The Sea Peoples are generally assumed to be a loose confederation of clans that first appeared in the historical record in the 14th century B.C.E. Over a century of scholarship has puzzled over whether they were responsible for the collapse of several Late Bronze Age civilizations or simply one of several catalysts that put that collapse in motion. Many attempts have also been made to determine the origins of the various groups of Sea Peoples using textual and iconographic evidence, as well as the material culture of the Sea Peoples identified in Cyprus and the Levant. This material culture is characterized foremost by locally made Mycenaean-style pottery; as such, a considerable Aegean or Mycenaean presence has been argued in the multi-ethnic Sea Peoples coalition. The most important visual record that survives of the Sea People documents a land and sea battle against the forces of Ramesses III in the early 12th century B.C.E. and is recorded on the walls of the pharaoh's mortuary temple at Medinet Habu. In 1964 a connection was first proposed between the distinctive ships of the Sea Peoples in the Medinet Habu naval battle relief, with their high, angular stem- and stern- posts topped with outward-facing water-bird heads, and the vogelbarke, or bird-boat, of Late Bronze Age Central European religious iconography. Too little is still understood of both the vogelbarke tradition and the maritime abilities of Bronze Age Central European populations to conclusively state at this time that a vogelbarke-like vessel could have plied the waters of the eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age. However, additional archaeological evidence suggests a Central European mercenary presence in Mycenaean Greece during the period of Sea Peoples activity, as well as Central European participation in the multi-ethnic coalition reflected particularly in the material culture of the Sea Peoples identified in Cyprus. This evidence strengthens the possibility that the vogelbarke-like vessel some scholars claim to see at Medinet Habu is indeed not a "duck out of water."

The approaches used in recent research regarding the ‘Sea Peoples’ of the late Bronze Age in the Eastern Mediterranean have been evaluated in this thesis. Different influences exist on all planes and effect all things in different ways. Researchers have the power of creating the history we know and all too often is the biased influence of the researcher forgotten and their words are taken as facts. Different researchers approach, the studies using different schools of thought such as e.g. ‘processualism’ and post-processualism. Some scholars firmly stay by one approach side, but the approaches should be viewed as complementing each other. Raising awareness of some of the major questions within the research, and scholars different ways of approaching them is a main point in this thesis. The different scholars' approaches to research concerning the ‘Sea Peoples’ etnichity, their migration and impact brought up in the different texts have been analyzed.Concluding remarks focus on that the term ‘Sea Peoples’ is a creation of the modern day scholars and that researchers should refrain from using the term and focus on the different clans instead. A strong vote for interdisciplinary and complementary studies is presented regarding the future of this study and others.

This paper analyses the opposing views regarding the presence or absence of the Sikil at Dor in Palestine during Early Iron Age 1. Textual sources claim that the Sikil were pirates who came from the west and settled in Cyprus. Egyptian sources point to a Sikil presence at Dor. Some scholars regard the Egyptian sources and archaeological finds at Dor as evidence of a Sikil settlement at Dor. Others maintain that there is a continuity of ceramics at Dor from Canaanite to Phoenician. Though there were foreign influences at Dor during Early Iron Age 1 which point to newcomers, they propose that these newcomers probably came from Cyprus. No archaeological record of a Sea People-presence at Dor has been discovered. This study textually traces the Sikil from the Aegean to Cyprus, Egypt and finally to Dor and a theory is presented that the Sikil originated in the Aegean, temporarily settled in Cyprus and finally at Dor. / Old Testament & Ancient Near Eastern Studies / M.A. (Biblical Archaeology)

This paper analyses the opposing views regarding the presence or absence of the Sikil at Dor in Palestine during Early Iron Age 1. Textual sources claim that the Sikil were pirates who came from the west and settled in Cyprus. Egyptian sources point to a Sikil presence at Dor. Some scholars regard the Egyptian sources and archaeological finds at Dor as evidence of a Sikil settlement at Dor. Others maintain that there is a continuity of ceramics at Dor from Canaanite to Phoenician. Though there were foreign influences at Dor during Early Iron Age 1 which point to newcomers, they propose that these newcomers probably came from Cyprus. No archaeological record of a Sea People-presence at Dor has been discovered. This study textually traces the Sikil from the Aegean to Cyprus, Egypt and finally to Dor and a theory is presented that the Sikil originated in the Aegean, temporarily settled in Cyprus and finally at Dor. / Biblical and Ancient Studies / M.A. (Biblical Archaeology)

No abstract available / Biblical and Ancient Studies / M. A. (Biblical Archaeology)

No abstract available / Biblical and Ancient Studies / M. A. (Biblical Archaeology)

The mysterious Sea Peoples are groups thought to have entered the Orient towards the end of the Late Bronze Age time period. Their impact on the region was seemingly influential and one of the contributing factors leading to the decline of the societal status quo in the region leading up to 1200 BCE. Their origins, cultural identity and long term impact on the area are all factors which have been difficult and complex to research. The challenges with regard to these peoples and any research concentrated upon them include a definitive lack of physical evidence of their material culture, specifically in the northern regions thought to have been inhabited by them. Further south the situation differs slightly as the Philistines (thought to be a Sea Peoples group) did settle into a sophisticated society with material remains to prove it. In the north however, Sea Peoples are known to have settled but their impact is less clear but not necessarily non-existent in all regards. The Phoenicians as an Iron Age civilisation date back to the transitional period of 1200 BCE (Late Bronze Age to Early Iron Age) and have often been regarded as simply the cultural descendants of the Late Bronze Age Canaanites. This is true in many ways but in certain instances the Phoenicians achieved feats and undertook cultural practices that may diverge from this idea of complete continuity. In terms of maritime activity, the Phoenicians were able to accomplish feats never before seen in the region. The time period in which these maritime activities started to take place on such an expansive level corresponds with the settlement of northern Sea Peoples in Phoenicia and just outside its southern borders. Although the physical evidence regarding these Sea Peoples is by no means available in abundance, perhaps one can find their impact in the cultural makeup and actions of the Phoenicians. It may be plausible that groups of people that had such a significant influence on an area through their migrations, as the Sea Peoples did, could have had more long term influences on the occupants of the area than has been credited to them before. One possible manifestation of this influence may be the unique maritime character of the Phoenicians which can be compared with the Sea Peoples, who have not been given their name coincidentally. Their affinity to the sea is well known through textual and pictographic records and can in some instances be favourably paralleled with the Phoenicians. Ship design alterations going into the Phoenician age is possibly, at least in part, due to Sea Peoples influence. Furthermore the actual undertaking of Phoenician expansion across the sea and following early forms of maritime expansion which was, to a degree, unknown in the area before seems to have started in a time period contemporaneous with Sea Peoples settling in Canaan. Apart from the settlement in itself, these peoples did so after migrating en masse across the Mediterranean and this must surely be worthy of additional attention. The Sea Peoples’ constant affiliation with all things ship and sea orientated must add some impetus 9 to this argument. Any other similarities between the Sea Peoples and Phoenicians can also be used as an indicator of cultural mergence. Cultural and societal divergences uncovered between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age inhabitants also may illuminate ideas of decisive outside influences after 1200 BCE. The primary thread of this research is dedicated to dealing with the possibilities mentioned and perhaps presenting alternative theories to those currently accepted. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / gm2014 / Ancient Languages / unrestricted

This thesis treats the identification between the Teucrians and the Ṯ-k-(k)-r, one of the so-called Sea Peoples. The hypothesis that the Teucrians and the Ṯ-k-(k)-r would be one and the same was proposed by the Egyptologist Lauth in 1867 and has since become the standard identification for this Sea People. The hypothesis is to-day up-hold by almost all scholars, regarding of discipline, devoted to the research of the Sea Peoples. The author has limited himself to the geographical links between these two peoples. Regarding the Teucrians, the ancient authors suggested three different areas of origin, Crete, Attica, and the Troad. Besides this, the Cypriot Salamis as well as the Cilician Olba have also been linked to this people. By studying the ancient texts relating to these five geographical areas and their respective connections to the Teucrians, the author has set out to test the historicity of the geographical connections. He has gone through the ancient texts and tried to find out the sources for their statements, the background and origin of these connections and their historical value. This has then been compared to the primary sources regarding the Ṯ-k-(k)-r, all of which originate from Egypt and the 20th Dynasty. The results of this survey is that none of the ancient accounts can be verified, with certainty, with information received from sources contemporary with the Sea Peoples. Furthermore, it is also impossible to prove that the Teucrians were an historical people and thusly their identification with the Ṯ-k-(k)-r is very problematic. Of the geographical areas, it is only Cyprus that with certainty can be linked to the Sea Peoples, but probably not with the Ṯ-k-(k)-r but with the D-n-n.

The chronology of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Near East is currently a topic of intense scholarly debate. The conventional/orthodox chronology for this period has been assembled over the past one-two centuries using information from King-lists, royal annals and administrative documents, primarily those from the Great Kingdoms of Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia. This major enterprise has resulted in what can best be described as an extremely complex but little understood jigsaw puzzle composed of a multiplicity of loosely connected data. I argue in my thesis that this conventional chronology is fundamentally wrong, and that Egyptian New Kingdom (Memphite) dates should be lowered by 200 years to match historical actuality. This chronological adjustment is achieved in two stages: first, the removal of precisely 85 years of absolute Assyrian chronology from between the reigns of Shalmaneser II and Ashur-dan II; and second, the downward displacement of Egyptian Memphite dates relative to LBA Assyrian chronology by a further 115 years. Moreover, I rely upon Kuhnian epistemology to structure this alternate chronology so as to make it methodologically superior to the conventional chronology in terms of historical accuracy, precision, consistency and testability.