Molly Greenhouse

1 May 2012
ARCH 370

Investigating the “Sea Peoples:”

Nomadic tribes and causes of migration from Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age

As the Bronze age was coming to an end (ca. 1200 BCE), the eastern Mediterranean

experienced a series of upheavals and disruptions. Major kingdoms and city-states, many of which had

previously served as sources of political and economic stability for the region, were destroyed by

sudden and severe economical decline and abrupt losses of political control. Large, established

societies, such as the Mycenaeans in the Aegean and the Hittites in the northern Levant, collapsed and

left formerly thriving civilizations, like the palaces at Knossos and the trade center of Ugarit, empty

and abandoned. The so-called catastrophe1 that ended the Bronze Age left in its wake enough

destruction and chaos that the culturally sparse period immediately following the Bronze Age has been

termed the Dark Ages, especially in reference to the Aegean region.

War was rampant in the eastern Mediterranean for several hundred years leading up to and

following the end of the Bronze Age, and trade was growing complicated and difficult. The fragile state

of the region was further threatened by natural disasters and famine. Peoples became displaced as

civilizations faltered, and mixed with existing nomadic tribes, often working as mercenaries or traders

to support themselves. Contemporary texts, especially Egyptian inscriptions, allude to the involvement

of mercenary tribes in wars and political clashes, referring to some groups of tribes as “peoples of the

sea.”
1
Robert Drews, The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1993), p. 3.
 2

Documents referring to battles or invasions named tribes that had not been mentioned in earlier

surviving texts, and scholars were quick to accept the conclusion that the collapse of the Bronze Age

could be attributed to ruthless invasions by foreign barbaric tribes, including the “Sea Peoples.”

However, an examination of archaeological and historical evidence suggests that the collapse of the

Bronze Age was due more to existing political and economical shortcomings, in combination with

natural disasters and famine, than to any sort of invasion. The mysterious Sea Peoples are revealed to

be struggling landless tribes from across the Anatolian region, displaced by the fall of civilizations.

Their movements are not motivated by military or political invasions, but rather by a search for new

land on which to resettle and rebuild.

We can begin our examination of the state of the Eastern Mediterranean region at the end of the

Bronze Age ca. 1286 BCE, at the Battle of Kadesh on the Orontes river. The battle marks the beginning

of the culmination of issues in the Levantine regions, and is the first major event with which many

tribes in the region are mentioned in connection. The full list of Hittite allies is given in an inscription

of Rameses II at Luxor,2 and includes several tribes that are included in records of battles in the eastern

Mediterranean from this point on. The battle was between Hatti (the kingdom of the Hittites) and the

Egyptians, and is recorded as a Hittite victory which ends in a peace treaty between Hatti and Egypt.

Almost immediately after this victory, however, Hatti is constantly under threat on all borders and

begins to lose political control in the region.

Depictions of the Battle of Kadesh reveal a key detail of the Hittite empire – their army is

largely a professional chariot army.3 While this enabled the Hittites to achieve military superiority and

political command in the Levant throughout the Bronze Age, it also served as a weakness that

undermined Hatti's position as a stable force in the region. The chariot army required large amounts of
2
James Henry Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. III (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2001), §§ 298-304.
3
N. K. Sandars, The Sea Peoples (London: Thames and Hudson, 1978), p. 32.
 3

arable land to raise and train horses. While Hatti held control in the region, it could depend on its

surrounding territories and allies for land. As Hatti lost control and many of its allies became its

enemies, the Hittites found it more and more difficult to maintain their army.

Hatti's allies at the battle of Kadesh included many tribes and cities from the territories

surrounding the Hittite kingdom, but the support of these peoples did not last long past the battle itself.

The Lukka are listed as Hittite allies, and were a maritime peoples, often described as pirates or raiders.

They were likely present in the region as early as the 14th century, and were often hired as mercenaries;

they held no strong political ties to Hatti or any other kingdoms in the region. The Mitanni, the next

tribe listed as Hittite allies, were strong supporters of Hatti, with whom the Hittites had well-

established trade connections, but were engulfed by the Assyrians soon after the Battle of Kadesh. The

Assyrians were an enormous political threat to the Hittites, and absorbing the Mitanni allowed them to

approach Hatti's eastern border. The Arzawa, to the north-west of Hatti, are suddenly described as

threatening, despite the fact they were allied with Hatti at the Battle of Kadesh.

