Sea Peoples

The Sea Peoples are a purported seafaring that attacked  and other regions of the  prior to and during the  (1200–900 BCE). Following the creation of the concept in the nineteenth century, it became one of the most famous chapters of Egyptian history, given its connection with, in the words of : "the most important questions of and the primitive history of classic nations". Their origins undocumented, the various Sea Peoples have been proposed to have originated from places that include western, the , the and. Although the archaeological inscriptions do not include reference to a migration, the Sea Peoples are conjectured to have sailed around the and invaded, , , ,  and  toward the end of the.

French Egyptologist first used the term peuples de la mer (literally "peoples of the sea") in 1855 in a description of reliefs on the Second Pylon at  documenting Year 8 of. , de Rougé's successor at the, subsequently popularized the term "Sea Peoples" — and an associated migration-theory — in the late 19th century. Since the early 1990s, the theory has been brought into question by a number of scholars.

The Sea Peoples remain unidentified in the eyes of most modern scholars and hypotheses regarding the origin of the various groups are the source of much speculation. Existing theories variously propose equating them with several tribes, raiders from, scattered soldiers who turned to  or who had become , and links with natural disasters such as earthquakes or climatic shifts.

History of the concept
The concept of the Sea Peoples was first described by in 1855, then  of the, in his work Note on Some Hieroglyphic Texts Recently Published by Mr. Greene, describing the battles of Ramesses III described on the Second Pylon at Medinet Habu, and based upon recent photographs of the temple by. De Rougé noted that "in the crests of the conquered peoples the and the Teresh bear the designation of the 'peuples de la mer'", in a reference to the prisoners depicted at the base of the Fortified East Gate. In 1867, de Rougé published his Excerpts of a dissertation on the attacks directed against Egypt by the peoples of the Mediterranean in the 14th century BCE, which focused primarily on the battles of Ramesses II and Merneptah and which proposed translations for many of the geographic names included in the hieroglyphic inscriptions. De Rougé later became chair of Egyptology at the, and was succeeded by. Maspero built upon de Rougé's work and published The Struggle of the Nations, in which he described the theory of the seaborne migrations in detail in 1895–96 for a wider audience, at a time when the idea of population migrations would have felt familiar to the general population.

The theory was taken up by other scholars such as and became the generally accepted theory amongst Egyptologists and orientalists. Since the early 1990s, however, the theory has been brought into question by a number of scholars.

The historical narrative stems primarily from seven sources and although in these inscriptions the designation "of the sea" does not appear in relation to all of these peoples, the term "Sea Peoples" is commonly used to refer to the following nine peoples, in alphabetical order:

Primary documentary records
The Medinet Habu inscriptions from which the Sea Peoples concept was first described remain the primary source and "the basis of virtually all significant discussions of them".

Three separate narratives from Egyptian records refer to more than one of the nine peoples, found in a total of six sources. The seventh and most recent source referring to more than one of the nine peoples is a list (Onomasticon) of 610 entities, rather than a narrative. These sources are summarized in the table below.

Ramesses II narrative
Possible records of sea peoples generally or in particular date to two campaigns of, a pharaoh of the militant : operations in or near the delta in Year 2 of his reign and the major confrontation with the Empire and allies at the  in his Year 5. The years of this long-lived pharaoh's reign are not known exactly, but they must have comprised nearly all of the first half of the 13th century BCE.

In his Second Year, an attack of the, or Shardana, on the was repulsed and defeated by Ramesses, who captured some of the pirates. The event is recorded on Tanis Stele II. An inscription by Ramesses II on the stela from which recorded the Sherden raiders' raid and subsequent capture speaks of the continuous threat they posed to Egypt's Mediterranean coasts:

"the unruly Sherden whom no one had ever known how to combat, they came boldly sailing in their warships from the midst of the sea, none being able to withstand them."

The Sherden prisoners were subsequently incorporated into the Egyptian army for service on the frontier by Ramesses, and were involved as Egyptian soldiers in the Battle of Kadesh. Another stele usually cited in conjunction with this one is the "" (there were other stelae at ), which mentions the king's operations to defeat a number of peoples including those of the " (the Egyptian name for the Mediterranean)". It is plausible to assume that the Tanis and Aswan Stelae refer to the same event, in which case they reinforce each other.

