The literary records of the Heroic Age of Greece resemble those of the northern Heroic Age in several respects. Both literatures alike begin with heroic poems which, as we shall see later, possess many common characteristics. Then, at a much later date, we find in both literatures a new series of narrative works dealing again with the old stories. Lastly, in both cases works of all periods, both poetic and prose, contain frequent incidental references to the same stories, testifying thereby to their popularity. In Greek literature indeed such references occur more frequently than in that of the Teutonic peoples—a fact doubtless due to the preservation of great poems of the former period, which at an early date came to be regarded as classics or something more. Among the northern peoples, as we have seen, it was only in England that any considerable amount of the early heroic poetry was preserved; but here the continuity of literary development was broken through political causes, and consequently all memory of the Heroic Age was practically lost.

On the other hand we have no evidence for the Heroic Age of Greece in any way comparable with those more or less contemporary Roman works which enable us to identify many of the characters and incidents of the northern Heroic Age. In Greece the Heroic Age had passed away long before the date of the earliest historical documents which have come down to us; while though inscriptions of a remote antiquity are still in existence, none prior to the seventh, or possibly the eighth century, have as yet been deciphered. Further, the monuments of the surrounding countries, such as Egypt or Assyria, make no reference to Greece beyond the occasional bare mention of a geographical or tribal name. Hence it comes about that we cannot with certainty pronounce any single person or event of the Heroic Age to be historical. All that it has been possible as yet to verify is the existence of ancient centres of civilisation in certain localities which figure prominently in stories of the Heroic Age. Archaeological investigation has shown that some of these places possessed at one time an extraordinary amount of wealth and splendour, though within the historical period they were inconsiderable or even uninhabited.

Of the early heroic poetry very little has come down to us except the two great epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, which between them contain nearly 28,000 verses. These poems are, strictly speaking, anonymous, though from very ancient times, at least from the seventh century, the name Homer has been associated with them. In the Alexandrian age there were critics who believed that the Iliad and Odyssey were the work of different authors; but it is only within modern times that they have been considered to be of composite formation. At present it is probably the most prevalent view that the Iliad was formed gradually in the course of the ninth century and that it attained substantially its present form about the middle of the eighth century. The Odyssey is generally thought to be a later work. Its date is set by many as late as the seventh century, though it is believed to have used and probably incorporated earlier poems, of the ninth or eighth century. There are however still a number of scholars who both deny the composite authorship of the poems and also believe them to be of greater antiquity than the dates here given.

Apart from the Iliad and Odyssey the only early heroic poem which has come down to us is the Shield of Heracles, a work containing 480 verses and giving an account of the single combat between Heracles and Cycnos. It has been attributed to Hesiod by various writers, at least since the Alexandrian period; indeed the Argument cites Stesichoros as authority for this belief. At the present time however most scholars regard it as the work of an unknown poet of the seventh century[250].

In ancient times there were a considerable number of other early epic poems, of which only a few insignificant fragments now remain. Some of these, the Cypria, Aithiopis, Little Iliad (????? ????), Iliu Persis and Nostoi, dealt with the same cycle of story as the Iliad and Odyssey. They seem however to have been of much smaller compass and to have treated their subjects in a far less detailed manner. It is thought by many that the Cypria was composed as an introduction to the Iliad and the others as continuations of it—the Nostoi connecting on to the Odyssey. At all events they were utilised by the authors of the prose ??????, in Alexandrian and Roman times, for the purpose of presenting a connected account of the whole story[251].

The authorship of these poems is attributed in late writings to a number of persons—Stasinos of Cyprus, Arctinos of Miletos, Lesches of Lesbos and Agias of Troizen—of whom nothing definite is known, but who are believed to have lived either in the eighth century or in the early part of the seventh. In early times however—indeed probably down to the fourth century—it seems to have been the general belief that several, possibly all, of them were by Homer. Herodotus (II 117) expresses his disbelief in Homer's authorship of the Cypria; but his words imply that he was contesting a commonly accepted view. On the other hand Hellanicos[252], who was approximately contemporary with Herodotus, is said to have attributed the Little Iliad (including possibly the Iliu Persis) not to Lesches or Arctinos but to a certain Cinaithon of Lacedaemon, who is said to have lived before the middle of the eighth century. Lastly we must mention the Telegoneia, a sequel to the Odyssey, which is said to have been composed by Eugammon of Cyrene[253], probably in the sixth century.

Apart from the series of poems dealing with the siege of Troy the most famous of the early epics was the Thebais, which gave the story of the legendary kings of Thebes. This poem was attributed to Homer by Callinos of Ephesus[254] who lived early in the seventh century—which probably implies that it was not of recent composition even then. It had a sequel called Epigonoi, which likewise seems to have been attributed to Homer, though Herodotus (IV 32) again apparently felt doubtful. In addition to these mention may be made of the Oidipodeia, which also dealt with the Theban story, and of the Oichalias Halosis and Phocais, which were concerned with adventures of Heracles.

