A HISTORY OF THE
ARCHAIC GREEK WORLD
1200-479 BCE
- Jonathan M. Hall;
Blackwell Publishing 2007
Chair of Classical
Studies, Prof of History – U. of Chicago
As with
Osborn's book, Greece in the Making, this book is a scholar's work, in
this case an American, setting out to frame the same period as Osborn, and
doing a much better job of it. Hall even begins with discussing the nature of
history itself as Osborn does, but taking more time in explaining himself.
Prof.
Hall says the English word "history" is a word whose ancient root meaning
was revived in lectures and a resulting book by Edward Hallett Carr in 1961.
AUTODIDACT:
Here's the interesting bit: Carr was a premier Marxist historian of the history
of the Soviet Union who lived in the West.
HALL: In
a series of lectures which turned into a book entitled What is History? Carr
returned to the Greek root word: "historia" whose original meaning is
"inquiry," and proceeded from there to take on the purpose of history
as a discipline: Is History the relation of past events, Or the relation of
evidence as a result of inquiry? Why is the distinction important?
AUTODIDACT:
For one, people like the Autodidact can only read secondary sources, such as
this one, because the Autodidact cannot read ancient Greek. Any secondary
source which compiles the evidence and presents it is a story nonetheless. (One
loves a good story.) So does that make it "history" commonly
understood as "what happened," or does that make it a novel woven
from evidence commonly understood, as an interpretation from a particular point
of view?
A
Marxist would present it as evidence supporting a theoretical historical
premise that the story of humanity is that of a set of tribes/ classes in
perpetual conflict. A "Queer Theory" historian would present it based
upon sexual orientation/ gender. A "Structuralist" would present it
in the context of deconstructing its parts to discern the fundamental
attitudes, beliefs and perceptions. And the list goes on. The discussion is
delightful and enlightening, with "light" being the central theme
here, easily understood by both objectivists and relativists as meaning two
completely different things.
(One
can, like the Autodidact, dissolve into laughter, then keep reading, or close
the book at least to violently empty the contents of one's stomach.)
HALL:
mentions an historian who was a relativist, generally or relatively speaking at
least, who studied modern history and grieved that ancient and medieval
historians could be more certain of their subject, but then consoled himself
with the thought that their certainty springs from irreparable ignorance of
their subject. See?! Why is there not an acknowledged Humor School of History?!
Call it the "Posthum(or)ous School."
Because
we can't reconstruct the dim past with anything like a complete understanding
of what it was really like, so guesswork is all there is to fill in the gaps,
and that guesswork has to be subject not only to consistency with the evidence,
but one's existential circumstances (never mind one's conscious philosophical
bent) that underlie all of one's thinking about the subject; which means there
has been an explosion of ways to interpret, which means certainty is out the
door.
But this
is not a futile exercise, unless one confuses certainty with dogma, or can't
tell the difference between evidence and theory. And then one must ask,
historian or not, do we HAVE to understand it exactly like it was?
Or do we
want to use as much of it as we can find out, to find out as much as we can
about ourselves??
AND SO TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND:
Understanding
Archaic Greece, the world that was precursor to the Spartans at Thermopylae;
the Parthenon; Themistocles and the Battle of Salamis; the Delian League,
Thucydides and Herodotus, Socrates and Aristarchus and Plato and Anaximander
and Zenon; the decisive Battle of Plataea, the Athenian expedition to Syracuse;
Aristotle; Alexander the Great; the Hellenic Age; the explosion of discoveries
and theories that lay dormant (relative to Europe) for a thousand years until
the European Renaissance; the American Revolution produced by men who could
read Greek and Latin and produced what we call the oldest existing democracy;
and the expansion of Western Civilization that has spread to every corner of
the globe and dominated it to cause even the other, much older, civilization
centered on China, to kowtow to it or, at least, to assimilate it in order to
survive.
These are
the cumulative reasons to read as much as one can about a time we cannot fully
know. The overarching interesting thing about the Greek Dark Age: there is
evidence:
It runs
consistently enough to trace general developments across centuries in a
panorama that can both be corroborated and which, the more one looks, the more
it looks familiar, very familiar. This is in other words, a reflection not only
on human nature, but a study of what happened when it first happened. That is
to say, it was the Iron Age begat of the Bronze Age born of the Neolithic; in
scale beggaring the modern use of the term to distinguish the Enlightenment
from the Industrial from the Modern from the post-Modern which are simply, at
best, really just epochs which doesn't grab the attention publishers would
prefer, nor provide the self importance to which writers aspire, and so the silly
dilution of the term.
Between
the two, recognized from all evidence as so fundamental as to call them
"Ages," not epochs or fads or any sort of change less than starkly different;
as affecting all of us and everywhere, and, hence, a beginning of history (Iron
Age) however dimly seen enough to define the new Age as a place where things we
recognize happened "for the first time"; an evolution that both narrowed
the possibilities of humanity forever and widened its chances. And it is at the
approximate juncture of the Bronze and Iron ages that the Great Collapse of the
Archaic Greece occurs.
Moreover,
one must ask, are we now the way we are because they first set the path as they
emerged from catastrophe, or is it something in our very nature that makes us
now like they were then?
HALL: The
World that collapsed in Greece around the year 1200 BC, MYCENAE, has no written
record except for those found and only deciphered lately (ca. 1950) and that
language tells us only about transactions of the royal houses and little else.
It was a language of records, with 60 ideograms and 89 signs; cumbersome and,
given the royal houses were the only source of demand for it, of limited need
of people who could read & write it, and absolutely of no use to the rest
of the people. Nevertheless they tell us things not only of what happened before,
but during the Great Collapse.
It
didn't happen all at once. Those on the Greek mainland suffered devastations
before Mycenae itself collapsed. There are records of putting up a wall across
the Isthmus of Corinth to stop whoever it was that had set Thebes and other
cities to the north of it aflame in a maelstrom of destruction the Mycenean
center of power itself managed to withstand for a few more decades.
During
these years the walls of the city itself were strengthened – evidence from arch
digs, not from literary sources – and the writings themselves become fewer –
meaning fewer transactions with other cities. Where Mycenae in former times had
traded and thereby communicated with the other civilizations of the Levant,
including Egypt – by the 13th BC such trade has stopped. Mycenae is fighting
for its life. Then the wall is breached and someone pours into the Peloponnese
and wipes out what had once been your basic standard kingdom; in design more feudal
than centralized.
So, if
archaeology can't tell us, what are we left with?
Fortunately,
we're studying History here, so there are other paths, for instance following
the DNA of language; dialects and spellings along with archaeological evidence.
AUTODIDACT:
History is great, ain't it? Nothing stops it. You look at what one line of
evidence suggests, but when it is stopped by a lack thereof, you aren't
necessarily. Because you can look elsewhere. That is why Historical research
will never be outmoded. For all its faults, it is the only discipline that is
looking at the whole table where pieces – albeit those not already fallen from
the table for the rest of Time, as well as those which we do not yet recognize
as pieces - are scattered. Even in the
scattering History is compelled to find the pattern and the pattern is the thing.
HALL: There
is no consensus on who it was that did all this. The Dorian Invasion used to be
the standard explanation but archaeological finds have challenged this, too.
And it didn't happen all at once, but it seems to have happened in waves that went
on for about a century and a half to ca. 1050.
There is
the theory of the "Sea Peoples. " Remember, the destruction was not
confined to Greece, but the entire Levant. Even Egypt. Two successive Pharaohs
claimed victory over them in what the evidence suggests was apocalyptically
desperate. Other civilizations, including the Bronze Age Greeks, were not victorious
and so they were overwhelmed. So in Greece an entire way of life collapsed so
completely as to create a Black Hole in the history of a civilization that Homer
and his legatees described as so well organized that it had once launched
"a thousand ships" for the sake of a broken marriage and of course,
pillage, murder and power.
So, in
the absence of archaeological evidence, what? You take a look at the DNA. In
this case the DNA is still indeterminate biologically, possibly forever,
because DNA deals with things on the scale of Carbon 14 dating – by centuries
if you're lucky, millennia if you're not. But there is another DNA, the DNA of
Language.
Dialects
and colloquialisms. The way people talk and inscribe.
The
evidence indicates a movement of people, who were not settled, into areas where
people had been. There is some evidence that these Sea Peoples were not a
single people but many, extending from central and northern Greece to Italy to
Sicily. Admittedly that seems a stretch. What was it – some sea mafia of which
we have no evidence no artifacts, nothing but a couple of inscriptions in
Egypt?! Hey, stranger things have happened, and we have only the barest of
evidence on the whole eastern Mediterranean for that period anyway. We know
that there were seafaring people in the Late Neolithic Age; guys in animal skin
canoes crossing from island to island trading and mingling; and the idea of a
sea-based culture raiding, killing, raping, plundering and occupying isn't so
farfetched when we have much more recent documented examples such as the
Vikings.
And there
are historians who argue that the Collapse was internal rather than external,
an explanation the Autodidact finds less appealing simply because too many
other things were happening along the same lines elsewhere; other civilizations
were collapsing about the same time, such as the Hittites, as well as just
barely holding on, as in Egypt.
And
there are multi-layered arguments involving economics problems and eco-problems
which have yet to coalesce. For instance, it appears that the polar ice caps
were retreating, according to one set of data, drawing the jet stream north,
drawing rains north, causing arid conditions causing crop failures causing
economic distress causing displacement of peoples causing collapse of the
higher structures of organization precipitating your basic anarchy. But there
are also theories that use evidence to argue the ice caps were instead advancing,
causing a mini-Ice Age causing crop failures, etc.
AUTODIDACT:
Either of these explains mass displacement among peoples somewhere sufficient
to cause them to invade the Levant in waves. One hopes more evidentiary
research will be published on the subject, but the results are pretty clear,
whatever it was, and the inquiry here for the Autodidact is not only what
happened, but more importantly, to understand why what happened
"next" –Classical Greece - happened next. And eco-explanations, the
"Guns, Germs and Steel" approach, can be more specifically explained
with actual events.
The Autodidact
can, for instance, provide another for instance in a later episode, the Roman
Empire. It can be argued that the collapse of the Western Roman Empire through
the pressures of "barbarian invasions" beginning in the 6th Century
AD actually were caused by the Han Empire in China sending armies against the Hsiung-Nu
barbarians in Mongolia and driving them west in the 1st Century A.D, causing a
long knock-on effect that displaced tribes from there clear to the English Channel
on the other side of the planet 400 years later.
HALL: uses
language more precisely as well, though he does not forego the evidentiary
burial sites and pottery comparisons that Osborn dwells on, and which are
discussed in the meditation on Osborn's book. Rather, let us look here at what
Hall does differently, which is to trace words not only to trace the tribes of
Archaic Greece through and after the Collapse: the Ionians, the Achaeans, the Laconia's,
and others, but he examines the use of words as they are used from Homer
forward in order to get at what someone meant when he said something about
someone, for instance, the word Basileis.
Basileis
has heretofore been used generally to mean King, but since World War II that
meaning has been examined further. Being on the other side of the European Dark
Age from the Greek Dark Age, the term "king" we generally recognize has
an entirely different and inappropriate application as regards the structure of
power that emerged into the Classical period of Greece. (Should one call it the
Classical Age? There is certainly reason to do so, given the explosion of new
human precedents it set for the next 2,000 years). Balsileis refers to a type
of power that emerged from the Collapse, when the Greeks had to start over and
figure almost everything out for themselves on their isolated hilltops.
Elsewhere ( see From Citadel to City State et al here), we've discussed the idea of the "Big Man",
a chief recognized for his acknowledged influence, luck, bravery, and/or cunning,
and HALL discusses this as a possible precursor to the more developed
leadership paradigms in myriad forms that developed as a result of isolated
communities becoming less isolated, but each adhering to their organizational
inventions from the desperate, shadowy past of the Dark Age nevertheless. From
this word, and from how others as well are used in the texts, HALL pursues a
path of inductive analysis of the emerging society into the 7th century BC
where things have by now become more stable. The Greeks are seafaring again in
noticeable numbers, and populations grow, expand, move about and of course try
to organize themselves in a competition of commerce, survival, etc. but they
are tribally guided by the way they think about themselves – which in Greece is
by no means uniform because there is no actual "Greece" beyond
comparison with outsiders, "barbarians." They are instead a
collection of "poleis" with
their own distinct theories of organization which are disseminated across the
Mediterranean with the establishment of new cities. They are seafaring just as
the Phoenicians – today's Palestinians, formerly Jacob's Canaanites and David's
Philistines – but with a single vast difference. The Greeks didn't just settle
communities for trade – they came to stay and they saw themselves as distinct
from the poor sods they settled among.
So, the Basileis
refers to a fundamental dynamic that is based on community recognition of
authority rather than Divine Providence, though not necessarily distinct from
Divine Provenance. As time went on tribal leaders justified their positions
based on lineage back to mythical figures, such as Heracles (Latin – Hercules).
