–nfr, appear
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 35

to have been staffed with Syro–Canaanite shipwrights (Glanville

1930; 1932; Säve–Söderbergh 1946: 37; Sasson 1966: 128; Red-
ford 1992: 225; Wachsmann 1998: 223). Though the brailed rig
is not yet attested at this early date, such close contact between
Syro–Canaanite mariners and Egypt certainly demonstrates that
direct transfer would have been possible, if it did in fact originate
in this area. Its limited attestation on Egyptian ships, though – a
corpus that consists only of the vessels portrayed on the Medinet
Habu relief – suggests that there was little impetus for its adoption
prior to the period of increased antagonistic contact with the Sea
Peoples. Further, as previously noted, the sole representation of
Egyptian ships utilizing the brailed rig depicts both Sea Peoples
and Egyptian sailors employing this new technology in identical
fashion – a fact that suggests the lack of a temporal advantage on
either side that would have come from significantly earlier or more
direct adoption.
In light of this, I would suggest that, rather than adopting this
technology directly from Syro–Canaanite shipwrights, its transfer
may have taken place through contact with the aforementioned
“pirates, raiders, and traders” – Artzy’s “nomads of the sea” – dur-
ing the century prior to Ramesses III’s famous battle. The first overt
mention of seaborne threats against Egypt during the Ramesside
period can be found in the formulaic Aswan stele of Ramesses II’s
(1279–1213) second year (cf. Redford 1971:118–119), in which
the pharaoh claims (among other conquests) to have “destroyed
the warriors of the Great Green (Sea)” so that Lower Egypt can
“spend the night sleeping peacefully” (Kitchen1996: 182, hence-
forth RITAT I; de Rougé 1877: 253.8; cf. Emanuel 2013: 24n.30).
Ramesses first gives a specific name to these troublesome sea raid-
ers in the Tanis II rhetorical stele, which tells of the “Sherden11…
11 Sherden (Srdn, SArdAnA
or SArdynA; possibly Akkadian
who came bold–[hearted…] in warships from the midst of the
še–er–ta–an–nu; cf. EA 81, 122–3) Sea,” and claims the pharaoh defeated them and “carried [them]
is also glossed “Shardana” off to Egypt” as prisoners – the first of many Ramesside claims to
or “Sherdanu”; for a more have taken members of this group captive:
comprehensive biographical sketch
of this group, see Cavilier (2005);
Emanuel (2012b; 2013); Wachs- “(As for) the Sherden of rebellious mind, whom none could
mann (2013, esp. 183–190). ever fight against, who came bold–[hearted, they sailed in],
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 36

in warships from the midst of the Sea, those whom none

could withstand; [He plundered them by the victories of his
valiant arm, they being carried off to Egypt] – (even by) King
of S & N Egypt, Usimare Setepenre, Son of Re, Ramesses II,
given life like Re.”
RITAT II 120

Sherden seem to have been active along the eastern Medi-

terranean coast at the turn of the 13th century, albeit with widely
differing levels of interaction and integration at different locales.
Trade emporia dotted the region in this period, with shipping
lanes and anchorages alike doubtless serving as tempting tar-
gets for skilled privateers and opportunities for similarly skilled
swords–for–hire to defend those potential targets (cf., e.g., the
possible “mercenaries [or mercenary] from the north who were
in the service of the Mycenaeans” aboard the Uluburun ship;
Pulak 1998: 219; 2005: 308). Thus, we should not be surprised
to find warship–sailing “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 II’s inscriptions have traditionally been read as report-
ing. Certainly the characterization of the Sherden as those “whom
none could ever fight against” suggests that they, like their fellow–
travelers the Lukka (cf. EA 38), had been engaging in such activi-
ties for some time by this point. Further, if the encounter with the
Sherden recorded in Tanis II took place while they were engaged
in such marauding, then it stands to reason that Sherden sailors
were employing the ships and/or sailing tactics that were best suit-
ed to sea raiding at this time – including, perhaps, brailed rig and
top–mounted crow’s nest.

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 appar-
ently forced the Egyptians to invent a new term for “warship” in
order to commemorate it. The result was the somewhat clumsy
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 37

aHaw aHA (m–Hry–ib pA ym), which can be literally translated as

“ships of fighting (in the heart/midst of the sea)” (cf. Yoyotte 1949:
67: “ships–of–warriors–on–the–sea”; Kitchen 1999: 174 (hence-
forth RITANC II): “ships of fighting”). As seagoing ships had been
used for some time in the Egyptian military (for example, the imw
n tA aHt of Seti I and Thutmosis III, which have been glossed ‘war-
ship’ or ‘battleship’ in modern scholarship; Spiegelberg 1896: 82.5;
Sethe 1909: 998.1; Jones 1988: 130.5, 131.13; cf. also Faulkner
1941: 18), 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 both. Thus,
the term employed on Tanis II may have been intended to de-
scribe 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 spe-
cialized ships or sailing techniques to conduct lightning–fast raids
and then disappear back into the sea and over the horizon before
military forces could be mobilized against them.
This absence of such fighting platforms from Egyptian
maritime culture suggests, in turn, that the pharaoh’s defeat
of the Sherden may have taken place either on land or in the
“river–mouths” of the Nile Delta, which had been defended
against maritime aggressors at least since the time of Amenho-
tep III (1388–1351 BC),12 and where the Egyptian army would
have been better able to ensnare an enemy whose success was
12 An inscription by Amenhotep
dependent on a combination of speed, stealth, and, above all,
son of Hapu, an official of
Amenhotep III, refers to the need the avoidance of contact with professional soldiers (Ormerod
to secure “the river–mouths” 1924: 31; Wachsmann 1998: 320; Emanuel 2012a and forth-
(the Nile Delta): “I placed troops coming B; cf. Hom. Od. 14.262–72, 17.431–41). It was here, of
at the heads of the way(s) to turn
course, that Ramesses III would later famously claim to have de-
back the foreigners in their places.
The two regions were surrounded fended the coast against another, much larger onslaught of Sea
with a watch scouting for the Peoples.
Sand–rangers. I did likewise at the The introduction of a new vessel type, perhaps by the
heads of the river–mouths, which aforementioned Sherden raiders, may also be supported by the
were closed under my troops
except to the troops of royal
determinatives used in the Tanis II inscription and in Ramesses
marines” (BAR II §916; Helck 1958: III’s Inscription of Year 8 at Medinet Habu. The determina-
1821.13f). tive utilized with aHaw in Tanis II is a typical Late Bronze Age
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 38