All the poems mentioned above were probably composed in quite early times, though we have practically no trustworthy data as to their age or authorship. A number of other epics bore the names of persons who were attributed to the eighth or seventh centuries, such as Cinaithon (see above), Eumelos of Corinth and Asios of Samos. These however seem to have been rather of a genealogical than heroic character. Peisandros of Rhodes, the author of an epic on Heracles, is also referred, though on rather doubtful authority, to the close of this period. But the other epic poets whose names have survived seem to have belonged to a considerably later time. The didactic epos began, under Hesiod, apparently before the end of the eighth century, while early in the following century there arose new types of poetry, elegiac and iambic, concerned chiefly with present topics and the personal interests of the poets, and seldom even referring to the Heroic Age. The last remark is true also, though to a less extent, of the early lyric poetry. But in the early part of the sixth century Stesichoros of Himera began to utilise it for presenting stories of the Heroic Age in a new form. In Pindar's odes too, nearly a century later, the allusions to heroic stories are very frequent and often of considerable length. One ode indeed contains almost an epos.

In the fifth century however the Heroic Age figures most prominently in Athenian tragedy. Of the seven extant plays of Aeschylus four or five[255] deal with the Heroic Age and one with contemporary history, while the last is concerned exclusively with supernatural beings. Of the two later dramatists, Sophocles and Euripides, all the surviving plays[256] take their subjects from the Heroic Age. Further, we know the names of a large number of lost plays, both by these and other authors, and from them it appears that the surviving pieces are fairly representative, so far as choice of subjects is concerned. During the same period we hear of a few epic poets whose works are now lost. Some of these, such as Panyasis and Antimachos, dealt with stories of the Heroic Age and some, as Choirilos, with contemporary history. About two centuries later heroic epic poetry was cultivated at Alexandria, especially by Apollonius Rhodius.

Among incidental references to the Heroic Age one of the most interesting occurs in Hesiod's Works and Days (vv. 156-170), where an age of the heroes[257] who fell at Thebes and Troy is introduced between the bronze age and the iron age. Herodotus' history abounds with references to the Heroic Age, and even Thucydides refers to it not unfrequently, though in a more critical spirit. In later times we have to notice especially antiquarian writers such as Strabo and above all Pausanias. The last-named derived his information very largely from local tradition and consequently the stories which he gives may often be independent of the poems.

We may now consider briefly the chronological aspect of the Greek Heroic Age. It has already been mentioned that a passage in Hesiod's Works and Days speaks of an age of heroes intermediate between the bronze and iron ages, and that it further defines these heroes as those who fought at Thebes and Troy. To the latter number belong no doubt the various characters of the Iliad and Odyssey and the other poems (Cypria, etc.) which dealt with the Trojan cycle of legend, while the deeds of the former must have been treated in the Thebais and the Epigonoi. In the surviving Attic dramas which deal with the Heroic Age the distribution of subjects is as follows. Sixteen plays (three by Aeschylus, three by Sophocles and ten by Euripides, including the Cyclops and Rhesos) treat of the heroes of the Trojan war or their children; six plays (one by Aeschylus, three by Sophocles and two by Euripides) deal with the Theban story; and six plays (one by Sophocles and five by Euripides) are concerned with the doings of Heracles, Theseus or Iason. It is to be observed that the heroes of the Theban story are always represented as belonging to the generation immediately preceding that of the heroes of Troy, while Heracles, Theseus and Iason are all loosely connected with one another and made roughly contemporary with the Theban heroes. The remaining three plays (Aeschylus' Suppliants and Euripides' Ion and Bacchai), if we are justified in regarding them as heroic at all, refer to persons much farther back in the genealogies.

It appears then that the characters who figure most prominently in stories of the Heroic Age were, with few exceptions, ascribed to a period covering not more than three or four generations. There are, it is true, a number of stories referring to much earlier generations—in addition to those treated in the three plays mentioned above—but they seem to have been distinctly less popular than the others. On the other hand there is scarcely any reference to persons later than the children of the heroes who fought at Troy.

With the evidence at our disposal it is impossible to fix any absolute dates for the Heroic Age. All that we can say is that the end of that age appears to coincide with the movement or series of movements, traditionally known as the Return of the Heracleidai, to which the Dorian states in the Peloponnesos were believed to owe their origin. According to the story, the Return took place in the second generation after the siege of Troy, and the grandsons of Agamemnon, the Achaean leader at the siege, were killed or expelled by the Dorians. Certainly it is to be noted that the scheme of tribal or political geography presented to us in the Homeric poems seems to show no trace either of Dorians in the Peloponnesos or of Ionic settlements in the eastern Aegean—another series of movements which are said to have been brought about by the Dorian conquest.

The great majority of scholars apparently regard the story of the conquest as containing at least a nucleus of truth, though it refers to times long anterior to what we should call the historical period. The ancients themselves dated the events in question back to the twelfth or eleventh century (B.C.). But the evidence on which their conclusions were based is not of a very satisfactory character and will require careful consideration.

