Studie k historickým interpretacím pozdní doby bronzové v Egejdě Late Bronze Age in Aegean: Study in Historical Interpretations (original) (raw)

This dissertation deals with the main problems of historical interpretation of Late Bronze Age Aegean prehistory. Each chapter presents what is usually discussed as a special issue in contemporary bibliography. The environment of the region, its development and changes and the main approaches to enviromental studies are characterized in the introductory chapters. The chapter dedicated to the history of research, is of particular importance; “The truth of how archaeologists make discoveries, however, is far from the popular notion of random encounters and chance finds. We must take the time to examine the personalities and events leading up to these discoveries.” (MacGillivray 2000, 11). The first issue to be dicussed is that of the absolute chronology of the early phases of the East Mediterranean, in particular the Aegean, Late Bronze Age. The resolution of this problem is crucial if synchronicity of events in individual regions, not only in the Mediterranean basin but also across Europe, is to be established. The lack of clarity in the reconstruction of chronological levels throughout large regions, makes it almost impossible to solve some causal questions of late prehistory and early history. This problem is especially obvious in the case of the relationship between the Egyptian Second Intermediate period and the first dynasties of the New Kingdom and the Aegean region. This topic has been intensively discussed since the period when the first radiocarbon dates were published (early 1970‘s). These dates contradicted the traditional archaeological chronological systems in the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as many other regions. This has led to an intense and wide ranging debate about chronology for at least the last 20 years within both the scientific and archaeological communities. Cooperation between the two different approaches is still in its very early stages when it comes to common results. (Chapter 2.1) The next, much discussed, issue is the reconstruction of the political system in Neopalatial Crete; the crystallisation and formation of the first states in Crete. This very complex topic is approached and presented in the form of an essay. (Chapter 2.2) In the following chapter (2. 3) the problem of the destruction of the LM IB centres is analyzed. Although their dating seems no longer to be contentious, their interpretation remains so. Evans‘ interpretation of their being simply the effect of earthquakes now appears implausible and attention is focused on explanations related to political events. Contemporary Aegean prehistorians are asking why and by whom these destructions were brought about. The next two chapters deal with the Final and Postpalatial period and with the period of the Mycenaean centre’s zenith. Both regions – Crete and the mainland - are compared. The differences and similarities between the regions are established and their causes, patterns and conclusions are evaluated. The main problem seems to be the form of the relationship between the two regions. What did it mean to be Mycenaean or Cretan? Were the Mycenaeans active in Crete and, if so, how intensive was their presence there, which forms did it take, who among the Mycenaeans reached Crete and why? How can any impact of foreign elements in Crete or on mainland be traced? . Contemporary archaeology offers new approaches to the explanation of the development of these regions during this extremely complex period of Aegean prehistory and our explanations and modes of understanding directly affect interpretations of subsequent events. (Chapters 2.4 a 2.5) Chapter 2.6 then deals with the issue of the collapse of the palatial system. This has not been approached as the end of “something good and ideal“ - an attitude inherited from Homer by the original pioneers of archaeology - but as a collapse which can be is understood as a way out of crisis. The regions of the Cycladic islands, Crete and the Mycenaean mainland are studied separately and specifics of their development are put into a wider context. A short chapter (2.7) is used to outline subsequent developments and to describe the Agean in the period from the 12th to 10th C BC. A special chapter is dedicated to the reconstruction of the ways of thinking of Late Bronze Age populations. (2.8) An integral part of the work is the penultimate chapter devoted to the broad European context (3.1). The final chapter (3. 2) summarizes the main issues discussed. The work was conceived as a study. Many of its parts were built as essays. Although the main aim was to review the contemporary stage of research, philosophical approach and methodology, it doesn’t stop there: the definition of new questions, the accent on unanswered questions and the exposition of new methodological approaches represent further goals of this work. The methodological approaches, their possibilities and limitations are assessed. The aim is not to judge what or who is right but how to view the region and the period in a wide historical context. A parallel intent was to create a text book addressed to Central European prehistorians and students of classical archaeology in order to present and to explain what topics are currently being actively debated. The author understands this dissertation as part of the so called "Czech“ school of Aegean prehistory epitomized by the work of Prof. Bouzek, whose approach to Aegean prehistory as part of a large complex of space and time has influenced an entire generation of archaeologists around the world and today seems a highly effective method of pursuing historical studies in prehistory. The author trys to “mobilize“ other disciplines, such as philosophy, ethnology, political studies, art history, environmental studies and natural sciences in order to get closer to the world of the past. This dissertation, although a large volume of more than 500 pages, represents only the initial phase of the author‘s research in the field of Late Bronze Age studies.