“Modern convention sets the start of the Archaic period in 776 bc, the year when the Games were said to have been officially founded at Olympia in Elis.”1 So it does: but the convention hides a contradiction. Normal practice, as encapsulated by the Oxford English Dictionary, uses “archaic” for whatever is “marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; old-fashioned, primitive, antiquated” - but what the reader will find in this book is the story of an exceptional, energetic, effervescent culture which developed and expanded with extraordinary speed and innovative assurance, in ways which it would be absurd to describe as “old-fashioned” or “antiquated.” Nor is “archaic” the only metaphor in play, for “primitive Greece,” “early Greece” and “medieval Greece” have all been in use among historians at various times to denote the period covered by this book, while “Dark Age Greece” has come to be the conventional label for the period between the collapse of the Mycenaean kingdoms and the Greeks’ re-adoption of literacy by the mid-eighth century.
Such labels have three characteristics in common. First, they gaze backwards, whether from our own modern vantage-point or from that of the higher culture or greater sophistication which we attribute to “Classical Greece” (itself a dangerous label). Thereby they seriously hinder our attempts to re-create the experiences of the men and women who lived through these centuries: such people did not - could not - think of themselves as “primitive,” “early,” or “archaic.” Second, they all imply comparison, whether with medieval Europe or with post-Roman “Dark Age” Britain or with other chronologically distant civilizations. The comparison with medieval Europe has been especially influential, the Greek city-states being seen as politically and economically very similar to the Hansa states, the Swiss cantons, and the Italian communes:2 but all such comparisons are shortcuts, which mislead more than they help. Third, they reflect decisions about periodization. Of course, all historians have to decide where to start and stop, but it is all too easy to inherit a decision without identifying and testing the criteria which underlie it. Specifically with this volume: just as 776 is a dangerously fragile peg on which to hang the recognition of a new period, so too the Graeco-Persian Wars of 499-479 might not nowadays be taken as marking the break between “Archaic” and “Classical” if Herodotus’ text had not survived.3
The traps set by terminology do not end there. “Archaic” itself may have started off in art history, since the OED’s first citation, of 1846, comes from a book on the Elgin Marbles.4 “Archaeology” in the sense of “ancient history” is much older, the first citation being of 1607, but the semantic shift towards its present-day meaning was also an early nineteenth-century affair (the two relevant pages of the OED are most instructive for intellectual history). But in fact Greece, like all Mediterranean countries, has a long and intricate human “pre-history,” which stretches back at least to ca. 40,000 bc and includes major sites of the Neolithic period as well as the Mycenaean age (1600-1100) with its wealth, its palaces, and its Linear B writing in Greek. As is clear from myths and allusions in historical sources, the Greek peoples of the “Archaic” period knew perfectly well that they lived in a landscape long moulded by previous inhabitants, with whose legacy they came to terms in various ways. Nor, as contact by sea with the rest of the Eastern Mediterranean gathered pace again after ca. 900, could they avoid awareness that out there, “beyond the noble Ocean” (Hesiod, Theog. 215), lay cultures and societies which could look, and in many ways were, vastly richer and older than their own: Egypt especially made a great impression. That is not to deny that there had been significant disruption throughout the Eastern Mediterranean between ca. 1200 and ca. 1000, or that late Mycenaean Greece in particular had experienced some sort of systems failure, generating depopulation, political and cultural discontinuity, and the felt need to create a new order of society. The currently lively debate about the nature, degree, and duration of that discontinuity is not the direct concern of this book,5 but the reader should bear continually in mind the tension between the new starts which post-Mycenaean societies had perforce been making and the antiquity of the human landscapes which formed their backdrop. Indeed, a neglected short book (Ure 1921) and a now classic volume of papers (Hagg 1983b), surveying what it calls “The Greek Renaissance of the eighth century bc,” use a much more fitting metaphor than “Archaic,” though it too evokes perilous comparisons. Though they are not inserted hereafter, “archaic” should always be read with mental quotation marks.
The modern historiography of Archaic Greece6 is the product of three distinct styles. They emerged at different dates, and remained separate for the best part of a century, but since around 1980 have experienced a complex and very uncomfortable process of convergence. They are, first, the long-established approach of the ancient historians, based primarily on the historical, geographical, and antiquarian traditions of the later Greeks themselves with some admixture from “literary” texts such as the epic and lyric poets; second, the style adopted by cultural historians, who came to be concerned above all with how institutions, habits, cult and mythology could be “read,” both as reflections of a social order and as representations of the ways in which contemporaries interpreted their world and thereby made sense of it; and third, the approach taken by archaeologists, who until the 1970s were concerned mainly with establishing relative and absolute chronologies for the various genres of artifacts which came within their purview, but also, and derivatively, with establishing the history of the occupation of specific sites such as the major sanctuaries (Delos, Delphi, Olympia, etc.), since these had been the object of the earliest professional attention. Each style has had a very different trajectory. Once their development has been traced in outline, the processes of convergence since 1980 can be traced in slightly more detail.
World History
