Is there any documentation of how the Greeks (~500-350 BC) interpreted the existence of the minoan and other extinct cultures on their territory?

by HouseMD64

There are several big archeological sites on Crete from the minoan culture (Knossos, Phaistos etc.). They were build centuries before 500 BC and already partially disintegrated by this time. Is there any written documents about how the Greeks interpreted such preexisting cultures on their territory? Based on my beginners knowledge about greek mythology they adapted e.g. the creten sites as built by their "ancestors" and made up stories about the Minotaurus and the Labyrinth etc. but was there also a non-mystical view point?

Llyngeir

I can't comment upon the examples you give, and no written sources spring to mind beyond the Iliad and Pausanias, but there is evidence of the Classical Greeks interacting with the monuments from previous societies, i.e. the Minoans and Mycenaeans, on the archaeological level.

Firstly, the prominence of Mycenae in the Iliad as the centre of Agamemnon, High King of the Greeks, indicates an awareness of the grandeur of the site. When we consider that the epics were composed orally and were in a state of constant change until they were firmly established in writing, it is possible that the version we have that emphasises the Argive plain and the cities upon it is a version that originated from that region. However, it is possible that Mycenae, as well as Argos, Sparta, Pylos, and the numerous other major cities mentioned in the text would be recognisable to the Greeks witnessing the performance of the epics. If this were the case, then it is conceivable that Mycenae, which was not a prominent site c.700BC (when the Iliad was finally written down), would have been a famous enough site for it to have been recognisable to the audience. Its connection with the heroes of the Iliad, men who were thought by the Classical Greeks to have been larger than life (see Hesiod's Ages of Man), as well as the reference in Pausanias to the walls of Mycenae being built by Cyclopes, a reference which likely stemmed from either a local belief or a widespread understanding of the site, clearly indicates that the Classical Greeks considered the occupants of the site to have been men larger than themselves.

As for the archaeological evidence, there is a seemingly instantaneous growth of offerings, both votive and sacrificial, at Mycenaean sites such as tholos tombs and palace complexes in the beginning of the Archaic period. This practice seems to occur all across the Greek world in some form or another, but it was longer lasting in peripheral areas of the Greek world, such as Messenia and Thessaly. This veneration of the sites and the occupants was once thought to indicate the influence of Homer's epics upon Greek thought, with people identifying the tombs with the heroes of poems, but it is now thought to indicate the formation of larger communities, and by tying themselves to the landscape through the veneration of its previous inhabitants was a method of creating a connection to the landscape and a sense of legitimacy to owning the land, and similar strategies can be seen throughout Greek history. Regardless of whichever theory is correct, these tombs were associated with both ancestors of those worshipping there and cultural heroes, potentially indicating a sense of continuity between the current inhabitants and those of the distant past.

The most famous example of this use of Mycenaean sites for sites of ancestor and hero worship comes from the Menelaion at Sparta. The Menelaion is a temple upon a ridge to the east of Sparta dedicated to both Menelaus and Helen, and there are all kinds of finds from there, from statuettes of warriors to hair combs. However, what is most interesting about this site is that it is built next to a Mycenaean palace complex. Now, it is possible that the Spartans chose the site for the temple as it was a commanding position that overlooked Sparta, but more likely they chose the site for its proximity to the palace complex. Therefore, the site was likely constructed with a connection to both the ancient past and the existence of a local hero worth venerating, and potentially these thoughts were one and the same considering the Greeks thought that the Trojan War and the events described in the Iliad were historical (and they might have been, at least somewhat so).

All in all, the Greeks were very aware of a pre-existing culture to their own. They considered this culture to be a predecessor of their own, from a greater age, with greater people, closer to the gods, and regularly tied its existence with what they considered to be a historical account of an ancient war between members of this said culture, the Trojan War.

I am by no means an expert on this matter, and I am sure there are others who can provide a more comprehensive account, with more references than I can provide.

Bibliography

Antonaccio, C. (1995) An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece

Alcock, S. (2002) Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments and Memories

Bremmer, J. N. (1997) 'Myth as Propaganda: Athens and Sparta', in Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 117, pp. 9-17.