Egyptian records from the late 13th to early 12th centuries BCE list several groups—Sherden (Shardana), Shekelesh, Lukka, Denyen, Tjeker, Peleset, Teresh, Ekwesh—under the umbrella modern scholars call the “Sea Peoples.” Modern treatments often read these names as compact, state-like ethnonyms. Yet that assumption reflects the perspective of a palace society (Egypt) more than the social realities of every group named. Sardinia’s Nuragic world, organized not as a single kingdom but as a landscape of many autonomous communities, offers a different model. If the Sherden correspond to one Nuragic confederation, it is plausible that other Egyptian names could reflect other Nuragic tribal coalitions active at the same time, alongside non-Sardinian groups from Sicily, the Aegean, and Anatolia. This essay sets out the logic, evidence, and tests of that hypothesis.
What Egyptian Texts Actually Show
The Egyptian evidence (Merneptah; Ramesses III at Medinet Habu) presents lists that change across episodes—some names recur, others do not—suggesting shifting coalitions rather than a fixed federation. These texts are best read as Egyptian snapshots of foreign groups encountered in war, migration, and mercenary contexts, not as a definitive ethnographic taxonomy.
The Sherden as a Recognizable—but not Exhaustive—Category
The Sherden/Shardana are the most vividly rendered among the Sea Peoples—round shields, long swords, and horned helmets recur in the reliefs; they appear both as foes and as elite mercenaries in Egyptian service. Their consistent iconography implies Egyptians knew them well. Linguistic and cultural arguments long associated the Sherden with Sardinia, which fits a Nuragic maritime profile, but even if that association is right, nothing requires “Sherden” to stand for all of Sardinia. On a decentralized island, a single confederation could be prominent abroad while others remained unnamed—or named differently—by Egyptian scribes.
A Decentralized Nuragic Sardinia
Archaeology depicts Nuragic Sardinia (c. 18th–7th c. BCE) as polycentric: thousands of nuraghi punctuate the landscape, from simple towers to elaborate multi-tower complexes, with villages and sanctuaries nested in regional networks. This pattern fits a patchwork of autonomous or semi-autonomous communities rather than a palace-state with a capital. Recent quantitative landscape work estimates ~7,000 nuraghi and highlights their broad, uneven distribution—exactly the kind of settlement fabric that would generate multiple local power centers capable of acting independently. Scholars describe the Late Bronze Age island as showing forms of “acephalous cohesion”: cohesive traditions without permanent, island-wide centralization.
Maritime Culture and Networks
Nuragic seafaring is not an inference from texts alone; it is inscribed in material culture. The bronze boat models (navicelle) of early Iron Age Sardinia capture hulls, masts, rigging, and zoomorphic prows, reflecting both technical knowledge and social value placed on maritime activity; metallurgical analyses point to standardized workshop know-how. Such objects make sense in a society whose elites and war-bands could project power by sea, whether as traders, raiders, or mercenaries.
The Hypothesis: Multiple Nuragic Confederations under Different Egyptian Names
Take those pieces together and a coherent model emerges:
-
Egyptian lists reflect coalitions that shift over time.
-
The Sherden correspond to at least one Sardinian confederation recognized by Egyptians.
-
Nuragic Sardinia comprised many communities and regional blocs with maritime capacity.
It follows that other Egyptian names might capture other Nuragic coalitions—especially those from different regions of the island—interacting with Egypt in different operations or alliances. This does not mean all Sea Peoples were Sardinian; rather, among the mosaic of groups active in the crisis years around 1200 BCE, more than one could have been Nuragic. Such an interpretation is consistent with modern overviews that stress plural origins and changing membership among the Sea Peoples.
A Regionalized Sardinia Fits the Pattern
A geographically differentiated island could have produced distinct, partly competing maritime coalitions:
-
Northern or northwestern blocs with western-facing routes.
-
Central interior groups federating seasonally around ritual or market nodes, sending out war-bands when opportunities beckoned.
-
Southern/coastal confederations with strong links toward Sicily and North Africa.
In this scenario, Egyptians might label one Sardinian coalition Sherden, while other Nuragic coalitions met Egyptian forces (or served with them) under different names, especially if those Sardinian groups formed temporary alliances with non-Sardinian partners. The variability among Egyptian name lists is precisely what this decentralized model predicts.
Counterpoints and Clarifications
A frequent objection notes that some Sea Peoples have traditional non-Sardinian associations—for example, Shekelesh with Sicily, Lukka with southwestern Anatolia, and Denyen/Tjeker with Aegean contexts. Those associations are reasonable readings of fragmentary data, but they are not airtight: the Shekelesh-Sicily link, for instance, has been debated since the 19th century and remains uncertain in both direction and timing (homeland vs. later destination). A multi-origin model leaves these links intact while allowing that more than one Sardinian coalition could be in the mix. Egyptians, encountering composite forces, may have named contingents by allies, leaders, regions, or reputations rather than by our tidy modern categories.
Independent Signals of Mediterranean Mobility
One reason to prefer a mosaic over a monolith is that independent data sets already indicate multi-regional movements around 1200 BCE. Ancient DNA from early Iron Age Ashkelon shows a European-related genetic component coincident with the period associated with Philistine (Peleset) arrival—evidence for people crossing the Mediterranean even if not pinpointing exact homelands. At the same time, genome-scale studies on Sardinia emphasize long-term continuity on the island, cautioning against imagining a wholesale depopulation: mobility likely involved subsets (warriors, mariners, migrants), not the emptying of Sardinia. Read together, these data are compatible with the idea that some Sardinian confederations joined wider movements among many others.
What Evidence Would Move the Needle?
The hypothesis is testable. Several lines of inquiry could strengthen—or weaken—it:
-
Provenanced Nuragic material (ceramics, bronzes) in secure 12th–11th c. contexts associated with Sea-Peoples settlements on Cyprus or in the Levant, beyond casual trade items.
-
Lead-isotope and trace-element matches linking metal artifacts in the East to Sardinian ore bodies at meaningful scale.
-
Iconographic/typological correspondences between Egyptian depictions (e.g., helmets, shields) and securely dated Nuragic martial equipment, distinguishing shared Mediterranean fashions from local signatures.
-
Ancient DNA from remains identified as Sea Peoples showing Sardinian-like profiles (acknowledging current limits of resolution).
These are demanding criteria, but they shift the proposal from plausible to probable if met.
Why This Reframing Matters
Seeing the Sea Peoples through a Nuragic lens corrects a common bias: the tendency to read the entire Late Bronze Age collapse through the administrative eyes of palace states. Decentralized societies behave differently in crisis. They can project force rapidly through autonomous war-bands, take mercenary service one year and raid the next, and migrate in segments rather than as unified “nations.” Egyptians, facing such fluid coalitions, recorded names that make more sense as labels of convenience than as definitive ethnonyms. A Sardinia of multiple maritime confederations fits that logic—and helps explain why the same names do not appear in every episode.
Conclusion
If the Sherden are one Nuragic confederation known to Egyptian scribes, it is reasonable to entertain that other Egyptian “Sea Peoples” names could map onto other Nuragic coalitions active at the same time—particularly given Sardinia’s decentralized political geography and maritime culture. This does not collapse the Sea Peoples into Sardinians; it places Sardinia properly within a multi-origin, coalition-driven phenomenon now recognized across the Mediterranean at the end of the Bronze Age. The model both respects the variability of the Egyptian lists and aligns with what the archaeology of Sardinia says about how power and mobility worked on the island itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment