From: CMH114@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Subject: Minoan Thalassocracies?
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:37:04 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

I was goofing off in the lower stacks of Pattee library here at good ol'
Enormous State, attempting to find sources by random shelfdiving (ie, wasting
my time) when I came across an interesting dialog in old backissues of
Historia, Starr's "The Myth of the Minoan Thalassocracy", and Buck's "The
Minoan Thalassocracy Reconsidered". They came out in the Midfifties and early
sixies, respectively.
 Starr's basic premise was that Athenian and especially British notions of
seaborn imperialism were retconned back onto the Bronze age by, first
Thuclydides and Herodotos, in the context of the 5th century Athenian-dominated
 Delian Confederacy, and later, by British scholars in the wake of the
discovery of the ruins of Knossos, at the height of British naval dominance.
 His contention was that a) bronze age economies did not support enough sea-
bourn trade to support an actual, organized navy, b) specialized military
vessels did not emerge until the end of the Greek dark age, c) ship and boat
motifs were noticably absent from the pottery of the late Minoan period, the
presumed period of dominance, d) what ships are represented on seals and such
were small ships, "skiffs" he calls them, e)  he accounts for the
unfortified nature of Knossos and other sites by a comparision with
pre-Spanish Armada England, who considered the Channel a large moat, instead of
 a road. f) he cites the lack of Minoan pottery evidence in Mainland Greece
during all periods.
  He further muddies the water with irrelevant evidence as to the
possible dominance of Knossos and the Med. carrying trade by Myceanean
shipping. (evidence, translation of Linear B as Myceanean Greek, large #s of
Myceanean pottery all across east Med, etc)
 Buck's article is largely a refutation of Starr's. He cites a great deal of
pottery evidence as to the prevalent patterns of trade in the east Med during
the Middle Minoan period, and describes it in terms of a Minoan carrying trade
from the Cyclades and Crete to Syria and Egypt, and a Cycladian carrying trade
seperate from Minoan activities, with the Mainland of Greece. He refutes
Starr's claims of a lack of large, sea-going vessels, and suggests government
control of merchantmen, and trade in general. He furthermore suggests an
unusual scenario of a Minoan blockade of the mainland, citing Minoan
settlements on Aegina, Cythera and elsewhere as outposts on a outer rim of
offensive defence of their trading routes with the Cyclades, and postulates a
continual preditory and punitive raiding of Myceanean settlements, strongly
echoed in stories of Minoan descents, the feud between Theseus and Minos, and
Minos's fearsome reputation. He also postulates a extremely limited sort of
trade based on these outposts, inhibited by constant emity.
    Starr's evidence is apparently contradicted partially by Buck's newer
research, and his analogies based on a comparision between the dangerous
Channel, and the relitively calm and enclosed Aegean sea seem extremely tenuous
and strident. Although Starr's article incurred thought, I was not convinced.

   All this is thoroughly out of date. I was wondering if anyone has re-
addressed this question of Thalassocracy since then, on more complete physical
or written evidence (ie, Linear B).
 Any comments? Has there been any great debate in the 35 years since, that may
have settled the matter thoroughly?


Mitch Hagmaier         One Moment in Annilihation's Waste,
Quest Laboratories     One Monent, of the Well of Life to taste-
Terraforming Division   The Stars are setting and the Caravan
State College, Pa      Starts for the Dawn of Nothing - Oh, make haste!
cmh114@psuvm.psu.edu