Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Professor Donald Kagan: I'm going to talk to
you today about the beginnings of the Greek experience as far
as we know it, and I should warn you at once that the further back in history you go the
less secure is your knowledge, especially at the beginning of
our talk today when you are in a truly prehistoric period.
That is before there is any written evidence from the period
in which you are interested. So what we think we know
derives chiefly from archeological evidence, which is before writing--mute evidence that
has to be interpreted and is very complicated,
and is far from secure. Even a question such as a date
which is so critical for historians, is really quite
approximate, and subject to controversy, as is just about every single thing I will
tell you for the next few days. These will be even more than
usual subject to controversy even the most fundamental
things. So what you'll be hearing are approximations as best we can make them of
what's going on. Well, we begin our story with the emergence
of the Bronze Age in the Aegean Sea area. That appears to
have taken place about 3000 B.C. I think these days they
date it down about another century to about 2900.
Precision is impossible; don't worry about that.
And what we find, the first example of a Bronze Age--and I use the word civilization now for
the first time, because before the Bronze
Age--there is nothing that we would define as civilization.
Civilization involves the establishment of permanent
dwelling areas that we call cities, as opposed to villages.
Agricultural villages will have existed all over the place in
the late Stone Age, in the Neolithic Period, as it is known. But there is a difference
and the critical difference is that a city contains
a number of people who do not provide for their own support.
That is to say, they don't produce food. They need to acquire it from somebody else.
Instead, they do various things like govern and are priests,
and are bureaucrats, and are engaged in other non-productive activities that depend upon
others to feed them. That's the narrowest definition of cities.Of
course, with cities we typically find a whole association
of cultural characteristics, which we deem civilization.
Well, that's what we see for the first time in the Aegean
area on the island of Crete. That civilization was uncovered
by the archaeologists right at the beginning of the twentieth
century. Sir Arthur Evans, an Englishman, was responsible for the major
work that has revealed that civilization. He was captivated by it, he--at one point
I think he convinced himself that he was a descendant
of the kings of that civilization. But in any case, he named it.
He named it after the legendary King of Crete who appears in
Greek mythology by the name of Minos. So he referred to that civilization as the
Minoan civilization. When we use the word Minoan
we mean the civilization whose home is Crete.
It spread out beyond Crete because the Minoans established
what we might want to call an empire in various parts of the
Mediterranean, and it starts with Crete. It is a Bronze Age culture, and it is the
first civilization we know in the area.
What we find in the Minoan civilization--I mean the main
place we can learn about this civilization was the city of
Knossos, located on the northern shore of Crete where a great palace complex was
discovered and is available. By the way it's an absolutely
beautiful site, a great tourist site; you can see quite a lot there. Anyway, when
you examine that site and draw the conclusions that are inevitable
from examining it, and, also I should have said,
all of the Minoan settlements, you realize that they look and
seem very much like older civilizations that have grown up
in the Ancient Near East. The real sort of typical home
of the kinds of things were talking about is Mesopotamia,
modern Iraq, the Tigress, Euphrates Valley, which spread out beyond
Iraq and went up into Syria and neighboring places.
It, too, was very similar to the civilization, but apparently a little bit newer in the Nile
Valley in Egypt, about which we know a great
deal more than we know about the Minoans because, as you know, in the nineteenth century,
scholars discovered how to read the languages that were written
in Egypt and in Mesopotamia. So, they were able to develop
something approaching history for the period we're talking
about. That is not true for Crete because, although they had a script--and we
have available to us tablets with those writings on them--to
this day no one has deciphered the language written by the Minoans.
Therefore, we don't have that kind of knowledge. So barring that, nonetheless,
what we see reminds us very much of these ancient Bronze Age
early civilizations. So, this will be significant as
we talk about how the Greeks differed from them,
which gets us to the Greeks. The Minoans are not Greeks.
Strictly speaking, what do we mean when we say
somebody is Greek? We mean that his native language, not one that he's acquired subsequently,
but the one that he learned as a child, was Greek, some version of the Greek language.
These are linguistic terms. But of course, the people who spoke them, especially in the
early years, tended to be part of a relatively narrow collection
of people, who intermarried with each
other chiefly, and therefore developed common cultural characteristics. So of course,
the language is only a clue. When you speak about Greeks you
will be speaking about something more than merely the fact that
they spoke a certain language. In the nineteenth century,
there was a lot of talk about races. There were people who spoke about the Greek
race, or similar races, for quite a long time in
the science of anthropology and subjects like
that. It's been determined that those terms are
inappropriate. They suggest there is something in the genes
that explains the characteristics of particular people;
that is certainly not true. So let's understand each other.
We're talking about a culture when we're talking about the
Greeks, which is most strikingly signified by the language that
is spoken. Well, the way we can reason things out from the evidence we have suggests
that Greek-speaking peoples came down into the
area around the Aegean Sea, perhaps around 2000 B.C.,
about a thousand years later than the emergence of the Minoan
civilization at Crete. And again, I think these days
they tend to down date it by another century or so,
so it might be around 1900 B.C. We really don't know very much
about these early Greek settlers. We begin to know more about three or four
hundred years down the road, when there appear buildings and
settlements in the world later inhabited by the Greeks,
as we know, to which we give the name Mycenaean. Now, that derives from one site in the northeastern
Peloponnesus called Mycenae, and the name is given because
in the poems of Homer, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the leading Greek king,
the man who is the leader of the expedition to Troy,
is Agamemnon, who was king of the Argolid region and his palace and his home are at
Mycenae, and that's why we call the entire culture,
the Bronze Age culture, running from about 1600 to
perhaps as late as 1100, but perhaps not so late.
That's what we mean when we speak about the Mycenaeans and
the Mycenaean Period. And please keep in mind that
they are Greek speakers; and we know this with
confidence, something we didn't know at the beginning of the
twentieth century, because written evidence is
available on a bunch of clay tablets that were accidentally
baked in some conflagration in these places. The same thing is true of Knossos in Crete,
and perhaps a few other sites in Crete. Not at the same time, but the reason we have
any written evidence at all is that there was
some kind of conflagration that produced a fire that baked
clay into pottery. In the normal course of events,
clay dissolves and disappears, and any message on it is
erased. In other words, this was not meant to be a record to be left
for the future. It was an accident.
These things that we discovered were meant for a practical usage
in ways that I will tell you about in a little while.
So, anyway, that writing--let me back up a step.
When Evans found writing at Knossos, he found two--well,
he actually found seven, but only two that turned out to
be significant--two kinds of script. I shouldn't even say script; that sounds like
he's writing a nice cursive line. There were two kinds of
writing. Because he couldn't figure out what they were,
he called one Linear A and the other Linear B,
because he could tell by careful analysis that they were
different, and he could tell which pieces belonged to which.
Linear A is earlier and it is associated with and it is
clearly the language used by the Minoan kings at Knossos and
other places. Linear B resembles Linear A, but it is clearly different and later, and
one reason we know that comes mostly from stratigraphy,
but we can also tell because it's a much simpler script,
but by no means simple. These are not alphabets; these are syllabaries, every symbol represents
a syllable; in other words,
typically two letters rather than one. That's a nice step over having loads, and
loads, and loads of symbols representing lots of
things which is true more of Linear A than Linear
B, but it's still--we're talking about something
approaching sixty symbols in a syllabary and when you
think about how hard it is to learn to read when you're only using
twenty-six symbols, and how few Americans do learn to read, which
I keep reading in the paper--it's not an easy thing.
It's not a simple matter. Imagine what it would be like
if you had to learn about sixty such things? Well, of course, what follows from all of
that is that ordinary people did not. What we learn
ultimately from our decipherment of Linear B--which I've
just skipped over, which was done in the 1950's by a brilliant
young architect, who loved solving problems of this kind,
he was able to discover that this was an early form of Greek
and that he could essentially make out what it said.
At first there was doubt and controversy, which has
completely gone away, as more and more examples of
this writing have become available and scholars are now
able, by and large, to be confident that they know what these
things say. So, the fact that this was a Greek script
that was available in the Mycenaean Period tells us very confidently
that the Mycenaeans were Greeks. But of course,
a lot was known about these Mycenaeans well before the
syllabary was deciphered. It's worth saying a word
about that, because I want to undermine any great confidence
that you may have and what you can believe that scholars tell
you, because we keep finding out how wrong we are about all kinds of things.
I would say, if you walked into the leading universities in the world, there would probably
be Germans in the 1850's and you went to the classics
people, and you said, "well, you know Homer wrote
about these places, Mycenae and other places, can you tell me where that was?" They would
say, "You silly fellow, that's just stories,
that's mythology, that's poetry. There never was an Agamemnon, there never
was a Mycenae, there isn't any such thing." Then in 1870,
a German businessman by the name of Heinrich Schliemann,
who had not had the benefit of a university education and
didn't know what a fool and how ignorant he was,
believed Homer, and he said he wanted to look for Troy. So, he went to where people
thought Troy might be and he began digging there,
and before you know it, he discovered a mound filled
with cities, which he believed was Troy. And after the usual amount of scholarly debate,
there seems to be no doubt that it was the City of Troy.
So having succeeded with that, he thought well,
now that I've seen Troy, how about Mycenae? Off he went to the northeast Peloponnesus
to the site where he thought it might be, Mycenae, from Homer's
account--I wouldn't be telling you this story, and you know the outcome. He found it and
it was the excavation of the site of Mycenae which was
soon followed by the excavation of other sites from the
same period that made it possible for people to talk about this
culture, even before they could read the script.
The culture is marked by some of the following features.
Let's take Mycenae, which is maybe the best example
of the whole culture. Certainly, it's a perfect model
for what we're talking about. What you have to begin with is
a town or a city, or a settlement of some kind
built on top of a hill, and it's usually intended to be
a formidable hill, one not easily accessible to
anybody who comes walking along, a place, in other words,
that would make a very nice fort, a citadel. That's, indeed, what we find at Mycenae.
On that citadel, on that strongly, rocky fort or citadel, they built what we
now identify as the royal palace, the palace of the king.
That was, I should point out, maybe about ten miles from the
sea. Now, not all Mycenaean sites are so far from the sea; some of them are
closer, but what it's important to say is that none
of them are right on the sea. They're always back some few
miles. The reason for that I think is that the early times in which these civilizations
arose saw all kinds of dangers coming, and the most--the
swiftest, the least suspected, the one that could come
upon you overnight came from the sea. People who
came by land you would be hearing rumblings about down the
road from villages that were spread out, but if somebody comes in
from the sea on a ship, you may find them there
in the morning and you don't know what's what.
So the idea for security and safety, they built their estates
far from the sea, but not far because as we shall
see the Mycenaean civilization was a commercial one that relied
for its wealth upon trade and that meant trade by sea,
more than by land. The citadel is always surrounded by farmland, and, of course,
you cannot live in ancient society if you are not
surrounded by farmland, because the food that comes
from the soil is essential for life, and you can't count on
trade to provide it to you with any security. Later on when times are more secure, there's
trade for grain as well for everything else, but when you're
settling a place in the first place, you can't rely on
somebody bringing it to you. You're going to have your
own people working it, and bringing it up to you
themselves. So, the citadel and the farmland surrounding it, make up fundamentally
the unit which is the Mycenaean kingdom. Well, the
first thing that Schliemann found when he dug at Mycenae was
this remarkable circle of graves, which were shafts dug straight
down into the soil, and they are referred to,
to this day, technically as shaft graves, and then in other places not very far from
that main hill, they found even more remarkable burials, what
we call beehive tombs. Just imagine a huge beehive,
in which let's say, the center of the inside of
that might be as much as fifty feet high or more,
and these were built of extraordinarily huge, heavy stones and very well worked too.
Here's the marvelous thing. The reason he had to uncover it
was that beehive tombs, like everything else, were buried. This wasn't just the results
of centuries of neglect, it is clear that they
were built in order to be buried. That is to say,
it was some kind of a big religious thing going on here,
where the king--it was obviously a royal thing because
the cost of it was so enormous; nobody else could afford a tomb
of that kind. So, here was a royal tomb closed forever and yet built at a fantastic
expense and enormous kind of labor. The same is true in a
general way of what we find in the royal palace up on top of
the hill at Mycenae, and so what is perfectly clear
is the people who ruled these places were enormously powerful,
at least locally, and wealthy. Even if you imagine that slaves
did the work, you would need a hell of a lot of them, over a long period of time,
and you had to feed them, if nothing else. So, we are talking about a wealthy group,
and of course, the thing that struck Schliemann almost amazingly was that in the
circle of graves that we've been talking about, he found all
kinds of precious things buried. The most striking of which
were death masks made of pure gold on the remains
of the body, but also jewels, and implements,
and weapons of very high expense. That's what, of course, makes it clear they
were royal; by the way, there are only a few of these graves over a large period of
time. So, you must imagine these are successive
kings who are being buried in this, what must have been,
sacred soil. So, that makes it clear we're talking about a wealthy civilization,
at least in which the rulers are wealthy, and in which the rulers, of course, are very
powerful. Now, what we learn, both from archaeology
and from references in the Linear B tablets is that
they engaged--these cultures engaged in trade to
a significant degree. You find Mycenaean elements,
tools, other things, pottery particularly of a
certain kind, all over the Mediterranean Sea. You find it in datable places and that's why
we can give this some kind of date, such as in Egypt.
The Mycenaeans had regular trade with Egypt. We find Egyptian things in Mycenae and vice
versa, and also presumably, much of it must have
gone into Mesopotamia; some of it went all the way to
the Western Mediterranean. This was a civilization that
was not shut in on itself, but was in touch with the
entire Mediterranean region. The major thing they seem to be
selling were aromatic oils in little vials. Think of them as some combination of oil and
perfume. I better say something about oil in the ancient
world, so that you get a grip on what's going on
here. The ancient Greeks had no soap.
Think about that for a moment. That's a problem, isn't it?
Yet, they wanted to get clean and so what device they used was
to take oil, typically olive oil, spread it on themselves, then get a scrapper,
a metal scrapper, and scrap off the oil with it
what was underneath the oil. And then finally, they would take their bath and out they would
come and be clean. Now, oil is a wonderful thing;
olive oil is a great thing. In certain forms you eat it.
The olive itself, you use it to cook with as oil;
some people just put oil on their salad. I, myself, can't stand it but--the point is--
but that's not all. If you get oil,
crush the oil from the olives that come down from the trees,
that's a nasty smell that it has. So if you're going to use it for this purpose,
it's not going to be good by itself. You've got to put some nice perfume onto it,
in order for it to be useable, just as your soap would be
pretty horrible without any perfume on it. So it looks as though what the Mycenaeans
did--Greece is filled with wonderful olive trees and so they obviously
took the oil from those olives. I'm sure they sold it in
various forms, but one of the most popular was
for this purpose. Everybody in the Mediterranean wanted it for the same reasons,
and obviously these Mycenaean sites had access to what they
needed. It looks like, by the way, that they got much of the perfume
from areas outside of Greece. Some of the best of it
came from northeast Africa, as a matter of fact.
You remember the Queen of Sheba from the Bible? I say that, but I shutter to think how many
of you have read the Bible, but anyway, she was so rich as
to attract the interest of King Solomon, because that's
where those wonderful, fine smelling things,
frankincense and myrrh, and stuff like that was
available--useful for this purpose. So they had to import that to make their goods
as saleable as they wanted and so on. So you have trade with
the Mediterranean and most especially the eastern
Mediterranean, because that's where the older, more sophisticated, more civilized cultures
were and that's where wealth was too, compared
to what was out in the west. So, that's also the pattern of
trade. What you see is a kind of cultural unity, first of all,
within the Mycenaean world itself. It is evident that these different Mycenaean
towns, all throughout the Greek world, on both sides
of the Aegean Sea, were in touch with each other.
One of the things that's interesting about that is you
can see pottery styles that you can hardly tell whether they
came from one end of the Mediterranean or another,
if they're of the Mycenaean variety, because it was a single
culture. I don't mean there were no local variations, but there was this general
unity. I'm going to contrast that with the situation in Greece after the fall of
the Mycenaean world, and I was going to say not just in the Mycenaean
towns themselves, but over the entire Aegean Sea
and indeed across the Mediterranean. In the years of the Mycenaean
Period, roughly from 1600 to 1100 or so B.C., you are dealing with a largely unified culture.
What is it? What do we talk about the world like these days? What's the cliché?
Globalized world; it was a globalized world, except it was a little piece of the globe.
But they didn't really know or care about very much outside of
the Mediterranean area. Now, in the respects that I
have spelled out, and I mean chiefly the fact that they were engaged in commerce and industry
to some degree and that they were a trading people
and that they were in touch with one another and so on,
they were already similar to the civilizations that came
before them in the ancient Mediterranean Near East.
In those places, in Egypt, the Pharaoh, and in Mesopotamia at first individual city
states were ruled in the same way as everybody else I'm
going to be talking about now, by somebody who is a king,
a monarch, a one-man ruler who is the warlord, commander of the armies, who has the control
of the power in the state, but more than that,
all the economic activity that we find--and our best example of
what I'm about to say is in Mesopotamia--in the cities of
Tigress-Euphrates Valley. The ruler there, from his palace, assisted by vast groups of
bureaucrats directed the economy of his land entirely and fully.
Agriculture was overwhelmingly the activity, the most important activity of the people
of that area, of any area. So, we have evidence that
the king doled out seed for planting, instructed people just
exactly when to plant, where to plant, what to plant there, when to fertilize it
if they did. In Mesopotamia they usually
didn't need to because the richness of the soil and so on.
In other words, you have a degree of centralized control of true, monarchical power,
of a wealthy monarchical power. Already the model is there in
Asia. Again, I want to say it's the same but in a special way in Egypt, because
in Egypt the whole Nile Valley--because I think of the
nature of the Nile Valley--became totally centralized,
under the rule of one man, the Pharaoh, and he commanded the whole thing.
It took longer for anything like that to happen in
Mesopotamia, although it ultimately did. When we get, for instance,
down to about 1750 B.C. in Mesopotamia, Babylonia, which is at that point the dominant
kingdom of the area, King Hammurabi has just about
the same power as a Pharaoh would in Egypt. It's also worth pointing out that these rulers
had full religious authority for their rule.
In the case of the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Pharaoh was himself a
god, and insisted on being worshipped in that way.
In Babylonia, for instance, and this I think was typical, Hammurabi was
not a god, but as we know, thank God, by the great steely
that he left, which is now in the Louvre. The law code of Hammurabi is available to
us and there's a preface to it in which he basically explains
why you should obey the rules that he now is laying
down for you. And his answer is because the top god of our
world, Marduk, appointed me in that place and I'm
doing what he wants me to do, and if you cross me you cross
him, and that's bad news. That's a rough translation. So, this is very important. You have a full
monarchy in the sense that both--we in America talk about
the separation of church and state, that is a very rare and
unusual thing in the history of the world.
The normal situation in cultures pre-civilized and
civilized as well is for there to be a unity between religious
things and non-religious things, and all of that to be ruled by
a single individual who is the monarch of that territory with
religious sanction as well as through his power,
and through the legitimacy of his descent. That's the normal human way of living.
You should always be aware, I think, about how peculiar we
are. We are the oddballs in the history of the human race, and anybody who
follows our pattern, and it's important to realize
that because there's nothing inevitable about the development
that has come about to be characteristic of the world.
When we find people challenging it, I think they have the bulk
of time and human experience on their side when they say you
guys got it wrong. So, let me say something about the nature of the society and economy
that we find in the Mycenaean world revealed both by the archaeology
and by what we learn in the records provided by Linear B.