Before entering upon this question it will be convenient to notice briefly the scenes of the stories and the localities and peoples to which the various characters belong. The scene of the Iliad is laid in the north-west corner of Asia Minor, a short distance south of the Dardanelles. But the stories introduced incidentally refer for the most part to places on the mainland of Greece, less frequently to localities in Asia Minor or Thrace. The distribution of the principal heroes is as follows: Agamemnon's territories, according to the Catalogue of Ships (Il. II 569 ff.), lie in the north-east of the Peloponnesos, including the north-western part of what was later called Argolis and at least the eastern half of Achaia. Elsewhere (Il. IX 149 ff., 291 ff.) he appears to have possessions in Messenia. His brother, Menelaos, rules over Sparta and other places in Laconia. Nestor's kingdom is on the western side of the Peloponnesos, to the south of Elis. Idomeneus belongs to Crete, Achilles to southern Thessaly (Phthiotis), Aias, the son of Telamon, to Salamis, his namesake to the eastern Locris, Diomedes to the eastern and southern parts of Argolis and Odysseus to the Ionian Isles. It must not be overlooked that most of these districts were of little or no political importance during the historical period and, further, that the territories of the kingdoms appear not to have coincided as a rule with the political divisions which we find in later times.

The scene of the Odyssey is laid chiefly in the Ionian Isles, to a much smaller extent in the Peloponnesos. The wanderings of the hero himself appear to lie chiefly in regions to the west of Greece, though there may be reminiscences of the Black Sea. Some scholars relegate them largely or altogether to the realm of fairyland. Incidental references occur to Thesprotis (Epeiros) and the Aegean, as well as to more distant lands such as Egypt.

Thebes was doubtless the scene of the lost Thebais and Epigonoi. The story of Pelops seems to have been connected chiefly with Elis and that of Perseus with Mycenae and Tiryns, while Minos belonged to Crete and Theseus to Athens. Iason's home was in eastern Thessaly, but his story is largely taken up with journeys in the Black Sea and other distant regions. Heracles' adventures are spread over the greater part of Greece and many other lands, though Boeotia and Malis are perhaps the districts most prominent in his story. The scene of the Shield of Heracles is laid in Phthiotis.

It appears then that the heroic stories are distributed over the greater part of the ancient Greek world. Certain districts however are excepted, and to these special attention should be given. In the first place we have practically no reference to Greek cities in Italy or Sicily or to heroes belonging to them, though we do hear occasionally of travellers' acquaintance with these countries. More important is the absence of any mention of Greek cities in Asia Minor[258] and the adjacent islands, except those off the coast of Caria. The legends which speak of colonies led to Lesbos by Penthilos the son of Orestes or to Miletos and elsewhere by the sons of Codros are hardly to be reckoned among heroic traditions. The names indeed, at least in the first case, are taken from this source, but they form the subject of no connected story. Miletos is mentioned in the Trojan catalogue (Il. II 868), but it is said to be in the possession of the Carians. To Chios there is only a geographical reference (Od. III 170 ff.), and though Lesbos is mentioned more frequently its inhabitants are treated as enemies by the Achaeans. The only real exceptions are the southern islands, several of which, such as Rhodes and Cos, send contingents to Agamemnon's army. Cyprus too seems to be fairly well known and its princes, though they take no part in the expedition, are on friendly terms with the Achaeans—a fact which renders the absence of reference to the Ionic cities all the more striking. In Greece itself nearly every district has a story connected with it. Attica however is one of the least prominent and possesses no hero of much note except Theseus.

For the tribal distinctions which figure so prominently in later Greek history there is extremely little evidence in stories of the Heroic Age. The name ?????e? is not mentioned in the Homeric poems, while ?????e? occurs only once, as the name of one of the five peoples of Crete, and ????e? once as that of a people (perhaps the Athenians) associated with the Locrians and Boeotians. On the other hand the most frequently used of all national designations is ??a???, a name which in later times was borne only by the inhabitants of two comparatively unimportant districts, Phthiotis and the north coast of the Peloponnesos. In the Homeric poems it appears to be a collective term for the inhabitants of Greece and the surrounding islands. In the same sense we find also ?a?a??, a name which later is used only in archaistic poetry. ???e??? and ?????e? seem properly to be geographical terms, though the former occurs frequently (the latter only once[259], in the form ?a??????e?) as a synonym for ??a???. Names of peoples, such as ?a?te?, ?pe???, ??t????, are of course frequently used; but they denote comparatively small sections of the nation.

