Note on some Nonsense and the Dark Ages

Book Cover

The following is a expanded version of a comment I left on the website Skeptical Humanities.1 It concerns some thoughts on pseudo-scholarship and the dark ages.

Its been almost 30 years since I’ve read Holy Blood, Holy Grail,2 and it has got to be one of the most flagrant examples pseudo-scholarship ever. What is remarkable is that the bibliography in the book is actually pretty good; but the main purpose of that bibliography is to support massive woo. What I found especially annoying was on one page they would introduce, tentatively, some far out speculation and then pages later would treat that speculation as a “fact” and use it to support some even more far our speculation and then pages later use….. And so forth.

The pseudo-scholarship in the book is used to give a aura of respectability to fantasy and out of control conspiratorial thinking, with virtually no evidence to support it. What I especially loved was how our authors danced the fact that there is NO early evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdalene at all. There is plenty of early evidence, from Gnostic sources, about Mary Magdalene being regarded as a Disciple of Jesus; but being married to him, not a sliver.3 In fact the earliest evidence I know of the belief that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene is from anti-Cathar writings of the 13th century that attributed this belief to the Cathars.4 I note this is c. 1200 years after Jesus’ death! None of the Church fathers seem to know of such a belief and since they accused the Gnostics of believing all sorts of stuff that they the Church fathers found offensive. I would think they would have included this one if it had existed.

If you think Holy Blood, Holy Grail, is bad than don’t read The Jesus Papers,5 by one of the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Michael Baigent. In the book the author asks us to take seriously papers which he has seen, but which he can’t read, (The documents are in Aramaic), but which he assures us will rock the foundations of Christianity. Oh and the owner won’t let them be examined by scholars or studied. We can’t even get pictures of the documents. But we must take them seriously. ORLY!?

The Dark Ages are an interesting period. There is this bias that goes back to the Renaissance that regards The Greeks and the Romans as “like us” and in a sense our contemporaries and regards the period between as an age of obscurantist darkness.6 Well in many ways this is just nonsense. The foundations of modern Europe were laid in the “Middle Ages”,7 and frankly it is careless and in my opinion distorted thinking and writing that leads people to think that the Greeks and the Romans were “like us”.

I have found, for example, it a lot easier to get into the mind of Thomas Aquinas, despite the fact I’m a secularist and agnostic, than the mind of Cicero despite the fact that I share many of Cicero’s beliefs.

The Classicalist M.I. Finley wrote a brilliant essay called Desperately Foreign, (Its in a collection of essays he wrote called Aspects of Antiquity,8.), that describes the world of the Greeks and the Romans as only superficially like our own and in the end “Desperately Foreign”. This tendency of “modernizing” the Greeks and the Romans produces a mindset that sees kindred spirits in the thinkers and doers of antiquity and one that emphasizes the strangeness and irrationality of the Dark Ages / Middle Ages. The cultic, irrational elements of Greco-Roman culture are thus either down played or bluntly ignored. Thus we read that until the third century B.C.E., Greek art had, “nothing vulgar, coarse, or debasing”.9 This statement is simply, and utterly wrong. As any half decent examination of just vase paintings of the 6th and 5th century B.C.E., would reveal. The fondness of the Greeks and Romans for Mystery Cults, arcane mystical speculation, and their reputation in antiquity for frenzy and extreme behavior have to be ignored in the distorted view of them being modern rationalists.10

In fact in many ways the European world of the “Middle Ages” is less “Foreign” than the world of the Greeks and the Romans. To cite an example the pervasive influence of the Bible, given that our society is still in many respects Bible saturated, makes the “Middle Ages” more comprehensible to us, or me at least. Also much of European law and attitudes about law and the enforcement of law are related to Germanic and Customary law from the Dark Ages / Middle ages.11

As an interesting side note it appears likely that for the mass of the population their standard of living may have improved(!) with the fall of the Roman Empire. So that this great disaster which is still seen has a great retreat of civilization may have benefited most people.12

Thank you Michael Baigent for bringing back memories of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, that example of “scholarship” as cow muck.

1. See Here.

2. Baigent, Michael, Leigh, Richard, Lincoln, Henry, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, Jonathan Cape, London, 1982.

3. See Pagels, Elaine, The Gnostic Gospels, Vintage Books, New York, 1979.

4. For example Peter de les Vaux-de-Cernay says concerning Cathar beliefs that:

Further, in their secret meetings they said that the Christ who was born in the earthy and visible Bethlehem and crucified at Jerusalem was “evil”, and that Mary Magdalene was his concubine – and that she was the woman taken in adultery who is referred to in the scriptures;… (From de les Vaux-de-Cernay, Peter, The History of the Albigensian Crusade, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge Sussex, 1998, s. 11, p. 11.)

5. Baigent, Michael, The Jesus Papers, Harper Collins Pub., New York, 2006.

6. To give but one example of this bias. See Gibbons The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The chapter on the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire in the first volume is especially revealing of this attitude. Given that copies of The Decline … are so easy to find on the web I will not be posting links to it.

7. A couple of books that go into the establishment of Europe during the Middle Ages are, Heather, Peter, Empires and Barbarians, Pan Books, London, 2009, Lewis, David Levering, God’s Crucible, W. W. Norton, New York, 2008, Wickham, Chris, The Inheritance of Rome, Penguin Books, London, 2009, Heer, Fredrich, The Medieval World, Mentor Book, New York, 1962, Herrin, Judith, The Formation of Christendom, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1987, Moore, R. I., The First European Revoolution, Blackwell Pub., Oxford, 2000.

8. Finley, M. I., Aspects of Antiquity, Second Edition, Penguin books, London, 1977. The essay Desperately Foreign can be found on pp. 11-15.

9. The Sociologist Sorokin quoted in Muller, Herbert J., The Uses of the Past, Mentor Book, New York, 1952, p. 115.

10. A good start on correcting this view is Dodds, E.R., The Greeks and the Irrational, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA., 1951.

11. See the books listed in Footnote 7 for more details.

12. See Wickham, pp. 203-231, Moore, pp. 30-47.

Pierre Cloutier

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus: a few notes

Constantine VII Porphrogenitus

Constantine Porphrogenitus was a Byzantine Emperor who reigned 913-959 C.E... He was the son of Leo VI called the Wise. Constantine VII Porphrogentius was born in 905 C.E.1 His nick name Prophrogenitus simply mean “born to the purple”.2 He was called this because he was born to a reigning Emperor.

