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 ass.
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.