The Battle of Kadesh was the outcome of a campaign against the Hittites and allies in the in the pharaoh's Year 5. The imminent collision of the Egyptian and Hittite empires became obvious to both, and they both prepared campaigns against the strategic midpoint of Kadesh for the next year. Ramesses divided his Egyptian forces, which were then ambushed piecemeal by the Hittite army and nearly defeated. However, some Egyptian forces made it through to Kadesh, and the arrival of the last of the Egyptians provided enough military cover to allow the pharaoh to escape and his army to withdraw in defeat, leaving Kadesh in Hittite hands.

At home, Ramesses had his scribes formulate an official description, which has been called "the Bulletin" because it was widely published by inscription. Ten copies survive today on the temples at, , and , with reliefs depicting the battle. The "", describing the battle survived also.

The poem relates that the previously captured Sherden were not only working for the Pharaoh, but were also formulating a plan of battle for him; i.e. it was their idea to divide Egyptian forces into four columns. There is no evidence of any collaboration with the Hittites or malicious intent on their part, and if Ramesses considered it, he never left any record of that consideration.

The poem lists the peoples which went to Kadesh as allies of the Hittites. Amongst them are some of the sea peoples spoken of in the Egyptian inscriptions previously mentioned, and many of the peoples who would later take part in the great migrations of the 12th century BCE (see ).

Merneptah narrative
The major event of the reign of the Pharaoh (1213 BCE – 1203 BCE), 4th king of the 19th Dynasty, was his battle against a confederacy termed "the Nine Bows" at  in the western delta in the 5th and 6th years of his reign. Depredations of this confederacy had been so severe that the region was "forsaken as pasturage for cattle, it was left waste from the time of the ancestors".

The pharaoh's action against them is attested in a single narrative found in three sources. The most detailed source describing the battle is the, and two shorter versions of the same narrative are found in the "Athribis Stele" and the "Cairo Column". The "Cairo column" is a section of a granite column now in the, which was first published by Maspero in 1881 with just two readable sentences – the first confirming the date of Year 5 and the second stating: "The wretched [chief] of Libya has invaded with ——, being men and women, Shekelesh (S'-k-rw-s) ——". The "Athribis stela" is a granite stela found in and inscribed on both sides, which, like the Cairo column was first published by Maspero, two years later in 1883. The from Thebes describes the reign of peace resulting from the victory, but does not include any reference to the Sea Peoples.

The Nine Bows were acting under the leadership of the king of and an associated near-concurrent revolt in  involving, ,  and the people of. Exactly which peoples were consistently in the Nine Bows is not clear, but present at the battle were the Libyans, some neighboring, and possibly a separate revolt in the following year involving peoples from the eastern Mediterranean, including the Kheta (or Hittites), or Syrians, and (in the Israel Stele) for the first time in history, the. In addition to them, the first lines of the Karnak inscription include some sea peoples, which must have arrived in the Western Delta or from by ship:

"[Beginning of the victory that his majesty achieved in the land of Libya] -i,,, , , Shekelesh, Northerners coming from all lands."

Later in the inscription Merneptah receives news of the attack:

"... the third season, saying: "The wretched, fallen chief of Libya,, son of Ded, has fallen upon the country of with his bowmen – Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Lukka, Teresh, Taking the best of every warrior and every man of war of his country. He has brought his wife and his children – leaders of the camp, and he has reached the western boundary in the fields of Perire""

"His majesty was enraged at their report, like a lion", assembled his court and gave a rousing speech. Later, he dreamed he saw handing him a sword and saying, "Take thou (it) and banish thou the fearful heart from thee." When the bowmen went forth, says the inscription, " was with them as a shield." After six hours, the surviving Nine Bows threw down their weapons, abandoned their baggage and dependents, and ran for their lives. Merneptah states that he defeated the invasion, killing 6,000 soldiers and taking 9,000 prisoners. To be sure of the numbers, among other things, he took the penises of all uncircumcised enemy dead and the hands of all the circumcised, from which history learns that the Ekwesh were, a fact causing some to doubt they were Greek.

Ramesses III narrative
, the second king of the Egyptian 20th Dynasty, who reigned for most of the first half of the 12th century BCE, was forced to deal with a later wave of invasions of the Sea Peoples—the best-recorded of these in his eighth year. This was recorded in two long inscriptions from his mortuary temple, which are physically separate and somewhat different from one another.