Though the term ??a??? is used for the inhabitants of Greece collectively, it may of course really be the name of a tribe or people which was regarded as dominant at the time. At all events in Od. XIX 176 we find the Achaeans mentioned as merely one of five peoples which inhabit Crete. As an instance of a people who were apparently never included among the Achaeans we may take the Pelasgoi mentioned in the same passage. Here however we are faced with a question of nationality, for Herodotus speaks of the Pelasgoi of his own time as a barbarous people[260], though at the same time he holds that several Greek peoples, especially the Ionians and Athenians, were sprung from them. No indication is given in the Homeric poems that the Pelasgoi spoke a foreign language; but this remark is true also of many Asiatic peoples, including the Trojans.

On the question of Greek nationality there is unfortunately very little evidence either in the Homeric poems or in other stories relating to the Heroic Age. We cannot even tell whether the population of the Greek mainland was believed to be homogeneous. Only in the case of Crete is detailed ethnographical information given. In a passage cited above we are told that this island contained five peoples, namely the Achaeans, Eteocretes, Cydones, Dorians and Pelasgoi. The first and fourth of these are well-known sections of the Greek nation, but we have no satisfactory evidence as to the nationality of the others. Herodotus (I 173) says that the Lycians came originally from Crete and adds that the whole of the island was once possessed by barbarians. Interesting light on the latter statement has been thrown by the recent discovery of certain inscriptions at Praisos, in what is said to have been the Eteocretan part of the island. These inscriptions are written in forms of the Greek alphabet which were current in the sixth and fourth centuries (B.C.) respectively, but the language is not Greek. Besides these numerous inscriptions dating from much earlier times have been found at Cnossos and elsewhere; but they have not yet been deciphered. All that can be said at present is that we have no reason for discrediting Herodotus' statement.

In Greece itself we have not such clear evidence for the prevalence of a non-Greek language. Here we are dependent on somewhat doubtful inferences from place-names. Yet the majority of scholars would not admit that the language was indigenous. Indeed the tendency at present is to believe that Greece and the Aegean islands were originally inhabited by peoples of one stock, the existence of which can be traced back in Crete for many thousands of years, and that these peoples were ultimately overwhelmed and absorbed—perhaps in the course of the second millennium—by invaders from the north. Asia Minor is supposed to have had a somewhat similar history. Originally it is believed to have been occupied by various kindred peoples, of which the most prominent were the Hittites of Cappadocia. Eventually—about 1200 B.C. according to the most recent view[261]—there took place a great irruption of Thraco-Phrygian peoples from the north-west, who became dominant throughout the larger part of the peninsula[262].

In the Iliad the forces ranged in defence of Troy are drawn from a wide area, extending from the Axios (Vardar) on the west to Paphlagonia on the east and Lycia on the south. The nationalities represented seem to be chiefly of Thraco-Phrygian stock, though a few, such as the Lycians and perhaps the Carians, belong to the indigenous population. On the other hand there is no reason for supposing that any of the peoples represented in Agamemnon's army were of other than Greek nationality. The story may therefore be regarded as one of national conflict. Yet it cannot be said that this feature is ever emphasised in the poems themselves, although the point of view throughout is that of an Achaean.

For local or tribal patriotism the Homeric poems furnish us with little or no evidence. No Greek communities and few even of their princes are described otherwise than in terms of respect. We may point also to the old controversy regarding Homer's birthplace—a controversy which owes its very existence to the absence of any local patriotism in the poems. In this respect it will be seen that Greek heroic poetry agrees with Teutonic.

We must now return to the consideration of the chronological problem. In ancient times, especially during the Alexandrian period, various attempts were made to calculate the exact date of the siege of Troy. Of these the most generally accepted was that of Eratosthenes, which was based on the length of the reigns ascribed to the kings of Sparta. This calculation brought the foundation of the Dorian kingdom at Sparta to the year 1104-3, and eighty years were added to obtain the date of the fall of Troy. But it has long been pointed out that the figures given for the reigns of the early kings are so greatly above the average that they cannot be regarded with any confidence. Thus the first Olympiad (B.C. 776-5) was made to coincide with the tenth (or eleventh) year of Alcamenes and Theopompos. Alcamenes was the ninth in succession from Eurysthenes and Theopompos the eighth from Procles, and the number of years ascribed to the previous reigns amounts on the average to over thirty-five years for one dynasty and over thirty-nine for the other. But in kingdoms for which we have reliable information extending over a long period of time the usual average length is apparently between twenty and twenty-five years[263]. Hence, if the lists of kings themselves are to be trusted—and even this is very doubtful in view of the fact that they are almost identical with the genealogies—it is difficult to avoid suspecting that the total period ascribed to their reigns collectively is more than a century too long.