Figure 9. Ramesside ship Syro–Canaanite ship (Figure 9g), similar in form to the afore-
determinatives and the vessels mentioned trading vessels depicted in the 18th dynasty Tomb
from Medinet Habu. (A) bAr
of Kenamun (Yoyotte 1949: 67; Landström 1970 fig. 403). At
determinative, Great Inscription of
Year 8, Medinet Habu (MH); (B) Medinet Habu, on the other hand, the determinatives are dra-
mnS determinative, MH; (C) aHawt matically different. The Year 8 inscription mentions ships four
determinative, MH; (D) aHawt times: the Sea Peoples’ ships are referenced once, and three
determinative used in reference types of Egyptian vessels are said to have been “prepared like a
to Sea Peoples vessels, MH; (E)
Egyptian warship from the naval
strong wall…along the Nile mouth” against the assault (MH I pl.
battle relief, MH; (F) Sea Peoples 46 col. 20; Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 54). Each reference to an
vessel from the naval battle relief, Egyptian ship is accompanied by a distinct determinative, which
MH; (G) aHaw determinative, Tanis seems related to that ship’s function.
II rhetorical stele, Ramesses II.
As can be seen from Figures 9a and 9b, two vessel types
– bAr and mnS – were primarily utilized for cargo or transport
(Artzy 1988: 184–185). The third is the aHa ship (aHawt), a term
familiar from Tanis II; however, instead of being paired with a
representation of a Syro–Canaanite cargo ship, as in Ramesses
II’s inscription, the associated determinative appears to be a
vessel of the same type as that manned by the Egyptians in the
naval battle relief (compare Figures 9c and 9e). Much like the
Tanis II determinative’s relationship to the vessels from TT 162,
the Medinet Habu determinative for aHa ships does not in-
clude the mast and rigging, but unlike the former, there are ad-
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 39

ditional details besides the essentials of the hull shape – in par-

ticular, the forecastle and steering oar which are such integral
parts of the Egyptian vessels shown in the relief. The mention of
the Sea Peoples’ vessels also uses this term (“their ships [aHawt]
and their goods were as if fallen into the water”; MH I pl. 46 col.
24; Edgerton & Wilson 1936: 54), with a determinative that is
quite similar to that paired with the term in col. 20, but with a
castle amidships that makes the vessel form more reminiscent of
Egyptian traveling ships (compare Figures 9d and 9f; see also
below).

Sea Peoples and the Proliferation

of Maritime Innovations
The aforementioned change in Egyptian terminology
and determinatives following their encounter with the Sherden
suggests that the ships of war depicted at Medinet Habu were
developed after the defeat of this “rebellious–hearted” foe
early in the 13th century. Further, the striking similarity between
the two fleets in the naval battle relief raises the possibility that
Ramesses II’s capture of Sherden warriors resulted not just in an
increase in the ranks of Pharaonic conscripts, but in the transfer-
13 Sizable gaps make this Akkadian
ence of maritime technology as well. 
text, and Edel’s reconstruction, A similar example of such transference, during a mili-
highly problematic, particularly tary conflict that took place a millennium later, can be seen
with regard to the reference to in Rome’s ingenious reverse–engineering of Carthaginian war-
building a ship from a blueprint
ship design in the First Punic War, as told by Polybius in his
– something for which there is no
clear precedent until nearly a well–known account of the genesis of the Roman navy (Polyb.,
millennium later (Christopher Hist., 1.20). More formal, and more chronologically relevant,
Monroe, personal communication, technological transference in a maritime setting may be found
2012; also Basch 2009: 65–70). in a unique text from the Hittite archives at Boğazköi (KUB
Interestingly, though the reference
to building replicas is reconstructed
III 82; Edel 1994a: 187). In this heavily reconstructed letter,
by Edel (v.8), the instruction to Ramesses II evidently writes to Ḫattušili III that he is sending a
caulk the ships with bitumen so pair of ships to the Hittite king (one at that time and one the
they do not “go down in the middle following year), so that his shipwrights can “draw a copy” of it
of the sea” (vv.10–12) may suggest
Ramesses II intended for the Hittite
for the purpose of building a replica.13 While the Amarna let-
king to build seaworthy vessels (cf. ters and other Late Bronze Age texts contain several referenc-
Pomey 2009: 49–63). es to the sharing of people (physicians, conjurers, craftsmen,
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 40

and others; inter alia, EA 35, 49; KUB III 66, 67, 71; KBo I 10; cf.
Linder 1970: 321; Zaccagnini 1983: 245–254; Gordon 1992;
Podany 2010: 245), it is remarkable that Ramesses II may be
sending not just a craftsman or shipwright, but a physical ship
to the Hittites for replication. It is further remarkable because
of the Hittites’ well–known lack of affinity for the sea. As a
land empire, Ḫatti had long relied on its coastal vassals to move
goods by sea and project naval power (Malamat 1971: 32;
Sandars 1985: 140; Wachsmann 1998: 317, 323–324; Sing-
er 2006: 249–250; cf., inter alia, RS 17.133; 18.148; 20.212;
20.238; 26.158; 94.2523; 94.2530).
However, there is evidence to suggest that Ḫattuša began
looking to the sea with more interest in the waning years of the
Late Bronze Age, possibly as a result of the threat posed by the
growing Sea Peoples presence (e.g., Linder 1970; Singer 2000;
2006: 246, 250). Two texts in particular stand out in this regard.
In the first, the Hittite king writes to the prefect of Ugarit about
the “Šikala who live on ships,”14 and requests that a Ugaritian
who had been taken captive by them be sent to Ḫattuša so that
the king can question him about this people and their home-
land:

“Thus says His Majesty, the Great King. Speak to the pre-
fect: Now, (there) with you, the king your lord is (still too)
young. He knows nothing. And I, His Majesty, had issued
him an order concerning Ibnadušu, whom the people
from Šikala – who live on ships – had abducted. Here-
with I send Nirga’ili, who is kartappu with me, to you. And
14 The Šikala have been connected you, send Ibnadušu, whom the people from Šikala had
to two groups of Sea Peoples from
abducted, to me. I will question him about the land Šikala,
the records of Merneptah (1213–
1203 BC) and Ramesses III (1183– and afterwards he may leave for Ugarit again”
1152 BC): the Škrš (= šá–ka–lú–ša RS 34.129 (Hoftijzer & Van Soldt 1998: 343)
‘Shekelesh’; Lehmann 1979; Yon
1992: 116; Redford 2006: 11) and The second text, KBo XII 38, refers to a series of three naval
the Škl (= ší–ka–ar ‘Sikil’ or ‘Tjeker’;
Wachsmann 1982: 297; 1998:
skirmishes fought by Šuppiluliuma II against the “ships of Alašiya,”
359n.10; Rainey 1982: 134; Stager followed by a land battle (presumably against the same people he
1991: 19n.23). had fought at sea):
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 41

“The ships of Alašiya 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 Alašiya came in multitude against me
for battle. I [fought] them, and [……] me [……]...”
KBo XII 38 (Güterbock 1967: 78)

The latter is reminiscent of Ramesses III’s land and sea battles

against the Sea Peoples which took place during this same gen-
eral time frame (Otten 1963: 21; Singer 2000: 27), and it raises
the question of whether Šuppiluliuma was facing repeated waves
of raiders or migrant warriors, while clearly reinforcing that, dur-
ing its last years, the Hittite Empire faced a significant threat from
the previously distant Mediterranean coast.15 Rather than belong-
ing to the Alašiyan state, it is likely that the vessels against which
Šuppiluliuma fought were called “ships of Alašiya” because they
had either sailed eastward via, or launched from a captured por-
tion of, Cyprus (contra Linder 1970: 319; cf. Wachsmann 1981:
15 Cf. the Südburg inscription, 187, as well as Hoffner 1992: 48, who refers to the matter as “un-
which Singer (2000: 27) interprets resolved”). The island had long been a target of seaborne raids cf.
as recording “an extensive campaign CTH 147:30), and textual evidence supports it use as a base for
of the last Hittite king along
the whole length of Anatolia’s
attacks from at least the 14th century to the end of the Late Bronze
Mediterranean coast” (Otten 1989; Age (see, e.g., RS 20.18 and EA 38, though in the latter the King
Hawkins 1990; 1995; Hoffner 1992). of Alašiya is quick to protest that the raiders did not stage from an
Singer connects Šuppiluliuma’s area under his control).
battles against “the enemies from
The Hittites’ documented lack of association with the sea
Alašiya” and against Tarḫuntašša to
a “last–ditch attempt to block the (other than by proxy) gives rise to two key questions. First, what
further advance of the Sea Peoples.” ships did Šuppiluliuma use to engage the hostile “ships of Alašiya”
Though the threat from the coast to at sea; and second, what use did Šuppiluliuma’s mid–13th c. pre-
Ḫatti’s Anatolian holdings is clear,
decessor Ḫattušili III have for the reproductions of an Egyptian–
the eventual fall of Ḫattuša itself
may not have resulted directly supplied ship that seem to be referenced in KUB III 82? Though
from the increased violence in the he does not say it directly, Edel posits an identical answer to each,
Mediterranean that marked the suggesting that the ship sent for copying may have been specifi-
transition from the Late Bronze Age cally designed to fight against the Sea Peoples (Edel 1994b: 247;
to the Iron I (see now Genz 2013;
also, inter alia, Hoffner 1992; Barako
cf. also Raban 1995: 354). While possible, the question of how
2001: 45n.22; Bryce 1998: 374–379; shipwrights in a country with very little maritime experience would
Hawkins 2009: 164). have been able to draft a blueprint from Ramesses II’s ship, and
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 42