The fact that several civilizations collapsed around 1175 BCE, has led to the suggestion that the Sea Peoples may have been involved in the end of the, and  kingdoms. The American  writes, on page 23 of Akkadica 120 (2000):

"A for the destruction of the Hittite empire has been recognised in an inscription carved at in Egypt in the eighth year of Ramesses III (1175 BCE). This text narrates a contemporary great movement of peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, as a result of which "the lands were removed and scattered to the fray. No land could stand before their arms, from,, , , on being cut off. [ie: cut down]""

Ramesses' comments about the scale of the Sea Peoples' onslaught in the eastern Mediterranean are confirmed by the destruction of the states of, , and  around this time. As the Hittitologist observes:

"It should be stressed that the invasions were not merely military operations, but involved the movements of large populations, by land and sea, seeking new lands to settle."

This situation is confirmed by the temple reliefs of Ramesses III which show that:

"the and warriors who fought in the land battle [against Ramesses III] are accompanied in the reliefs by women and children loaded in ox-carts."

The inscriptions of at his  mortuary temple in  record three victorious campaigns against the Sea Peoples considered bona fide, in Years 5, 8 and 12, as well as three considered spurious, against the ns and ns in Year 5 and the Libyans with Asiatics in Year 11. During Year 8 some were operating with the Sea Peoples.

The inner west wall of the second court describes the invasion of Year 5. Only the and  are mentioned, but the list is lost in a. The attack was two-pronged, one by sea and one by land; that is, the Sea Peoples divided their forces. Ramsesses was waiting in the mouths and trapped the enemy fleet there. The land forces were defeated separately.

The Sea Peoples did not learn any lessons from this defeat, as they repeated their mistake in Year 8 with a similar result. The campaign is recorded more extensively on the inner northwest panel of the first court. It is possible, but not generally believed, that the dates are only those of the inscriptions and both refer to the same campaign.

In Ramesses' Year 8, the Nine Bows appear again as a "conspiracy in their isles". This time, they are revealed unquestionably as Sea Peoples: the, , Shekelesh, and Weshesh, which are classified as "foreign countries" in the inscription. They camped in and sent a fleet to the Nile.

The pharaoh was once more waiting for them. He had built a fleet especially for the occasion, hid it in the Nile mouths and posted coast watchers. The enemy fleet, their ships overturned, and the men dragged up on shore and executed ad hoc.

The land army within Egyptian controlled territory. Additional information is given in the relief on the outer side of the east wall. This occurred in the vicinity of  against "the northern countries". When it was over, several chiefs were captive: of, and  among the "land peoples" and the , " of the sea", " of the sea" and  or  (in whose name some have seen the ancient Greek name for sea people; ).

The campaign of Year 12 is attested by the found on the south side of the temple. It mentions the, , , Weshesh and Shekelesh.

of the period, found behind the temple, suggests a wider campaign against the Sea Peoples but does not mention the date. In it, the persona of Ramses III says, "I slew the Denyen (D'-yn-yw-n) in their isles" and "burned" the Tjeker and Peleset, implying a maritime raid of his own. He also captured some Sherden and Weshesh "of the sea" and settled them in Egypt. As he is called the "Ruler of " in the relief of the east side, these events probably happened in Year 8; i.e. the Pharaoh would have used the victorious fleet for some punitive expeditions elsewhere in the Mediterranean.

The Rhetorical Stela to, Chapel C, records a similar narrative.

Onomasticon of Amenope
The, or Amenemipit (amen-em-apt), gives a slight credence to the idea that the Ramesside kings settled the Sea Peoples in Canaan. Dated to about 1100 BCE, at the end of the 21st dynasty (which had numerous short-reigned pharaohs), this document simply lists names. After six place names, four of which were in Philistia, the scribe lists the Sherden (Line 268), the Tjeker (Line 269) and the Peleset (Line 270), who might be presumed to occupy those cities. The on a papyrus of the same cache also places the Tjeker in  at that time. The fact that the Biblical maritime was initially located between the Philistines and the Tjekker, has prompted some to suggest that they may originally have been Denyen. Sherden seem to have been settled around and in the, and Weshwesh (connected by some with the Biblical tribe of ) may have been settled further north.

Egyptian single-name sources
Other Egyptian sources refer to one of the individual groups without reference to any of the other groups.

The, around the mid-14th century BCE, include four relating to the Sea Peoples:
 * refers to the Denyen, in a passing reference to the death of their king;
 * refers to the Lukka, who are being accused of attacking the Egyptians in conjunction with the ns, with the latter having stated that the Lukka were seizing their villages.
 * , and  refer to the Sherden. The letters at one point refer to a Sherden man as an apparent renegade mercenary, and at another point to three Sherden who are slain by an Egyptian overseer.

refers to the Peleset, the Cairo Column refers to the Shekelesh, the refers to the Tjekker, and 13 further Egyptian sources refer to the Sherden.