More reliance is perhaps to be placed on the genealogies of the two royal families given by Herodotus (VII 204, VIII 131). Leonidas (r. 488-480) and Leotychidas (r. 491-469), with whom we are on sure historical ground, are represented as fifteenth in descent from Eurysthenes and Procles respectively. According to all analogies therefore we should expect that the two latter flourished not very long before the middle of the tenth century. In other words the date given by Eratosthenes for the 'Return of the Heracleidai' would seem to be from a century to a century and a half too early. A very reasonable explanation of the difficulty has been suggested by Prof. Meyer who points out that several passages in Herodotus' history seem to imply the reckoning of a generation at forty years[264]. Among the figures given we find (II 145) Heracles dated about 1330. Cleomenes, his descendant in the twentieth generation, was born about 530, or at all events not much later. For Eurysthenes and Procles, in the fifth generation from Heracles, this would give about 1130, which is not very far from the date fixed by Eratosthenes.

It is to be remembered in the first place that the date fixed for Eurysthenes and Procles is apparently that of their birth, and, secondly, that Eratosthenes' scheme is probably only a modification of a previously existing system, other varieties of which are quoted by Prof. Meyer[265]. Indeed it would not require any great exercise of ingenuity to point out traces of a more or less symmetrical distribution of the period covered by the reigns of the early Spartan kings[266]. But, apart from any such speculations, we can hardly doubt, in the light of Prof. Meyer's showing, that the date for Eurysthenes and Procles is derived ultimately from a calculation based on the genealogies rather than from any contemporary written record or tradition. The genealogies themselves of course may represent tradition, so far as they are not interpolated[267], but they point, as we have seen, to a much later date than that which we have been discussing[268]. If we substitute 32 × 15 for 40 × 15, starting from the birth of Cleomenes, we are brought to about the year 1000. That must be regarded as the date really indicated by Spartan tradition for the birth of Eurysthenes and Procles.

We may now turn for a moment to the genealogies of the other Heraclid families, namely those of Argos, Messenia and Corinth. The first of these places Pheidon in the sixth generation, according to one version, in the ninth according to another, from Temenos, the uncle of Eurysthenes and Procles. Unfortunately different dates are assigned for Pheidon. The earliest, which is not generally accepted, places his reign about the middle of the eighth century. But even this, taking the longer form of the genealogy, does not carry us appreciably farther back than the Agiad list. The Corinthian genealogy places the last king, who is said to have been killed in 747, in the thirteenth generation from Heracles. This would agree with the longer form of the Argive genealogy; several of the names however are generally regarded as suspicious. The Messenian genealogy is materially shorter.

Apart from these Dorian genealogies there are some notices relating to the ancestry of persons belonging to other parts of Greece, which must not be ignored. Herodotus (II 143) states that Hecataeus, who was a prominent man at the beginning of the fifth century, claimed to be descended in the sixteenth (i.e. fifteenth) generation from a god. This probably takes us back to the Heroic Age, when divine parentage is common, whereas later it appears to be almost, if not entirely, unknown[269]. Again, it is believed that the genealogy of the Philaidai at Athens, which actually survives, though only in a corrupt form[270], placed Philaios, the son of Aias, in the twelfth generation above Hippocleides, who was archon in 566. Further, according to Pausanias (I 11), Tharypas, king of the Molossoi, who was born soon after the middle of the fifth century, claimed to be descended in the fifteenth or sixteenth generation from Pyrrhos the son of Achilles. It will be seen that, though these genealogies do not agree exactly, the discrepancy is not very great. They seem to indicate the existence of a belief that persons who flourished in the first half of the fifth century were removed by about fifteen generations from the Heroic Age.

On the other hand Pindar (Pyth. IV 9 ff.) in an ode written in 466 and addressed to Arcesilaos IV, king of Cyrene, places that king's seventh ancestor, Battos I, in the sixteenth generation from Euphemos the Argonaut, a contemporary of Heracles. This exceeds even the Agiad reckoning, for Pleistarchos, the representative of that family reigning in 466, was only in the twenty-first generation from Heracles. From the other non-Heraclid genealogies we should have expected that the number of generations to Arcesilaos would be about what is recorded for Battos I[271].

Whatever may be the explanation of this case, it will be seen that the other non-Heraclid genealogies are shorter than that of the Agidai by at least three generations—if we equate Philaios, Pyrrhos (Neoptolemos) and the grandson of Hecataeus' god with Aristomachos the grandfather of Eurysthenes. The dates which they indicate for the 'floruit' of these persons are in no case earlier than the middle of the tenth century. As to the relative value of the two traditions we have nothing to guide us, and the same remark applies to the Greek genealogical evidence in general. Two points however must be insisted upon: (i) that the calculations of scholars of the Alexandrian age, or even earlier times, are not to be interpreted as evidence of tradition; (ii) that the evidence of tradition, whatever be its value, brings the end of the Heroic Age at least towards the close of the eleventh century.

Apart from the evidence discussed above, unsatisfactory as it doubtless is, chronological data for the Heroic Age itself seem to be entirely wanting. We know however that a highly advanced civilisation flourished in the Aegean in early times, and that it was succeeded by a long period in which both art and general culture were at a very low ebb. This latter period, which is commonly known as 'geometrical' from the type of art which prevailed in it, lasted, so far as one can judge, until about the end of the eighth century, at which time oriental influence began to make its appearance. The 'orientalising' period again continued down to the beginning of the classical age. It is a common and natural hypothesis to equate the low-watermark of culture early in the geometrical period with the generations immediately following the Dorian conquest of the Peloponnesos. But unfortunately we cannot thereby obtain any certain date for the latter, since Greece appears to have had little contact with the outside world during the geometrical period.