The remains and records of these strongholds make it clear
that the political organization was an imitation of oriental
monarchy. The sovereignty--the sovereign at Mycenae rather, and at Pylos,
another important site for the period, and at Thebes, which was another one,
was somebody that the tablets refer to as the Wanax,
and that is the same as a later Greek word which drops the "W"
at the beginning, anax. As we shall see that word in later times means
some powerful individual, but it doesn't mean what it means
here, the boss, the single monarchical controller
of everything. He held a royal domain that
belonged directly to him, which was very significant in
size and wealth. He appointed bureaucratic officials; he commanded royal servants and
he recorded royal goods, which by the way, most of the tablets are inventories,
lists of things that exist in the palace that belonged to the
king. There are other things that have to do with instructions that the king
is sending out to people from the palace. There is no reference,
in any of the tablets--I don't know how much we can make of
that because the tablets limit themselves to such limited kinds
of things that maybe it doesn't prove anything, but in this case, I think it does.
There is no reference to law. There is no reference to some
objective or anything other than the king himself in the
administration of justice. One scholar says, "It is natural to infer that the king, all
powerful controller of the all seeing bureaucracy,
possessed supreme authority also in the region of lawmaking
and law enforcement. An omnipresent bureaucracy with
its detailed and all encompassing records gives the
clearest picture of the power exercised by the centralized
monarchs of the Mycenaean Age." The records discovered at Pylos
here are particularly interesting. They cover only one part of a year and yet
they carry details of thousands of transactions in hundreds of
places. These files, as we might call them,
are both sweepingly inclusive and penetratingly minute.
For instance, bronze is allocated to different places for the manufacture of arrowheads
or swords, with a note telling how many
smiths in each place are active and how many are not.
Cretan sheep are enumerated to the amount of 20,000.
I'm sorry, that's not right. I don't want to get this wrong,
25,051, and we learn that in a Cretan village, two nurses, one girl, and one boy are employed.
We are told how much linen is expected from a place called
Rion. What is the acreage of the estate of a man called Alektruon?
What a guy name Dounias owes the palace? The answer is 2200 liters of barley, 526 of
olives, 468 of wine--I hope you remember all this;
fifteen rams, one fat hog, one cow, and two bulls. We even learned the
names of two oxen owned by Terzarro: Glossy and Blackie.
The records make it perfectly clear that the kingdoms of Pylos
and Knossos were bureaucratic monarchies of a type unexpected
in Greece, but in many ways similar to some contemporary and earlier kingdoms in
the eastern Mediterranean. It is very unlike anything
we associate with the Greeks, or anything that
ever again existed in the Greek world, and that's really
the point I want to make. Although these people are
Greeks, they are ruling a culture which is thoroughly
different from the one we will be studying for the bulk of the
semester. So like the eastern states, you have a powerful ruler who is a warlord.
There is a palace economy, there is a script, there is a bureaucracy, and there is collectivized
agriculture under the central control of the economy.
That economy and that society go forward and flourish for,
as I say, about 400 years maybe--perhaps about 400 years.
Then a bunch of terrible things obviously begin to happen
that shake the security of this society, and ultimately bring it
down. Roughly speaking, about 1200 B.C., we hear of general attacks
that are going on around the Mediterranean against
the various civilizations of which we know.
Egypt experiences a number of attacks from the outside world.
Chiefly what we hear about is in the area of the Nile Delta,
right there on the Mediterranean Sea. Among those attackers, there are others besides--there
are attackers from Libya, we hear, but there are also
attackers that are simply called from the sea;
the sea people attack. At roughly the same time the
dominant empire in Asia Minor, Anatolia, is run by a people
who are called the Hittites, who have been there for
hundreds of years in security and are now suffering assault.
We know that because they also have a writing which we can
read, and it speaks of it as well as the archeological remains that show destruction.Similarly,
attacks are going on against the kingdoms of Syria and of
Palestine, which--it's always hard to know what that piece of
land should be called at any particular moment, but I call it Palestine because one of the
sea peoples that attacked the Nile around 1200 in Egypt are
called the Pelest, and most scholars suggest that
is the same name as came to be the name for this region when
they ruled it, called Palestine. And you will remember that when the Bible
talks about this, it refers to a people called the Philistines.
These are thought to be all the same people. So since they ruled it until--what's his name,
Samson took them out with the jawbone of an ***.
I think it's proper to call it Palestine at that moment.
Cyprus, likewise, suffers from these attacks, and so far west as Italy and Sicily are under
attack. Something is going on. The question,
of course, is what scholars have disagreed about and
continue to disagree about, because the evidence simply
will not permit any confident answer, but I ought to just
mention a few of the theories that have been tossed around,
a few among many, many, many. One that seems to be in
fashion these days, although you never know how
long the fashion lasts, is: internal uprisings that
somehow these monarchical areas, when life got tough,
the people must have risen up against them. I think this reflects hopeful Marxist wish
fulfillment rather than any reality, but that is not what poor
people have done in history. If you look at revolutions,
revolutions come typically when things are getting better and
the people don't like the fact that they don't have more than
they already have. But, in any case, that's one theory. Earlier theories--it's
wonderful to have scientific theories that you can use to
handle these problems, which you cannot demonstrate any fact for whatsoever. I'm being a bit strong,
but not too much. The one theory made some investigations of earth spores, hoping to
find--what do you call that stuff that floats around and makes
you sneeze? Pollen.
So as a result, they said there were droughts in these areas throughout that period and
that caused tremendous unhappiness and discontent.
