Active Reading – Drews – Chapters 3,4,7,8

3
 what is the basis (positive evidence or cause for hypothesis) for this chapter's explanation?
◦ All of the locations talked about were in places that were prone to seismic activity, and so
almost certainly have experienced damage from earthquakes
◦ As well, the destruction of buildings and evidence of fires could have origins in a quake.
 how/why does Drews argue against this explanation?
◦ Records exist of many cities that have experienced damage from earthquakes, and then go
on to repair the damage and revitalize the city, and very few cities that have been
completely destroyed by earthquakes, let alone six individual sites.
◦ As well, there is no record of this catastrophic earthquake (with records from Ramesses III
mentioning destruction of various cities to the acts of men, not Gods), nor does there exist
evidence of a devastating quake in the sites themselves, such as the surface split apart and
raised or lowered to different levels that one would see in the epicenter of a quake.
 why do you agree/disagree with Drews for this explanation?
◦ I think the arguments for the earthquake hypothesis, as put forward by Drews, are not
sufficient to overcome the wealth of evidence Drews provides against the theory. The idea
of a singularly large (but unremarked upon and with little evidence seen) earthquake (or
several quakes falling very close in time to each other) devastating multiple cities to the
point that they were not rebuilt seems very unlikely to me.
4
 what is the basis (positive evidence or cause for hypothesis) for this chapter's explanation?
◦ There are some records suggesting places near to Greece were suffering attacks from
migrating nations at the same time the catastrophe seems to have happened, and so Mycenae
and the other sites may have suffered the same, to much less success in rebuffing them.
 how/why does Drews argue against this explanation?
◦ There is little actual evidence suggesting this idea as Drew sees it, most of it coming from a
singular thesis whose own evidence comes from shaky historical records of even older
periods taken at face value without much scrutiny, and time has not since been kind to the
conjecture, with little to no more solid evidence coming to light in support of the ideas
within.
 why do you agree/disagree with Drews for this explanation?
◦ I agree with Drews here that the evidence for migration of nations seems flawed and
lacking, especially in the argument that these groups were cohesive nations at all, which is
quite an anachronistic view if there ever was one, and that the great conquests of these
nations would not be remarked upon and recorded is also unbelievable.
7
 what is the basis (positive evidence or cause for hypothesis) for this chapter's explanation?
◦ The Bronze Age civilizations were very centralized and potentially quite vulnerable to
stress, and there may have been a simple straw that broke the camel’s back, an earthquake or
attack from the Sea People, that destroyed these civilizations.
 how/why does Drews argue against this explanation?
◦ The Bronze Age civilizations were quite long lasting, and there is no evidence that they
were any more fragile and vulnerable at this point in time than in the centuries before, so
Drew asks why they lasted so long without this destruction?
 ◦ Drews ultimately argues that while this stress may have contributed to the effect of the
Catastrophe, it does not explain the physical reality of burned buildings and destroyed cities,
which the theory brushes aside as simply the inevitable result of a long building eruption,
the actual precise event being relatively unremarkable and replaceable.
 why do you agree/disagree with Drews for this explanation?
◦ It feels difficult to say here, I think that the argument for the weakness in Bronze Age
civilizations seems strong and hard to refute. A civilization can be seemingly prosperous,
while still weak to a certain amount of pressure, especially if it is pressure they are
relatively unprepared for.
◦ However, that does not mean that I don’t agree with Drews that the actual cause of the
collapse is just as important as the systemic reasons that the collapse was so devastating. An
argument that leaves this spot empty is incomplete in my opinion.
8
 what is the basis (positive evidence or cause for hypothesis) for this chapter's explanation?
◦ There is strong evidence that the destroyed palaces and burnt cities could only have been
caused by outside forces.
 how/why does Drews argue against this explanation?
◦ The evidence that these forces were migrationary rather than piratic is less than what is
necessary to argue such a thing.
◦ There are no caches of treasure buried by quakes, but instead minor hoards, well hidden,
that were likely the last things to be claimed by the raiders.
 why do you agree/disagree with Drews for this explanation?
◦ I think he makes a strong argument, but with the cliffhanger of “[the raiders] must have
discovered a way to overcome the military forces” of Greece, and your talk of chariots last
class, I can only speculate and not give my full opinion without reading the rest of the book.
Tentatively, I think it is a strong argument, but I also think that its current incompleteness
does not disprove the previous chapter’s argument for the civilizations’ weakness leading to
collapse, but I see clearly that I may be argued in favor upon reading future chapters.