In recent years some advance has been made through the operations carried out by the British School at Sparta, which is perhaps the most important site for our purpose. From the stratification of the deposits Mr Dawkins, the director, has come to the conclusion that the earliest temple and altar at the sanctuary of Artemis Orthia date from the ninth or even the tenth century[272]. The temple, which must have been one of the earliest known, appears to have been a narrow and unpretentious structure of crude brick and timber. Some geometrical sherds were found beneath the floor, a fact which shows that the sanctuary had been in use somewhat earlier. If the sanctuary was founded at the beginning of the Dorian settlement at Sparta it is obvious that this result agrees well enough with the date indicated for the conquest by tradition. No relics of pre-geometrical times appear to have been found.

When we turn back to the times of the earlier civilisation it is much easier to establish chronological equations; for the presence of Egyptian objects among Aegean remains and of Aegean objects or representations of Aegean objects in Egypt shows that there was frequent communication between the two areas. Thus there is little doubt that certain Cretan remains date from periods contemporaneous with the twelfth and Hyksos dynasties. Others again clearly belong to the period of the eighteenth dynasty—at all events the earlier part of it. As to the date of the destruction of the Cretan palaces opinions still differ considerably; the most recent statement by Dr Evans is in favour of about 1350[273]. But this catastrophe did not bring the Aegean civilisation to an end. We find inscriptions dating from the subsequent period (Late Minoan III) apparently quite similar to those discovered in the earlier stratum, and the various artistic types, though decadent, show no breach of continuity. Indeed 'Mycenean' influence seems to have been more widespread (e.g. in Thessaly and Italy) at this time than in any earlier period. In Egypt vases of the same type are depicted in the wall-paintings on the tomb of Rameses III, who died about 1170. After this time however traces of Mycenean influence are rarely found in that country.

Within the last few years it has come to be noticed that the deposits dating from the last Mycenean period fall into two well-marked groups. The remarks made above, as to the art of Late Minoan III being a continuation of that of the preceding period, apply properly only to the first of these groups—represented by the cemeteries of Zafer Papoura (Cnossos) and Phaistos, the late Mycenean megaron at Hagia Triada (also in Crete) and the late palace at Phylakopi in Melos. Other deposits, represented by the tombs found at Mouliana, Milatos, Kavousi and Erganos (all in Crete), though they have certain features in common with the former group, yet at the same time show a number of characteristics which are entirely new. Of these the most important are the practice of cremation and the use of fibulae and iron weapons, all of which are unknown in the Aegean before this time. From a careful study of the pottery found in these deposits Dr D. Mackenzie[274] has come to the conclusion that it belongs to the same period as the famous 'Warrior Vase' from Mycenae. This again is obviously contemporary with a painted stele, likewise representing warriors, which was found in one of the latest graves in the lower town at the same place. Fibulae also were found here in the same group of graves. The importance of these observations lies in the fact that the armature of the warriors depicted on the vase and the stele corresponds in all essentials to what is described in the Homeric poems. This had already been pointed out by Prof. Ridgeway[275]; but many scholars have attributed both objects to a much later period. Now however in view of the sequence which Dr Mackenzie has succeeded in tracing, in Cretan pottery and other articles, from the time of the destruction of the palaces onwards, it appears that the latter view can hardly be maintained. Lastly, Dr Mackenzie has pointed out that all the above deposits differ radically from those of the strict geometrical period found in cemeteries at Cnossos and Courtes and in the 'beehive' tomb near Kavousi (all in Crete). There are clear indications that all the latter belong to a subsequent time.

As a result of his investigations then Dr Mackenzie has come to the conclusion that three well-marked periods can be distinguished in Cretan history, after the destruction of the palaces. But further, he believes that each of these periods coincides with a new settlement in the island—the true geometrical period with the Dorian settlement, the 'sub-Mycenean' with that of the Achaeans, and the last true Mycenean period (Late Minoan III) with a settlement of Pelasgoi. The evidence of the deposits found at Sparta and elsewhere tends distinctly to favour the first of these identifications. For, though geometrical art was by no means confined to the Dorians, it may be presumed that their settlement was the latest of those which took place in Crete. Some scholars hold that they came there from the Peloponnesos, while others place their settlement in the island prior to the invasion of the peninsula—and ancient authority can be obtained for both views. But in either case it is improbable that the two events were separated by a long interval. Again, the identification of the second or sub-Mycenean period with that of Achaean settlement is rendered extremely probable by the resemblance which deposits of this period show to objects and customs described in the Homeric poems, e.g. in regard to armature and the use of fibulae and cremation. In the poems the Achaeans are clearly represented as dominant even in Crete, while in Greece itself, as we have seen, the existence of other nationalities is practically ignored.