then accurately craft a seaworthy vessel from that design, is an

important one (Basch 2009; see above on the problematic na-
ture of this reconstruction). Likewise, while Ramesses II’s defeat of
the Sherden demonstrates that Egypt had discovered a success-
ful method for dealing with these coastal marauders “whom none
could [previously] withstand,” evidence is lacking for the indepen-
dent Egyptian development of a new type of ship capable of dis-
patching this threat at sea. Instead, if the ship being sent to Ḫatti
did have to do with the Sea Peoples, it may be more likely that it
was one of the Sea Peoples’ captured ships that was being sent, so
that Ḫattušili could learn about this new threat and its associated
technology (much like Šuppiluliuma and the Šikala a few decades
later). Additionally, if this vessel was in fact to be rebuilt and sailed
against those raiders who posed a growing threat to the coasts of
Anatolia, the Levant, Cyprus, and Egypt, it stands to reason that
the shipwrights responsible for copying its design were not Hittite,
but belonged to one of Ḫatti’s coastal vassals.

Hybrid Egyptian Warships,

the ‘Sherden of the Sea,’ and
the Helladic Oared Galley
The Egyptian ships depicted in the naval battle (aHawt) 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 pre-
vious Egyptian boats and ships, the shape (absent the papyriform
stern; Landström 1970: 108) and through–beams (Casson 1971:
37; Jones 1995: 59), the fore– and aftercastles, and the lion’s head
stem are consistent with the Egyptian shipbuilding tradition (Land-
ström 1970: 98–115; cf. the tomb of Userhat (TT56; Landström
1970 fig. 343), which contains a depiction of a “traveling ship” with
a lioness head at the bow, but with a papyriform stern).
As the first Sea Peoples group to be specifically named as
such in the Egyptian sources – and the first whose capture and im-
pressment is documented (Emanuel 2013: 15) – it is worth consid-
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 43

ering that elements of the ships sailed by the Sherden at the time
of their initial defeat by Ramesses II may have been used as proto-
types for the hybrid Egyptian vessels that were sailed against the
maritime component of the latter invasion.  Though horn–helmed
warriors are present among the enemy sailors in the Medinet
Habu relief (Figure 1, center and top right), it is important that
their identity not be assumed, as identification of Sherden war-
riors is not as straightforward as it may seem.16 Additionally, there
is no clear evidence that would compel us to ascribe an Aegean
origin to the Sherden, despite the common assumption that they,
like other Sea Peoples groups, would materially demonstrate their
presence through Mycenaean IIIC pottery deposits, among other
features (inter alia, M. Dothan 1986; 1989; Stern 1991: 91; but
see especially Gilboa 2006: 210; Emanuel 2012b; 2013: 22, 23n.5;
and the essays in Killebrew & Lehmann 2013). However, there are
two reasons – the first textual, the second (and more convincing)
archaeological – to associate this group with a variation of the Hel-
ladic oared galley, even if not necessarily with an Aegean home.
First, and most well–known, the Sherden are associated with
16 Cf. Emanuel (2013: 16) on their fellow Sea Peoples by virtue of their apparent participation
the problems inherent in the in two separate invasions: the Libyan migration of Merneptah’s fifth
identification of Sherden in
year (ca. 1209 BC), wherein the they joined the Ekwesh, Teresh,
Ramesside iconography.
Wachsmann (2013: 206), on the and Shekelesh “of the foreign countries of the sea,” as well as the
other hand, has argued – not Lukka (RITANC IV: 2–4, 7);17 and the invasion of Ramesses III’s
necessarily incorrectly – that “the eighth year (ca. 1175 BC) as recounted in the posthumous Great
Medinet Habu naval battle relief
Harris Papyrus, wherein they replace the Shekelesh from the Med-
indicates unequivocally that
Sherden participated in a naval inet Habu list and join the Philistines, Sikils, Denyen, and Weshesh
invasion of Egypt,” and has further among the named invaders (Emanuel 2013: 16–18, 26n.62).
suggested that the Weshesh and The second is a recently–republished model of a Helladic
Sherden were the only Sea Peoples galley from Tomb 611 at Gurob, near the Fayum in Middle Egypt
participants in this battle
(Wachsmann 2013: 190; cf.
(Figure 10; Wachsmann 2013). The model features a curved hull;
Emanuel 2013: 26n. 61–62). stanchions, which on a real ship would have supported the super-
structure and partial decking; and a stempost decorated with what
17 Though not specifically may be an upturned bird’s head similar to those on the Kynos and
referenced as being “of the foreign
Bademgediği Tepe vessels (among many others in LH IIIB–C ship
countries of the sea,” the Lukka had
been known for piracy since at least iconography; cf. a stirrup jar from Skyros and a LH IIIC pyxis from
the Amarna period (cf. EA 38). Tragana; Korrés 1985: 200; Wachsmann 1996; 1998: 134–135;
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 44

Figure 10. Gurob ship–cart model Mountjoy 2005 pl. XCVIIa; see also Wachsmann 2013: 78–80 for
as reconstructed (© Institute for the further discussion, with references). Also present is the bow pro-
Visualization of History, Inc.).
jection at the junction of stempost and keel, which would become
a standard feature of Iron Age galleys (Wedde 1999 pl. XXXVII;
Sea Peoples ships N.4 and N.5 have similar projections, but at the
stern). The rows of black dots that flank the hull, interpreted by
Wachsmann as oarports, make it probable that the vessel repre-
sented was a fifty–oared pentekontor (Emanuel 2012a; forthcom-
ing A; forthcoming B).
A rare polychromatic representation of a Helladic oared gal-
ley (Wachsmann 2013: 26–27), the ship–cart model was painted
with a base layer of white, over which black was applied over the
bottom half of the hull, and a red stripe was added just below the
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 45