But this claim by provenance was not ipso facto accepted for purposes of an
established aristocracy. Instead, you still had to earn it one way or another,
among your community. What later developed were offshoots with varying degrees
of accepted authority running the gamut from the Spartan Kings (and there were always
2 of them) to the Athenian aristocracy who seem always to have been vying for power
with nothing settled on one man for a generation or even a family for more than
a few.
This
wasn't the case for no reason. Enter the lawgivers. In more than one community,
for instance Solon of Athens and Lycurgus of Sparta; we're talking 8th to 7th
Centuries BC here, poleis were given
virtual constitutions. We know about them because they worked. And you didn't
just have constitution-makers, you had men who set down laws, such as Draco of
Athens and Philolaos who gave laws to Thebes. And these laws and constitutions
themselves seem to have evolved from evidentiary fragments of very specific
criteria for very specific events, such as not only a murder, but a type of murder,
for instance, involuntary. The old myths include instances of gods descending
upon a situation and, rather than passing judgment, imposing a time out on the
participants and then tell them to figure it out themselves. Which they did,
one by one, polis by polis. And over time perhaps, because of the growing
complexity of precedents and resulting ambiguities when a situation arose that
was theretofore unanticipated, perhaps the polis' confusion reached critical
mass and someone stepped in to reboot the system by setting out a legal course
more flexible and therefore longer lasting by its usefulness in more situations.
Sound
familiar?
The
Autodidact found this book and bought it along with Osborn's, and found it gratifylingly
re-readable, highly recommends it. The Study of Archaic Greece is necessarily only
about the structures of society because the evidence allows only for that at
this stage in the record, notwithstanding the inferences of the literature
which, though not entirely preserved from the period, is nonetheless perpetuated
in form arguably still containing the seeds of its provenance. And Hall takes
full advantage of that and the physical evidence to provide us a platform that
makes broad sense. And you can tell what is sensible deduction by the amount of
surprises to the contrary that analysis admits.
So HALL
proceeds through the centuries to 479 BC, a date less of convenience than of
absolute and universal recognition that THINGS CHANGED. He discusses the nature
or power and he begins to zero in on Athens because, if there was ever a laboratory
for political science, that was it. And it is the structure of power that
provides clues not only to what happened, but how what came after managed to
come after.
AUTODIDACT:
This study of Archaic Greece thus pauses in favor of other diversions such as returning to the place we began in college, so
to speak, in order to know it for the first time (yes, shameless rip-off of T S
Elliot); that is, into the Main Event of
Classical Greece and its offspring, the Hellenic Age; the progenitors, the
much better known history; the thought, and
the cumulative results thereof.
OUTRAGEOUSLY
GENERALIZED MEDITATION:
We live
in an era where the competition of ideas is more intense than in Classical
Greece only because of the speed of transmission and the change in demographics.
But the Western heritage of Classical Greece – made possible because it had to
think for itself after undergoing a thorough catastrophic collapse, is still
spreading. The inundation is less violent only in scale, and no less epochal in
its transformative renaissance as the infusion of Western thought – born in Greece
– reaches around the World which a Greek first posited as being round.
In the
West we are however still fighting out a problem posed, particularly in the
United States.
I speak
of the two perspectives on which our culture rests: Judaism and Greek Humanism;
the one an amalgam of ancient Near Eastern and Egyptian theocracy structured to
provide a stable societal reference and requiring blind obedience to unquestionable
myth; the other its absolute antithesis requiring critical thought, respect for
opposing points of view, and an epistemological imperative that is
diametrically opposed to the mindless acceptance of fact by authoritarian fiat.
That battle
is being fought by proxy just now in the Islamic World where, unlike Mormons
who are American and therefore "ruled by the moral philosophy of the
dollar," do not yet have an economy incorporated that will stabilize it in
order to perpetuate theocratic plutocracy.
It is so
odd that Christianity, which was after all the invention of a Greek – St Paul –
managed to combine elements of both, or subvert the one in favor of the other
depending upon one's point of view. But the battle lines are drawn between Theosophy
and the offspring of Greek Philosophy – Science – right here in the United
States. The one demands unquestioning faith, the other ignores that religious
fascism at its own peril. Lessons of the Greeks have been lost no less than
those of the Jews in this struggle, and the one seeks actively to destroy the
other, while the other proceeds as if politics were beneath it.
Curiouser
and Curiouser.