Constantine was not born legitimately. His father Leo had been married three times before and had failed to have a son who lived. The Orthodox Church frowned on the idea of a fourth marriage so after his third wife died Leo did not marry his new mistress Zoe Carbonopsina, (meaning dark eyed). Leo had taken up with her in 902 C.E. When Constantine was born in late 905 C.E., Leo decided he had to risk a crisis in the Church for the sake of securing the succession which could only be done by legitimizing his son. Under the laws of the time Leo would legitimize any children born out of wedlock by marrying the mother. This Leo did, marrying Zoe secretly in early 906 C.E. When word got out this provoked a serious crisis in Church and State. Eventually after a rather terminable and tedious dispute the marriage was accepted and Constantine legitimized. The condition was that fourth marriages would not be accepted in the future.3

Leo VI, the Wise
Leo died in 912 C.E. and was succeeded by his brother (or half brother) Alexander who only reigned for 13 months.4 What evidence we have indicates that Alexander detested Leo and disliked both Constantine and his mother Zoe, who he forced in a Convent. When Alexander died he had created a board of seven regents for his young nephew.5

Soon afterwards a tedious power struggle began which lasted for seven years. It involved The Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus and Zoe, who had returned from her Convent and later the general Romanus Lecapenus. The ins and outs of this struggle although of interest will be past over here. In the end the upstart general Romanus I called Lecapenus won and put Zoe back in the Convent, this time for good in 920 C.E.6

Coin with Portrait of Romanus I, Lecapenus

It seems to be quite clear that Romanus intended to displace the Imperial family and establish his own family on the throne permanently. Constantine was in the way of this so the established Byzantine practices of murdering him, castrating him or blinding him would seem to be in order so that this could be done. However Constantine was saved by a number of factors. Firstly he was still very young about 14 years of age. Secondly he was since birth plagued by the poor health that would bother him until he died. Finally Romanus does not seem to have been, for a Byzantine Emperor, especially blood thirsty or ruthless. So Romanus dealt with the situation by marrying Constantine to his daughter Helena and probably hoping that Constantine would just die of natural causes.7

Probably by this time Constantine had developed the scholarly interests that would be his chief interest and career during the years that he was out of power. Probably these very same interests helped to keep him safe by making Romanus and his sons not take him too seriously. His marriage to Helena was also a success it appears that she became a voice at court in favour of her husband’s interests.

Romanus’ reign was an overall success.8 Romanus was however a total failure in his efforts to establish a new Imperial line. His favourite son Christopher died young in 931 C.E. Romanus’ two other sons Stephen and Constantine were too put it mildly unsuitable. Making it even more difficult Helena and Constantine VI had several children including a eldest son named, like his grandfather, Romanus. Romanus was also faced with the indisputable fact that Constantine was not dying and was through his considerable scholarly pursuits showing clear signs of real intelligence. That and the fact that Romanus began to believe that he was being punished for trying to overthrow the legitimate dynasty. The fact that if Constantine succeeded him Romanus’ grandchild would reign probably played a role in Romanus recognizing his son in law as his successor.9

Romanus’ two other sons faced with the near certainty of being forced into a monastery at best when their brother in law succeeded to power upon their fathers death decided to overthrow their father. On December 20th 944 C.E., The sons having secreted their supporters into the palace kidnapped their father from his bedroom and sent him by boat to become a monk in a monastery on a near by island close to the capital Constantinople. Unfortunately for the usurpers upon hearing of the overthrow of Romanus a mob gathered in front of the palace demanding to see Constantine VI. Fearing what the mob might do the two brothers showed Constantine to the crowd, although he looked dishevelled and had been fetched from the Imperial libraries where he had been researching another book.10

In consequence to the mobs threats the brothers were forced to recognize Constantine VI has senior Emperor. They however plotted to kill Constantine and take sole power. Unfortunately for them Constantine acted before they did. Aided by his wife Helena the two brothers were arrested, on the 27th of January 945 C.E., and they were both exiled and imprisoned. They both died in prison, one most conveniently “while trying to escape”. 11

The two brothers were briefly imprisoned on the same island with their father who said to them:

“Oh happy hour,’ he cried, ‘that has compelled Your Majesties to visit my humble estate. That filial affection which drove me from the palace, I suppose, has not allowed you yourselves to remain there any longer. How fortunate that you should have sent me here some time in advance: my brother-monks and fellow soldiers in Christ devote their days to things of the spirit, and would not have known how Emperors should be received had they not had me with them, an expert in imperial protocol. Here is boiled water for you, colder than the Gothic snows; here are soft beans, all manner of greenstuffs, and leeks freshly plucked. You will find none of those delicacies from the fishmongers that cause illness; such maladies as we have here are brought about by our frequent fasts. Our modest abode has no place for a large and extravagant company; but it is just large enough for your Majesties, who have refused to desert your father in his old age.”12

Romanus died in that monastery on June 15, 948 C.E.13

Constantine VI reigned until 959 C.E., when he died, and was overall a successful monarch.14...

Constantine VII, Porphrogenitus Being crowned by Christ

Constantine as adult was described as tall and broad shouldered, with a large black beard and pale blue eyes. He also apparently drank a lot. It is of interest to point out that Constantine was also an icon painter and apparently the only Byzantine Emperor to be one.15

Constantine was mainly a scholar and that remained until he died his chief interest and passion. Since it is hard to distinguish between works he commissioned or wrote himself here is a list of the major works either written by him or commissioned by him.

De Thematibus, A history of the development of the Byzantine administrative Theme system complete with an over view of how it worked in Constantine’s day. Written by Constantine.

Genesius’ History, A History of Byzantium.

Theophanes Continuatus, Books I-IV, A continuation of The Chronicle of Theophanes.

Constantine’s biography of his supposed grandfather Basil I. (Theophanes Continuatus, Book V). Written by Constantine.

De Administrando Imperio, An overview of Byzantine foreign affairs contains much information that would have been considered in Constantine’s day state secrets. Written for Constantine's heir Romanus II.

De Caerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae, An overview of Byzantine court ceremonial. Written by Constantine.16

Among other things Constantine also commissioned an immense work of 53 books of extracts from Greek literature grouped around topics.17 Constantine cannot be described by a long shot has a great writer, but he had access to sources we do not have today and was, apparently from the books we have of his today, a tireless researcher.18

Here I will discuss only one of Constantine’s books his De Administrando Imperio.19

The De Administrando Imperio, is divided into sections by country described and outlines proper / or recommended imperial policy towards said country. It also contains in many respects brief outline histories of some of these countries, in some cases it is the first even remotely reliable histories of these countries brief has these sections are. In some places Constantine extensively quotes other authors, and further he gives some geographical information.

In his introduction Constantine says:

(Proem) A wise man maketh glad a father, and an affectionate father taketh delight in a prudent son….

Lo, I set a doctrine before thee, so that being sharpened thereby in experience and knowledge, thou shall not stumble concerning the best counsels and the common good: first, in what each nation has power to advantage the Romans, [The Byzantines] and in what to hurt, and how and by what other nation each severally may be encountered in arms and subdued; then, concerning their ravenous and insatiate temper and the gifts they demand inordinately; next concerning also the difference between other nations, their origins and customs, and manner of life, and the position and climate of the land they dwell in, its geographical description and measurement, and moreover concerning events which have occurred at various times between the Romans and different nations; and thereafter, what reforms have been introduced from time to time in our state, and also throughout the Roman Empire.20

This book gives us some insight into the workings of Imperial policy and certainly an insight into Imperial realpolitik. For example:

(s. 4) So long as the Emperor of the Romans [The Byzantine Emperor] is at peace with the Pechenegs, [A Nomadic steppe people] neither the Russians nor Turks can come upon the Roman dominions by force of arms, nor can they exact from the Romans large and inflated sums in money or goods as the price of peace, for they fear the strength of this nation which the Emperor can turn against them while they are campaigning against the Romans. For the Pechenegs, if they are leagued in friendship with the emperor and won over by him by letters and gifts, can easily come upon the country of both the Russians and of the Turks, and enslave their women and children and ravage their country.21

Being a Christian he describes the prophet Mohammed as

(s. 14) “The blasphemous and obscene Mahomet,…

But as he had the disease of epilepsy, his wife, a noble and wealthy lady, was greatly cast down at being united to this man, who was not only destitute but an epileptic into the bargain, and so he deceived her by alleging: ‘I behold a dreadful vision of an Angel called Gabriel, and being unable to endure his sight, I faint and fall’;..”22

Not exactly an exercise in ecumenical understanding, too put it mildly, but an excellent view into the mind set of a pious Byzantine Christian of the 1oth century C.E.

About the early history of some of the Slavic settlers of the Balkans Constantine has some interesting information. For example concerning the Croatians he say:

(s. 31) The Croats who now live in the region of Dalmatia are descended from the unbaptized Croats, also called ‘white’, who lived beyond Turkey [Not modern Turkey but the steppe region] and next to Francia, and have for Slav neighbours the anabaptized Serbs. ‘Croats’ in the Slav tongue means ‘those who occupy much territory’. These same Croats arrived to claim the protection of the emperor Romans Heraclius before the Serbs claimed the protection of the same emperor Heraclius at that time when the Avars had fought and expelled from those parts the Romani whom the emperor Diocletian had brought from Rome and settled there, and who were therefore called ‘Romani’ from their having been translated from Rome to those countries, I mean, to those now called Croatia and Serbia. These same Romani having been expelled by the Avars in the days of this same Emperor of the Romans Heraclitus, their countries were made desolate. And so, by command of the Emperor Heraclius these same Croats defeated and expelled the Avars from these parts, and by mandate of Heraclius the emperor they settled down in that same country of the Avars, where they now dwell. These same Croats had at that time for prince the father of Porgas. The Emperor Heraclius sent and brought priests from Rome, and made of them an archbishop and a bishop and elders and deacons, and baptized the Croats; and at that time the these Croats had Porgas for their prince.23

In another section Constantine gives the genealogy of King Hugh, his father in law, whose daughter Eudocia was married to his son, Romanus II; no doubt to flatter his father in law and his son.

(s. 26) Now, she who came up to Constantinople and was joined in marriage to Romanus, the son born in the purple of Constantine, the Christ-loving sovereign, was the daughter of the same illustrious king Hugh, and she was called Bertha after the name of her grandmother, I mean the elder Bertha, who after the death of Adalbert her husband reigned ten years; but she, the young Bertha changed her name to Eudocia, after the grandmother and sister of Constantine, the Christ loving sovereign.24

The above is just a sampling from this work.

As I said Constantine VII died in 959 C.E., to be succeeded by his son Romanus II.

Constantine’s legacy is not his doings as monarch but his scholarship, without which we would have a good deal less knowledge and insight into the Byzantine world.

Solidus coin with Portrait of Constantine VII, Porphrogenitus

1. Runciman, Steven, The Emperor Romanus Lecapenus & his reign, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1929, pp. 41-42.

2. Norwich, John Julius, Byzantium: The Apogee, Penguin Books, London, 1991, p. 119.

3. Ostrogorsky, George, History of the Byzantine State, Basil Blackwell, London, 1956, pp. 259-260, Treadgold, Warren, A History of the Byzantine State and Society, Stanford University Press, Stanford CA, 1997, pp. 468-470, Jenkins, Romilly, Byzantium: The Imperial Centuries AD 610-1071, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1987, pp. 212-226, Norwich, pp. 113-119.

4. Both Alexander and Leo VI had the same mother there is a dispute over whether or not they had the same father. It is possible that Leo’s real father was Michael III, who Basil I, Leo’s supposed father had assassinated so he could take the throne. See Jenkins, pp. 165-166, 98-199, Norwich, pp. 80-81, 102, Treadgold, pp. 455, 462, Ostrogorsky, pp. 233-234. Perhaps at another time I will tell the story of this rather complicated mess.

5. Treadgold, pp. 471-472, Norwich, pp. 122-126.

6. Treadgold, pp. 473-476.

7. Norwich, pp. 117-126.

8. More than one Byzantine Emperor could reign at a time so that Constantine continued to reign, without any power or influence during Romanus’ reign. See Runciman for the best account in English of the reign.

9. Runciman, pp. pp. 229-237.

10. Runciman, pp. 232-233.

11. Runciman, pp. 234-235.

12. Norwich, p. 158, quoting the Anapodosis of Liudprand, v, 23.

13. Runciman, p. 236.

14. Treadgold, pp. 487-494, Norwich, pp. 162-174, Jenkins, pp. 256-268,

15, Norwich, p. 162, Jenkins, pp. 256-257, Toynbee, Arnold, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his World, Oxford University Press, London, 1973, pp. 5, 19-21.

16. Toynbee, pp. 576-577.

17. IBID. p. 576.

18. IBID. pp. 575-605.

19. Constantine Porphyrogenitus: De Administrando Imperio, Revised Edition, Translated by Jenkins, Romilly J. H., Dumbarton Oaks, Center for Byzantine Studies, Washington D.C., 1967. This edition contains the original Greek text and on the facing page a translation in English of that page.

20. IBID. pp. 45-47.

21. IBID. pp. 51-53.

22. IBID. pp. 77-79.

23. IBID. pp. 147-149.

24. IBID. p. 113.

Pierre Cloutier

Evil over Good

1066: The Year of the Conquest, David Howarth, Penguin books, London, 1977.

I have read the above book several times and although it is not a scholarly book it is a enjoyable read. When it first came out some reviewers got rather upset over the books treatment of William. It is amazing to me that the story of Edward's alleged offering of the throne to William is taken seriously. It is plain nonsense. To review the facts.

1, Edward had neither the right nor the power to dispose of the English throne in this fashion without the express consent of the Witan, (a type of Parliament).

2, A few years after he allegedly made this offer he invited back to England a Son of Edmund "Ironside" named Edward with the apparent intention of making him his heir. This Edward died shortly after arriving in England in 1057 C.E., and it appears that his son Edgar was being groomed for the crown and would probably have succeeded Edward the Confessor if he had been of age. As it is Edgar was acclaimed as King after Harold's death at Hastings.

The whole story of Harold's "Oath" is also a lot of bull. Even if it is true, given the circumstances it was not binding and in fact being clearly coerced worthless in any sense. William was a winner and as such historians have spent centuries praising him while ignoring the disastrous effects of the conquest on the English people for the generation unfortunate enough to be conquered. There seems little doubt that the conquest both devastated England, diminished and impoverished the population. To say nothing of cultural damage. But then we know that the Conquest was a good thing because of long term benefits. So I guess it is alright to sacrifice past generations for our benefit?

This book is a reminder that the fact something happened doesn't mean that it was right or good. It is a pity that historians frequently forget that.

See also:

The Anglo-Saxon, Chronicle, Editor, Swanton, Michael, Phoenix Press, London, 1996.

Wood, Michael, In Search of England, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1999.

Pierre Cloutier

Simon de Montfort
Some Thoughts

Between 1209 C.E., and 1229 C.E., the south of France was convulsed with the war known as the Albigensian Crusade. The Crusade was formally against the so called Cathar heretics of southern France1 but turned rapidly into a mass pillaging campaign in which northern French nobility sought to gain fortune and fame.

The main leader of the Crusaders during the first part of this Crusade was Simon de Montfort, (1160-1218 C.E.). Simon was born near Paris and was the inheritor of the Montfort estates near Paris upon his fathers death in 1181 C.E. Simon de Montfort went on the infamous 4th Crusade although he did not reap much benefit from his participation.2

Drawing of a Stained Glass Portrait of Simon de Montfort

Simon’s great claim to fame is his military leadership of the Crusade against the Cathar heretics in southern France, which turned into a campaign of conquest and looting of the southern French nobility.

Map of Southern France before the Crusade

Simon’s extraordinary military ability was in evidence through much of this time period along with his iron determination to succeed. His greatest victory was his incredible victory in the Battle of Muret in 1213, which he achieved over Pedro II of Aragon, (who was killed) and the southern nobility and city militia of Toulouse.3

To quote:

(466) After this – and the death of about twenty thousand of the enemies of the faith, some by drowning, some by the sword – our most Christian Count walked barefoot from the place where he had dismounted to the church, to render thanks to Almighty God for the victory He had been granted, since he recognized that this miracle had been wrought by God’s grace and not the efforts of men His horse and his armour he gave as alms for the poor.4

So speaks Peter about his near “perfect” Christian hero after the battle.

Unfortunately Simon’s great military ability was not matched by much ability in the realm of statecraft or administration and the organized looting, disinheriting and exploitation of the domains that Simon conquered soon earned Simon a great deal of hatred and the almost extraordinary brutality of the crusade did not help. For example:

(227) Soon Aimeric, the former lord of Montreal, of whom we spoke above, was led out of Laveur with up to eighty other Knights. The noble Count [Simon] proposed that they all should be hanged from fork-shaped gibbets. However, after Aimeric, who was taller than the others, had been hanged, the gibbets started to fall down, since through excessive haste they had not been properly fixed in the ground. The Count realized that to continue would cause a long delay and ordered the rest to be put to the sword. The crusaders fell to this task with great enthusiasm and quickly slew them on the spot. The Count had the Dame of Laveur, sister of Aimeric and a heretic of the worst sort, thrown into a pit and stones heaped on her. Our Crusaders burnt innumerable heretics, with great rejoicing.

Another account of the same event.

(ch. 16) Having thus achieved the unconditional surrender of Laveur. Count Simon had the noble lord Aimeric hanged, together with a few knights; he put to the sword some other nobles and certain others who had mingled with them in the hope that knights would be spared, about eighty in all. He consigned about three hundred robed heretics to everlasting fire by having them consumed by the flames of the material world. He had Giraude the mistress of Laveur thrown into a pit and stones heaped on her. The ordinary people were spared, on conditions.

A final account of the same events.

(s. 71) They had taken this place, [Laveur] as the book says. There they burned at least four hundred evil heretics, heaping them all onto one great funeral pyre. Sir Aimery was hanged, along with many other knights – four Score they hanged there like thieves on the gibbets, some here, some there. Lady Girauda was taken and she shrieked and screamed and shouted. They held her across a well and dropped her into it, I know this for certain, and threw stones on top of her. This caused great dismay. But the other noblewomen were all set free by a kind and courteous Frenchman.5

What makes those reports even more damning is that they are from sources that approved of that sort of horror, and thought of Simon has a great hero. Unfortunately this sort of atrocity was hardly unusual but very common indeed during the Crusade.6 Indeed Peter especially is notorious for excusing and exalting in the murderous, vile atrocities of the Crusaders but if the southerners respond in kind he is quite indignant and angry. A rather interesting example of hypocrisy, but one so blatant and barefaced that I doubt that Peter was even aware in any sense of it being hypocrisy. After all his attitude seems to have been its all right if my side does it but utterly evil and wrong if the other side does it. William of Puylaurens seems to have been if pro-crusader much less of an apologist for their crimes and aware that excesses didn’t help the crusader cause.

Well sometimes in human affairs the wicked are punished, Despite Papal approval of the dispossession of Count Raymond of Toulouse, Raymond VI and his son, who became Raymond VII, continued to fight back. Toulouse, despite capitulating, to Simon was restive under his rule. Previously to quell the inhabitants of Toulouse Simon had sacked the city and razed its walls to the ground.

On the 13th of September 1217 C.E., Count Raymond VI with a tiny group of supporters entered Toulouse after a long ride from the border of Aragon. Toulouse rose in rebellion in support of the Count. To quote a contemporary account:

(s. 182) When the count [Raymond VI] entered through the arched gateway all the people flocked to him. Great and small, lords and ladies, wives and husbands, they knelt before him and kissed his clothing, his feet and legs, his arms and fingers. With tears of delight and joy they welcomed him, for joy regained bears both flower and fruit.

...

“Now we have Jesus Christ!” They said to each other, “now we have the morning star risen and shining upon us! This is our lord who was lost! Through him worth and paratge are freed from their graves, are healed and restored, and our whole kinship regains power for ever!”7

Page from a Manuscript of The Song of the Cathar Wars

Thus speaks an unabashed supporter of the southerners. Peter has a different view of the matter.

(s. 600) For at this time the citizens of Toulouse – perhaps we should say “the deceivers” - were inspired by the Devil to secede from god and the Church and revolt against the Count de Montfort. They welcomed into their city Raymond, their erstwhile Count and lord, who had been deservedly deprived of his possessions and exiled on the authority of the Pope and the Second Lateran Council.8

In October of 1217 C.E., Simon appeared in front of Toulouse and he besieged the city for eight months. The siege was fought with great determination on both sides. The Toulousians amazingly where able to rebuild their walls to a defensible state in the short time before Simon arrived.9

Despite repeated attempts Simon fails to take Toulouse and in the meantime his grip on his possessions throughout the south is slipping. On June 25 1218 C.E., while fighting a sortie from Toulouse Simon is killed. To quote The Song of the Cathar Wars:

(s. 205) As Sir Guy [Simon’s brother] was speaking and beginning to shout and yell, there was in the town a mangonel built by a carpenter and dragged with its platform from St. Sernin. This was worked by noblewomen, by little girls and men’s wives, and now a stone arrived just where it was needed and struck Count Simon on his steel helmet, shattering his eyes, brains, back teeth, forehead and jaw. Bleeding and black, the count dropped dead on the ground.

...