caprail and above the oarports (Davis 2013: 219; Siddall 2013:
243, Table 1; in all, seven pigments were detected on the ship–
cart model). The black pigment covering the base of the hull was
most likely intended to represent the coating of hull planking with
dark pitch or asphalt, a practice which, though known from at least
the Bronze Age,18 is clearly seen in physical representation here.
The Sherden are connected with this region by the monu-
mental Wilbour Papyrus, a registry from the reign of Ramesses V that
assesses landholdings in Middle Egypt for tax purposes (Gardiner
1941: 40; Faulkner 1953: 44–45). 109 Sherden, “standard–bearers
of the Sherden,” and “retainers of the Sherden,” sometimes “togeth-
er with [their] brethren,” are listed in the document as landowners
and occupiers (cf. also Gardiner 1948a: 83). While both the “good
Egyptian names” borne by these Sherden (Gardiner 1948a: 80) and
the references within P. Wilbour to multigenerational residency (e.g.,
§§59.27.19 and 150.59.9, 25; Gardiner 1948b: 28, 62; Emanuel
2013: 19) seem to support significant “Egyptianization” by this time,
the continuation of the term “Sherden” as an identifier for individu-
als at least into the 11th century suggests that complete assimilation
into Egyptian society had not yet been achieved (Emanuel 2013: 18,
21) – as does the cultic ship–card model from Gurob, if in fact it does
come, as Wachsmann has suggested, from the tomb of a Sherden
18 References to the use of pitch individual or one of his descendants (Wachsmann 2013: 206).
or asphalt to seal wooden ships None of the Sherden listed in P. Wilbour are explicitly asso-
can be seen in such diverse ancient ciated with maritime pursuits,19 but this should not necessarily be
examples as the instructions for
surprising. While the seafaring nature of the Sherden is clear, an ef-
building Noah’s Ark (Gen. 6:14);
the aforementioned letter from fort seems to have been made to downplay the nautical affinities of
Ramesses II to Ḫattušili II (KUB III 82; those who had entered Egyptian service and society. For example,
cf. Casson 1971: 211–2; Kurt 1979: Sherden in the Egyptian military and society are never referred
33; Steffy 1994: 277); and in the
to as being “of the Sea,” an epithet that appears to be reserved
epithet μἐλαινα ναῦς ‘black ships’ in
the Homeric epics (Davis 2013: 223- for those fighting against Egypt (Emanuel 2013: 15, 25n.35). Thus,
224; Emanuel forthcoming B). the ship–cart from Gurob, if properly attributed to the Sherden,
is powerful evidence not only for this group’s association with the
19 By contrast, three “members of a Helladic oared galley, but also for at least one Sherden’s attempt
[cargo] ship’s crew” are mentioned
in the text as having been allotted
to maintain his foreign identity during a period of accelerated ac-
land (§123.47.39, 47.49, and 48.3; culturation into Egyptian society (for what may be an opposite
Gardiner 1948a: 83; 1948b: 50). example, cf. Petrie 1905: 22; Emanuel 2013: 21–22).
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 46

Egyptian Maritime Experimentation

As noted above, the new elements featured on the Egyp-
tian ships at Medinet Habu are depicted in identical fashion to
their Sea Peoples counterparts. Importantly, they are also depict-
ed as seamlessly–integrated components of the vessels’ largely
Egyptian foundation. This suggests that, rather than being brand–
new and experimental in nature at that time, Egyptian shipwrights
and sailors alike had had some time to develop and familiarize
themselves with the foreign components of this hybrid vessel.
The loose–footed, brailed sail in particular was a radical change
from the traditional Egyptian rig, with its boom and “web of lifts”
(Raban 1989: 170; cf., inter alia, Roberts 1991: 55–56, pls. XVIIb,
XVIIIa; Wachsmann 1998 fig. 2.11; Tzachili 1999) and the com-
bination of this rigging and downward–curving yard seen in the
Saqqara relief and showcased at Medinet Habu is not found in
any other Egyptian representations (Raban 1989: 165). A search
for evidence of this familiarization period in Egyptian sailing re-
veals some prior representations of what may be brailed sails, but
each is problematic.20 An Abydos boat from the late 18th dynasty
20 Despite the present author’s tomb of Neferhotep (TT 50), an Egyptian official during the reign
differences in some aspects of of the final pre–Ramesside pharaoh, Horemheb (1319–1292
interpretation (see below), Vinson
BC), shows a sail which may be interpreted as being brailed to
(1993) remains the authoritative
prior study on this topic. an upward–curving yard. However, the boom is still present, no
brailing lines are explicitly shown, and the ship appears elsewhere
21 A final example, which is in the same relief with the sail secured to both upper and lower
both unprovenanced and
yards (Bénédite 1894 pl. III; Hari 1985 pl. LXXX; Figure 11). Turin
unparalleled in Egyptian
iconography, is a carved block that Papyri 2032 and 2033, which date to the early Ramesside period,
has the appearance of a river boat likewise show riverine vessels whose sails appear similarly brailed–
with a loose–footed sail brailed up to upward–curving upper yards, but which still carry booms
into fore–and–aft configuration – a (Museo Egizio di Torino 1987: 195, fig. 270; for a color illustration,
representation that is “unique in
pre–classical nautical art.” Vinson
see Vinson 1994).21 Though Georgiou (1991) has previously sug-
(1993: 135–136n.9) considers this gested the existence (and hypothesized about the capabilities) of
an Amarna–period representation, brailed rigs on vessels with boom–footed sails, the appearance
but recognizes that it is “prudent of these vessels’ sails as being furled to the upper yards makes
to retain at least some skepticism
it unlikely that a brailing system was in fact being utilized (contra
of any such object that has neither
a certain provenience nor any Vinson 1993 and Barako 2001: 216n.29), as a boom–footed sail
parallel.” would require brailing lines that encompass both yard and boom,
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 47

Figure 11. Abydos boat of with the latter (rather than the windward edge of the sail itself, as
Neferhotep (TT 50; after Hari with a loose–footed sail) being manipulated for windward sailing
1985 pl. XXX).
(Georgiou 1991 pls. XXII–XXIII).22
At Medinet Habu, on the other hand, the brailed rig is
paired with a loose–footed squaresail. Though not being utilized
for propulsion in the relief, its employment in such form would
logically seem to follow such a period of experimentation, even if
that may not be depicted in the images from TT50 and the Turin
Papyri. Further, though the Saqqara relief suggests that Egyptians
may have come into contact with this sail type and rigging sys-
tem (as well as the top–mounted crow’s nest) via Syro–Canaanite
traders in the late 18th or 19th Dynasties, it is possible that the
full value of such a technological ‘package’ only truly became ap-
parent when the Sherden and their aHaw aHA m–Hry–ib pA ym
were encountered – and defeated – early in Ramesses II’s reign.
22 If these representations do As Artzy (1997; 1998), Georgiou (1991), and Horden and Purcell
in fact depict brailed rigging, (2000), among others, have noted, the distinction need not be
though, then they may provide binary, as both the Sherden and those aboard the ship offload-
evidence for experimentation
ing Canaanite amphorae in the Saqqara relief may belong to the
by the end of the 18th dynasty
– though the presence of booms population elements variously referred to as “pirates, raiders, and
reveals the lack of a loose–footed traders” or as “nomads of the sea.” Further, they may be related (or
sail, thereby demonstrating that the even identical) groups; we simply lack the evidence, at present, to
complete rigging–and–sail package make such clear identifications and to draw such fine distinctions
seen at the end of the Late Bronze
Age was neither fully understood
between the various individuals and groups operating in such
nor being properly implemented at capacities at this time. Appropriating this technology from these
that time. “rebellious–hearted” enemies in the first quarter of the 13th c.,
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 48

though, 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.

Conclusion
Ramesses III’s naval battle relief is valuable not only because
of its status as the first pictorial record of such an encounter, but
also because of the information it provides about the origin and
travels of at least some of the Sea Peoples, as well as the clues it of-
fers to the sources of galley design and several important compo-
nents of maritime technology. The vessels seen at Medinet Habu,
and their comparanda in other media, provide important insight
into the process of development and innovation that would even-
tually spawn divergent lines of ship development in the Aegean
and on the Phoenician coast, resulting in the Greek dieres and
Phoenician bireme of the Iron Age (Casson 1971: 55–60; Basch
1987: 303–335; Wachsmann 1998: 174).