In regard to the earliest of the three settlements Dr Mackenzie's theory may be open to more serious question. The ethnical affinities of the Pelasgoi are still quite obscure. Again, although new types, apparently derived from the mainland, do occur at this time, the break of continuity with the preceding age does not seem to be anything like so marked as in the subsequent periods. It is scarcely impossible that the destruction of the palaces may be due to naval warfare or piracy on a large scale, or even to commotions within the island itself. For our purpose however this part of Dr Mackenzie's theory is of minor importance[276].

In other respects at all events the theory seems to provide a very satisfactory explanation of the phenomena. We have seen that the Spartan evidence, whether traditional or archaeological, affords no justification for dating the Dorian invasion very long before—or after—1000 B.C. Now we find very good evidence for two distinct periods of culture between that event and the destruction of the Cretan palaces, which took place probably in the fourteenth century. The later of these periods is the one with which we are chiefly concerned; for Greek tradition universally places the Heroic Age in times immediately preceding the Dorian invasion. It is therefore a fact of great significance that the deposits of this age agree in so striking a manner with the evidence of the Homeric poems. As to the relative duration of the two periods (Late Minoan III and sub-Mycenean or Achaean) archaeologists apparently have not as yet ventured to express an opinion. But it may be observed that the poems themselves give no indication that the Achaean dominion was believed to be of recent growth. The Cretan king Idomeneus is one of the oldest leaders at Troy, and his grandfather is said to have reigned at Cnossos before him. The evidence of the poems then favours the idea that even in Crete Achaean dominion lasted at least a century.

This brings us back nearly to times when, fortunately, historical evidence is available once more, namely from the Egyptian monuments. During the thirteenth and twelfth centuries Egypt was threatened on several occasions by formidable armies. During the reign of Merenptah, probably about 1220, it was attacked by a host of Libyans and "foreign soldiers of the Libyans" whom "the miserable Libyan had led hither[277]." The names given to the confederates are Akaiuasha, Thuirsha (Turusha), Shakalesha (Shakarusha) and Shardina. Very early in the next century, during the reign of Rameses III, a fresh attack was made from the same quarter. A few years later Rameses encountered both by land and sea a great host coming from the north. "The Isles were restless, disturbed among themselves at one and the same time. No land stood before them, beginning from Kheta (Cappadocia and Cilicia), Kedi (the 'circling' of the Syrian coast at the Gulf of Iskanderun), Carchemish, Arvad and Alashiya. They destroyed them, and assembled in their camp in the midst of Amar (Amurru; Palestine)[278]." The invaders here are called Shardina, Pulesatha (or Purusatha), Vashasha, Tchakaray (Zakar) and Danaau (or Danauna)[279]. Other Shardina appear to have been fighting on the side of the Egyptians. About a century earlier the Hittites brought a great confederacy against Rameses II. Among the names given here are Luka, Pidasa, Kalakisha, Dardenui and Masa[280]. On this occasion also we find Shardina in the Egyptian army. In the Tell-el-Amarna tablets, which date from shortly before the middle of the fourteenth century, we hear of Sirdana (apparently the same people) serving under the Egyptians in Palestine, and of attacks made upon the coast by Lukki, who are believed to be identical with the Luka[281].

Unfortunately scholars have not yet been able to come to any general agreement as to the identification of most of these names. It is commonly held that Pulesatha and Luka denote the Philistines and Lycians respectively. Many writers also identify the Shardina with the Sardinians and the Shakalesha with the Siceloi, but others connect these names with Sardis and Sagalassos in Asia Minor. Other identifications which have received more or less assent are those of Akaiuasha, Thuirsha, Danaau, Dardenui and Masa with the Achaeans, Tyrrhenians, Danaoi, Dardanoi and Mysians, and of Vashasha and Pidasa with the inhabitants of Oaxos (in Crete) and Pedasos (in Caria) respectively. It has been supposed also that the Tchakaray, who are mentioned occasionally as mariners in later times, likewise belonged to Crete.

In spite of the large element of doubt attaching to most of these identifications one important conclusion may be drawn with safety, namely that several of the nations mentioned had come from a considerable distance. Even those scholars who deny the references to Sicily and Sardinia hold that nearly all parts of the Aegean are represented in the lists. The inscriptions frequently speak of the invaders as coming from the sea or from islands. Thus the Pulesatha are said to be "in the midst of the sea." Again the king "slaughtered the Danauna in their isles[282]." We find also the expressions "Vashasha of the sea," "Shardina of the sea," "Thuirsha of the sea[283]." Such terms are said to be often used loosely; but under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties the territories of the Hittite kingdom in Syria and Cappadocia had become so well known to the Egyptians that it is incredible that any of the peoples of that region can be meant. The appearance too and the armature of the Shardina, as portrayed on the monuments, are quite incompatible with the supposition that they belonged to any of the countries round the south-east of the Mediterranean.