Other people have suggested climatic shift. I keep waiting for somebody--I think the time
is right for somebody to come up with a theory and explain
it by global warming. Also we know that the island in
the middle of the Aegean Sea, called Thera, blew up in a most enormous kind of an explosion
at some point back there in prehistoric days, and one theory
is it was the explosion on Thera that caused so climatic
trouble, that it can explain what went on here.
The trouble is, you just don't know when that explosion took place, and since there are
several periods in this general area that we're talking
about now, in which something big happened, some great
change takes place, it turns out different people
want to have their explosion at different times.
It's like a moveable feast; you put your explosion where
you need it at any particular moment. I am making light of it and I think it's somewhat
justified, because the evidence is just so scanty.
It's just that I think it's fun to play the game these guys do,
but we shouldn't take it too seriously. Now, let's go back to a theory which has at
least got the virtue of being very old, although hardly
anybody believes it anymore. That is, the theory that
what happened in the Mycenaean world, let's forget
what was happening elsewhere, was the result of a movement of
tribes, of ethnic groups who were outside the Mediterranean
region, say at the beginning of this period and say in 1600, but who pressed into
it. Usually, the picture is that they are coming
from the north or the northeast and pressing down into it.
I have to believe that whoever came up with that theory for the
first time was aided in coming to it by thinking about the end
of the Roman Empire, when something precisely like
that did happen. These Germanic and other tribes, who were largely located north and
northeast of Europe, came down--I should say not Europe, but the
Roman Empire--came down and ultimately destroyed
it by invasion. And of course, there are more theories about
the fall of the Roman Empire than there are about the fall of
the Mycenaean world. Anyway, connected to all of
this was a very interesting Greek myth, which speaks about
the return of the Heraclides. They are the sons of the mythical hero Hercules,
who was a Peloponnesian figure, and the story goes that the
sons of Hercules were expelled from the Peloponnesus and then
promised that they would come back a hundred years later and
conquer it. And so they did come back hundred years later and conquered it,
and since--this is the link that explains the old story in
historical Greek times, let us say the fifth century
B.C., the people who inhabited the Peloponnesus were mainly
speakers of the Greek dialect called Doric. It was thought that Hercules' sons and Hercules
being Peloponnesians no doubt spoke Doric too,
and so this was referred to as by scholars in the nineteenth
century, not by the ancient Greeks, as a Dorian invasion. In other words,
another kind of Greek. The Greeks who lived in the
area before the fall of the Mycenaean world, what were they called? Well, Homer gives us
several names for them, but three stick out for me.
The most common and the most widely used was Achaeans,
another one is Danaans, and a third one is Argives.
Argives comes from the fact that they rule over the land
Argos in Greece. Now, the one that has some clout historically is Achaeans, because in
the records of the Hittite kings, there are references to
people--I'm trying to think, I think they're called,
I want to get this right, but I don't remember whether
this is the Egyptian or, something like akhaiwashaa, unless that's the Egyptian form.
Anyway they are called by names that sound something like that;
one among the Hittites, one among the Egyptians and
it's so easy. Given the fact that the letter "w" dropped out of the Greek language between
the Mycenaean Period and the Classical Period, you could
easily imagine that these people were referred--referred to themselves
as achaiwoi, and when the "w" drops out they are achaioi, which is what Homer calls
them. So, the idea here is that the original Greeks who came in, were what we
call Achaeans and that when these disturbances came and if the
Dorian theory is true, Dorians either killed them all
or dominated them, possibly intermarried with them, but dominated them and washed
away, wiped out the use of the Achaean language and imposed
their own Dorian language upon it. And supporting such an idea, among other things,
is that if you go to the mountains in the center of the
Peloponnesus where it's awfully hard to get to,
there is a region called, well, actually beyond those
mountains, on the northern shore, is a place called Achaea, where the people
are Achaeans. So, the theory might well be that they were
driven away from their old homes in the southern Peloponnesus,
and went up to the northern Peloponnesus. Then there are the people in the mountains
of Arcadia who also don't speak the Doric language, and maybe
they were driven up there to escape. So those are the
things that helped people decide that the Dorians may
really have been the sons of Hercules, who actually invaded and
that what we find after the fall of the Mycenaean
world in Greece are some of the following things--things that
were not typically found in the Mycenaean world.
First of all, iron weapons, not bronze ones. A kind of a pin used to hold
your cloak together, called a fibula, unknown in the previous period.
The building of buildings in the shape of what the Greeks
called a megaron, a rectangular center, which has a hearth in it, a front porch,
and a back porch which will be the style in which Greek temples
are built in the historical period. That appears for the first time after the
fall of the Mycenaeans. We know that the Mycenaeans
buried their dead by inhumation, those great tombs,
those great graves, and even the common people outside them are buried in graves;
whereas, in the historical period, these people were
cremated rather than buried in the world of Homer.
That's what we see. So, the idea that was put
forward in the nineteenth century was that the Dorians who
were a less civilized, tougher, meaner, harder fighting people assisted by the use
of iron and in their weapons which were superior allegedly to the
bronze, came down, defeated the Achaeans, imposed
themselves on them where they could and drove them away
where they couldn't, and that explains how things went.
That has been attacked and is largely not believed these
days for a whole lot of technical reasons that I don't
want to trouble you with right now. I do not think we can believe that simple
story as it stands. It is too simple and there are too many things
that it doesn't account for and there are too many things
would suggest that it's not correct. However, I am not sure there
is nothing in that story, and here I really am
influenced most strongly by my colleague, professor Jerome
Pollitt, now retired, who was our History of Art and
Archaeology guy. He has a notion that is very nuanced and sophisticated and it appeals to
me quite a lot. He suggests that there were, indeed, Greek
tribes from the north who spoke Dorian dialects, who came
down during this period attempting to come into the richer
and better settled world of the Mycenaeans. They didn't come
down and then go away for hundred years and then come back,
but rather they came down in waves of tribes and families,
and so on, exerting gradual pressure, pushing in when they could, retreating when
they couldn't, and so on. For this I think there's a very
good--whether or not you accept the Dorian idea--I think we
should find attractive the idea that if there was an external
invasion, it came in this way over a period of time, a century or two with success
and then retreat, not having success, flight, all that kind of stuff going on.Because
the Mycenaean centers all reveal for that stretch
of time that they're scared. The proof of it comes from
strengthening their already quite strong walls in almost all
the sites that we see, and also--this is a very
important fact. If you're expecting to be attacked and besieged, as all these citadels
would be by an invader, you would want more than
anything else a water supply, but they didn't necessarily
have good water supplies in such circumstances. So, we see the building of water holders in
these places; there's a very striking one. The next time
you go to Mycenae don't miss the cistern that was dug in the
mountains, on the hillside, within the walls at that
period. It's deep and you better take a flashlight because it's as black as it can
possibly be. But they spent a lot of time, energy, and
money on being sure that they would have a supply of water to
hold them for a long siege. I think that that indicates
that something of the kind is going on.Then we see that
when this culture comes to an end, it is accompanied by people fleeing, getting
away from the Mycenaean world. Some of them only go so far
as Athens, which had the good fortune somehow
of not being destroyed, one of the few important
Mycenaean places that is not destroyed. So, for some reason it was safe in Athens
and some fled to Athens. Others had to keep going and
settled on the islands of the Aegean Sea. For others, it was necessary to go further
and to settle the west coast of Asia Minor, which, indeed,
this is a great period of Greek settlement on the west coast of
Asia Minor. Then it looks like there came a
moment where there was a final blow, where whatever was
attempting to overthrow these cities and this civilization
succeeded, but it was not the same in every place. The fall of Pylos is generally
thought to be around 1200 B.C.; Mycenae itself may be fifty
years later, and other places later than that. I think it's very important to notice that
some of these places that were big in the Mycenaean world were
entirely abandoned and not settled again by the Greeks.
Buried, lost, people didn't even know where they were, that's extraordinary. That only
happens when something very, very large drives people away
from an inhabited site. So, here is where Jerry
Pollitt's analogy to the fall of Rome seems so very appealing.
That is, more or less, what did happen in the Roman
world and I don't see anything that's suggested it couldn't
happen in the Greek world at the time we're talking about.
I'm trying to figure out; we quit when, ten until 1:00, right?
Right, yeah, okay. Now, I suppose the most important aspect of all of this for our purposes
are the results of all of this, and they were tremendous.
You have the destruction completely of the Mycenaean
Bronze Age culture. Greece never sees anything like
it again. This is not the way it was in the ancient Near East. This is not the way
it was in Egypt. There you see continuity for a
very, very long time. The Greek world has this
tremendous discontinuity. It's like the door slams and
you got to go into a new room. Among the things that are lost
for a long time, there is writing. There is no writing in Greece from let us
say1100 or so on until the middle of the eighth century B.C.,
rough date 750 and then the writing that they do have is
completely unrelated to the writing that was lost.
They get it from a different place. The letters, the design of the writing
comes, in fact, from Asia, probably from--almost certainly from Phoenicia,
the land that is now called Lebanon and the language that
was for that script was Semitic language. Hebrew is close to what's going on there,
but they don't take the language. They borrow the characters from what had been
already something quite close to an alphabet and had only a
relatively small number. I forget the exact number of
the ones in the Semitic alphabet, but we're talking
about roughly twenty-five. I mean, you're into the
ballgame for an alphabet such as ours. The Greeks borrow that with typical Greek
innovation. They do the big step of inventing vowels so
that now you don't have to remember anything. You can read
every sound that is made, and they produced their alphabet.
But their alphabet has got nothing to do with Mycenae;
this is a new thing altogether. The Greeks are totally
illiterate from around 1100 to 750. Another characteristic of these years, which
scholars refer to as the Dark Ages, just as they do the years
after the fall of the Roman Empire--dark for two
reasons. Dark, in the most obvious way, because we
don't have any writing, no record of them. We can't see.
It's dark. The other, dark, in the sense of gloomy, not good, bad;
this is a hard time, a poor time, a wretched time, a miserable time.