Acknowledgements
A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the Mari-
time Archaeology session of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search Annual Meeting on the 17th of November 2012. I would
like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Professor Shelley Wachsmann
(Texas A&M University) for his constructive feedback and advice
on this topic over the past several years, as well as Christopher
Monroe (Cornell University) for helpful discussions about KUB III
82. I would also like to thank the editorial staff of Aegean Stud-
ies for their support and assistance throughout the publication
process, and the anonymous reviewers, whose welcome feedback
and comments were incorporated into the final version of this pa-
per. All remaining errors and omissions are, of course, entirely my
own.
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 49

Bibliography
Adams, M. J. & Cohen, M. E., 329–344. W. Wallace & A. G. Orphanides
2013. ‘The Sea Peoples in Pri- Barako, T., 2000. ‘The Philistine (eds.), Sources for the History
mary Sources’, in A. E. Killebrew Settlement as Mercantile Phe- of Cyprus II: Near Eastern and
& G. Lehmann (eds), The Philis- nomenon?’, AJA 104: 513–530. Aegean Texts from the Third to
tines and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in [online] the First Millennia B.C., Nicosia:
Text and Archaeology, Atlanta: Barako, T., 2001. The Seaborne 31–35.
645–664. Migration of the Philistines, PhD Bénédite, G., 1894. ‘Tombou de
Ahlberg–Cornell, G., 1971. Fighting diss., Harvard University. Neferhotpou’, MMAF 5:
on Land and Sea in Greek Geo- Baruffi, J. T., 1998. Naval Warfare 489–540.
metric Art, Stockholm. Operations in the Bronze Age Benzi, M., 2013. ‘The Southeast
Artzy, M., 1997. ‘Nomads of the Eastern Mediterranean, PhD Aegean in the Age of the Sea
Sea’, in S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder diss., University of Chicago. Peoples’, in A. E. Killebrew & G.
& H. W. Swiny (eds), Res Mar- Basch, L., 1987. Le Musée Lehmann (eds.), The Philistines
itimae: Cyprus and the Eastern Imaginaire de la Marine An- and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in
Mediterranean from Prehis- tique. Athens. Text and Archaeology, Atlanta:
tory to Late Antiquity (ASOR Basch, L., 2009. ‘Were the Hittites 509–542. [online]
Archaeological Reports 4), Able to Build a Replica of an Breasted, J. H., 1906–7. Ancient
Atlanta: 1–16. [online] Egyptian Ship According to Records of Egypt, vol. 2, Chicago.
Artzy, M., 1998. ‘Routes, Trade, Their Own Drawings?’, in H. Bryce, T. R., 1992. ‘Lukka Revisited’,
Boats, and ‘Nomads of the Sea’, Nowacki & W. Lefévre (eds.), JNES 51: 121–130.
in S. Gitin, A. Mazar & E. Stern Creating Shapes in Civil and Bryce, T. R., 1998. The Kingdom of
(eds), Mediterranean Peoples in Naval Architecture: A Cross– the Hittites, Oxford.
Transition, Thirteenth to Early Disciplinary Comparison, Caminos, R. A., 1954. Late Egyptian
Tenth Centuries BCE, Jerusalem: Leiden: 65–72. Miscellanies, London.
439–448. Beckman, G. M., 1999. Hittite Capart, J., 1931. Documents pour
Artzy, M., 2003. ‘Mariners and their Diplomatic Texts. Atlanta. servir à l’étude de l’art égyp­
Boats at the End of the Late Beckman, G., 1994a. ‘Akkadian tien, vol. 2, Paris.
Bronze Age and the Begin- Documents from Ugarit’, in P. Cariolou, G. A., 1997. ‘Kyrenia
ning of the Iron Age in the W. Wallace & A. G. Orphanides II: The Return from Cyprus to
Eastern Mediterranean’, TA 30: (eds.), Sources for the History Greece of the Replica of a Hel-
232–246. of Cyprus II: Near Eastern and lenic Merchant Ship’, in S. Swiny,
Artzy, M., 2013. ‘On the Other Sea Aegean Texts from the Third to R. L. Hohlfelder & H. W. Swiny
Peoples’, in A. E. Killebrew & G. the First Millennia B.C., Nicosia: (eds), Res Maritimae: Cyprus
Lehmann (eds), The Philistines 26–28. and the Eastern Mediterranean
and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Beckman, G., 1994b. ‘Hittite from Prehistory to Late An-
Text and Archaeology, Atlanta: Documents from Ḫattuša’, in P. tiquity (ASOR Archaeological
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 50

Reports 4), Atlanta: 1–16. Pictorial Pottery (Well Built gration Processes’, in S. Gitin,
Casson, L., 1971. Ships and Mycenae 21), Oxford. A. Mazar & E. Stern (eds.),
Seamanship in the Ancient Dakoronia, P., 1990. ‘War–Ships Mediterranean Peoples in
World, Princeton. on Sherds of LHIIIC Kraters Transition: Thirteenth to Early
Chadwick, J., 1973. Documents in from Kynos’, in H. Tzalas (ed.), Tenth Centuries B.C., Jerusalem:
Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge. TROPIS II: 2nd International 114–128.
Chadwick, J., 1976. The Mycenaean Symposium on Ship Construc- Dothan, T., 1982. Philistine Material
World, Cambridge. tion in Antiquity, Delphi: Culture. New Haven.
Chadwick, J., 1988. ‘The Women of 117–122. Dothan, T., 1998. ‘Initial Philistine
Pylos’, in T. G. Palaima & J–P. Dakoronia, P., 1996. ‘Kynos…Fleet’, Settlement: From Migration
Olivier (eds.), Texts, Tablets and in H. Tzalas (ed), TROPIS IV: to Coexistence’, in S. Gitin, A.
Scribes: Studies in Mycenaean 4th International Symposium on Mazar & E. Stern (eds.), Medi-
Epigraphy Offered to Emmett L. Ship Construction in Antiquity, terranean Peoples in Transition:
Bennett, Jr., Salamanca: 43–95. Athens: 159–172. Thirteenth to Early Tenth Cen-
Cifola, B., 1994. ‘The Role of the Dakoronia, P. 2006. ‘Mycenaean turies B.C., Jerusalem: 148–161.
Sea Peoples at the End of the Pictorial Style at Kynos, East Dothan, T. & Zukerman, A., 2004.
Late Bronze Age: A Reassess- Locris’, in E. Rystedt & B. Wells ‘A Preliminary Study of the
ment of the Textual and Ar- (eds.), Pictorial Pursuits: Figura- Mycenaean IIIC:1 Pottery
chaeological Evidence’, OrAnt tive Painting on Mycenaean Assemblages from Tel Miqne–
1–2: 1–23. and Geometric Pottery (Skrifter Ekron and Ashdod’, BASOR
Cline, E. H., & D. O’Connor., 2003. Utgivna av Svenska institutet i 333: 1–54.
‘The Mystery of the Sea Peoples’, Athen 53), Stockholm: 23–29. Edel, E., 1994a. Die Ägyptisch–
in D. O’Connor & S. Quirke Dakoronia, P. & Mpougia, P., 1999. Hethitische Korrespondenz aus
(eds.), Mysterious Lands, Port- Τον καιρό των Μυκηναίων στη Boghazköi I: Umschriften und
land: 107–138. [online] Φθιώτιδα, Lamia. Übersetzungen (Abhandlungen
Cline, E. H., & D. O’Connor., 2012. Davies, N. de G. & Faulkner, R. O., der Rheinisch–Westfälischen
‘The Sea Peoples’, in E. H. Cline 1947. ‘A Syrian Trading Venture Akademie der Wissenschaften
& D. O’Connor (eds.), Ramesses to Egypt’, JEA 33: 40–46. 77), Opladen.
III: The Life and Times of Davis, D., 2013. ‘Ship Colors in the Edel, E., 1994b. Die Ägyptisch–
Egypt’s Last Great Hero, Ann Homeric Poems’, in S. Wachs- Hethitische Korrespondenz
Arbor: 180–208. mann, The Gurob Ship–Cart aus Boghazköi II: Kommentar
Crielaard, J. P. 2000. ‘Homeric Model and Its Mediterranean (Abhandlungen der Rheinisch–
and Mycenaean Long–Distance Context, College Station: Westfälischen Akademie der
Contacts: Discrepancies in the 219–224. Wissenschaften 77), Opladen.
Evidence’, BaBesch 75:  51–64. Deger–Jalkotzy, S., 1998. ‘Sea Edgerton, W. F. & Wilson, J. A.,
[online] Peoples in Cyprus and Israel: A 1936. Historical Records of
Crouwel, J. H., 1991. Mycenaean Comparative Study of Immi- Ramesses III: Texts in Medinet
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 51

Habu I–II (Studies in Ancient Lee (eds.), Ancient Warfare: Oxford.

Oriental Civilizations 12). Introducing Current Research, Genz, H., 2013. ‘No Land Could
Chicago. Cambridge. Stand Before their Arms, from...
Efkleidou, K., 2002. ‘The Status Emanuel, J. P., forthcoming B. Ḫatti...on? New Light on the
of ‘Outsiders’ within Mycenaean ‘Black Ships and Fair–Flowing End of the Hittite Empire and
Pylos: Issues of Ethnic Identity, Aegyptus: Odysseus’ Egyptian the Early Iron Age in Central
Incorporation and Marginality’, Raids in their Late Bronze–Early Anatolia’, in A. E. Killebrew & G.
Minos 37: 1–23. [online] Iron Age Context.’ Lehmann (eds.), The Philistines
Emanuel, J. P., 2012a. ‘Cretan Lie Epigraphic Survey, 1930. Medinet and Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in
and Historical Truth: Examin- Habu I: Earlier Historical Re- Text and Archaeology, Atlanta:
ing Odysseus’ Raid on Egypt in cords of Ramses III (Oriental In- 469–478.
its Late Bronze Age Context’, stitute Publications 8). Chicago. Georgiou, H. S., 1991. ‘Bronze Age
in V. Bers, D. Elmer, D. Frame & Epigraphic Survey, 1932. Medinet Ships and Rigging’, in R. Laffineur
L. Muellner (eds.), Donum Na- Habu II: Later Historical Records & L. Basch (eds.), Thalassa: L’Egée
talicium Digitaliter Confectum of Ramses III (Oriental Institute préhistorique et la mer (Aegae-
Gregorio Nagy Septuagenario a Publications 9). Chicago. um 7), Liège: 61–71. [online]
Discipulis Collegis Familiaribus Eyre, C. J., 1992. ‘The Adoption Georgiou, H. S., 2012. ‘Bronze Age
Oblatum, Washington, DC. Papyrus in Social Context’, JEA Sailing and Homeric Evidence’,
[online] 78: 207–221. in G. S. Korres, N. Karadimas
Emanuel, J. P., 2012b. ‘Šrdn of Faulkner, R. O., 1941. ‘Egyptian & G. Flouda (eds.), Archaeol-
the Strongholds, Šrdn of the Military Standards’, JEA 27: ogy and Heinrich Schliemann:
Sea: The Sherden in Egyptian 12–18. A Century After His Death:
Society, Reassessed.’ Paper Faulkner, R. O., 1953. ‘Egyptian Assessments and Prospects,
presented at the American Re- Military Organization’, JEA 39: Myth–History–Science, Athens:
search Center in Egypt annual 32–47. 523–529. [online]
meeting, Providence, RI, Apr. Gardiner, A. H., 1941. ‘Ramesside Glanville, S. R. K., 1930. ‘Records
27–29. [online] Texts Relating to the Taxation of a Royal Dockyard at the Time
Emanuel. J. P., 2013. ‘Šrdn from and Transport of Corn’, JEA 27: of Thutmosis III: Papyrus British
the Sea: The Arrival, Integra- 19–73. Museum 10056, Part I’, ZÄS 66:
tion, and Acculturation of a Sea Gardiner, A. H., 1948a. The 105–121.
People’, JAEI 4: 14–27. [online] Wilbour Papyrus II: Commen- Glanville, S. R. K., 1932. ‘Records
Emanuel, J. P., forthcoming A. ‘The tary, London. of a Royal Dockyard at the Time
Late Bronze–Early Iron Tran- Gardiner A. H., 1948b. The of Thutmosis III: Papyrus British
sition: Changes in Warriors Wilbour Papyrus III: Translation, Museum 10056, Part II’, ZÄS 68:
and Warfare and the Earliest London. 7–41.
Recorded Naval Battles’, in H. Gardiner, A. H., 1960. The Kadesh Gordon, C. H., 1992. ‘The
Whittaker, G. Wrightson & G. Inscriptions of Ramesses II, Mediterranean Synthesis’, in
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 52

W. A. Ward & M. S. Joukowsky Seagoing Ships and Seamanship Peoples’ in Text and Archaeol-
(eds.), The Crisis Years: The 12th in the Bronze Age Levant, Col- ogy, Atlanta: 77–130.
Century B.C. from Beyond the lege Station: 333–344. Killebrew, A. E. & Lehmann, G.
Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque: Horden, P. & Purcell, N., 2000. (eds.), 2013. The Philistines and
188–196. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Other ‘Sea Peoples’ in Text and
Güterbock, H. G., 1967. ‘The Hittite Mediterranean History, Oxford. Archaeology, Atlanta.
Conquest of Cyprus Reconsid- Hurwit, J., 1985. The Art and Kirk, G. S., 1949. ‘Ships on Geometric
ered’, JNES 26: 73–81. Culture of Early Greece, Vases’, BSA 44: 93–153.
Hari, R., 1985. La Tombe Thébaine 1100–480 B.C., Ithaca. Kitchen, K. A., 1996. Ramesside
du Père Divin Neferhotep Jones, D., 1988. A Glossary of Inscriptions Translated and
(TT50), Geneva. Ancient Egyptian Nautical Titles Annotated: Translations II.
Hawkins, J. D., 1990. ‘The New and Terms. London. Cambridge.
Inscription from the Südburg of Jones, D., 1995. Boats, London. Kitchen, K. A., 1999. Ramesside
Boğazköy–Ḫattuša’, AA 1990: Katzev, M., 1990. ‘An Analysis of the Inscriptions Translated and An-
305–314. Experimental Voyages of Kyre- notated: Notes and Comments,
Hawkins, J. D., 1995. The Hieroglyphic nia II’, in H. Tzalas (ed.), TROPIS vol, 2. Cambridge.
Inscription of the Sacred Pool II: 2nd International Symposium Korrés, G. S., 1989. ‘Representation
Complex at Ḫattuša (SÜDBURG) on Ship Construction in Antiq- of a Late Mycenaean Ship on
(Studien zu den Boğazköy– uity, Delphi: 245–256. [online] the Pyxis from Tragana, Pylos’,
Texten 3), Wiesbaden. Killebrew, A. E., 2007. ‘The in H. Tzalas (ed.), TROPIS I: 1st
Hawkins, J. D., 2009. ‘Cilicia, the Canaanite Storage Jar Revisited,’ International Symposium on
Amuq, and Aleppo: New in S. White Crawford, A. Ben– Ship Construction in Antiquity,
Light in a Dark Age’, NEA 72: Tor, J. P. Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Delphi: 177–202.
164–173. Mazar & J. Aviram (eds.), Up to Kuentz, C., 1928. La Bataille de
Heltzer, M., 1979. ‘Some Questions the Gates of Ekron: Essays on Qadech: Les Textes (‘Poème de
Concerning the Sherdana in the Archaeology and History Pentaour’ et ‘Bulletin de Qa-
Ugarit’, IOS 9: 9–16. of the Eastern Mediterranean dech’) et les Bas–Reliefs. Cairo.
Hoffner, Jr., H. A., 1992. ‘The Last in Honor of Seymour Gitin, Lambdin, T. O. 1953. ‘The Miši–
Days of Khattusha’, in W. A. Jerusalem: 166–188. People of the Byblian Amarna
Ward & M. S. Joukowsky (eds.), Killebrew, A. E., 2013. ‘Early Letters’, JCS 7.3: 75–77.
The Crisis Years: The 12th Philistine Pottery Technology at Landström, B., 1970. Ships of the
Century B.C. from Beyond the Tel Miqne–Ekron: Implications Pharaohs: 4000 Years of Egyp-
Danube to the Tigris, Dubuque: for the Late Bronze–Early Iron tian Shipbuilding. Garden City.
46–52. Age Transition in the Eastern Lehmann, G., 1979. ‘Die Sikilaju:
Hoftijzer, J. & Van Soldt, W., 1998. Mediterranean’, in A. E. Kille- Ein Neues Zeugnis zu den
‘Texts from Ugarit Pertaining brew & G. Lehmann (eds.), ‘Seevölker’–Heerfahrten
to Seafaring’, in S. Wachsmann, The Philistines and Other ‘Sea im Späten 13 Jh. v. Chr. (RS
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 53

34.129)’, UF 11: 481–494. Aegean–West Anatolian Inter- Nelson, H. H., 1943. ‘The Naval
Linder, E., 1970. ‘Naval Warfare in face in the Late Bronze Age: Battle Pictured at Medinet
the El–Amarna Age’, in D. J. Mycenaeans and the Kingdom Habu’, JNES 2: 40–55.
Blackman (ed.), Marine Archae- of Ahhiyawa’ AS 48: 33–67. O’Connor, D., 2000. ‘The Sea
ology, Hamden: 317–324. Mountjoy, P. A., 2005. ‘Mycenaean Peoples and the Egyptian
Malamat, A., 1971. ‘The Egyptian Connections with the Near Sources’, in E. Oren (ed.), The
Decline in Canaan and the East in LH IIIC: Ships and Sea Sea Peoples and Their World:
Sea–Peoples’, in B. Mazar (ed.), Peoples’, in R. Laffineur & E. A Reassessment (University
The World History of the Jewish Greco (eds.), Emporia: Aege- Museum Monographs 108),
People III: Judges, New Bruns- ans in the Central and Eastern Philadelphia: 85–102.
wick: 23–38. [online] Mediterranean (Aegaeum 25), Oren, E. D., 1973. The Northern
Manassa, C., 2003. The Great Liège: 423–431. Cemetery of Beth Shan. Leiden.
Karnak Inscription of Mernep- Mountjoy, P. A., 2011. ‘A Bronze Ormerod, H. A., 1924. Piracy in the
tah: Grand Strategy in the 13th Age Ship from Ashkelon Ancient World. Baltimore.
Century BC. New Haven. with Particular Reference to Otten, H., 1989. ‘Die Hieroglyphen–
Mark, S. E., 2000. Homeric the Bronze Age Ship from Luwische Inschrift’, AA 1989:
Seafaring, PhD diss., Texas A&M Bademgediği Tepe’, AJA 115: 333–337.
University. 483–488. Petrie, W. M. F., 1905. Ehnaysia,
Meric, R. & Mountjoy, P., 2002. Mountjoy, P. A. & Gowland, R., 1904. London.
‘Mycenaean Pottery from 2005. ‘The End of the Bronze Pirenne, H., 1940. Economic and
Bademgediği Tepe (Puranda) Age at Enkomi, Cyprus: The Social History of Medieval
in Ionia: A Preliminary Report’, Problem of Level IIIB’, BSA 100: Europe, New York.
IstMitt 52: 79–98. 125–214. Podany, A., 2010. Brotherhood of
Millet, N. B., 1987. ‘The First Muhly, J. D., 1984. ‘The Role of the Kings: How International Rela-
Appearance of the Loose–Foot- Sea Peoples in Cyprus During tions Shaped the Ancient Near
ed Squaresail Rig in the Medi- the LC III Period’, in V. Kara- East. Oxford.
terranean’, JSSEA 17: 89–91. georghis & J. D. Muhly (eds), Pomey, P., 2009. ‘On the Use of
Monroe, C., 1990. The Boatbuilding Cyprus at the Close of the Late Design in Ancient Mediterra-
Industry of New Kingdom Bronze Age, Nicosia: 39–56. nean Ship Construction’, in H.
Egypt, MA Thesis, Texas A&M Murray, A. S., Smith, A. H. & Walters, Nowacki & W. Lefévre (eds.),
University. H. B., 1900. Excavations in Creating Shapes in Civil and
Monroe, C., 2010. ‘Sunk Costs at Cyprus: Bequest of Miss E. T. Naval Architecture: A Cross–
Late Bronze Age Uluburun’, BA- Turner to the British Museum, Disciplinary Comparison,
SOR 357: 19–33. London. Leiden: 49–63.
Moran, W. L., 1992. The Amarna Museo Egizio di Torino, 1987. Prior, C. A., 2013. ‘Radiocarbon
Letters. Baltimore. Civiltà Degli Egizi: La Vita Quo- Age Analysis of the Gurob
Mountjoy, P. A., 1998. ‘The East tidiana, Milan. Ship–Cart Model’, in S. Wachs-
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 54

mann, The Gurob Ship–Cart Roberts, R. G., 2009. ‘Identity, College Station: 243–247.
Model and Its Mediterranean Choice and the Year 8 Reliefs of Singer, I., 1983. ‘Western Anatolia
Context, College Station: Ramesses III at Medinet Habu’, in the Thirteenth Century
239–242. in C. Bachhuber & R. G. Roberts B.C. According to the Hittite
Pulak, C., 1998. ‘The Uluburun (eds.), Forces of Transformation: Sources’, AS 33: 205–217.
Shipwreck: an Overview’, IJNA The End of the Bronze Age in Singer, I., 2000. ‘New Evidence on
27: 188–224. the Mediterranean (BANEA the End of the Hittite Empire’, in
Pulak, C., 2005. ‘Who Were the Themes from the Ancient Near E. Oren (ed.), The Sea Peoples
Mycenaeans Aboard the Ulubu- East 1), Oxford: 60–68. and Their World: A Reassess-
run Ship?’, in R. Laffineur & E. Robinson, A., 2009. Lost Languages: ment (University Museum
Greco (eds.), Emporia: Aegeans The Enigma of the World’s Un- Monographs 108), Philadelphia:
in the Central Mediterranean deciphered Scripts. London. 21–34.
(Aegaeum 25), Liège: 295–310. Rougé, E. de, 1877. Inscriptions Singer, I., 2006. ‘Ships Bound for
Raban, A., 1989. ‘The Medinet Hiéroglyphices Copiées en Lukka: A New Interpretation
Habu Ships: Another Interpre- Égypte Pendant la Mission of the Companion Letters RS
tation’, IJNA 18: 163–171. Scientifique de M. le Vicomte 94.2530 and RS 94.2523’, AltF
Raban, A., 1995. ‘The Sea Peoples Emmanuel de Rougé. Paris. 33: 242–262.
and Thera Ships’, in H. Tzalas Sandars, N. K., 1985 [1978]. Sølver, C. V., 1936. ‘Egyptian
(ed.), TROPIS III: 3rd Interna- The Sea Peoples: Warriors of Shipping of about 1500 B.C.’,
tional Symposium on Ship Con- the Ancient Mediterranean, MM 22: 430–469.
struction in Antiquity, Delphi: 2nd ed., London. Spiegelberg, W., 1896. Rechnungen
353–366. Säve–Söderbergh, T., 1957. aus der Zeit Setis I, Strassburg.
Redford, D. B., 2006. ‘The Tjeker’, Four Eighteenth Dynasty Stager, L. E., 1995. ‘The Impact of
Scripta Mediterranea 27–28: Tombs, Oxford. the Sea Peoples in Canaan
9–14. Schulman, A. R., 1968. ‘A Private (1185–1050 BCE)’, in T. E. Levy
Roberts, O. T. P., 1991. ‘The Triumph in Brooklyn, (ed.), The Archaeology of Soci-
Development of the Brail into a Hildesheim, and Berlin’, JARCE ety in the Holy Land, London:
Viable Sail Control for Aegean 7: 27–35. 332–348.
Boats of the Bronze Age’, in Sethe, K., 1909. Urkunden des Stager, L. E. & Mountjoy, P. A.,
R. Laffineur & L. Basch (eds.), Ägyptischen Altertums IV: 2007. ‘A Pictorial Krater from
Thalassa: L’Egée Préhistorique Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV, Philistine Ashkelon’, in S. White
Et La Mer (Aegaeum 7), Liège: Liepzig. Crawford, A. Ben–Tor, J. P.
55–64. [online] Siddall, R., 2013. ‘Analysis of the Dessel, W. G. Dever, A. Mazar
Roberts, O. T. P., 1995. ‘An Pigments from the Gurob Ship– & J. Aviram (eds.), Up to the
Explanation of Ancient Wind- Cart Model’, in S. Wachsmann, Gates of Ekron: Essays on the
ward Sailing: Some Other Con- The Gurob Ship–Cart Model Archaeology and History of
siderations’, IJNA 24: 307–315 and Its Mediterranean Context, the Eastern Mediterranean in
 Α Ι γαια κ έ ς Σ π ουδ έ ς | A E G E A N ST U D I E S | N o. 1 - 2 0 1 4 | 2 1 - 5 6 | 55

Honor of Seymour Gitin, Jerusa- (eds.), Meletemata: Studies in Ships and Seamanship in the
lem: 50–61. Aegean Archaeology Presented Bronze Age Levant, College
Stager, L. E., Schloen, J. D. & Master, to Malcolm H. Weiner as he Station.
D. M. (eds.), 2008. Ashkelon Enters his 65th Year (Aegaeum Wachsmann, S., 2000. ‘To the Sea
1: Introduction and Overview. 20), Liège: 857–862. [online] of the Philistines’, in E. Oren
Winona Lake. Vermeule, E. & Karageorghis, V., (ed.), The Sea Peoples and Their
Stern, E., 1991. ‘Phoenicians, Sikils, 1982. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase World: A Reassessment (Univer-
and Israelites in the Light of Painting. Cambridge. sity Museum Monographs 108),
Recent Excavations at Dor’, in Vinson, S., 1993. ‘The Earliest Philadelphia: 103–143. [online]
E. Lipiński (ed.), Phoenicia and Representations of Brailed Sails’, Wachsmann, S. 2003. “A Complex
the Bible (Studia Phoenicia 11), JARCE 30: 133–150. Migration: Did the Philistines
Leuven: 85–94. Vinson, S., 1994. Egyptian Boats get to Canaan by Land or by
Steffy, J. R., 1994. Wooden Ship and Ships, Buckinghamshire. Sea?” BAR 29.6: 22, 64.
Building and the Interpretation Wachsmann, S., 1981. ‘The Ships of Wachsmann, S., 2013. The Gurob
of Shipwrecks. College Station. the Sea Peoples’, IJNA 10: Ship–Cart Model and its Medi-
Stieglitz, R. R. 2000. ‘Hebrew 187–220. terranean Context, College
Seafaring in the Biblical Period’, Wachsmann, S., 1982. ‘The Ships Station.
MHR 15.1: 5–15. of the Sea Peoples (IJNA, 10.3: Ward, W. A. & Joukowsky, M. S.
Stone, B. J., 1995. ‘The Philistines 187–220): Additional Notes’, (eds), 1992. The Crisis Years:
and Acculturation: Culture IJNA 11: 297–304. The 12th Century B.C. from Be-
Change and Ethnic Continuity Wachsmann, S., 1996. ‘Bird Head yond the Danube to the Tigris,
in the Iron Age’, BASOR 298: Devices on Mediterranean Dubuque.
7–32 Ships’, in H. Tzalas (ed.), TROPIS Wedde, M., 1991. ‘Aegean Bronze
Tartaron, T. F., 2013. Maritime IV: 4th International Symposium Age Ship Imagery: Regional-
Networks in the Mycenaean on Ship Construction in Antiq- isms, a Minoan Bias, and a
World, Cambridge. uity, Athens: 539–572. [online] ‘Thalassocracy’ in R. Laffineur
Tiboni, F., 2005. ‘Weaving and Wachsmann, S., 1997. ‘Were the & L. Basch (eds.), Thalassa:
Ancient Sails: Structural Chang- Sea Peoples Mycenaeans? The L’Egée Préhistorique Et La Mer
es to Ships as a Consequence Evidence of Ship Iconography’, (Aegaeum 7), Liège: 73–94.
of New Weaving Technology in in S. Swiny, R. L. Hohlfelder & H. [online]
the Mediterranean Late Bronze W. Swiny (eds), Res Maritimae: Wedde, M., 1999. ‘War at Sea: The
Age’, IJNA 34.1: 127–130. Cyprus and the Eastern Medi- Mycenaean and Early Iron Age
Tzachili, I., 1999. ‘Before Sailing: terranean from Prehistory to Oared Galley’, in R. Laffineur
The Making of Sails in the Late Antiquity (ASOR Archaeo- (ed.), Polemos: Le Contexte
Second Millennium B.C.’, in P. logical Reports 4), Atlanta: Guerrier en Égée à l’âge du
Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, 339–356. [online] Bronze (Aegaeum 19), Liège:
R. Laffineur & W–D. Niemeier Wachsmann, S., 1998. Seagoing 465–476.
 J e f f re y P. Eman u e l | S e a P e o p l e s, E g y p t, a n d t h e A e g e a n | 56

Wedde, M., 2000. Toward a Yasur–Landau, A., 2010. The Zaccagnini, C., 1983. ‘Patterns of
Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Philistines and the Aegean Mobility Among Ancient Near
Age Ship Imagery, Mannheim. Migration at the End of the Late Eastern Craftsmen’, JNES 42:
Wedde, M., 2005. ‘The Mycenaean Bronze Age, Cambridge. 245–264.
Galley in Context: From Fact to Yasur–Landau, A., 2013. ‘The
Idée Fixe’, in R. Laffineur & E. ‘Feathered Helmets’ of the Sea
Greco (eds.), Emporia: Aegeans Peoples: Joining the Icono-
in the Central Mediterranean graphic and Archaeological
(Aegaeum 25), Liège: 29–38. Evidence’, Talanta 44: 27–40.
Wilson, J. A., 1974. ‘Egyptian [online]
Historical Texts’, in J. B. Pritchard Yoyotte, J., 1949. ‘Les Stèles de
(ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Ramsès II a Tanis: Première
Relating to the Old Testament, Partie’, Kémi 10: 65–75.
Princeton: 227–263.