What do you think?
Rate this book
The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change Between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BC
Following Oliver Dickinson’s successful The Aegean Bronze Age, this textbook is a synthesis of the period between the collapse of the Bronze Age civilization in the thirteenth and twelfth centuries BC, and the rise of the Greek civilization in the eighth century BC. With chapter bibliographies, distribution maps and illustrations, Dickinson’s detailed examination of material and archaeological evidence argues that many characteristics of Ancient Greece developed in the Dark Ages. He also includes up-to-date coverage of the 'Homeric question'. This highly informative text focuses Dickinson has provided an invaluable survey of this period that will not only be useful to specialists and undergraduates in the field, but that will also prove highly popular with the interested general reader.
316 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 2006
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
Read
December 24, 2023Oliver Dickinson, emeritus professor at the University of Durham (UK) knows what he is writing about, he has numerous publications to his name on Bronze Age Greece, especially the Minoan and Mycenaean period. In this book he looks at the 'Dark Age' that followed the Bronze Age, from the 12th to the 8th century BCE. For once, that derogatory term (Dark Age) is justified, he writes: it seems as if hardly anything of importance happened in Greece and the Aegean during those 4 centuries, especially compared to previous and subsequent periods.
Dickinson delves quite deeply into the many debates that have been and are still being held about this interim period. One of the most thorny is the one from the beginning: the collapse of Mycenaean culture in the 13th and 12th centuries BCE. A very critical Dickinson systematically debunks the various theses (natural disasters, Dorian raids, raids by Sea Peoples). This is done in a very concise way, perhaps too concise (I'm not well versed in this period to judge). His own suggestion is that internal unrest in the Mycenaean world was the decisive factor, exacerbated by other factors, the most important of which is the serious crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean basin (Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt). But Dickinson emphasizes again and again how little unambiguous source material there is, and therefore how speculative all theses remain. It is a warning that many of his colleagues would do well to heed.
Another additional, important pointer from Dickinson: little or no continuity can be established between Archaic Greece (from the 8th century BCE) and Mycenaean times. The author of the Homeric Epics may refer to that (Mycenaean) heroic age, but the image we get in the Iliad and the Odyssey is an 8th century creation, based on what was thought to have been that heroic age.
Dickinson delves quite deeply into the many debates that have been and are still being held about this interim period. One of the most thorny is the one from the beginning: the collapse of Mycenaean culture in the 13th and 12th centuries BCE. A very critical Dickinson systematically debunks the various theses (natural disasters, Dorian raids, raids by Sea Peoples). This is done in a very concise way, perhaps too concise (I'm not well versed in this period to judge). His own suggestion is that internal unrest in the Mycenaean world was the decisive factor, exacerbated by other factors, the most important of which is the serious crisis in the Eastern Mediterranean basin (Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt). But Dickinson emphasizes again and again how little unambiguous source material there is, and therefore how speculative all theses remain. It is a warning that many of his colleagues would do well to heed.
Another additional, important pointer from Dickinson: little or no continuity can be established between Archaic Greece (from the 8th century BCE) and Mycenaean times. The author of the Homeric Epics may refer to that (Mycenaean) heroic age, but the image we get in the Iliad and the Odyssey is an 8th century creation, based on what was thought to have been that heroic age.
September 14, 2015
This review is a work in progress.
Spends too much time rebutting plausible ideas. It's not that they shouldn't be criticized, it's just that these parts aren't interesting or informative because the rebuttal is so short and not detailed. In one case, Chadwick is criticized for the theory of eastern and western Greek dialects and the arguments made by Chadwick aren't thoroughly rebutted at all.
The book does not have enough information in it to make it worth reading through the bad theory rebuttal sections, especially for something written in 2006. There's a lot of information out there that should be in this book that's not.
Chapter 2: The Collapse of Bronze Age Civilization is just bad. Every idea in the chapter has flaws, constantly substituting one possible false cause with another false cause, leaving the reader with no one to trust even for incomplete theories.
-Dickinson tries to rebut Drews' theory by saying Mycenaeans would have been fine with the changes in warfare and that the Mycenaeans would have been safe from sieges even if they had not adapted to the change in warfare tactics. This dabbling in military history is making everyone feel uncomfortable, I can tell.
