WI: Minoan Civilization Never Dies Out

The Minoans on Crete were essentially the Phoenicians mixed in with the Cretans. Archaeological evidence agrees with this. They were extremely prosperous and controlled the seas and trade all across the Mediterranean. They weren't a war like people, but when the Mycanaeans started raiding their shipping, they made war ships and drove them from the seas.

The Minoans survived the first eruption, and rebuilt their magnificent civilization from the ashes. The second earthquake, they nearly survived, had the Mycanaeans not landed on Crete. Instead of fight, the Minoans (Phoenicians) hopped ship and sailed back to their cities in Phoenicia, Byblos, Tyre, Gaza, Sidon, etc.


Now in this scenario, the Minoans survive the second eruption and continue on controlling the seas and trade. This would have profound effects on western civilization, as all the incredible feats the Phoenicians accomplished later, and how much they affected events in the Levant and Middle East/Egypt since they returned, would be butterflied away. That means all their colonies in the western Mediterranean (assuming they don't do something similar as the Minoans) including Carthage, would be butterflied. You can even butterfly away the Greek civilization as we know it, and with it,t he Romans. Egyptian, Hitite, and Mesopotamian history would be forever changed, as it was the Phoenicians that brought on the invasion of the Sea Peoples that caused the demise of the Hittites and the weakening of the Egyptians.
 
While you are correct that a surviving Minoan civilization will butterfly away all recognizable Western history, I am a little skeptical of the link you are drawing between the Minoans and the Phoenicians. I have never heard of any archeological evidence linking these two peoples. There's a good deal unknown about the Minoans, but what we do know would seem to link them to the pre-Mycenaean inhabitants of mainland Greece and Anatolia, while the Phoenicians seem to have pretty definite local roots in the Levant.
 
While you are correct that a surviving Minoan civilization will butterfly away all recognizable Western history, I am a little skeptical of the link you are drawing between the Minoans and the Phoenicians. I have never heard of any archeological evidence linking these two peoples. There's a good deal unknown about the Minoans, but what we do know would seem to link them to the pre-Mycenaean inhabitants of mainland Greece and Anatolia, while the Phoenicians seem to have pretty definite local roots in the Levant.

Read Phoenician Secrets. I forget the author, but he provides a lot of evidence for it. Phoenician and Minoan architecture are very similar. Plus, during the time of the Minoans, Phoenician cities like Tyre were completely abandoned. After the Minoan civilization dissapeared, they were repopulated at the same time...
 
I've got to say, this doesn't sound like a kosher theory to me.

For one, what is the collapse of Minoan Civilization? Are we referring to their conquest by the Mycenaeans, or the Bronze Age Collapse? If the former, Tyre was definitely still inhabited in this period and I have seen no evidence that Canaan was abandoned in this period. If we're referring to the Bronze Age Collapse, then again I am not aware of Tyre becoming deserted. In addition, considering the fusion in the material cultures of Mycenaean Greece and Minoan Crete, how can we properly separate the two in this period?

Similar architecture is a very old fashioned argument that doesn't really hold water any more; were the Etruscans Greek because they built Greek style temples? Were the Minoans Egyptian because they seem to have aped Egyptian architecture? Why are we leaping to direct connections so quickly, when there's a much simpler solution; the Minoans were one of the most prolific trading peoples of the Mediterrean in their time of plenty, followed by the Mycenaeans. Given how widespread their presence was, even if it was just mercantile, why wouldn't neighbouring cultures ape part of their material culture to increase their own prestige? The Mycenaeans certainly incorporated Minoan material culture into their own, why would the Phoenicians not have done the same?

The Mediterranean in the Bronze Age was internationally minded and extremely closely-linked by trade. Architectural similarities are in themselves not proof of direct settlement, the context is neccessary to tell you about its relationship to elsewhere.

In addition, this theory does not account for the current theories linking the Minoans to Anatolia and possibly pre-Greek Hellas. Given that these claims have become something of the consensus on the matter of Minoan cultural links, they need to be actively dealt with rather than ignored.
 
Read Phoenician Secrets. I forget the author, but he provides a lot of evidence for it. Phoenician and Minoan architecture are very similar. Plus, during the time of the Minoans, Phoenician cities like Tyre were completely abandoned. After the Minoan civilization dissapeared, they were repopulated at the same time...
The very title makes it sound dubious. Nobody puts the word secret into a serious archaeological treatise. And thanks to google, I got this gem from the author's own website:

Perhaps best known for his thirty-five years of exploration into Phoenician society and groundbreaking books about its history, Sanford Holst has led a colorful life while making his way across many different countries. His most recent explorations and speaking engagements revolve around the surprisingly strong influence of Solomon's Temple on the Phoenicians, Knights Templar and Freemasons . . . and even on us today.

While not at the Atlantis level of nuttery, this guy still sounds like a sensationlist tool who I can find no references to from reliable sources. Just websites made by people obsessed with Phoenicians and online book reviews of his stuff.
 
Read Phoenician Secrets. I forget the author, but he provides a lot of evidence for it. Phoenician and Minoan architecture are very similar. Plus, during the time of the Minoans, Phoenician cities like Tyre were completely abandoned. After the Minoan civilization dissapeared, they were repopulated at the same time...

The author appears to be one Sanford Holst, whose other notable work appears to be about Freemasonry and the Templars. You'll pardon me if I say this raises some alarm bells.

I cannot judge his arguments regarding Phoenician and Minoan architecture without seeing them in print, but that alone seems to be a pretty thin reed to lean on compared to the cultural and linguistic evidence to the contrary. Cretan hieroglyphs and Linear A remain undeciphered, and are found pretty much exclusively on Crete, the Greek mainland and nearby islands. In contrast, proto-Canaanite/Phoenician inscriptions from the same period are found in modern Lebanon, and are clearly written in a Semitic language. If these were the same people, why would they use two mutually exclusive writing systems in two different places, especially if they were engaged in widespread trade?

If there were a connection between the Minoans and the Phoenicians, I would also expect it to be noticeable in the pottery styles, but again, from what I can tell these seem to be distinct throughout the relevant era. (Possibly with the exception of some imported items, a by-product of mutual trade with the crucial copper source of Cyprus, which can be distinguished from locally-produced items by scientific tests) Contrast this with the Philistines, who are also reputed to have come from the Aegean to the Middle East in the same general time frame as you seem to be positing, and whose pottery does display some Mycenaean influence.

As far as other cultural traits go, Minoan frescos show men as clean-shaven and wearing short kilts. Phoenician carvings show bearded men wearing long robes. The Phoenicians do not seem to have engaged in any of the distinctive Minoan bull-related activities, either.

And as Daeres points out above, I'm not sure what "abandonment" of the Levantine cities you are referring to. The only one I can think of is during the twelfth century BC, around the Late Bronze Age-early Iron Age transition, which is a couple of hundred years after the fall of "classical" Minoan civilization.
 
Yeah, the Phoenicians were not Minoan exiles. The Phoenicians have very clear native Levantine roots. Their language and religious practices are very different, and Bronze age architecture is really similar all over the Mediterranean. The easiest thing to point out is that the Greek alphabet is based on the Phoenician, whereas Mycenaean script was based on the Minoan. The back and forth of traversing scripts that the hypothesis would require is just a bit ludicrous.

I remember reading about a city in Crete that conducted religious rituals in non-Greek into classical times, and that they claimed that this proved that they were autochthonous.

Anyway, survival of Minoan civilization means two things to me:

a.) No Bronze Age collapse generally and no Greek Dark Ages in particular. You could facilely just have everything sped up 700 years. Also, European scripts being character based!

b.) Collapse still happens, but Minoan language and culture isn't displaced by the Greeks.

Either way, our general lack of knowledge about Minoan language, religion, culture, customs, etc., is inhibitory in coming up with anything too interesting. We're really still at the 'educated guess' stage with them.
 
I have seen no evidence that Canaan was abandoned in this period.

The Canaanites were a distinct people from the Phoenicians.


Yeah, the Phoenicians were not Minoan exiles. The Phoenicians have very clear native Levantine roots.

I recognize this. I never once said that the Phoenicians did not have Levantine roots.

Close to 2,000 BC, the Amorites (again) fell upon the city of Byblos with a show of devastating destruction. Much of Byblos was put to the torch. However, since Byblos was not a singly city standing on its own, and part of a greater connection of Phoenician cities along the Levant, the city recovered, where most would not.

But this left a permanent stain on the Phoenician's conscience. They knew they had to leave. They looked at Cyprus, but they didn't have the will to fight their way in. They looked on the coast of Anatolia, and Greece, but didn't find those areas suitable.

Another place they looked towards was their old outpost at Santorini and other islands in the Aegean. They gave Santorini, an island with friendly locals and located in the middle of the two mainlands (Greece and Anatolia), a strong look. There were a lot of negative drawbacks, being the volcano and earthquakes that occurred there. It also would not have enough water to sustain a significant population.

This caused them to turn their attention to the neighboring islands, namely Crete, the Cretans being one of their major customers during this time. Just offshore of Crete was a small Phoenician Outpost called Dia Island. Dia however was even less suitable than Santorini to meeting the Phoenician's needs.

The Phoenicians had a long standing custom of blending in with the native populations in the areas they came in contact with, including in their own backyard. They realized people liked to attack others who seemed different, so they tried their best to look, on the outside at least, similar to those they encountered. This worked amazingly well with the Canaanites and other levantine peoples, as well as the Egyptians. Another area it worked perfectly, had been at Crete.

They had first stumbled upon Crete in 3,000 BC, where they found out the people lived very rusticly. There were many on Crete that lived as hunter gatherers, some living in small one room huts, and still more living in caves as their ancestors had before them. It was these people, the Pelasgians, that the Phoenicians encountered in 3,000 BC.

The Phoenicians and the local people quickly found a common ground for trade, and the Cretans welcomed these peaceful foreigners who wanted nothing more than to trade with them. Though in the beginning there was suspicion from both sides, the locals came to accept these peaceful visitors, who did their best to blend in. What was more important, was the Phoenicians refused to take sides in the local people's disputes. The Phoenicians were not feared because they presented no danger, and eventually, they were trusted by the Cretan people.

Now fast forward to 2,000 BC. The Phoenicians wanted to escape the increasing hostility they were facing from the Amorites. The Phoenicians looked to the friendly island of Crete. They came with breathtaking gifts and began negotiating. They came with a simple proposal to the Cretans: These riches they saw around them would be they'res if they joined with the Phoenician people. They and all of their people would live in homes with many rooms, and would share in all the new riches that came in year-by-year from a trading empire spanning the known world.

In return, they asked for something equally simple. The Cretans would live in accordance to Phoenician rules: they would live under a Phoenician "king" (depending on how loosely you like to use the term). They would come to learn secrets with respect to ships, trade and internal matters that must be held in strict secrecy. And finally, they must live peacefully with each other and with all Phoenicians on the island and elsewhere.

The various Cretan leaders gave this strict consideration. While it meant giving up some of their leadership, accepting the rule of a Phoenician king. Yet they were already doing just that to one of their own at Knossos. The Phoenicians were unlikely to be any worse. The people from Dia Island (Phoenicians) had a a clean record of always keeping their promises in the eyes of the Cretans. Living in peace was acceptable, because they knew anyone who broke the peace would lose access to all these newfound riches.

The leaders accepted, and the Phoenicians kept their word. The Phoenicians were moving to Crete and Knossos. This is one of those few times in history where a country's rule was pasted into the hands of outsiders, with the news being met with celebration.

The Phoenicians tried their best to blend in. They moved into the capital of Knossos. They made subtle changes, like giving the port of Porus a newfound importance. They built a new and much larger harbor here, and all operations were moved from Dia to here. Porus became so filled, that a nother harbor was built at Amnissos. They built more and more harbors and ports.

One clear sign of the Phoenician being in control here, was the establishment of one large trading house in each region leading town. This was customary in Phoenician cities.

To say Crete evolved on its own so suddenly without outside help is absurd. The fact that these people could rise so quickly on their own from hunter gatherers to the empire they would become is evidence enough. Anyway, around 2,000 BC, according to archaeological excavations, Tyre was abandoned. They show no indications of widespread destruction in the city. The people seemed to just have picked up their possessions and left.

This was the same time the Minoan civilization began to form. This was the entire population of the city migrating. This might have been a coincidence, but there is even more evidence.

A growing layer of sand accumulated on top of the deserted city of Tyre for hundreds of years. The sand layer was 3 feet thick when when new construction showed the return of people to settle on Tyre. Distinctive pottery showed sporadic visits followed by the full revival of the city around 1500 BC.

Around this same time the Minoan society on Crete was going through changes. The highly destructive volcano on Santorini erupted, and almost destroyed the Minoan civilization, but they managed to rebuild and hold on until violent earthquakes would later lead to their destruction. Invaders forced the Minoan leaders to flee, ending their civilization. This happened right around 1500 BC. About the same time the repopulation of Tyre occurred.

Phoenicians left Tyre at the same time people arrived on Crete to start the Minoan society. The arriving people brought eastern mediterranean (Lebanese, et.al) influences to that island. And when the invaders stormed Crete and the Minoans fled, the island of Tyre was repopulated. This should be enough evidence. But there is more.

Just as at Tyre, at Sidon, a comparable layer of sand was found in recent excavations of the city. The roughly 3 foot thick sand layer suggests Sidon was also abandoned for the several hundred years that the Minoan civilization was around.

The people who came to resettle Tyre and Sidon were not strangers to the land either. The people who came back to Tyre and Sidon carried the same characteristics and lifestyles of the Phoenicians who abandoned them. These people were Phoenicians.

There is one more major piece of evidence. Historical records have shown a puzzling anomaly: some sources stated that the Minoans dominated sea-trade at this time; while others said it was the Phoenicians who dominated sea trade at the same time. This is strange. Who could be correct? And if both societies sought to dominate the sea trade, surely there would be highly visible fighting between the two for that position.

Yet there is none recorded. Between the Egyptian records, and in the writings and records that came from Homer, Herodotus, and others, there has not been a single mention of confrontation between the 2 societies. No assertion was made of competition between them in any port, nor any alliances formed with land powers against the other.

Now contrast this with when the Greeks, 1,000 years later, would try try to establish themselves among the same seas as the Phoenicians. Their were constant clashes between the two civilization; such as competition in ports, clashes on Sicily, and outright naval warfare on the seas in the Persian Wars. This shows clearly what happens when two powers try to dominate the seas.

Yet the Minoans and Phoenicians never had even a hint of conflict between each other. The two civilizations did not fight each other because they were both members of the same family (not family as in a family, but you get what I am saying).

This is what the ancient story of Europa has been trying to tell us for 3,500 years. Europa was a Phoenician princess who came to Crete and gave birth to the Minoan civilization.

I'll add more if you guys would like me to continue.
 
The author appears to be one Sanford Holst, whose other notable work appears to be about Freemasonry and the Templars. You'll pardon me if I say this raises some alarm bells.

Holst is one of the world's leading authorities on the Phoenicians. He is a member of the prestigious Royal Historical SOciety for his work. He has presented academic papers on the Phoenicians in universities in the USA and around the world. His degrees from MIT and UCLA enabled him to expand on existing knowledge of the Phoenicians by pursuing intensive field work in countries ranging from Lebanon and Egypt, to Greece and MOrocco. Working with respected experts, he gathered remarkable facts not generally available.
 
Cites please. I see a lot of statements, and an appeal to an authority that most people do not see as having any authority. Cites.
 
Everything you just posted is very interesting and worth looking into. Except I have one big problem.

I must admit that I don't know a terrible amount of history about this time and area, but I know enough about each that makes me question the thesis. If the Phoenicians left the Levant to go and live on Crete, and successfully blended in for roughly 500 years, then why doesn't anything of Cretan culture show up in the Phoenicians who moves back to the Levant? You know, like the totally indecipherable Minoan alphabet, and the bull worship, and style of dress/hairstyle. Was every one of these Phoenicians living a double life for the entirety of Minoan Dominance in fear that some day they would need to go back to their homeland and revive their old culture again?
 
The Canaanites were a distinct people from the Phoenicians.
Ummm... Phoenician is a Canaanite dialect, for one. The Phoenician alphabet is known as Proto-Canaanite. The major Phoenician cities were exactly the same as the major Canaanite cities, such as Byblos and Tyre. They continued to call themselves Tyrians etc as they had done beforehand. In Akkadian they continued to be called kinanu, as they had been called before.

I would point you to Elsa Marstons'sThe Phoenicians and ask you to indicate why her analysis would seem to differ so strongly.

Close to 2,000 BC... etc
Okay, I didn't want to get into really harsh criticism but this passage is ridiculous.

None of this actually asserts any evidence. It constructs a narrative whilst providing NO hard proof of any kind. If this is a professional historical work without any footnotes for any of this, then it's truly awful. Any historian should be constantly and directly referring to the material evidence and alternative theories! Where is the indication that the author thought anything otherwise than what has been offered?


There is one more major piece of evidence. Historical records have shown a puzzling anomaly: some sources stated that the Minoans dominated sea-trade at this time; while others said it was the Phoenicians who dominated sea trade at the same time. This is strange. Who could be correct? And if both societies sought to dominate the sea trade, surely there would be highly visible fighting between the two for that position.
This passage in particular is risible. Why on earth is any author familiar with the Bronze Age asserting we have complete evidence? Why is he assuming that the sources he has access to have complete evidence? We already know that Mycenaeans and Cypriots were trading across the Mediterranean simultaneously, we've found their anchors in various locations along with Cypriot copper all over the place. Why is it difficult to imagine multiple trading powers? What warships could these peoples possibly have fought with should things have gotten testy? But most importantly of all, why is any author familiar with the Bronze Age asserting we have complete evidence?

In addition, several of the assertions we have regarding Minoan dominance come from Classical Era Greece. That's right, around a millenia later from a culture who couldn't even remember the Mycenaean civilization that existed before them. Why are all sources equal? He's actually avoiding engaging with the source material by simply assuming that they all form a picture together rather than actually examining each piece in depth and accepting or rejecting them as relevant.

The leaders accepted, and the Phoenicians kept their word. The Phoenicians were moving to Crete and Knossos. This is one of those few times in history where a country's rule was pasted into the hands of outsiders, with the news being met with celebration.
Last but not least, how we know any of this? What is the evidence that this happened? Such a specific assertion requires specific proof that it occured, particularly given the author's highly presumptive style in which he assumes that he is correct.

This is bad history.

EDIT: Citations, please.
 
Cites please. I see a lot of statements, and an appeal to an authority that most people do not see as having any authority. Cites.


Sorry. I had been typing that up for like 20-30 minutes and just wanted to get it posted. :p Most of that is from said book I mentioned earlier.

As for the works he has cited...


Branigan, Keith The Foundations of Palatial Crete. London: Duckworth, 1970.

Brrodbank, Cyprian "Minoanisation" Proceedings of The Cambridge Philological Society Vol.50 (2004): 46-91

Cherry, John "Evolution, revolution, and the Origins of Complex Society in Minoan Crete," in O. Kryzszkowska and L.Nixon, eds., Minoan Society Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, 1983, p.33

Dickinson, Oliver. The Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994

Doumas, Christos, The Wall Paintings of Thera. (Greek, translated into english by Alex Doumas.) Athens: The Thera Foundation-Petros M. Nomikos, 1999.

Fitton, J. Lesle. Minoans. London: British Museum Press, 2002.

Friederich, Walter L. Fire in The Sea: the Santorini Volcano. (German, translated into English by Alexander R. McBirney.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Graham, Hames Walter The Palaces of Crete Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1962.

Hagg, Robin and Nanno Marinatos, eds. The Minoan Thalassocracy Myth and Reality. Stockholm: Swedish Institute in Athens, 1984.

Halstead, Paul "from Determinism to Uncertainty: Social Storage and the Rise of the Minoan Palace," in A. Sherian and G. Bailey (eds.), Economic Archaeology. Oxford 1981, pp.187-213.

There are more, but I want to get this posted. As for the excavations....

Patricia Bikai's excavation at Tyre in 1974, the same one that confirmed the date of Tyre's founding, also discovered the sand layers and the abandonment of Tyre.

I really wanted to get this posted lol, so I'll add more citations if you like.
 
Ok, I am going to leave it at this. Since i get tired very quickly of these large arguments (and because I am personally not good at them) I will leave it here: I encourage you guys to read the book and decide for yourselves. I can't hope to get what I am trying to say into a strong argument without copying what he says word for word, and I am not about to sit here and copy the chapters that cover this.

It's nothing against you guys or anything, it's just that I feel like I am never going to be able to explain this in the way I want to lol.
 
Holst is one of the world's leading authorities on the Phoenicians. He is a member of the prestigious Royal Historical SOciety for his work. He has presented academic papers on the Phoenicians in universities in the USA and around the world. His degrees from MIT and UCLA enabled him to expand on existing knowledge of the Phoenicians by pursuing intensive field work in countries ranging from Lebanon and Egypt, to Greece and MOrocco. Working with respected experts, he gathered remarkable facts not generally available.

I can't find any information on his work at MIT, but according to the bio on his website, his degree from UCLA is a "master's in the history of business." The "explorations and photos" tab on his site is not terribly encouraging either, as I see no evidence that his investigations involved anything more than traveling to some existing sites, taking a few photos, and chatting with the curators of the local museums. A Google Scholar search for his name turned up as much material about moringa and kombucha tea as Phoenician history. (For reference, compare the results for Glenn E. Markoe, author of the one book on the Phoenicians which I have on my shelf.) In summation, I am not convinced that this man has any particular authority on this topic.
 
Ok, I am going to leave it at this. Since i get tired very quickly of these large arguments (and because I am personally not good at them) I will leave it here: I encourage you guys to read the book and decide for yourselves. I can't hope to get what I am trying to say into a strong argument without copying what he says word for word, and I am not about to sit here and copy the chapters that cover this.

It's nothing against you guys or anything, it's just that I feel like I am never going to be able to explain this in the way I want to lol.

Well I'm legitimately interested in the question of the thread title being discussed. The question is a provoking one, but not something I know enough about to think about or deliberate on my own. We just need to leave the Phoenician connection out of the experiment.
 
Top