But a messenger brought the news [Count Simon’s death] into Toulouse and such was the joy that all over the town they ran to the churches and lit candles in all the candlesticks and cried out, “Rejoice! God is merciful and paratge shines forth, victorious forever! The cruel and murderous count is dead, dead unshriven because he was a man of blood!” Trumpets, horns and universal joy, chimes and peals and clamouring bells in belfries, drums, tabors and slender clarons rang through the town tell every paving-stone re-echoed.10

An allegoric painting of the Lamb of the Languedoc killing the Lion of de Montfort

A popular ballad was composed at this time by the southerners and it goes as follows:

Montfort
Es mort
Es mort
Es mort!
Viva Tolosa
Ciotat gloriosa
et poderosa!
Tornan lo paratge et l'onor!
Montfort
Es mort!
Es mort!
Es mort!

A translation into English is:

Montfort
Is dead
Is dead
Is dead!
Hooray for Toulouse
Glorious city
and powerful!
Honour and paratge return!
Montfort
Is dead!
Is dead!
Is dead!11

Peter, not surprisingly, has a different response to Simon’s death and composed the following epitaph.

(612) Suddenly a stone from an enemy mangonel struck Christ’s knight on the head. The blow was lethal. Twice beating his breast he commended his soul to God and the Blessed Virgin. Like St. Stephen – and stoned to death in that Saint’s city – he went to rest in the lords keeping. Before he received the fatal wound the Lords brave knight – say rather, if we are not mistaken, his most glorious martyr – was five times wounded by the enemy archers, like the Saviour for whom he now patiently accepted death, and by whose side he now lives in sublime peace, as we believe.12

William of Puylaurens says the following:

(ch. 28) So, the man who inspired terror from the Mediterranean to the British sea fell by a blow from a single stone; at his fall those who had previously stood firm fell down. In him, who was a good man, the insolence of his subordinates was thrown down. I affirm that later I heard the Count of Toulouse (the last of his line) generously praise him – even though he was the enemy – for his fidelity, his foresight, his energy and all the qualities which befit a leader.

God then gave a signal that those who arrogantly sought to govern unwilling subjects and gave no thought to purging the land of heresy (for which the whole enterprise had been started), had departed from his way.13

That is the semi-positive verdict of William of Puylaurens who is also, we must not forget, a whole hearted supporter of the inquisition and hater of heretics / heresy.

In the end despite the subsequent recovery by the southerners of virtually everything from the Crusaders and the abandonment of the whole enterprise by Simon de Montfort’s son it was all for naught. The intervention of the King the France beginning in 1226 finally broke southern resistance and in 1229 C.E., forced the Count of Toulouse, Raymond VII son of Count Raymond VI, (who had died in 1222 C.E.,) to sign a humiliating peace, (Peace of Paris 1229 C.E.,). Subsequently the Inquisition was introduced into the south and Catharism brutally suppressed. In the end the lands of the Count of Toulouse were incorporated into the royal domain of the French king.14

So in the end all did not turn out well but an alternative epitaph exists for Simon de Montfort and it is entirely appropriate unlike the epitaphs of William of Puylaurens or Peter. Both of whom, especially Peter, are far too enamored of the brave fighter against heresy. It is from the Anonymous contributor to The Song of the Cathar Wars, that we get the words that damn Simon de Montfort for all time, and they go as follows:

(s. 208) Straightway they bore him to burial in Carcassonne, and celebrated the funeral service at the monastery of Saint-Nazaire. And those who can read may learn from his epitaph that he is a saint and a martyr; that he is bound to rise again to share the heritage, to flourish in that state of unparalleled felicity, to wear a crown and have his place in the Kingdom. But for my part I have heard tell that the matter must stand thus: if one may seek Christ Jesus in this world by killing men and shedding blood by the destruction of human souls; by compounding murder and hearkening to perverse counsel; by setting the torch to great fires; by destroying the Barons and dishonouring Parage; by winning lands through violence, and working for the triumph of vain pride; by fostering evil and snuffing out good; by slaughtering women and slitting children’s throats – why, then he must needs wear a crown, and shine resplendent in Heaven.15

Tombstone of Simon de Montfort at Carcassonne16

1. For accounts of the Cathar “heresy” see The Perfect Heresy, Stephen O’Shea, Douglas and McIntyre, Vancouver, 2000, pp. 17-31, Massacre at Montsegur, Zoe Oldenbourg, Phoenix Press, London, 1961, pp. 28-81, The Cathars, Malcolm Lambert, Blackwell Pub. Ltd., London, 1998, pp. 131-170, The Cathars, Malcolm Barber, The Cathars, Longman, Toronto, 2000, pp. 6-33, 71-126, The Origins of European Dissent, 2d edition, R. I. Moore, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1985, pp. 197-240, The Medieval Manichee, Steven Runciman, The Viking Press, New York, 1947, pp. 116-170. See also The Birth of Popular Heresy, R. I. Moore, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1995, pp. 9-26, 113-154. for an interesting collection of essays about aspects of "Heresy" and "Crusading" see Crusaders and Heretics, 12th - 14th Centuries, Malcolm Barber, Variorum, Aldershot, Britain, 1995.

2. See Wikipedia article Simon de Montfort, 5th Earl of Leicester at Here.

3. For contemporary accounts of the battle see The History of the Albigensian Crusade, Peter de Les Vaux-de-Cernay, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, England, 1998, pp. 206-219, (s. 453-486). (Peter accompanied Simon on the Crusade has a chronicler). A copy in Latin can be found Here. The Song of the Cathar Wars, William of Tudela & Anonymous, Scolar Press, Aldershot England, 1996, pp. 67-71, (s. 133-141). (This is from the part written by Anonymous who is very anti-Crusader and almost certainly attached to the court of the Counts of Toulouse) A copy can be found in French Here. The Chronicle of William of Puylaurens, William of Puylaurens, The Boydell Press, Woodbridge, England, 2003, pp. 43-49, (ch. 20-21) (William of Puylaurens was an aide to Bishop Fulk of Toulouse and then to Fulk's successor in the period 1225-1260.) A copy can be found in Latin Here. Modern accounts are O’Shea, pp. 132-149, Oldenbourg, pp. 165-170.

4. Peter, p. 213.

5. The Three quotes in order are from, Peter, p. 117, Williams of Puylaurens, p. 40, Song of the Cathar Wars, William of Tudela section, p. 42. Laveur fell in 1211 C.E.

6. See O’Shea and Oldenbourg for more of the disgusting details.

7. Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous section, p. 122-123.

8. Peter, p. 270.

9. The best account of this siege is in Song of the Cathar Wars, pp. 122-176, (s.182-207).

10. Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous, p. 172.

11. Oldenbourg, p. 201. Translation by Pierre Cloutier.

12. Peter, p. 277.

13. William of Puylaurens, pp. 61-62.

14. For the unpleasant story see William of Puylaurens, pp. 64-125, (ch. 30-50), For the Treaty of Paris, 1229, a copy can be found in Chronicle of William of Puylaurens, pp. 138-144, For more discussion of these events see Oldenbourg, pp. 207-309, O’Shea, pp. 179-238.

15. I use the translation of this passage from Oldenbourg, pp. 199-200, which I like the best. The passage can also be found in Song of the Cathar Wars, Anonymous, pp. 176. The passage can be found on the website Languedoc at Here. Positive accounts of Simon de Montfort are few and far between An example of this is Simon de Montfort (1165-1218), His Life and Work: A Critical Study and Evaluation based on the Sources, Robert John Kovarik, Phd, St Louis University, 1963, a copy can be found Here. Aside from excusing, rationlizing Simon's behavior and attitudes. (The old saw about the "times" etc., ignoring the tolerance of the South for example). The author quite selectively uses data. For example he quotes (p. 348), the first part of Anonymous' epitath but excludes all of the stuff from "But for my part..." The author also manages to elide all the stuff indicating the great hatred with which Southerners regarded Simon de Montfort.

16. The body of Simon de Montfort is no longer there. Simon's son removed it in 1224 C.E., to prevent it from being violated by the resurgent southerners. See Oldenbourg, p. 207.

Pierre Cloutier

The Crisis or
The End of the Bronze Age Part II

In Part I I looked at the causes of the crisis at the end of the Bronze Age, (1200-900 B.C.E.) here I will look at the course and consequences of the crisis.

Course

Egypt

During the Reign of Rameses II, (c. 1250 B.C.E.), Egyptian records mention raids by both the Libyans and by various sea going peoples into the Egyptian Delta. It also appears that Rameses either settled or was unable to prevent Libyans and others from settling in the Nile Delta. We also begin to hear about problems in administration, collecting taxes and the like.

During the Reign of Rameses II son, Merneptah (c. 1215 B.C.E.) both the Libyan and sea peoples made major attacks on Egypt which if the Egyptian accounts are anything to go by were beaten off with serious difficulty. Merneptah’s various records complain about corrupt and bad officials. After Merneptah's death the 19th Dynasty went into a severe crisis and shortly afterwards came to an end, with much corruption, bad harvests, intrigue. In fact a scribe looking back at this time period records the following for the period after Merneptah's death:

The land of Fgypt was cast a drift, every man being a law unto himself , and they had no leader for many years - empty years when Irsu, a Syrian [Chancellor Bay], was chief having set the entire land in subjugation before him; each joined his neighbour in plundering their goods and they treated the gods like people and no one dedicated offerings in the temples...1

Rameses III of the 20th Dynasty (c. 1170 B.C.E.) faced renewed attacks on Egypt by both the "Sea Peoples" and the Libyans. From his account it appears that Rameses was initially beaten and only survived by winning a crushing naval victory at the last moment. During his reign corruption became common, the tombs in the valley of the Kings started to be systematically pillaged and Rameses III himself was apparently murdered in a palace intrigue. Egypt lost control of much her remaining Asiatic Empire. The Reigns of the Kings who succeeded Rameses III was characterized by increased corruption, growing provincial independence, massive Asiatic settlement of the Nile Delta loss of control of what was left of Egypt in Asia.

Relief of Rameses III

By 1100 B.C.E. this process was well advanced by 1050 Upper Egypt, centered in Thebes was virtually independent and Nubia to the south was lost forever. In fact some time about 1088 B.C.E. things had so broken down in Thebes that for a period of time known as "The year of the Hyena" order completely broke down. This was when thieves were able to strip the precious metal from the gates of the Temple of Amun in Karnak, Thebes it also appears that pillagers were able to plunder the inner shrine. Shortly after words Egypt was divided between the High Priest of Amun, aided by the God's Wife of Amun in Upper Egypt, (the seizure of power was apparently a desperate effort to re-impose order), and a Pharaoh, (soon to be two) in Lower Egypt.2

The downward slide continued so that by about 970 B.C.E., the independent Libyan chieftains of the Nile Delta where powerful enough that one of them was able to seize Tanis and proclaim himself Pharaoh and have the title recognized throughout Egypt. Egypt was never to recover from the crisis.3

Cannan

In about 1200 BCE Egyptian control of Cannan began to seriously slip we know that Merneptah was forced to campaign in Cannan to restore Egyptian control.

For example an Inscription from his reign contains the following:

The princes are prostrate, saying: "Mercy!"
Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows.
Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified;
Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;
Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer;
Yanoam is made as that which does not exist;
Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!
All lands together, they are pacified;4

That he faced coalitions of enemy cities and attacks by the Sea-Peoples advancing along the coast from the north. Shortly after that, in the period 1200 BCE - 1150 BCE the following cities were sacked Akko, Megiddo, Bethel, Lachish, Gaza, Ashod, Ashkelon Deir Allia, Hazor, Tannach. This list is not complete. Certain cities did not fall, such as Jerusalem. About 1160 - 1140 BCE the Pelest, from Crete and Cyprus settled in the cities of Philistina, i.e., Gaza, Gezer Ashkelon, and formed a confederation and becoming the Philistines. In the north of Philistina the Danu settled. And near Akko the Tjeker occupied the city of Dor.

In the interior and in the highlands the local peoples, composed of farmers, refugees, and immigrants, some perhaps from Egypt formed a tribal confederacy called Israel based on a rejection of rule by the city state and based on tribal system of defence and support. Israel was apparently in existence by 1200 BCE and is recorded by Pharaoh Merneptah has being one of Egypt's enemies that he crushed. The Israelite confederation was engaged in fighting with some of remaining Canaanite city states, in alliance with some of the rest.

The conquest narratives in the Bible are problematic in that they record the destruction of cities that were not sacked at this time, and it does not record the sack of cities that were sacked at this time. In fact in the entire conquest narrative only Hazor is mentioned as being destroyed in the North. In the south various cities like Debir, which was not occupied, are claimed to be destroyed. Other cities like Gaza are claimed destroyed by Israel when in fact it appears that the Sea-Peoples sacked them.

It appears from the Books of Joshua and Judges that this was a confusing period in which the tribal confederacy operated as way of providing both security and stability. In about 1020 B.C.E., Saul was chosen has the first King of Israel to lead the fight against the Philistines after words David would become King (c. 1000 B.C.E.)

Israel under David and his son Solomon flourished briefly during this period (c. 1000-940 B.C.E.) in which Babylonia, Egypt, the Hittite empire, and Assyria was laid low. After Solomon's death Israel was divided into two kingdoms soon to be threatened by the reviving power of both Egypt and Assyria.

Born with the Tribal confederacy is a belief system, or religion; forged under conditions of crisis and the loss of faith in conventional modes of belief; it will change our world radically in the future. These developments will take centuries to come about.5

Syria

The history of Syria during this time is still a bit unclear but a general pattern of events is clearly known.

In about 1250 B.C.E., archaeological remains indicate the beginning of a decline in trade. Some cuneiform tablets indicate an increase in piracy and raids. At this time most of Syria was controlled by the Hittite Empire, which was having increasing problems maintaining control over its subject peoples. About 1200 - 1150 B.C.E. a wave of destruction swept over Syria. During those years the cities of Kadesh, Carchemish, and Aleppo among many others were sacked along with other cities and numerous smaller sites. The great seaport of Ugarit the most important Phoenician seaport was sacked along with cities on the island of Cyprus.

Shortly afterwards migrants from Asia Minor settled in much of northern Syria, establishing their own city states upon the ruins of the devastated old cities. These city states are called Neo-Hittite because of their cultural and linguistic links with the old Hittite Empire. By about 1000 B.C.E. these city states were established and were engaged in a series of fratricidal wars for local supremacy. Shortly after 900 B.C.E. they would be threatened by a reviving Assyrian Empire.

Aside from migrants from Asia Minor large numbers of Arameans, a semi pastoral people, had moved in from the desert fringes of the Fertile Crescent and settled large areas of Syria. In the coastal regions the southern Phoenician cities of Sidon, Byblos and Tyre were able to weather the storm, although some inscriptional evidence indicates that Tyre for example may have been besieged 3 or more times. It appears that the Phoenician city-states were able to take over what was left of trade in the Mediterranean. The Phoenician monopoly of trade would last for centuries, well past the end of the crisis. Only the rise of the Greeks has trading rivals after 800 B.C.E. would that begin to change.

This period also saw the large scale settlement of Greeks onto the island of Cyprus.6

Asia Minor

Lion Gate, Hattusa

The chief event of the crisis in Asia Minor was the destruction of the Hittite Empire. Between 1250 - 1200 B.C.E. there was increased unrest in the Empire as refractory vassals to break free of Hittite control. Between 1200 - 1175 B.C.E., the surviving cuneiform tablets indicates increasing difficulty suppressing rebellions, shortages of grain, (we have a letter from the Hittite King requesting grain from Egypt), and general unrest on the frontiers. The writings and inscriptions end abruptly about 1175 B.C.E., the capital Hattusa is sacked and destroyed never to be rebuilt. At the same time sites like Tarsus, Karaoglan, and Alishar Hoyuk are also destroyed. The destroyers are unknown. Although the destruction seems to have occurred at the same time at the hand of the same, unknown, invaders.

In the aftermath large numbers of the people of central Asia Minor abandoned their homes and moved south, over a long period of time, into northern Syria.

Relief of Suppiluliuma III last known Hittite King

Some time between about 1150 - 1100 B.C.E. invaders began to settle former frontier provinces of the empire and threaten the Assyrian empire. About 1000 B.C.E. the Phrygians moved into central Asia Minor from Thrace in Europe and set-up the kingdom of Phrygia, famous for the story of King Midas. Shortly afterwards the Lydians set-up the kingdom of Lydia near the Aegean coast of Asia Minor.7

Greece

The inscribed tablets found in various palaces in Greece, (Knossos, Pylos, Mycenae etc.) give very few hints about the approaching disaster. It appears that trade was being disrupted and declining in the period 1250 -1200 B.C.E. Further about 1250 B.C.E., the palace at Thebes was destroyed only to be rebuilt almost at once.

The tablets at Pylos record the existence of an apparent threat from the sea, (raiders it appears and a concern with collecting revenue also). Further a wall was built across the Isthmus of Corinth linking the Peloponnese with the mainland.

About 1200 - 1150 B.C.E., most of the palaces were destroyed for example Thebes, Pylos, and Knossos. The fortresses of Mycenae and Tiryns were able to survive although the area outside the walls was devastated. In Ionia (Aegean coast of Asia Minor), the cities of Miletus and Troy were sacked. In fact it appears that the sack of Troy about this time inspired the Epic poem the Iliad.

Lion Gate Mycenae

After this wave of destruction much of Greece was severely depopulated and a large portion of the population moved to Ionia and Cyprus in the centuries which followed.

Literacy vanished in this period (1150 - 1100 B.C.E.) and virtually all building activity stopped. In about 1050 B.C.E. the Dorians moved in from central Greece into the Peloponnese and later into Crete and nearby islands. During this time period or shortly before the fortresses of Tiryns and Mycenae were sacked. During the entire period of the crisis Athens was able to successfully survive.

Greece disintegrated into a collection of petty city states, trade collapsed and what was left of it fell into the hands of Phoenician merchants. This was the "Heroic" age of Greek history that provided the inspiration for Homer's Epics the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Palace cultures never revived. The new emerging Greek culture would centre not on palaces but on the "Polis", or city state with its institution of rule through various types of communal rule.

By 900 B.C.E., signs of reviving trade, settlement and building activity are present in Greece. The new emerging Greek culture would exercise a profound influence on our world of today.8

Assyria

Assyria represents in some respects a anomaly. The initial period of the crisis saw an expansion of Assyrian power into Syria as both Egypt and the Hittite empire retreated from Syria and the Hittite empire collapsed. Unlike both Egypt and the Hittite empire to say nothing of Mycenaean Greece, the records of Assyria are comparatively quite abundant.

What the records reveal is continual campaigning by one Assyrian Monarch after the other. Including wars with Babylonia and with the various peoples who had occupied the former Hittite empire. These conflicts started c. 1200 B.C.E. Assyrian kings were able to campaign to the Mediterranean until about 1080 B.C.E., despite this the Assyrian kings were unable to secure either control or security. We know that Assyria was distracted by wars with both migrating peoples from the north and with Babylonia.

The wars were continuous has Assyria was forced to fight peoples migrating from the North. We know that c. 1175 B.C.E. Assyria had to fight off a major invasion from the North. Despite apparent success with Assyrian armies frequently advancing to the Mediterranean, the Assyrians had to deal with the same problems over and over again, conquering and re-conquering territories, while in the heart land of Assyria harvests declined and civil strife was common.

After a last spasm of effort c. 1075 B.C.E. Assyria went into dramatic decline. During the preceding period, (c. 1200 - 1075 B.C.E.) large numbers of Aramean semi-pastoral had been infiltrating into Syria and Assyria and Babylonia presenting a continual threat to Assyrian control. Any solution was only temporary during this period. From 1075 - 900 B.C.E. most of northern Mesopotamia was lost to the Arameans who pressed Assyria from the west by c. 900 B.C.E. Assyria was a small beleaguered kingdom confined to a 50 mile stretch of the Tigris river only about 30 miles across.

Despite the decline shortly after 900 B.C.E. Assyria would quite spectacularly revive.9

Stela of Adad-Nirari

Babylonia

Unlike Assyria the records of Babylonia are fragmentary and sparse during this time period. We know that beginning about 1200 B.C.E. Aramean semi-pastoralists began to infiltrate into Babylonia and that harvests began to decline. The Kassite dynasty which had ruled Babylonia for over 300 years was in terminal decline beset by wars with Assyria and Elam, famine, unrest and economic decline. c. 1140 B.C.E. the Elamites sacked Babylonia. A period of confusion followed during which Nebuchadnezzar I established a new dynasty and defeated Elam. (c. 1125 B.C.E.)

Shortly after Babylonia began engaged in debilitating wars with Assyria and was unable to cope with continuous economic decline and the Arameanian infiltration of Babylonia. By 1050 the Babylonian state had disintegrated into competing city states many controlled by Arameanian Kings with large scale Arameanian settlement. The nadir of all this was reached in about 900 B.C.E. when from the sources we have it appears that much of Babylonia was abandoned and many of her cities in partial ruin. A revival of central rule was shortly to begin.10

Iran

The Kingdom of Elam was able to take advantage of the beginning of the crisis to sack Babylonia but was unable to escape defeat by a reviving Babylonia. Meanwhile and after Elam was beset by migrating peoples from the north. We have only poor records from this time period in Elam it appears that Elam was beset by chronic and severe internal problems and simply unable to take advantage of either Assyria's or Babylonia's problems. Elam was not a factor in Middle Eastern politics until after 900 B.C.E.