The Kashka, to the north of Hatti, were listed as Hittite allies at the Battle of Kadesh, but soon

become one of the greatest threats to the Hittite kingdom. As political stability in Hatti wanes through a

long series of succession of power, the Kashka repeatedly attack the Hittite border, eventually

successfully carrying out invasions and raiding expeditions. The Kashka loot Hittite towns, kidnapping

citizens, musicians, and priests and selling them as slaves. Arnuwandas IV, one of the last “true” Hittite

kings, records the desperate situation during his reign and describes bribing the Kashka with large gifts

of luxury goods to persuade them not to raid Hatti's lands.4

The borders between Hatti and the surrounding enemy lands were heavily patrolled, which

occupied significant portions of the Hittite army. Essentially, approaching the end of the Bronze Age,

4
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 36.
 4

Hatti was threatened on every border, and was struggling to continue to support military forces that

were spread thin across the region. As the decline of Hittite power and control threatened the stability

of the Levantine region, problems were also brewing to the west in the Aegean.

Mycenaean kingdoms, the main source of economical and political stability in the Aegean

region through out the Bronze Age, experienced growing difficulties that ultimately led to their

collapse at the end of the Bronze Age. Trials plaguing the Mycenaeans arose mainly from the fact that

they had developed into a highly specialized economy that depended on too heavily on economic

surplus.5 Mycenaean kingdoms were also dependent upon palace society as a political force, and relied

on central bureaucracies to organize and control political and economical matters. As trade in the

region grew complicated and the population in the Peloponnese grew rapidly, resources became scarce

and the surplus of people in the region became a problem rather than a source of economic success.

Internal conflicts and natural disasters such as earthquakes prompted most of the Mycenaeans to

abandon their palaces and cities, and the kingdoms ultimately collapsed completely.

One of the Mycenaeans' major weaknesses was that they were far removed from centers of trade

in the region, but the increasingly complex nature of trade networks also threatened civilizations along

the eastern coasts of the Mediterranean. Alashiya (Cyprus), as well as Ugarit and Nami (cities on the

Levantine coast just south of Hatti) were the main centers of trade in the eastern Mediterranean. These

civilizations depended largely on maritime trade to economically support their existence; so much so,

in fact, that stone anchors have been found dedicated to gods in temples at some sites on Cyprus.6

Recently excavated shipwrecks, including the Uluburun shipwreck and the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck,

provide strong evidence in their cargoes of flourishing commerce between Cyprus and the rest of the

eastern Mediterranean. The Uluburun shipwreck's cargo, for instance, included both finished luxury
5
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, pp. 55-79.
6
Ibid, p. 44.
 5

goods and raw materials such as copper, tin, and glass ingots. It also included beads of Baltic origin,

Cypriot oil lamps, logs of blackwood from Africa, swords of Canaanite, Mycenaean, and Italian origin,

Egyptian scarabs, and foodstuffs from across the region.7

The enormous complexity of trade networks at the end of the Bronze Age was a serious issue

that threatened Hatti and many other civilizations throughout the eastern Mediterranean. Such a

complicated system required a great deal of security and control.8 Improvements in maritime

technology facilitated more efficient and more intricate trade routes. Demand for luxury goods, such as

lapis lazuli from Babylon, increased. The trade routes that brought these goods to trade centers like

Ugarit and Cyprus was long and crossed many political and geographical borders. As political stability

across the region falters, lawlessness, robbery, and murder becomes rampant on caravan routes and

piracy becomes common on the sea. Rulers, particularly the king of Ugarit, struggle to maintain

security for traders, not only because robbery meant loss of merchandise and therefore wealth, but also

in fear of the fact that clashes between trading clans could escalate into vendettas or rivalries, and even

full-fledged wars. The expanding movements of transhumaning and nomadic tribes across the region

served to further complicate matters.

“Transhumaning” tribes, or peoples that wandered and lived a mostly herding-based lifestyle,

were common in the Levantine and Anatolian region and had existed there since the beginnings of

Mesopotamian civilizations. Many of these tribes, in an effort to support themselves economically,

transformed themselves from mere herdsmen into entrepreneurs and legitimate economic forces,

creating additional competition among traders and upsetting delicate traditional balances in trade

networks.9
7
Cemal Pulak, “The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 27 no. 3
(1998), pp. 188-224.
8
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 49.
9
Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 26-33.
 6

Two main groups of wandering tribes are also mentioned commonly as mercenaries.10 Hittite

texts refer to the “hubshu,” semi-nomadic wandering bands that were known for plundering, looting,

and generally being eager for fighting. The hubshu lifestyle was changeable, and while they often lived

as nomadic herdsman, they also occasionally developed agricultural settlements to supplement their

resources by raising crops. The hubshu were often hired as mercenaries by multiple armies in the

region, as they were recognized as a constant, stable source of hireable manpower. Egyptian texts

frequently mention the “hapiru,” literally, “landless peoples” or peoples who had no political ties to a

particular land. These peoples had no consistent lifestyle – they sometimes wandered, sometimes

settled in one place for a time, and often latched on to traveling or warring armies in hopes of being

hired as footsoldiers.

Forces of nature were also important factors influencing the instability of the eastern

Mediterranean. Cities in the Canaanite region especially were closely packed and frequently destroyed

by natural disasters or war. Other key cities, including Knossos and Ugarit, were repeatedly razed by

earthquakes. Throughout the Bronze Age, these cities were rebuilt after each instance of destruction,

but as the region grew less stable and restoration became economically unfeasible, cities were

abandoned and peoples took to wandering.

Additionally, there is strong evidence supporting the theory that the Anatolian region was

experiencing a severe famine at the end of the Bronze Age, which might have significantly influenced

the downfall of the Hittites and surrounding kingdoms. Herodotus famously describes the Lydians

wandering from Anatolia and migrating southward in an effort to escape famine.11 Both the Merneptah
10
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, pp. 49-53.
11
Herodotus, The Histories, with English translation by A.D. Godley (Harvard University Press, 1920), I.94.
“In the days of Atys, the son of Manes, there was a great scarcity through the whole land of Lydia ... So the king
determined to divide the nation in half ... the one to stay, the other to leave the land. ... the emigrants should
have his son Tyrrhenus for their leader ... they went down to Smyrna, and built themselves ships ... after sailing
past many countries they came to Umbria ... and called themselves ... Tyrrhenians.”
 7

Stele12 and texts from Ugarit13 mention large shipments of grain being brought into Hatti, perhaps to

relieve famine. Recent research on weather patterns14,15 also suggest that the Anatolian region was

likely experiencing severe drought conditions at the end of the Bronze Age.

Though drought is the the scourge of the Mediterranean, it is important to remember that many

of the plains in the region are equally threatened by flooding.16 This risk is especially present when

forests are cleared for farming, which was a common practice in the Bronze Age. Cleared fields could

quickly revert to nature and become marshy, and it is likely that diseases such as malaria were also

factors of the decline and depopulation of the eastern Mediterranean.

It is only after this complete examination of the eastern Mediterranean region in the years

leading up to the collapse of the Bronze Age, and consequently a better understanding of the context in

which the Sea Peoples and other tribes existed, that we can turn to an investigation of the Sea Peoples

themselves. Much of the mystery and confusion that surrounds the identity of the Sea Peoples, who are

often traditionally regarded as mysterious foreign pirates responsible for the abrupt ends of many

Bronze Age civilizations, may stem from the name “Sea Peoples” itself.

The first historian to call the tribes listed in Egyptian texts by the name “peoples of the sea” was

historian Gaston Maspero, in the late nineteenth century AD.17 The name stuck and was

unquestioningly accepted, and led many people to think of these tribes as pirates, strictly maritime

peoples, or peoples who had traveled to Egypt long distances over the sea. This view of these “sea

12
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, §§ 856-859.
13
Drews The End of the Bronze Age, p. 83.
14
Barry Weiss, “The decline of Late Bronze Age civilization as a possible response to climate change,” Climate Change 4
no. 2 (1982), pp. 173-198.
15
Brian M. Fagan, The Long Summer: How Climate Change Change Civilization (Basic Books, 2004).
16
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 21.
17
F. C. Woudheizen, “The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples” (Ph.D. dissertation, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 2006).
Woudheizen credits Maspero as the first to coin the term “peuples de la mer” in 1881, and cites Maspero's use
of the term in his monographs Histoire Ancienne des peuples de l'orient classique of 1875 and Struggle of the
Nations, Egypt, Syria, and Assyria of 1910.
 8

peoples” fit nicely into the popular belief that large Bronze Age kingdoms, such as the Mycenaeans and

the Hittites, were destroyed by an invasion of foreign tribes. However, the term “sea peoples” has come

under criticism, because it is a misnomer that stems from a shallow translation of Egyptian texts.

Maspero's translation of a few Egyptian characters into the words “sea peoples” or “peoples of

the sea” was not an accurate one – it did not account for the depth and multiple layers of meaning

inherent in hieroglyphic writing, and it ignored obvious contextual clues given by other common uses

of the phrases. The characters that Maspero poorly translated more accurately meant “foreigners,” or

“foreign peoples.”18 Perhaps the most important mistake Maspero made was in the translation of the

character ym, which meant both “sea” and “green.” The “sea peoples” were, in the Egyptian texts,

“peoples from across the great ym,” which Maspero translated as “peoples from across the great sea.”

However, if we take into account other Egyptian texts that are believed to have have been translated

more accurately, we see that the “great ym” is very rarely the “great sea,” and is almost always “the

great green.” More importantly, we see that the “great green” most likely refers not to the

Mediterranean Sea, but to the Nile Delta.19

If we reexamine key texts, such as the Medinet Habu inscriptions, with the idea of the “peoples

from across the Nile Delta” in mind, we can make many changes to previous translations. The Medinet

Habu inscriptions, for example, refer to “foreign peoples” making a “conspiracy among their islands.”20

Using the idea of “people from across the Delta,” as well as contextual clues from other translated

texts, it becomes clear that “islands” refers not to actual islands in a sea, but to the raised lands on

which many civilizations existed in the Levant and Anatolia.21 If we do away with Maspero's original

faulty translation and take into account the unstable and chaotic environment in the region, it becomes
18
Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (London: Oxford University Press, 1947), Vol. I, p. 196.
19
Alessandra Nibbi, The Sea Peoples and Egypt (Park Ridge: Noyes Press, 1975), pp. 4-6.
20
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, § 64.
21
Nibbi, The Sea Peoples and Egypt, pp. 47-51.
 9

increasingly clear that the so-called “Sea Peoples” were peoples whose origins were just north of Egypt

on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, who were displaced by the collapse of their civilizations.

Egyptian depictions of the Sea peoples and other tribes, in both text and images, provide evidence that

further supports the Anatolian and Levantine origins of the Sea People and suggests that their reasons

for moving into Egyptian territory had little to do with military invasions.

The Egyptians' first clash with foreign tribes in 1220 BCE, when the pharaoh Merneptah fights

a war against the Libyans, whose origins are just west of the Nile Delta, and the Libyans' allies, which

include the Sherden, the Ekwash, the Teresh, and the Shekelesh.22 The fact that the Sherden are listed in

this battle, and in several future battles, as allies of the Egyptians' enemies, is intriguing, as the Sherden

were traditionally hired as mercenaries by the Egyptians. In Merneptah's battle, the Sherden are

actually fighting on both sides, as allies of both the Egyptians and Libyans. This makes clear the fact

that the Sherden are purely mercenaries, with no political ties to any kingdom.

Inscriptions at Karnak provide enlightening details about the battle. Descriptions of the Libyans

include that the Libyan king brought with him his entire family, all of his wealth and treasures, and all

of his beasts.23 This suggests that the Libyans and their allies were not trying to invade for military

purposes, but were trying to resettle their peoples in one of the last stable and fruitful regions of the

eastern Mediterranean. Many subsequent battles will carry similar evidence.