-At one point Dickinson says it's doubtful there was an invasion because the invaders wouldn't have destroyed (burning the palaces) what they sought to control (the palaces). This is the type of explanation I'd expect in an expository dialogue scene in a B movie. Dickinson seems to know that invaders, whoever they may be, intended to control the palace systems around the Aegean by physically inhabiting the physical structures that existed in the territories being invaded. Huh, why did Alexander the Great burn Persepolis? Why did Rome destroy Corinth and Carthage? Why did Brennus burn Rome?
-Accusing people who theorized that the Bronze Age Collapse was caused by violence as having a "romantic" view. I think this is a misrepresentation of those theories.
-Overwhelmingly focused on mainland Greece. It's like Dickinson might not understand the scope and nature of the Bronze Age Collapse. The chapter goes into almost no detail on the Near East or even islands in the Aegean. The Wikipedia page on the Bronze Age Collapse is more informative.
-Many of the authors of the works he criticizes (Ventris & Chadwick, and Drews in particular) themselves contain the very doubts, in greater detail, that Dickinson raises. Don't bother publishing something if you're not willing to put in the work necessary to make it worth reading.
-Dickinson mentions Ugarit, but does not talk about the circumstances that led to its destruction, which probably contain the most significant evidence for Sea Peoples as being capable of destruction.
-During the discussion of whether militaries played a role in the destruction of the palaces, Dickinson says it's hard to believe that earthquakes were to blame for the burning of the palaces in every case. It is amazing that Dickinson even raises this theory as a potential counterpoint to the intentional burning of the palaces by humans. It's as though he's saying "Well, it's either one or the other, and in most cases, it probably wasn't earthquakes."
-He says the purpose of the coast guard mentioned in the Pylos tablets might have been to guard against Greeks in other parts of Greece attempting to get food from Pylos p. 55. Oh, I'm sorry, the Sea Peoples isn't a reasonable alternative for the purpose of the coast guard of Pylos? About the Sea Peoples, "It seems most unlikely that such groups would be prepared to settle down to besiege well-fortifed centers, allowing an opportunity for forces to be mobilized against them." But, STARVING GREEKS would mount offensives against Pylos!? Oh, but the poor Greeks were only after food, and the Sea Peoples were only after loot, and the palaces had a lot of food, well not enough food because of the earthquakes and drought, but had even less value in terms of booty because their international trade was weakened because they had less food, and therefore the palaces were perfect target from starving Greeks but not greedy Sea Peoples. Reading this book is like... OMG! Aggghhhhh!!!!!!
Ch. 3
The Postpalatial Period
When discussing early Dark Age Greece, Dickinson talks about the evidence that shows settlements moving away from shorelines all over the Aegean. He talks about some communities that remained on the shoreline "Thus, any theory positing a universal and continuing threat from the sea seems implausible." (p. 64). Next sentence, new paragraph, he says,
"It seems very unlikely that such coastal sites were themselves pirate bases, although this has been suggested for both Cycladic and Cretan sites. No community of the size suggested by the spread of material at most of them could support itself largely or entirely from piracy or land raiding."
Dickinson is saying that the coastal cities are an indication that raiding was not a universal problem in the Aegean. To support this, he's saying that the coastal cities in the Cyclades and Crete were probably not "pirate bases". Who said they needed to have been "largely or entirely" dependent on raiding in order to produce the raiders capable of scaring people from inhabiting the coastline of Greece and the Aegean islands? Inland settlements were so meager that they no longer produced grain. They were so meager their pottery art became squiggly lines and circles that look like they're from neolithic China. I guarantee they would have been susceptible to violence and dissuaded from being along the shoreline if raiders showed up. No need for strange theories like dedicated "pirate bases" for raiding threats to exist. It does not take many people to conduct a raid on a domestic settlement. That's why, going back to Pylos, even with their walls, had a coast guard.
Spends too much time rebutting plausible ideas. It's not that they shouldn't be criticized, it's just that these parts aren't interesting or informative because the rebuttal is so short and not detailed. In one case, Chadwick is criticized for the theory of eastern and western Greek dialects and the arguments made by Chadwick aren't thoroughly rebutted at all.
The book does not have enough information in it to make it worth reading through the bad theory rebuttal sections, especially for something written in 2006. There's a lot of information out there that should be in this book that's not.
Chapter 2: The Collapse of Bronze Age Civilization is just bad. Every idea in the chapter has flaws, constantly substituting one possible false cause with another false cause, leaving the reader with no one to trust even for incomplete theories.
-Dickinson tries to rebut Drews' theory by saying Mycenaeans would have been fine with the changes in warfare and that the Mycenaeans would have been safe from sieges even if they had not adapted to the change in warfare tactics. This dabbling in military history is making everyone feel uncomfortable, I can tell.