We have seen that the northern invasion repelled by Rameses III was preceded by 'disturbances in the isles,' while the lands of the Hittites and their neighbours had apparently been overrun by the invaders before the attack upon Egypt. Now it has been noted that the great Hittite kingdom (in Cappadocia) appears to have been destroyed about the same time. In explanation of this the theory has recently been put forward[284] that the invasion repelled by Rameses III was closely connected with that irruption of Thraco-Phrygian peoples into Asia Minor to which we have already referred (p. 178). It will be seen that this theory has an important bearing on the Homeric question; for in the Iliad we find the Thraco-Phrygian peoples already fully established in Asia Minor, and no hint is given that their settlement there was believed to be in any sense recent.

But it is by no means impossible that the 'disturbances in the isles' may refer to a displacement of population in a different quarter—which may or may not be connected with the Phrygian settlement in Asia Minor. The movement against Egypt was, in part at least, a maritime one, and when Rameses is said to have slaughtered the invaders in their islands the reference can hardly be to the old Hittite kingdom, which had long been known to the Egyptians. Surely it is more natural to connect the 'disturbances' with those national movements in the southern Aegean which eventually brought the Mycenean civilisation to an end. We have seen that the last period of this civilisation is believed to have begun in the fourteenth century and to have lasted some considerable time. The convulsions of Rameses' time (the early years of the twelfth century) may therefore mark a stage in the movements which brought about its destruction.

In any case it is from the Egyptian monuments of this period that we obtain the clearest evidence for contact between the true Mycenean civilisation and that 'sub-Mycenean' or 'Achaean' type which followed it. The warriors of the invading forces[285] are represented as armed with swords of the regular Mycenean pattern or with spears of no very great length. Some of them—the Pulesatha and Tchakaray—wear a peculiar head-dress, apparently made of feathers[286], which recalls the type used in later times by the Lycians according to Herodotus (VII 92). On the other hand the Shardina are depicted with very elaborate helmets[287], which, except that they have no plumes, are almost identical with those borne by the figures on the Warrior Vase (cf. p. 185). The Shardina and many of the Pulesatha also carry round shields, held in one hand, as in the case of the warriors represented on the Vase[288] and the Stele. This fact is especially noteworthy, since the round shield seems to have been totally foreign not only to the Egyptians themselves, but also to the Hittites and all neighbouring peoples[289], while even in the Aegean area it was apparently not used in centres of Mycenean civilisation[290]. On the other hand both these features correspond to the type of armature described in the Homeric poems. It would not be correct of course to say that the portraits of the Shardina might be taken as faithful representations of Homeric warriors. We find no trace of greaves, while the body-armour is of a less elaborate type than that described in the poems[291]. The Homeric type of armature—represented by the Warrior Vase as well as in the poems—belongs clearly to a later stage of development than the Shardina type, and therefore probably to a later age than the early part of the twelfth century. Yet there is sufficient resemblance between the two to render it more than likely that the one is descended from the other.

Whatever may have been the causes which brought about the movement encountered by Rameses III, some of the other references point distinctly to bands of mercenary soldiers, rather than to national migrations. This is especially clear in the case of the Shardina, who are mentioned for the first time as serving under the Egyptians in Palestine. But the earliest reference—in the Tell-el-Amarna letters—carries us back to the destruction of the Cretan palaces, if Dr Evans' date for this catastrophe is correct. It has been remarked that, in striking contrast with Mycenae and other early centres of civilisation in Greece, the Cretan palaces were almost entirely unfortified; and the explanation commonly given of this fact is that their owners ruled the seas. If this is true we must conclude that the earliest maritime expeditions of the Shardina and their confederates did not take place without their consent.

In the course of this discussion we have seen that, though historical evidence for the Greek Heroic Age is entirely wanting, later tradition points to the eleventh century as the time to which the poems and legends refer; and further, that, unsatisfactory as it doubtless is, this evidence is corroborated to a considerable extent by the results of archaeological investigation. In much earlier times various parts of the Greek world possessed a high civilisation, which has left remains of magnificent palaces and many elaborate works of art. The evidence of these remains does not correspond at all to the state of society revealed in the poems. But at the close of this earlier period many new objects—belonging, it would seem, to a new population—make their appearance; and these latter do fulfil the conditions required. Lastly, it is of interest to note that from the fourteenth to the twelfth century Egypt and the Levant were frequently visited by bands of soldiers, who seem to have come from the Aegean or neighbouring regions and who outwardly bear a somewhat striking resemblance to the warriors described in the poems. It would appear that at this time the East must have been more familiar to the Greek world than Greek records would lead us to expect. This is the more noteworthy since during the following centuries the Greeks seem to have had but little contact with foreign nations.

[250] Chiefly because the description of the shield (vv. 139-320) appears to correspond to the art of that period.