These are dark times. So, that's what is meant by the
term, Dark Ages, and that's what does follow the
fall of the Mycenaean world. Part of the story is that
that old connection that the Mycenaean world had with the
Mediterranean in general, most particularly, with the East stops, we don't find in the
excavations we make of Greek towns in the Dark Ages--we don't
find implements, jewels, goodies, anything from Egypt or Mesopotamia or anything
like that. Nor by the way,
do you find Greek things in those places. The Greeks are isolated during this period.
Of course, everything I'm saying is somewhat exaggerated.
I'm sure there must have been individual exceptions to
everything, but we're talking about the overwhelming reality.
And not only are the Greeks as a whole cut off from the rest
of the world, but Greece itself, which used to be an area of easy exchange,
where people could go from one place to the other and did,
localism now comes into the picture. The unity is broken. It's again like--I hope
you know something about the early middle ages
where places were simply cut off one from the other and there
were no roads kept or made, and just going from one village
to another was a strange and dangerous thing, because nobody was in charge. Things were
completely out of control. That's the way things clearly
were in the Greek world. For instance, you can see pottery, which used to have this,
remember this largely unitary quality. You can tell if you're at all experienced
with it very easily, if you go--let's say to the year 900 B.C.
You can tell if a pot comes from Athens or it comes from
Pylos, or--not Pylos it was probably out of business--Thebes
or someplace else because they have their local characteristics
which are perfectly obvious. This suggests that they're not
seeing each other's goods; they're not trading them.
They're simply working within their own very narrow ambit.
That's the kind of a world that is being created. Something less easy to say confidently, but
probably clear, I think, is the whole legacy of Mycenaean
culture is really lost, not fully though. There is always something
that we call folk memory that has a recollection
of the distant past which may have truth to it, but may not,
or it may have only an element of truth to it,
and it's always very hard. What comes back in this form is
usually what we call legend, and anybody, who rejects legend across the board as simply
being invention, is just dead wrong. Anybody who tries to use
it as an accurate account of what really happened
is no less wrong. Some place in the middle is
where the truth is, and it's hard to find. But in any case, what we find are a number
of units in the Greek world. Call them towns
for the sake of argument, sounds too urban, but call them
that. Small, that means to say small in extent,
few people, because the population surely went down,
since the capacity to grow food, to distribute it,
that whole system that depended on the existence of a central
palace and a strong king running everything, running production, running distribution,
it's gone. You know that doesn't come back. When that's destroyed, you're in terrible
shape. So, the population surely dropped, and all
the evidence we have supports that. So, what you have are
small, poor, weak units, and that's a miserable
situation. Now, they have no choice, they cannot rely as human beings typically
do on just doing what your parents did, just inheriting
a tradition that functions, that works, that keeps you
going. They couldn't do it. The survivors had to figure out a new way
to do things and they didn't do anything new in a hurry.
This all came hard and at the cost, I'm sure, of a lot of human life and a lot of misery.
But what comes out of it is something different. Now, I jumped though. We do know that certain
memories lasted. The Greeks always thought there
was an earlier age. The Greeks of the classical period always thought there was an earlier
age that was much better than the age in which they lived,
an age in which men were heroes. They were bigger,
they were stronger, they were tougher, they were faster, they were more beautiful,
they lived longer. Those were the great old days
and then there's us, we, poor miserable wretches. That's the picture that the Greeks carried
with them. The legends, just stories from generation
to generation, changed, and molded, but nonetheless,
retaining certain elements of the earlier tradition.
Then, finally, we have to believe, there's no escaping, I think, that there was
another thing that provided for memory, something
we call the epic tradition. When we get to Homer we
will find a highly developed epic poetry and once we come to
grips with the fact that it was orally composed and recollected
poetry, then you will get some idea of the length of time that must have been involved
in the creating of it--we'll turn to this when we
get to the Homeric issues. Once you realize that there are
clearly accurate depictions of aspects of the Mycenaean world
that show up in those poems, which appear to have been
written down for the first time, perhaps around 750 B.C.
or so, then you must realize there had to be an epic
tradition, a poetic tradition of the same kind that goes back all
the way to the Mycenaean Period. I think we must remember that
there were people creating and repeating, and working out,
and changing a poetic tradition that started in the Mycenaean
world and lasted for the rest of Greek history. Now, the legacy from the Mycenaeans to Greek
civilization later is very limited. But what there is,
is very important and no part of it is more important than the
Homeric poems themselves. But if we look at the society
that emerges, this Dark Age society that emerges from the ancient world of Mycenae,
what you have is a rare human experience. The creation almost of a clean slate, even
more so I would argue than the disruption that it came after
the fall of Rome, because there's one big difference.
The fall of Rome did not destroy one of the most
important tenacious and significant aspects of the old
culture, the Roman Catholic Church, which remained and became the central fact
for the new culture. There's nothing like that in
the Mycenaean world. We are really talking about
something that's almost entirely fresh. The Greeks had no choice but to try to find
their own way, uninfluenced as Mycenae was influenced by
Mesopotamia and Egypt; uninfluenced by
anything-starting from the lowest possible place and having
to make a living, and to go forward, and to shape a world which was their own because
there wasn't anything else to guide them. Next time we'll
take a look at the Dark Ages and the world of Homer.