Canaanite references
The earliest later considered among the Sea Peoples is believed to be attested in Egyptian s on the Byblos  found in the Obelisk Temple at  by. The inscription mentions kwkwn son of rwqq- (or kukun son of luqq), as Kukunnis, son of Lukka, "the n". The date is given variously as 2000 or 1700 BCE.

Some Sea Peoples appear in four of the, the last three of which seem to foreshadow the destruction of the city around 1180 BCE. The letters are therefore dated to the early 12th century. The last king of Ugarit was (c.  1191–1182 BCE), who, throughout this correspondence, is quite a young man.
 * RS 34.129, the earliest letter, found on the south side of the city, from "the Great King", presumably of the, to the prefect of the city. He says that he ordered the king of Ugarit to send him Ibnadushu for questioning, but the king was too immature to respond. He therefore wants the prefect to send the man, whom he promises to return. What this language implies about the relationship of the Hittite empire to Ugarit is a matter for interpretation. Ibnadushu had been kidnapped by and had resided among a people of Shikala, probably the Shekelesh, "who lived on ships". The letter is generally interpreted as an interest in military intelligence by the king.
 * RS L 1, RS 20.238 and RS 20.18, are a set from the between a slightly older Ammurapi, now handling his own affairs, and, the grand supervisor of . Evidently, Ammurapi had informed Eshuwara, that an enemy fleet of 20 ships had been spotted at sea. Eshuwara wrote back and inquired about the location of Ammurapi's own forces. Eshuwara also noted that he would like to know where the enemy fleet of 20 ships are now located. Unfortunately for both Ugarit and Alasiya, neither kingdom was able to fend off the Sea People's onslaught, and both were ultimately destroyed. A letter by Ammurapi (RS 18.147) to the king of —which was in fact a response to an appeal for assistance by the latter—has been found by archaeologists. In it, Ammurapi describes the desperate plight facing Ugarit. Ammurapi, in turn, appealed for aid from the viceroy of , which actually survived the Sea People's onslaught; King  I, who was the son of —a direct contemporary of the last ruling Hittite king, —is attested in power there, running a mini-empire which stretched from "Southeast Asia Minor, North Syria ... [to] the west bend of the Euphrates" from c. 1175 BCE to 990 BCE. Its viceroy could only offer some words of advice for Ammurapi.

Hypotheses about identity
A number of hypotheses concerning the identities and motives of the Sea Peoples described in the records have been formulated. They are not necessarily alternative or contradictory hypotheses about the sea peoples; any or all might be mainly or partly true.

Regional migration historical context
The Tablets of  in the  in the  demonstrate increased slave raiding and the spread of mercenaries and migratory peoples and their subsequent resettlement. Despite this, the actual identity of the Sea Peoples has remained enigmatic and modern scholars have only the scattered records of ancient civilizations and archaeological analysis to inform them. Evidence shows that the identities and motives of these peoples were known to the Egyptians. In fact, many had sought employment with the Egyptians or were in a diplomatic relationship for a few centuries before the Late. For example, select groups, or members of groups, of the Sea People, such as the Sherden or, were used as mercenaries by Egyptian Pharaohs such as.

Prior to the from the (15th century BCE), names of -speaking, cattle-raising  s of the  appear, replacing previous Egyptian concern with the ised 'prw ('Apiru or ). These were called the š3sw, meaning "those who move on foot". e.g. the. uses the analogous name "land peoples". Contemporary Assyrian records refer to them as  or Wanderers. They were not part of the Egyptian list of Sea Peoples, and were later referred to as.

Some people, such as the, were included in both categories of land and sea people.

Philistine hypothesis
The archaeological evidence from the southern coastal plain of ancient Canaan, termed in the, indicates a disruption of the Canaanite culture that existed during the  and its replacement (with some integration) by a culture with a possibly foreign (mainly ) origin. This includes, which at first belongs to the tradition (albeit of local manufacture) and gradually transforms into a uniquely Philistine pottery. Mazar says:

"... in Philistia, the producers of Mycenaean IIIC pottery must be identified as the Philistines. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the Philistines were a group of Mycenaean Greeks who immigrated to the east ... Within several decades ... a new, appeared in Philistia ..."

