|
|
|
The
terminology of the Axial Age has devolved into a confused perception of some
kind of religious age, a sort of generalized age of revelation, complete with
transcendental implications. But a study of the Greek Archaic
(and
Dark Age)
is very useful to see the real Axial effect,
undistracted by questions of the emergence of religion. If we track changes in
centuries relative to millennia, it looks almost miraculous, until we note the
overall pattern. Something doesn’t add up in the usual analysis.
C. G. Starr in two separate works
notices the acceleration in cultural evolution at two of our turning points. In
A History of the Ancient World,
he traces the steady development from the Ubaid and Uruk and describes the
sudden change in the period just before –3000 by noting that in history there
are “revolution
s as well as slow eons of evolution; one of
the greatest explosions now took place and affected virtually all phases of life
in an amazing, interconnected forward surge.”
In
The Origins of Greek Civilization, a
study of Archaic Greece
, Starr
describes the inexplicable and truly extraordinary period of the Greek Archaic
and is driven to feel that
the common
historical view on this matter [of the tempo of historical change] is faulty. It
is time we gave over interpreting human development as a slow evolution of
Darwinian type; great changes often occur in veritable jumps.[i]
As Starr, in a further book on this
period, notes at the beginning of The
Economic and Social Growth of Early Greece: 800-500 B.C., the Greeks in –800
lived in small rural villages on the Aegean, “three hundred years later Greek
life was framed in a complex economic structure embracing much of the
Mediterranean and centered in cities which were socially differentiated”,
creating the foundation of the great classical period.[ii]
There is no simple answer to the
complexities of what we are seeing until we start to consider what the broad
sequence of our turning points suggests, relative beginning
s, and a reworking of the incoming stream.
This means that, while many genuine novelties are appearing, by and large, we
see a transformation of what is entering a period and what is emerging. The
dynamic seems independent of the content. Things appear in a total cultural
spectrum, with Greek philosophy and early science, dramatic tragedy, or pottery,
showing the passage from one end of the spiritual to the other of art, politics,
and economy. The key is that the interrupt is coming on cue, and simply creates
a kind of intensity or amplitude of generative change.
We are forced at once to distinguish
two different things:
the temporal
ongoingness of cultural evolution
, a ‘this leads to that’ aspect,
an interrupt
phase: fast action, accelerating from earlier periods.
Consider Greek history in this light.
We have a people, its temporal sequence, a series of stages, nomads arriving
from Asia, early Neolithic farmers, Bronze Age Mycenaeans, then suddenly the
period of Archaic Greece
, and its Classical ascent-vertical as a
foundational period that templates a whole new age. We see this five times, at
all once, to the century, in some cases to the decade. The sudden advance of the
Greeks does not spring, then, from long antecedent influences, although the raw
material of diffusion is there. This means that it happens suddenly without slow
buildup, relative to the scale of intermediate mideonic stages, even as it must
accept the antecedent influences of a long runway, whose only effect can be
timbre but not the note.
The Greek example, especially, shows
the spectacular surge, then its first flowering, roughly, after –600, as
science, drama, architecture and sculpture, political thought, and a
Mediterranean presence, and much else, emerge, develop, and create whole new
categories of thought, social existence, and art. We can break the problem down
into clear stages, relative to world history, stripped to a minimum of actual
data.
From –900 onward, there are barely
visible signs of Greek renewal as it appears from its Dark Age. There is a
pronounced appearance of a new pottery style, the Geometric. By the turn of the
eighth century, the onset of the earliest period of what is called Archaic
Greece.
The
record of the Olympic Games begins in –776. By the end of the century, the
take-off is gathering momentum. Out of nowhere we find the
Iliad fully accomplished as a written epic, Hesiod following in its
wake, then a great flowering of poetic forms. The Greek city-states are
crystallizing in an era of colonization, social revolution
, and economic advance. By the middle of the
seventh century, a new form of culture has arisen, one in which the early Sparta, and Athens,
are still cut from the same cloth, a generalized field of city-state
constitutionalism, with a trend toward republicanism. At the rough era of the
Exile
, we find, in the generation of Solon, ca.
–600, the Archaic Age graduating, the labels are relatively arbitrary, to what
we call the Classical Period, the age of Marathon, Herodotus, the birth of Greek
Democracy, Pericles, and the Parthenon, and the Peloponesian War. Soon, by the
fourth century, we are in the age of Plato, Aristotle, then Alexander, and the
rushing advance wanes.
We see this basic structure repeated in
each case, China, India, the core Old Testament period, and Greece.
Persia, indeed Assyria, Rome, and other areas such as Carthage, perhaps, are slightly different, but
clearly related, variants. The cultures in the original core area, like Assyria, tend to
fail because they are too large, retrograde or caught up in the past. It is
the nimbler Israel and Greece
that take off. Analysis requires great caution: the overall perception of a
mechanical event is rendered over to
correlation by a seemingly random pattern of
creative events. It seems like a ‘spiritual’ phenomenon. Confucius,
Laotse, Buddha, Mahavir, Deutero-Isaiah.
