The Ancient Greek World: Mycenaean and Minoan Civilizations

Summary

The Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations played crucial roles in shaping the history and culture of the ancient Greek world. The Minoans had peak sanctuaries, sacred caves and portable equipment for cult activity, while the Mycenaeans had cult centers with architecturally unremarkable rooms. The gods worshipped in both cultures were not identified until Linear B evidence was available, and they varied from state to state. The two cultures had much in common, particularly in their external relations, trading patterns, and diplomatic contacts with contemporary Near Eastern states. However, despite their similarities, there were also differences in their components and architecture. This article explores the trade and diplomatic relations between the Minoans, Mycenaeans, and the Near East, and also discusses the causes of the collapse of the palatial systems.

Q&A:

Q: What did the Minoan and Mycenaean religious systems consist of?

A: The Minoans had peak sanctuaries, sacred caves, and portable equipment for cult activity, while the Mycenaeans had cult centers with architecturally unremarkable rooms containing clear ritual features.

Q: Was there a common god worshipped by both cultures?

A: The gods worshipped in both cultures could only be named when Linear B evidence was available, and varied from state to state.

Q: How did the Minoans and Mycenaeans interact with each other?

A: Both cultures had important diplomatic and other relations with contemporary Near Eastern states. Contacts between Crete and the islands to the north became intense in the First Palace period, facilitated by the creation of overseas settlements of Minoans, and the trading patterns were extended to the Anatolian coast in the Second Palace period. The Mycenaean influence replaced Minoan influence on the southern Aegean islands, and there is evidence for Mycenaean-style rituals at Minoan settlements that subsequently became Mycenaean settlements.

Q: Was trade an important part of the relationship between the Minoans, Mycenaeans, and the Near East?

A: Yes, the mid-second millennium BC saw extensive trade between the Minoan and Mycenaean settlements and other regions such as Egypt, Hittite kingdoms, and Anatolia. This was facilitated by trade routes from Crete to the southern Peloponnese, Attica, and Anatolia, eastwards to Cyprus and the Levant. Troy, a major regional centre by the second millennium BC, controlled a large bay and became a crucial location in the northwest of Anatolia and the northern Aegean islands.

Q: What caused the collapse of the palatial systems?

A: Three explanations have been presented regarding the changes that led to the collapse of the palatial systems, including environmental and biological factors, internal insurgencies and conflicts, and aggression from external contemporaries. Despite small earthquakes, both Mycenaean and Minoan palaces were still small in comparison to the contemporary Near Eastern states in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Anatolia, and these superpowers were the true drivers of change.

Minoan and Mycenaean religious systems

The Minoans had peak sanctuaries, sacred caves, and portable equipment for cult activity, while the Mycenaeans had cult centers with architecturally unremarkable rooms containing clear ritual features. The gods worshipped in both cultures could only be named when Linear B evidence was available and varied from state to state. Although their religious systems had different components and architecture techniques, both cultures shared similar religious concepts that demonstrate early Greek religion.

External Relations and Trading Patterns

Minoan civilization and the Mycenaean culture had much in common, especially in their external relations, overseas settlements, diplomatic contacts, and trading patterns. Contacts between Crete and the islands to the north became intense in the First Palace period, facilitated by the creation of overseas settlements of Minoans, and the trading patterns were extended to the Anatolian coast in the Second Palace period. The Mycenaean influence replaced Minoan influence on the southern Aegean islands and there is evidence for Mycenaean-style rituals at Minoan settlements that subsequently became Mycenaean settlements.

Diplomatic contacts with contemporary Near Eastern States

The Minoans and Mycenaeans had important diplomatic and other relations with contemporary Near Eastern states. The mid-second millennium BC saw extensive trade between the Minoan and Mycenaean settlements and other regions such as Egypt, Hittite kingdoms, and Anatolia. This was facilitated by trade routes from Crete to the southern Peloponnese, Attica, and Anatolia eastwards to Cyprus and the Levant. Troy, a major regional centre by the second millennium BC, controlled a large bay and became a crucial location in the northwest of Anatolia and the northern Aegean islands.

Mycenaean influence on Minoan settlements

The influence of the Mycenaeans on Cretan culture is perhaps best illustrated at Kommos, a Minoan settlement on the south coast of the island. Recent excavations have shown that a wealthy Minoan town was located at Kommos until the end of the Bronze Age. During this time, Mycenaean pottery and, to a lesser extent, Mycenaean-style objects became common there. Mycenaean influence also appears at other Minoan settlements in the region. Later, Minoan cultural influence would diminish, and Mycenaean culture would become dominant in the Aegean world.

The Collapse of the palatial system

Three explanations have been put forth for the change in the Mycenaean and Minoan cultures that led to the collapse of the palatial systems. One explanation involves environmental and biological factors, which led to changes in population numbers and fertility rates. Another explanation highlights internal insurgencies and conflicts which had eroded the unity of the Mycenaean and Minoan regions. Finally, some scholars suggest that aggression from the external superpowers of the ancient Near East led to the collapse of the palacial systems, and essential links with the outside world ended. The centres collapsed, and the system of writing that was unique to the palaces ceased. Despite these collapses, the palaces were still small in comparison to the contemporary Near Eastern states.