Sandars, however, does not take this point of view, but says:

"... it would be less misleading to call this 'Philistine pottery' 'Sea Peoples' pottery or 'foreign' pottery, without commitment to any particular group."

Artifacts of the culture are found at numerous sites, in particular in the excavations of the five main cities of the Philistines: the  of, , , , and. Some scholars (e.g. S. Sherratt, Drews, etc.) have challenged the theory that the Philistine culture is an immigrant culture, claiming instead that they are an in situ development of the Canaanite culture, but others argue for the immigrant hypothesis; for example, T. Dothan and Barako.

Trude and Moshe Dothan, suggests that the later Philistine settlements in the Levant were unoccupied for nearly 30 years between their destruction and resettlement by the Philistines, whose Helladic IIICb pottery also shows Egyptian influences.

Minoan hypothesis
Two of the peoples who settled in the had traditions that may connect them to : the  and the Peleset. The Tjeker may have left Crete to settle in, and left there to settle. According to the, the Israelite God brought the Philistines out of. The mainstream of Biblical and classical scholarship accepts Caphtor to refer to Crete, but there are alternative minority theories. Crete at the time was populated by peoples speaking many languages, among which were and, the descendant of the language of the. It is possible, but by no means certain, that these two peoples spoke Eteocretan.

Recent examinations of the estimate its occurrence at between 1660 and 1613 BCE, centuries before the first appearances of the Sea Peoples in Egypt. The eruption is thus unlikely to be connected to the Sea Peoples.

Greek migrational hypothesis
The identifications of with the Greek  and Ekwesh with the Greek  are long-standing issues in Bronze Age scholarship, whether Greek, Hittite or Biblical, especially as they lived "in the isles". The Greek identification of the Ekwesh is considered especially problematic as this group was clearly described as by the Egyptians, and according to Manuel Robbins: "Hardly anyone thinks that the Greeks of the Bronze Age were circumcised ..." described the hypothetical role of the Greeks (who have already been proposed as the identity of the Philistines above):

"... were the sea peoples ... in part actually composed of Mycenaean Greeks – rootless migrants, warrior bands and condottieri on the move ... ? Certainly there seem to be suggestive parallels between the war gear and helmets of the Greeks ... and those of the Sea Peoples ..."

Wood would also include the and Shekelesh, pointing out that "there were migrations of Greek-speaking peoples to the same place [Sardinia and Sicily] at this time." He is careful to point out that the Greeks would have been only one element among many that comprised the sea peoples. Furthermore, the proportion of Greeks must have been relatively small. His major hypothesis is that the was fought against Troy VI and Troy VIIa, the candidate of, and that Troy was sacked by those now identified as Greek Sea Peoples. He suggests that Odysseus' assumed identity as a wandering Cretan coming home from the Trojan War, who fights in Egypt and serves there after being captured, "remembers" the campaign of Year 8 of Ramses III, described above. He points out also that places destroyed on at the time (such as ) were rebuilt by a new Greek-speaking population.

Trojan hypothesis
The possibility that the were connected on the one hand with the, believed to be an -related culture, and on the other with , a Hittite name possibly referring to , had been considered by the ancient Romans. The Roman poet refers to this belief when he depicts  as escaping the fall of Troy by coming to  to found a line descending to, first king of. Considering that n connections have been identified for other Sea Peoples, such as the and the,  puts together an Anatolian hypothesis.

Mycenaean warfare hypothesis
This theory suggests that the Sea Peoples were populations from the city states of the Greek, who destroyed each other in a disastrous series of conflicts lasting several decades. There would have been few or no external invaders and just a few excursions outside the Greek-speaking part of the.

Archaeological evidence indicates that many fortified sites of the Greek domain were destroyed in the late 13th and early 12th century BCE, which was understood in the mid-20th century to have been simultaneous or nearly so and was attributed to the championed by  of the. He believed Mycenaean was burned during an amphibious raid by warriors from the north.

Subsequent critical analysis focused on the fact that the destructions were not simultaneous and that all the evidence of comes from later times. championed a Sea Peoples hypothesis, which asserted that, since the Pylians had retreated to the northeast, the attack must have come from the southwest, the Sea Peoples being, in his view, the most likely candidates. He suggests that they were based in and, although doubting that the Mycenaeans would have called themselves "Achaeans", speculates that "it is very tempting to bring them into connexion." He does not assign a Greek identity to all of the Sea Peoples.