-At one point Dickinson says it's doubtful there was an invasion because the invaders wouldn't have destroyed (burning the palaces) what they sought to control (the palaces). This is the type of explanation I'd expect in an expository dialogue scene in a B movie. Dickinson seems to know that invaders, whoever they may be, intended to control the palace systems around the Aegean by physically inhabiting the physical structures that existed in the territories being invaded. Huh, why did Alexander the Great burn Persepolis? Why did Rome destroy Corinth and Carthage? Why did Brennus burn Rome?
-Accusing people who theorized that the Bronze Age Collapse was caused by violence as having a "romantic" view. I think this is a misrepresentation of those theories.
-Overwhelmingly focused on mainland Greece. It's like Dickinson might not understand the scope and nature of the Bronze Age Collapse. The chapter goes into almost no detail on the Near East or even islands in the Aegean. The Wikipedia page on the Bronze Age Collapse is more informative.
-Many of the authors of the works he criticizes (Ventris & Chadwick, and Drews in particular) themselves contain the very doubts, in greater detail, that Dickinson raises. Don't bother publishing something if you're not willing to put in the work necessary to make it worth reading.
-Dickinson mentions Ugarit, but does not talk about the circumstances that led to its destruction, which probably contain the most significant evidence for Sea Peoples as being capable of destruction.
-During the discussion of whether militaries played a role in the destruction of the palaces, Dickinson says it's hard to believe that earthquakes were to blame for the burning of the palaces in every case. It is amazing that Dickinson even raises this theory as a potential counterpoint to the intentional burning of the palaces by humans. It's as though he's saying "Well, it's either one or the other, and in most cases, it probably wasn't earthquakes."
-He says the purpose of the coast guard mentioned in the Pylos tablets might have been to guard against Greeks in other parts of Greece attempting to get food from Pylos p. 55. Oh, I'm sorry, the Sea Peoples isn't a reasonable alternative for the purpose of the coast guard of Pylos? About the Sea Peoples, "It seems most unlikely that such groups would be prepared to settle down to besiege well-fortifed centers, allowing an opportunity for forces to be mobilized against them." But, STARVING GREEKS would mount offensives against Pylos!? Oh, but the poor Greeks were only after food, and the Sea Peoples were only after loot, and the palaces had a lot of food, well not enough food because of the earthquakes and drought, but had even less value in terms of booty because their international trade was weakened because they had less food, and therefore the palaces were perfect target from starving Greeks but not greedy Sea Peoples. Reading this book is like... OMG! Aggghhhhh!!!!!!
Ch. 3
The Postpalatial Period
When discussing early Dark Age Greece, Dickinson talks about the evidence that shows settlements moving away from shorelines all over the Aegean. He talks about some communities that remained on the shoreline "Thus, any theory positing a universal and continuing threat from the sea seems implausible." (p. 64). Next sentence, new paragraph, he says,
"It seems very unlikely that such coastal sites were themselves pirate bases, although this has been suggested for both Cycladic and Cretan sites. No community of the size suggested by the spread of material at most of them could support itself largely or entirely from piracy or land raiding."
Dickinson is saying that the coastal cities are an indication that raiding was not a universal problem in the Aegean. To support this, he's saying that the coastal cities in the Cyclades and Crete were probably not "pirate bases". Who said they needed to have been "largely or entirely" dependent on raiding in order to produce the raiders capable of scaring people from inhabiting the coastline of Greece and the Aegean islands? Inland settlements were so meager that they no longer produced grain. They were so meager their pottery art became squiggly lines and circles that look like they're from neolithic China. I guarantee they would have been susceptible to violence and dissuaded from being along the shoreline if raiders showed up. No need for strange theories like dedicated "pirate bases" for raiding threats to exist. It does not take many people to conduct a raid on a domestic settlement. That's why, going back to Pylos, even with their walls, had a coast guard.
January 30, 2018
To a student of Mediterranean Archaeology, this book is very useful, reviewing and refuting previous scholarship. It's a manageable length to read quickly and points you in the direction of further study if anything piques your curiosity. It is not written for the layman. Some of the chapter distinctions are confusing.
September 8, 2016
Not for laymen ... you have to have an archaeological background to appreciate this otherwise outstanding book about a fascanating and not so well-known period (late Bronze Age) of the Aegean prehistory.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews