Pick a state/culture/civilisation to survive the Late Bronze Age Collapse

It is important, however, to note where, and by whom, written records regarding the memories of the Late Bronze Age came to us. The dominant classes of states who survived the collapse and had left a written record understandably referred back to that palace-dominated time as a time of greatness: mainly Egypt, Assyria, Karduniash, Karkemish (heir to Hatti in this sense). Those who were taxed to sustain the palace, and their heirs, rarely could put their own voice in writing, with with a few remarkable exception. The most outstanding of which, as you say, are parts the Hebrew Bible, in which the memory of Bronze Age palatial systems comes across as the opposite of what how things should be.
The Greek cultural memory is of course interesting. Their record is, in my opinion, somewhat mixed: the Hellenic epics are the products of an aristocratic world and ethos that probably regarded back to the Achaean Bronze Age hegemony with respect ("the Age of Heroes") but seems not to have considered, or remembered, its extractive, bureaucratic, "palatial" aspects. So there was clearly some degree of cultural continuity and even some at least vaguely historical memory (after all, we do have idependent written confirmation that the Acheans, as a unit, fought Troy and presumably a few other allied Anatolian states) but I think it was heavily filtered by the ethos and worldview of Archaic (Iron Age) Hellenes and their emerging decentralised political structure. Interestingly, the Classical Greek historical memory drew only limited connection between the massive Mycenean ruins and walls still visible, and the Mycenean heroes of their well-known epic.
We have little idea of what Iron Age Phoenicians thought of their Bronze Age predecessors, for example.
Right, we have only the ruling caste views of the past. However, are we certain that the epic stories of the past were only reserved for the elites or were these intended to be something that was meant to include the entirety of society. Especially in order to create a sense of awe. This seems to have been the initial societal impetus for the palatial system, including enriching an empowering the upper class. That is, by immense extraction of wealth, ritual, display and grandeur, the upper class maintained a serious division between themselves and others. This goes into the common Bronze Age customs regarding caste systems and the distinction between classes that is noted especially across Europe, Central Asia and into Hindustan.

If we assume that palatial systems and castes created a sense of awe and differentiation between rulers and ruled that legitimized governments and maintained stability, there comes a question. That question is, at what point does the awe and grandeur wear off in a society and what causes this? In my opinion, it is loss in war coupled with environment and likely a sort of societal decay and change that occurs in great realms, such as Rome.
 
Right, we have only the ruling caste views of the past. However, are we certain that the epic stories of the past were only reserved for the elites or were these intended to be something that was meant to include the entirety of society. Especially in order to create a sense of awe. This seems to have been the initial societal impetus for the palatial system, including enriching an empowering the upper class. That is, by immense extraction of wealth, ritual, display and grandeur, the upper class maintained a serious division between themselves and others. This goes into the common Bronze Age customs regarding caste systems and the distinction between classes that is noted especially across Europe, Central Asia and into Hindustan.

If we assume that palatial systems and castes created a sense of awe and differentiation between rulers and ruled that legitimized governments and maintained stability, there comes a question. That question is, at what point does the awe and grandeur wear off in a society and what causes this? In my opinion, it is loss in war coupled with environment and likely a sort of societal decay and change that occurs in great realms, such as Rome.
I would take for granted that, in the "small scale" (relatively speaking) world of Early Iron Age, for example, in Greece, the oral epic narratives relating to Mycenean-Era heroes would have reached all sections of society, producing the effect of awe you describe and thus reinforcing and legitimizing a stratified social structure. This structure, however, was no longer the Mycenean palatial system. What Homeric authors seems to have done was projecting aristocratic ideals of their time and using (possibly real and vaguely remembered) famed characters of the earlier age as its representatives. That a memory, however confused, of that age survived (presumably in absence of written texts) testifies, IMO, exactly your point about how the power, luxury, endeavours and, one would guess, propaganda of the Bronze Age elites inspired awe, marvel and possibly obedience in the masses.
It is clear that must have been dissatisfaction, and competing models (represented by the Israelites and the Arameans) emerged in the Levant - whereas even in Greece (and I'd say in Phoenicia), all the awed respect to the Bronze Age predecessors did not prevent the development of entirely different social structures which emphasised the city state and the shared ancestry in the framework of relatively more participatory and less centralised modes of socipolitical life.
To reinforce your point, Liverani discusses how the Assyrian public royal inscriptions, while of course meant to be read by the court elite (and whose more subtle nuances were only understandable to them) were only the tip of a vast iceberg of propaganda which, in different forms, reached all strata of population - this might have been more an Iron Age development, when even Assyria assumes a more "nationalistic" outlook (to the point that Assyrians sometimes portrayed themselves as a "Chosen People", in a sense that was not limited to the elite - a feeling quite stranger to Bronze Age sensibilities) but even the Bronze Age, levels of discourse that secured social compliance of the lower classes beyond brute force must have existed, even though we can access these only indirectly if at all. And I agree that awe was (with fear) a big part of them.
 

Capacity

Banned
Eastern Mediterranean had become too unstable due to the Sea Peoples and a few other happenings in this contested region.

Maybe a stronger Egypt could survive without much harm and rule Levant and Libya alongside Egypt. Entire History of the Global Civilization changes.

Another idea is to have a highly advanced and a more egalitarian Civilization emerge in the Bronze Age Western Europe. France is the best spot for that, maybe started by Proto-Celts or Basques. Such a Culture can easily survive and prosper even if Eastern Mediterranean is undergoing a collapse. After the Sea Peoples subside, they may venture to the Eastern Mediterranean and help the old powers rebuild again, thus having Hittites, Greeks and Egyptians retain their dominance, as well. Or maybe send help to avoid a collapse in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Eastern Mediterranean had become too unstable due to the Sea Peoples and a few other happenings in this contested region.

Maybe a stronger Egypt could survive without much harm and rule Levant and Libya alongside Egypt. Entire History of the Global Civilization changes.

Another idea is to have a highly advanced and a more egalitarian Civilization emerge in the Bronze Age Western Europe. France is the best spot for that, maybe started by Proto-Celts or Basques. Such a Culture can easily survive and prosper even if Eastern Mediterranean is undergoing a collapse. After the Sea Peoples subside, they may venture to the Eastern Mediterranean and help the old powers rebuild again, thus having Hittites, Greeks and Egyptians retain their dominance, as well. Or maybe send help to avoid a collapse in the first place.
Sounds way too utopian to me. The instances of civilizations venturing forth to help others rebuild prior to more recent times is very very very scarce. Also a widespread egalitarian society is difficult without more modern infrastructure. A kings command only needs to go one way, a vote and discussion needs back and forth, it'd take months to agree anything. The later polis were arguably self contained democracies that acted in an imperial fashion towards each other.

Also, the root cause of the bronze age collapse is up for debate. If it's a mix of natural disasters, changing climate and population movements it's hard for anyone to resist. Egypt was further from any population movements, didn't experience major disasters, and had a uniquely stable agricultural system thanks to the Nile inundation. And yet they took a huge hit, and took time to stabilise. Despite being the main survivors, they were in no position to hoover up the middle East. Now, if they could survive intact, say the sea people have more success elsewhere and settle, leaving Egypt alone, perhaps they do better, though it means a mind shift for the Egyptians to treat any conquered lands differently.

If a major civilization grew in western Europe, it would have much more impetus to expand around itself, not in the eastern med (though the evidence for a huge battle at tollense suggests population movements and invasion were hitting there too).

Edit:
I'd add there is no reason whatsoever that a bronze age civilization in western Europe would be any different to other bronze age civilizations in how egalitarian, utopian or weirdly altruistic they are. People are people.
 
Last edited:
Top