Considering the turbulence between and within the great families of the Mycenaean city-states in Greek mythology, the hypothesis that the Mycenaeans destroyed themselves is long-standing and finds support by the ancient Greek historian, who theorized:

"For in early times the Hellenes and the barbarians of the coast and islands ... were tempted to turn to piracy, under the conduct of their most powerful men ... [T]hey would fall upon a town unprotected by walls ... and would plunder it ... no disgrace being yet attached to such an achievement, but even some glory."

Although some advocates of the Philistine or Greek migration hypotheses identify all the Mycenaeans or Sea Peoples as ethnically Greek, (founder, with, of  studies) adopts instead the multiple ethnicity view.

Nuragic and Italian peoples hypotheses
Some archeologists believe that the Sherden are identifiable with the from the.

Theories of the possible connections between the to, Shekelesh to , and Teresh to , even though long-standing, are based on  similarities. Nuragic pottery of domestic use has been found at Pyla Kokkinokremos, a fortified settlement in Cyprus, during the 2010 and 2017 excavations. The site is dated to the period between the 13th and 12th century BCE, that of the Sea Peoples' invasions. This find has led archaeologist Vassos Karageorghis to identify the Nuragic Sardinians with the Sherden, one of the Sea Peoples. According to him, the Sherden went first to Crete and from there they joined the Cretans in an eastward expedition to Cyprus.

The, a great collection of Nuragic sculptures, includes a great number of horned helmet warriors wearing a similar skirt to the Sherdens' and a round shield; although they had been dated for a long time to the 10th or 9th century BCE, recent discoveries suggest that their production started around the 13th century BCE. Swords identical to those of the Sherden have been found in Sardinia, dating back to 1650 BCE.

The self-name of the, Rasna, does not lend itself to the Tyrrhenian derivation, although it has been suggested that this was itself derived from an earlier form T'Rasna. The has been studied, and  partly deciphered. It has variants and representatives in, but these may well be from travellers or colonists of Etruscans during their seafaring period before destroyed their power.

There is no definitive archaeological evidence. About all that can be said for certain is that IIIC pottery was widespread around the Mediterranean in areas associated with Sea Peoples and its introduction at various places is often associated with cultural change, violent or gradual. An old theory is that the Sherden and Shekelesh brought those names with them to Sardinia and Sicily, "perhaps not operating from those great islands but moving toward them", and this is still accepted by Eric Cline and by Trevor Bryce, who explains that some of the Sea Peoples sprang out of the collapsing Hittite empire. Giovanni Ugas believes that the Sherden originated in Sardinia.

Anatolian famine hypothesis
A famous passage from portrays the wandering and migration of ns from  because of famine:

"In the days of, the son of, 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 for their leader ... they went down to , and built themselves ships ... after sailing past many countries they came to ... and called themselves ...."

Tablet RS 18.38 from also mentions grain to the Hittites, suggesting a long period of famine, connected further, in the full theory, to drought. Barry Weiss, using the for 35 Greek, Turkish, and Middle Eastern weather stations, showed that a drought of the kinds that persisted from January 1972 would have affected all of the sites associated with the Late Bronze Age collapse. Drought could have easily precipitated or hastened socio-economic problems and led to wars. More recently, has shown how mid-winter storms from the Atlantic were diverted to travel north of the  and the, bringing wetter conditions to Central Europe, but drought to the Eastern Mediterranean. More recent has also shown climatic disruption and increasing aridity in the Eastern Mediterranean, associated with the  at this time (See ).

Invader hypothesis
The term 'invasion' is used generally in the literature concerning the period to mean the documented attacks, implying that the aggressors were external to the eastern Mediterranean, though often hypothesized to be from the wider Aegean world. An origin outside the Aegean also has been proposed, as in this example by : "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves, extending all the way from the valley to the plains of ."

Such a comprehensive movement is associated with more than one people or culture; instead, it was a "disturbance", according to Finley: "A large-scale movement of people is indicated ... the original centre of disturbance was in the - region of . ... It appears ... to have been ... pushing in different directions at different times."

If different times are allowed on the Danube, they are not in the Aegean: "all this destruction must be dated to the same period about 1200 [BCE]."

The movements of the hypothetical, the attacks of the Sea Peoples, the formation of  kingdoms in the  and the fall of the  Empire were associated and compressed by Finley into the 1200 BCE window.

presents a map showing the destruction sites of 47 fortified major settlements, which he terms "Major Sites Destroyed in the Catastrophe". They are concentrated in the, with some in and.