The Hellenic
example is of especial interest because its stream shows so clearly the four or
more separate conditions of culture possible to the nomadic tribalisms entering
the field of successive phases, in the relations of multiple encounters with the
eonic sequence
:
1. its earliest stage as a nomadic
tribalism arriving from Asia and Hyperborean
minus infinity. By what process of cultural evolution
the
early Indo-Europeans achieve their characteristic culture remains unknown. The
same stands true for all of the primordial cultures of the Paleolithic.
2. Then, a sequential or mideonic stage
in the first phase of civilization after Sumer, as the Mycenaean relative and
apprentice of the Minoans. The difference between a
phasing transition and the
sequential dependency
induced
it its wake is clear from looking at the Mycenaean world, very much in the mold
of the Middle East, and the Minoans, themselves in a complex blend of this same,
and earlier diffusion. This era makes what comes later the more remarkable. For
it shows that pure diffusion is a different effect.
3. a phase of eonic transition: after
an artificially created or contingent ‘Dark Ages’, we see the rapid appearance
of the transitional period leading to its great classical contribution, followed
by
4. a post-transitional passage into its
Hellenistic period as a generator of a new oikoumene.
This is not the evolution of a ‘Greek’
culture, but eonic evolution in the greater eonic sequence, in a cross-section
or cycle sampling, during a period of phasing transformation. This is confusing
because a process universal in scope exploits the tribal/local to refresh itself
and create new templates of cultural advance that will then find themselves
short in the passage to their real destiny, the molding of oikoumene cultures,
that don’t have this phase intensification, into an integrated whole. It is hard
to avoid the conclusion that a local
acceleration
finds
its meaning in a global context. The
sudden transformation occurs just as the great cycle of phase picks up, and does
so in a ‘near-far’ relation to the nearby Mesopotamian world. This ‘near-far’ is
the mechanics of parallel interactive diffusion. The transition induces
more interaction from a safe distance,
during the Orientalizing period in the seventh century.
The case of Greece is especially interesting
because of the artificial discontinuity created by its post-Mycenaean collapse.
We might be hard-pressed to uncover the identical pattern in China, visible from ca. –750 to ca.
–400, without the Greek example. The Chinese example shows that prior growth,
relatively strong in this case, is an independent process, a fact that might
elucidate the modern period. For any earlier developmental continuity is merely
summed with the interrupt phase, which is only visible from its highest
achievements. Indeed, Greece
is nearly reduced to the Stone Age after the collapse of the Mycenaean period,
starts from behind and then overtakes its greater environment! We might try to
extend the buildup to –1200 in some particulars, but the very nature of the
evidence cautions that an effect is visible only because nature could not manage
five separate generations unless its synchronous action were brief, indeed
synchron
ous. The whole effect of this parallelism is
extraordinary and yet it has gone virtually unnoticed, or ignored, except among
a small string of scholars, and, indeed, has been the object of dismissal by
others.
With this simpler Greek example, we can
decipher the Old Testament data, without being distracted by religious
trappings. It is remarkable how the Old Testament, with an additional account
given by later history to the period just after the Exile,
gives
direct clocking testimony of one time-zone slice, the Canaanite pocket world, to
the whole phenomenon of the great synchrony, irregardless of its content. The
Old Testament is a series of ‘story slots’ built around the eonic effect
in its
core period in the interstices of Mesopotamia-Egypt that its redactors ‘knew’
without knowing must correspond to their historical record, whose exact details
they were hard pressed to reduce to fact. The runway, acceleration, crossing,
and realization-emergence are told in the thoughts and words of a crystallizing
first-emergent group, the Israelites becoming the Jews in the later Hellenistic
world of the Second
Temple. In India,
the chronological record is not so detailed but as clear, the appearance of
early Buddhism
in the
period after –600, within the memory of the earlier Upanishadic era just before
it, is almost directly parallel, bulls eye fashion, within the limits of a
generation. Just as the Old Testament literatures begin to crystallize by –400,
so the ‘Buddhism’ we see has crystallized from the fertile era of gestation, in
the period before roughly –600. The ‘peculiar’ appearance of the Upanishadic
phenomenon as a buffer between the runway and emergence periods is a giveaway,
as incomprehensible as the rest, but the bearer of a clue in the form of its
preoccupation with self-consciousness.
[i]
C. G. Starr, The Origins of Greek
Civilization (New York: Norton, 1981), p. viii.
[ii]
C. G. Starr, The Economic and
Social Growth of Early
Greece: 800-500 B.C. (New York:
Oxford, 1977), p. 3.
|
|