Rameses III engaged in battle with foreign tribes on multiple occasions, and his battles are

described in detail in the inscriptions at Medinet Habu, his mortuary temple. One particular inscription

shows a row of labelled chieftains from various tribes, bound as if they had been captured.24 These

captives were probably not from any specific real battle, but were meant to be symbolic of Rameses'

22
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, §§ 856-859.
23
Ibid, Vol, IV, §§ 35-58.
24
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 111, fig. 68-69.
 10

overall victories over the tribes depicted.25 The Egyptians are very consistent in their images of

foreigners, and use strongly differentiated “types,” which allows us to understand different tribes'

participation in various battles by recognizing them in depictions of various events. The inscription

showing the captured chieftains serves as a guide for identifying members of key tribes – the Sherden

have horned helmets and short kilts, the Shekelesh have thin faces and swept-back turbans, the Teresh

have distinctive facial features including a short nose and thick lips, and do not wear any hat or turban,

and Hittites are depicted with round noses and weak, unbearded chins.

Rameses' first battle took place in 1189, against the Libyans and “raiders” in the Delta. In

depictions of Egyptian troops, we see the horned helmets of the Sherden, with circles (perhaps

insignias) between the horns. These circles are absent when the Sherden are depicted among the enemy.

We also see that the footsoldiers carrying bows have swept-back turbans similar to those of the

Shekelesh. Perhaps the Shekelesh are mercenaries who easily change alliances, like the Sherden. It is in

Rameses' 1189 battle that we see a specific type of headdress for the first time – a stiff, tall headdress

commonly referred to as a “feathered crown.”26

Rameses goes to battle again in 1186, entering into a two-part war that inscriptions refer to as

the “great land and sea battles.” The events leading up to these battles are described in a well-known

section of the Medinet Habu inscriptions”

“The foreign countries made a conspiracy in their islands. All at once the
lands were removed and scattered in the fray. No land could stand before
their arms, from Hatti, Qode [Kizzuwatna], Carchemish, Arzawa, and
Alashiya on, being cut off one at a time. A camp was set up in one place
in Amurru. They desolated its people, and its land was like that which
has never come into being. They were coming forward toward Egypt,
while the flame was prepared before them. Their confederation was the
Peleset, Tjeker, Shekelesh, Denyen, and Weshesh, lands united. They laid
their hands upon the land as far as the circuit of the earth, their hearts
25
Ibid, p. 111.
26
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 118.
 11

confident and trusting: 'Our plans will succeed.'”27

The enemies in these battles are depicted28 with the feathered crown headdress, and also with the short

kilt and large shield characteristic of Sherden warriors.

Rameses' land battles take place first, in 1186. Enemies are frequently depicted wearing the

feathered crowns. What is unusual in depictions29 of this battle is that the enemies appear to be

traveling in mostly ox-drawn carts, with a very few chariots also shown. Oxcarts are typically used to

move heavy loads long distances very slowly, and are not suited for battle, as they are unwieldy and

difficult to maneuver quickly. Additionally, the passengers of many of the oxcarts appear to be women

and children. The fact that Rameses' enemies are traveling with ox-drawn carts and bringing with them

their women and children suggests that, like the Libyans in Merneptah's battle, these peoples are not

attempting a military invasion, but are moving their whole civilization with the intention of resettling.

The presence of chariots, as well as the fact that the people in the oxcarts are depicted with features

very similar to those of the Hittite chieftain mentioned above, suggest that the tribes here are from Hatti

or a nearby region.

Following the land battles were a series of sea battles. The ships depicted in Medinet Habu

inscriptions provide us with further insight into the identity of the foreign tribes with whom Rameses

was fighting. The Egyptian ships30 in these battles are basic vessels with a crescent-shaped hull,

characteristic of typical Egyptian ships loose-footed sail, and 10-12 rowers per ship. The presence of

rowers indicates that the Egyptians were prepared for this battle, as rowers give ships great

maneuverability, speed, and power.

27
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II, § 64.
28
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 120, fig. 75.
29
Ibid, pp. 122-123, fig. 76-78.
30
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 126, fig. 81.
 12

The enemy ships in the sea battles31 have a typical Levantine shape, with a shallower hull and

decorated vertical stem and sternposts. They have sails, but no rowers, and they also have multiple

decks, which suggests that they were relatively large vessels.32 The enemy is also depicted wearing the

feathered crowns, and some of the enemy are also depicted with the Sherden horned helmets and

shields. The absence of rowers makes the enemy appear unprepared for a real naval battle, and the size

of the ships suggest that the enemy is moving large cargos or large numbers of people. Again, it appears

that the Egyptian's enemies were not seeking a military battle, but were attempting to move and resettle

their peoples. The style of the ships also makes it clear that the enemies were likely from Syria or the

northern Levant.

Other details in the depictions of foreign tribes reinforces the idea that their origins are likely

along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. The Sherden particularly can be traced back to

Mesopotamia, due to their distinct characteristics in Egyptian depictions. They wear short kilts and

carry large, circular shields, but are identified most reliably by their horned helmet. The helmet is of a

basic, practical shape that covers the back of the neck and ears, and it is adorned with two curved horns

protruding from the sides. Horns were usually indicative of power, and were first used in ancient

Mesopotamian depictions of gods as early as the 14th century BCE,33 and in the 3rd millennium BCE in

depictions of ancient Mesopotamian kings.34 The basic shape of the Sherden helment is nearly identical

to helmets found in 3rd millennium BCE graves at Ur.35 This evidence provides strong support for

placing the Sherden's origins in Mesopotamia, and suggests that they had existed in the region for

millennia and were not foreign invaders.

31
Ibid, p. 127, fig. 82.
32
S. Wachsmann, “The Ships of the Sea Peoples,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 10 no. 3 (1981), pp.
187-220.
33
Sandars, The Sea Peoples, p. 108, fig. 65.
34
Ibid, fig. 64.
35
Ibid.
 13

If we combine the historical context of the events of the end of the Bronze age, the new

perspective gained from correcting the poorly translated term “sea peoples,” and the evidence from

Egyptian texts, the truth of the end of the Bronze Ages emerges. Large civilizations collapsed due to

internal conflicts and political and economical shortcomings, which disrupted trade and unsettled large

groups of people. These peoples then became wanderers, migrating southward to escape the famine and

instability in Anatolia. When the foreign tribes reached Egypt, a stable and fruitful kingdom in the

region at the time, they were misguidedly viewed as military invaders and met with hostility and battle.

We have solved the mystery of the “sea peoples” - not enigmatic pirates or ruthless barbarian invaders,

but struggling displaced peoples fleeing the chaos of a collapsing region.

 14

Works Cited

Herodotus, The Histories, with English translation by A.D. Godley. Harvard University Press, 1920,
I.94.

Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of the Egyptians, Vol. I-V. Chicago: University of Illinois
Press, 2001.

Bryce, Trevor. The Kingdom of the Hittites. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Drews, Robert. The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 BC.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Fagan, Brian M. The Long Summer: How Climate Change Change Civilization, Basic Books, 2004.

Gardiner, Alan H. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica, Vol. I-III. London: Oxford University Press, 1947.

Nibbi, Alessandra. The Sea Peoples and Egypt. Park Ridge: Noyes Press, 1975.

Sandars, N.K. The Sea Peoples. London: Thames and Hudson, 1978.

Pulak, Cemal. “The Uluburun Shipwreck: An Overview,” The International Journal of Nautical
Archaeology 27, no. 3 (1998), pp. 188-224.

Wachsmann, S. “The Ships of the Sea Peoples,” The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 10,
no. 3 (1981), pp. 187-220.

Weiss, Barry. “The decline of Late Bronze Age civilization as a possible response to climate change,”
Climate Change 4, no. 2 (1982), pp. 173-198.

Woudheizen, F.C. “The Ethnicity of the Sea Peoples.” Ph.D. dissertation, Erasmus Universiteit
Rotterdam, 2006.