“SEA PEOPLES” AND CANAAN IN TRANSITION c. 1200-950 B.C. The Levant underwent significant changes and transformations between 1200 and 950 B.C., a period which corresponds to the end of the Late Bronze Age and to Iron Age I. The Bronze Age Canaanite and North-Syrian city-state system was then replaced by an ethno-political structure in which the various regions of the Levant were inhabited by different peoples. This change was accompanied by the collapse of the Hittite empire, by a considerable shrinking of the Assyrian power basis, and by the evanescence of the Egyptian control in Syro-Phoenicia and in Canaan, with concomitant and widespread destructions of the urban cen- tres. The consequence was the abrupt and of historical records provided by the cuneiform archives of Hattusha, Emar, and Ugarit, which were not replaced by a sufficient amount of reliable indigenous sources. Only a few inscriptions, especially from Byblos, and some passages hypo- thetically distinguishable in the biblical accounts can be considered as historical sources related to this period. This lack of indigenous docu- ments is by no means filled by the rare external references in Egypt and in Assyria, although one cannot neglect the “Israel Stela” of Merneptah, the Medinet Habu inscriptions and reliefs, which describe the wars of Ramses III against the “Sea Peoples” in his 8th year, the statement in Papyrus Harris I, that Ramses III settled his defeated foes in his strong- holds, the Tale of Wen Amon and the Onomasticon of Amenope, two literary works from the 11th century B.C., as well as the annals of Tiglath-pileser I (1114-1076 B.C.). The approximative date of the end of the Ugarit and Emar archives has also its importance, while the archaeological evidence is crucial in establishing the chronology of this period and in setting the broad limits of the areas occupied by the dif- ferent peoples. The immediate cause of the momentous changes in the Levant seems to have been the large-scale migrations that occurred at the end of the Bronze Age and were probably brought about by a severe and protracted famine in Anatolia. Syria and Palestine were affected directly by the migrations of the “Sea Peoples” along the Mediterranean coasts and by the expansion of the Aramaeans who spread inland all over the Fertile Crescent. Their movements coincided with the settlement of various 2 E. LIPINSKI Transjordanian and Cisjordanian nomadic tribes, taking advantage of the collapse of the Egyptian power in Canaan. The end of Ugarit, in northwestern Syria, is usually placed about 1180 B.C. because of the assumed chronological link between the destruction of the city and Ramses III’s battles with the “Sea Peoples” in his 8th year (1175 B.C.). However, nothing substantiates this assumption and Papyrus Harris I states that, after defeating and capturing his foes, Ram- ses III settled them in his strongholds in Egypt, probably in the Delta. Besides, the destruction of Ugarit can hardly be dated c. 1180 B.C., since the synchronism Ammishtamru II of Ugarit — Tudhaliash IV of Hatti1 — Tukulti-Ninurta of Assyria (1233-1197 B.C.)2 implies that the reign of two or even three kings of Ugarit should be located in the early decades of the 12th century. This is confirmed by archaeological evidence. On the one hand, the final level of Ugarit has provided imported pottery from the extreme end of Late Helladic or Mycenaean III B3, which might be even later than 1150 B.C. On the other hand, the locally made Mycenaean III C:1b pottery found in the post-destruction level at Ras Ibn Hani4, close to Ugarit, is dated now in Palestinian sites to c. 1140- 1130 B.C.5, and its Cypriot and Aegean prototypes should be dated to c. 1150 B.C.6. Since there was no important gap between the destruction 1 J. NOUGAYROL, Le Palais royal d’Ugarit IV, Paris 1956, p. 8. 2 J.M. MUNN-RANKIN, in CAD II/2, 3rd ed., Cambridge 1975, p. 290-292. 3 J.-Cl. and L. COURTOIS, in Ugaritica VII, Paris 1978, for instance, p. 310-311, No. 12; p. 344-345, No. 6. For an earlier characterization of this pottery type, see F.H. STUBBINGS, Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant, Cambridge 1951, p. 71 ff. See now A. LEONARD, An Index to the Late Bronze Age Pottery from Syria-Palestine (SIMA 114), Jansered 1994. 4 A. BOUNNI - J. and E. LAGARCE - N. SALIBY - L. BADRE, Rapport préliminaire sur la troisième campagne de fouilles (1977) à Ibn Hani (Syrie), in Syria 56, 1979, p. 217-294 and pl. V-VIII, especially p. 245-257 and fig. 25. 5 I. FINKELSTEIN, The Date of the Settlement of the Philistines in Canaan, in Tel Aviv 22, 1995, p. 213-239, especially p. 224. See also P. WARREN - V. HANKEY, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology, Bristol 1989, p. 165, 168; D. USSISHKIN, Megiddo at the End of the Late Bronze Age, in Tel Aviv 22, 1995, p. 240-267, especially p. 264. This pottery type was first isolated from the whole complex of the so-called “Philistine pottery” (cf. T. DOTHAN, The Philistines and their Material Culture, Jerusalem 1982, p. 94-218) by B. HROUDA, Die Einwanderung der Philister in Palästina. Eine Studie zur Seevölker- bewegung des 12. Jahrhunderts, in Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Studien und Aufsätze A. Moortgat… gewidmet, Berlin 1964, p. 126-135, especially p. 130-131. 6 After the study of A. FURUMARK, The Mycenaean III C Pottery and its Relation to Cypriote Fabrics, in Opuscula Archaeologica 3, 1944, p. 194-265, large quantities of Mycenaean III C:1b were found in various Cypriote sites, at Enkomi, Kouklia, Kition, Palaeokastro-Maa, Athienou. This pottery can be compared to the similar Mycenaean ware from Tarsus (cf. E. FRENCH, A Reassessment of the Mycenaean Pottery at Tarsus, in AnSt 25, 1975, p. 53-75), but it is convenient to relate it first of all to the Mycenaean III “SEA PEOPLES” AND CANAAN IN TRANSITION 3 of the Ugaritian settlement at Ras Ibn Hani and the reoccupation of the site7, the end of Ugarit can indeed be dated near 1150 B.C., with the fol- lowing tentative chronology of its last kings, where the figures are just a calculated guess: Ibiranu, c. 1210-1185; Niqmaddu IV, c. 1185-1175; Ammurapi, c. 1175-1150 B.C. The divorce adjudicated by Talmi- Teshub, king of Carchemish, to the son (?) of Ammurapi and the daugh- ter of the Hittite king, without the latter’s intervention, seems to indicate that all links with Hattusha were already disrupted by that time, the more so that the financial solution of the divorce was rather favourable to the king of Ugarit8. 1. “Sea Peoples” The presence of a large quantity of the Late Mycenaean III C:1b pot- tery in the post-destruction level of Ras Ibn Hani and in Philistine sites links the end of Ugarit with the migration of the “Sea Peoples”. The term “Sea Peoples” was coined in the modern research as a common appellation of several sea-borne peoples who, according to Egyptian sources, came first from the west via Libya, then by sea and by land from the east, in an attempt to invade Egypt9. Their first mention dates from the reign of the pharaoh Merneptah who boasts in his records at Karnak and Athribis that he won a great victory in Libya in his 5th year (1208 B.C.) on an army of Libyans and Meshwesh, who were supported by “foreigners from the sea”10. The battle must have taken place in the C:1b pottery from mainland Greece, where this particular ware is characteristic of pre- destruction Mycenae, the end of which can be dated c. 1130 B.C.; cf. V.R. D’A. DES- BOROUGH, in CAH II/2, 3rd ed., Cambridge 1975, p. 668-669. 7 A. BOUNNI - N. SALIBY - J. and E. LAGARCE, Ras Ibn Hani, in Syrian-European Archaeology Exhibition / Exposition Syro-Européenne d’Archéologie, Damas 1996, p. 107-112, especially p. 110. 8 J. NOUGAYROL, op. cit. (n. 1), p. 206-210. Cf. M. LIVERANI, Storia di Ugarit (Studi semitici 6), Roma 1962, p. 132-133. 9 A survey with literature is given by I. SINGER, The Origin of the Sea Peoples and their Settlement on the Coast of Canaan, in M. HELTZER - E. LIPINSKI (eds.), Society and Economy in the Eastern Mediterranean (c. 1500-1000 B.C.) (OLA 23), Leuven 1988, p. 239-250. One should add, in particular: C. VANDERSLEYEN, Le dossier égyptien des Philistins, in E. LIPINSKI (ed.), The Land of Israel: Cross-Roads of Civilizations (OLA 19), Leuven 1985, p. 39-54; T. and M. DOTHAN, People of the Sea. The Search for the Philistines, New York 1992; E. NOORT, Die Seevölker in Palästina (Palaestina antiqua 9), Kampen 1994. 10 K.A. KITCHEN, Ramesside Inscriptions IV, Oxford 1982, p. 2-12, especially p. 8, line 52 (Karnak); p. 19-22, especially p. 22, line 13 (Athribis). The Egyptian phrase “for- eigners from the sea” corresponds to the etymological meaning of the name Ahhiyawa or Achaeans, “water people”, i.e. Aegeans, as shown by O. CARRUBA, Ahhija e Ahhijawa, la 4 E. LIPINSKI western Delta and the “Sea Peoples” participating in it should be con- sidered rather as mercenaries in the Libyan forces than as migrants com- ing to settle in Egypt. Strictly speaking, therefore, this was no invasion of the “Sea Peoples”. Nevertheless, it is interesting to recall the names given to them in Merneptah’s inscriptions:’I-q-w-s (Ahhiyawa, Achaeans), T-r-s (Trysa11), R-k (Lukka12, Lycaonia), S-r-d-n (Sher- danu13), and S-k-r-s (Sagalassa14), “northerners coming from all lands”.