In other parts of Iran the evidence seems to indicate a significant population loss in the period c. 1200 - 1000 B.C.E. followed by a recovery. At the same time several peoples from the northern part of Iran moved to the south and east.11

India

The traditional date of the Aryan invasions of India is c. 1500 B.C.E. Traditionally they have also been credited (or discredited) with destroying the Indus Civilization. It now appears that the Indus civilization collapsed a few centuries before the Aryans arrived and that the Aryan invaders came in waves one of those waves, in fact the main one, seems to have been c. 1200 - 1000 B.C.E. It has been recently claimed that this wave was in fact the only wave of invaders. This event was one of the turning points of the history of India because it brought to India many of the basic ideas that would develop into Hinduism.12

China

In China this period c. 1200 - 1050 B.C.E. saw the decline and fall of the Shang dynasty of China, which was afflicted by internal strife, failing harvests according to both traditional history and oracle bone inscriptions. (Tortoise shells on which questions would be inscribed for divination purposes) About c. 1050 B.C.E., the Chou a people from the west who had set up their own kingdom c. 1200 B.C.E. overthrew the Shang and established the Chou dynasty that would govern China both in reality and nominally for 800 years. This period would see the establishment of "Classic" Chinese civilization.13

Europe

In Europe this period c. 1200 - 900 B.C.E., saw the expansion of the "Tepe" people from central Germany / Poland area of Europe. The Tempe people were the ancestors of the Celts who would eventually spread all over Europe from Thrace to Spain.

It also appears that various peoples from Asia Minor and Thrace moved into Italy and Spain. For example the Sikels migrated to Sicily from either the Balkans or Asia Minor. The Sharhkans migrated from Libya to Sardinia, (this is controversial)

In comparison with the time period before and after the period c. 1200 - 900 B.C.E., seems to have unusual for the amount of disruption and population movement in Europe.14

Consequences and Conclusions

For the West the crisis of c. 1200 - 900 B.C.E., was instrumental in the formation of the two dominant cultures that form its foundations Greece and Israel. Without the crisis it is hard to believe that the Religion of Israel that would exercise such a profound influence would have developed. As for Greece. Until the crisis the Greek culture was basically a variant on the palace cultures of the Middle East, now it would change into a different mold different enough from other cultures to exercise in a different way from Israel a profound influence on all of us.

In the rest of the world the crisis also had an influence by for example in China inaugurating the rule of the Chou dynasty brought changes into Chinese thought not just a change of dynasty including the concept of the mandate of heaven, and in India the Aryans who arrived during this time brought both to India basic Hindu concepts like Karma.15

We have been living in the world created by the crisis ever since.

1. Ancient Lives, John Romer, Phoenix Press, London, 1984, p. 58. Romer is quoting a scribe who wrote many years after the death of Merneptah.

2. Ibid. pp. 168-176. Gives some details about the chaos that hapenned during the Year of the Hyenas".

3. The End of the Bronze Age, Robert Drews, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1993, pp. 18-21, Out of the Desert, William H. Stiebing Jr., Prometheus Books, Buffalo NY, 1989, pp. 178-182, The Ancient Near East, vol. 2, Amelie Kuhrt, Routledge, London, 1995, pp. 285-393, The Rise of the West, William H. McNeil, University of Chicago Press, Chicago ILL, 1963, pp. 113-120, A History of Egypt, James Henry Breasted, Bantam Books, New York, 1964, pp. 389-448, The Sea Peoples, N. K. Sandars, Thames and Hudson, London, 1978, pp. 105-137.

4. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, James B. Pritchard, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ, 1969., pp. 378,.

5. Stiebing, pp. 189-202, Drews, pp. 15-17, Sandars, pp. 157-174, Kuhrt, pp. 401-456, The Tribes of Yahweh, Norman K. Gottwald, Orbis Books, Maryknoll NY, 1979. Who were the Early Israelites and Where did They Come From?, William G. Dever, William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Cambridge, 2003, pp. 153-189, What did the Biblical Writers know and When Did They Know it?, William G. Dever, William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2001, pp. 97-157.

6. Kuhrt, pp. 401-418, Sandars, pp. 139-155, Drews, pp. 13-15, Stiebing, pp. 175, 178.

7. Stiebing, 171-174, Sandars, pp. 139-144, Drews, pp. 8-11, Kuhrt, 386-393, The Hittites, O.R. Gurney, Penguin Books, London, 1952, pp. 36-39.

8. McNeill, pp. 188-196, Drews, pp. 221-29, Sandars, pp. 55-103, 179-195, Stiebing, 169-171, Decline, Destruction and Aftermath, Sigrid Deger-Jalkotzy, in The Cambridge Companion to The Aegean Bronze Age, Ed. Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 387-407. Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Ages, M. I. Finley, W. W. Norton and Co. Inc., New York, 1970, pp. 58-68.

9. Stiebing pp. 180-182, Drews, pp. 17-18, McNeill pp. 116-122, Kuhrt, pp. 386-401, The Greatness that was Babylon, H.W.F. Saggs, Mentor Books, New York, 1962, pp. 96-106, Ancient Iraq, 3rd Edition, Georges Roux, Penguin Books, London, 1992, pp. 266-281, The Might that was Assyria, H.W.F. Saggs, Sidgwick and Jackson, London, 1984, pp. 55-69, History of Assyria, A. T. Olmstead, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago ILL., 1923, pp. 57-80.

10. Ibid.

11. Kuhrt, p. 394, Saggs, 1984, pp. 56-57.

12. The Birth of Indian Civilization, Brigit and Raymond Allchin, Penguin Books, 1968, pp. 144-156, McNeill, pp. 86-89, 108, Mankind and Mother Earth, Arnold Toynbee, Paladin, 1976, pp. 115.

13. McNeill, pp. 223-224, Toynbee, pp. 116-117.

14. Roux, p. 265-266, McNeill, pp. 102-109, Sandars, 97-103.

15. Sandars, 197-202, Drews, pp. 29-30, Stiebing, pp. 189-202.

Other Books used.

Shang Civilization, Kwang-Chih Chang, Yale University Press, London, 1980.

Early Civilizations of the Old World, Charles Keith Mai8sels, Routledge, New York, 1999.

Chariot, Arthur Cotterell, Pimlico, London, 2004.

Structure, Dynamics, and the Final Collapse of Bronze Age Civilizations in Second Millenium B.C., Kajsa Ekholm Friedman, in Hegemonic Declines Present and Past, Ed. Jonathan Friedman, Christopher Chase-Dunn, Paradign Publishers, London, 2005, pp. 51-87.

Archaic States, Ed. Gary M. Feinman, Joyce Marcus, School of American Research Press, Santa-Fe NM, 1998.

The Collapse of Complex Societies, Joseph Tainter, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.

Myths of the Archaic State, Norman Yoffee, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005.

Pierre Cloutier