The Bronze Age Cultural Alloy: Minoans and Mycenaeans

      During what is today known as the "Bronze Age", two distinct, vibrant cultures emerged in Greece: the Mycenaean and Minoan. Yet although they were distinct, they were also very similar, and while this might seem like an oxymoron, it is – to this writer's mind – the most accurate way of describing their atypical association.

      The first, and perhaps most obvious, difference was their physical location: the Minoans dwelt on the island of Crete, while the Minoans were inhabitants of the Grecian mainland. Because of this, the Minoans constructed their society around trade and diplomacy by way of the sea. They would trade their own pottery, cloth, and other wares for items like wood, stone, or metals that couldn't normally be found on the island; or in some cases, would present the finest specimens of their wares as gifts to foreign powers such as Egypt. The Mycenaeans also held this philosophy to a degree, and presented the pharaoh of Egypt with ceremonial plaques signifying friendship. (Goessl, 2008)

      One of the most evident differences between the two cultures was their stance on war and the military. The Minoans were blissfully ignorant of their defense, thinking their island was a strong enough fortress from the outside world. The Mycenaeans, on the other hand, were a war-like people, whose kings and nobles depended on their experienced soldiers. It is also interesting to note that these warriors served a dual purpose, being the Mycenaean law enforcement during peacetime. (Goessl, 2008) But Crete was a vital location for trade, and the Mycenaeans saw that, and desired it to be under their control. But it wasn’t until 1500 BC that Minoa was weakened to the point of vulnerability: a volcanic eruption on the island of Crete destroyed much of the Minoan navy, along with many of the sources of their prosperous trade. The Mycenaean king saw this and took his opportunity, mustering his own fighting force and invading Crete, where they had a smashing victory over the waning Minoans. Some historians today speculate that the Mycenaeans only won due to a technological advance available on the mainland, but not Crete: bronze. (Weatherby, 2011) Bronze meant better weapons and armor, and a stronger defense against stone and wood weapons that might have been common at the time. It also meant stronger tools and building materials, which the Mycenaeans are thought to have used to rebuild Minoa after they conquered it.

      After the Minoans fell, the Mycenaeans assumed various elements of Minoan culture, art, and religion, which they resourcefully used to construct their own, similarly remarkable, civilization. One could almost say that the Minoan culture lived on through the warlike Mycenaeans, as it was assimilated so well. Mycenaeans adopted aspects of Minoan religion like the Sacred Knot, sacred horns, figure-of-eight shields, the worship of trees and sacred columns, and "holy ecstatic dances for the Mother Goddess-Nature". (Spirit of Greece, 2005) Along with Minoan art techniques for ceramics and frescos, their religion was adopted and adapted by the Mycenaeans, and ultimately spread by them as well.

      Both of these cultures remained significant to the course of world history, and their impact was felt throughout the Mediterranean. Their trade skills were superb, their craftsmanship was unrivaled, and their military was feared all through the region. However, they were but a foundation for the mighty Hellenistic empire of Alexander the Great, but without the Minoans and Mycenaeans, the groundwork for that mighty realm might never had been laid.

References

Goessl, L. (2008, February 7). Political contrasts of Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/847076-political-contrasts-of-minoan-and-mycenaean-civilizations

Spirit of Greece (2005, April 28). MINOANS & MYCENAEANS - The mixture of two civilizations. Retrieved from http://www.spiritofgreece.gr/minoan&mycenaeans.html

Weatherby, E. (2011, December 19). Minoan vs. Mycenaean | Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/minoan-vs-mycenaean/

Historiography: Into the Modern Era

Historiography is an interesting field. Equal parts art and science, it isn't generally inserted into the classical definitions of either category, and as such, is often overlooked. Or worse, it's written off as being mere history, much as it was throughout the medieval period. But it's more than just history: not only is it reconstructing our human record, but it's writing or recording history, as it happens. It's the art of being able to observe and preserve what's going on around you for future generations to reference and learn from. And that is an extremely exciting prospect. But when did historiography go from the fledgling art that was developed classical Greece to the modern discipline it is today?

Historiography first saw its modern roots grow out of German universities in the 1800s. Leopold von Ranke quite literally revolutionized it with the seminars he put on, coupled with his critical approach that focused on diplomacy and the political realm. Previous historiographers, or those who dabbled in it as a hobby like French philosopher Voltaire, had generally focused on the culture of the day and social issues, so von Ranke's ideas were quite radical. To von Ranke's mind, history was a science that had many qualities of an art, not the other way around. Sources had to be solid, not mere ideas and speculations, and primary sources needed to have vetted authenticity. Something he stressed in his works was to "write history the way it was," ("Historiography", 2013) but he did his own version of selective writing. Many historians before von Ranke had tended to focus on how events were cyclical, citing the rise and fall of nations, empires, rulers and other figures, but von Ranke wanted to break away from universal history. Instead, he nationalized history, keeping with the popular views of the day, and separated the history of one's own country, insomuch as to merely emphasize that nation in regards to how and where it fits into the history of the world. This would lead to a spin-off science as well, later known as sociology, but at the time it was still considered a subset of historiography.

Von Ranke's ideas stayed relatively isolated in German for many years, but they began to spread, slowly but surely. One of the people that agreed with von Ranke was the 20^th century French historian Ferdinand Braudel, one of the leaders of the famed Annales School. Braudel picked up on von Ranke's notion to turn historiography into an art-like science, making it less subjective and requiring distinctly measureable evidence, something that is still stressed to up and coming historians to this day. He also wanted to broaden the historiographer's view, but not in the traditional sense: he wanted expand the nationalist type of history as put forward by von Ranke. Adding geographic relations, socio-economic aspects and other topics, he stressed a longer look at history, not just the short, event-focused style popular at the time. His fellow Frenchmen began to pick up his ideas and expand on them even further, with historians like Michel Foucault and Philippe Aries beginning to look at the historicity of seemingly mundane everyday subjects like sex and death – two subjects French always seem to be willing to talk about, no matter their profession. But this led to another genre of history, sometimes known as 'microhistory', that was pursued by some in Braudel's Annales School. ("Religion and Politics in 19th Century America", 1990)

At this point, the entire field began to open up, with people able to study the history of anything and its relation to anyone. One of those is 'musicology', or the historical study of music. Even though it had its own roots laid down by the historians of the Enlightenment in the 17^th century, somewhat removed from historiography itself, it really began to flourish and blossom in the 19^th century. The pragmatic knowledge of the music of the past was added to immensely, and the gradual growth of the field rocketed into relative prominence, and merely added to the desire to return to romanticism popular at the time. ("Acta Musicologica: Patterns in the Historiography of 19th-Century Music", 1970)

In short, historiography is a field of growth. It is an art just as much as it is a science, and the open, inquisitive, and determined minds of anyone can revolutionize the field. Recording and reconstructing our history is a vital part of a historians job, but all is moot if he or she is not willing to take a chance and chase a theory. 

References

Acta Musicologica: Patterns in the Historiography of 19th-Century Music. (1970). JSTOR. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/932271

Historiography. (2013). In Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/267436/historiography

Religion and Politics in 19th Century America: Historiography as a Teaching Resource. (1990, September). ERIC – World’s largest digital library of education literature. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ415734&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ415734

In Pursuit of the Past: The Classic Historians' Methods

History is a fascinating subject. It is full of stories, has its heroes and villains – though it's sometimes difficult to distinguish the two – its comedies and tragedies, its adventures and romances. History cannot be undone, and even if I don't know about it, or if there's no memory or record of it, history still happened. It defines our identities, both individually and as a nation. However, not all history is completely accurate; history is written by the victor, and it always is slanted and biased one way or another. But histories of nations were merely stories, tales passed orally from one generation to the next, so how did they become the glorious records we have today? How did the early Christian church look at history, versus their Greco-Roman counterparts?

Many cultures and civilizations sought to keep a record of their presence, leaving some sort of monument for future peoples. Usually it was a physical monument, like the Egyptian pharaohs' pyramids. But the Greeks took a different approach: they began to experiment with a monument of literature. They wanted to perfect a way to preserve the memories and histories in a more direct fashion, as opposed to previous civilizations. Roughly around the 5^th century BC, an entirely new literary genre was born: histories. Herodotus, usually considered the Father of History, was one of the first to venture into this previously-unknown field, and despite being a pioneer in the world of historical recording, his methods were subject to harsh criticism, even while alive. His writings – while captivating and entertaining – were less than factual, something that Thucydides, a peer at the time of Herodotus, criticized him for rather severely. Thucydides preferred a more investigative method, trying to discover the truth of what actually occurred. He wanted his writings to be informative, to educate rather than to entertain. These two men set the tone for Greek historical writing, and while each subsequent writer had his own style of documentation, nearly every one mirrored either Herodotus or Thucydides in some way. ("Greek Historians", n.d.)

However, the Hellenistic age of the world ended when Greece and her empire fell to the rapidly rising Romans. Much of the Grecian way of life and pursuit of philosophical interests was absorbed and assimilated by the Romans, and such was the case with history. Romans worshiped the same gods – albeit under different names – kept many of the same cultural traits and Roman historians modeled their works after the two main Greek methods, with one notable exception: Titus Flavius Josephus, otherwise known as Joseph ben Matityahu. Josephus was a Jew by birth, into both the priestly line – via his father – and the royal line – via his mother. Not much is known about his early life, but he was highly educated in both Jewish texts and Greek works, although he was, and is, often criticized for his faulty Greek grammar. A Judeo-Roman historiographer and hagiographer, Josephus was given command of the Galilean forces during the Great Revolt in 66-73 AD, but defected and offered to record the history of the Great Revolt. Then-general, and later emperor, Vespasian took him up on the offer, after Josephus claimed Jewish prophecies that lead to the revolt also made mention of Vespasian becoming emperor, and thus Josephus began to record a first hand, eyewitness account of the fall of Jerusalem. These accounts were most certainly biased, since he was writing for arguable the most powerful man in the Roman Empire at the time; however, he mentions on several occasions that he also wrote an Aramaic version of the uprising, that might possibly had been less biased, or at least slanted to the Jewish side of the conflict. But copies of the Aramaic history have been lost in the vast expanse of time, and are yet to be discovered. Vespasian must have liked what he read, because he brought Josephus back to Rome with him, where Josephus wrote The Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities, the latter of which described the complete history of the Jewish people. Despite its exhaustive nature, including a great deal of information about Alexander the Great's conquests and the destruction of the Second Temple, Josephus was accused of relying too heavily on legend and hearsay -- much like the Grecian historians he was instructed on, so he is often discredited on some subjects. ("Josephus Flavius", 2003)

Lastly, early Christian historians were few and far between, at least as we today think of historians. Since most of the New Testament authors were not classically trained, not many were learned in the ways of historiography. However, the Gospel writer Luke was one of the few with extensive training, and could be considered the first true Christian historian. ("A Christian Approach to History", n.d.) Luke wrote his works for the records of "most honorable Theophilus", writing for posterity and to clarify any mistakes or false notions that the aforementioned hearsay might have implanted in Theophilus' mind. This was unique in and of itself, since Luke was writing not to entertain, but to educate using facts in a easily comprehensible, something previous historians hadn't done, whether Greek or Roman. ("Behind Luke's Gospel", n.d.) It was in essence a biography, beginning Jesus' earthly tale with the political climate under Caesar Augustus, and merely following His life. There is some slant and bias to it, as there is with any historian's works, but it's incredibly fact-based for being religious writing, and set the tone for church scholars for years to come.

Overall, since the art of historiography was so new at the time, there wasn’t a set standard for any to follow. Some historians gave us credible histories, while some made great tales to read, but not so much to use for study. But all of them – Greek, Roman, Jewish and Christian – borrowed from each other, whether directly or indirectly. Modern historians should take all writings of the period with a proverbial grain of salt, but shouldn't discredit them entirely. In all legends, there is a small trace of truth, it's just up to us to find it.

References

A Christian Approach to History - Christian Homeschooling Resources. (n.d.). Christian Living Resources, Jesus Christ, Bible Study, Faith in God. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://www.crosswalk.com/family/homeschool/resources/a-christian-approach-to-history.html

Behind Luke's Gospel: The Roman Empire During the Time of Jesus. (n.d.). Patheos | Hosting the Conversation on Faith. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thepangeablog/articles/unpublished-papers/behind-lukes-gospel-the-roman-empire-during-the-time-of-jesus/

Greek Historians. (n.d.). College of Liberal Arts and Sciences | The University of Florida. Retrieved February 13, 2013, from http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/kapparis/GreekHistorians.html

Josephus Flavius. (2003). Jewish Virtual Library. Retrieved February 12, 2013, from http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Josephus.html