고대 그리스와 동지중해권－마틴 버낼의 『블랙 아테나 Ⅱ: 고고학적 증거와 문헌증거』－

In Black Athena II: the Archaeological and Documentary Evidence (1991) M. Bernal presents the evidence from archaeology and the Bronze Age documents to show that the Mycenaean civilization was formed by the influence of Egypt and Levant (including the colonization of Greece by the Hyksos). All the chapters of Black Athena II are closely connected as if the work is one organic entity. This is possible only if he perceived the main stream which flowed into the Eastern Mediterranean in the Bronze Age. He argues that the agricultural affluence and civilization of ancient Egypt contributed to the birth, maintenance and development of the Aegean civilization which covered Crete, the Cyclades and the mainland Greece. Even though some flaws can be found in Black Athena II, his basic scheme is solid. For example, Bernal argues that Danaus was a historical figure around 1700 BC, on the ground that the earliest Shaft Graves (an aspect of Hyksos material culture) had to have been dug eve nearlier, close to 1700 BC. However, the ancient Greeks unanimously mentioned him as a figure who had been expelled from Egypt in the 16th century BC. We must not ignore Greek historiography. I contend that the dynasty in Argos before Danaus was the Hyksos dynasty. Triopas, the Argolian king, had two sons (see the chart below):Iasus and Agenor. Iasus succeeded Triopas. Argos flourished in the reign of Iasus so that there were terms such as ‘Iasidae (Iasian people)’ and ‘Iasian Argos’ (see Strabo, viii.6.9). However, Crotopus,the son of Agenor, succeeded Iasus because Io, the daughter of Iasus, went to Egypt (Pausanias, ii.16.1). Danaus, who came from Egypt as a descendant of Io, secured the Argolian kingship not by battle but by judgment (Pausanias, ii.19.3-4). Danaus must have demanded the Argolian kingship from Gelanor on the ground of being Iasus’ sixth generation, that is, the right of priority in the succession. If Danaus’ demand for the succession could be justified, the Argolian dynasty before Danaus must be the Hyksos dynasty. Although I’m arguing in favor of my opinion, it cannot affect Bernal’s basic scheme. This is because he argues with high plausibility that the reason why archaeologically Mycenaean Greece was of the Hyksos material culture from around 1700 BC is the Hyksos’ conquest of Greece, rather than the indirect influence through Crete. Instead of criticizing the flaws of Black Athena, we must be concerned with “a case to be answered” of the origin of Greek civilization which Black Athena provides especially on the basis of Greek historiography.