Buck, Robert J. the Mycenaean Time of Troubles

The Mycenaean Time of TroublesAuthor(s): Robert J. BuckSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 18, H. 3 (Jun., 1969), pp. 276-298Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435078 .

Accessed: 23/02/2015 17:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:04:00 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435078?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


THE MYCENAEAN TIME OF TROUBLES

At the transition from L.H. IIIB to L.H. IIIC mainland Greece suffered a series of catastrophies.1 Of a limited number of excavated sites at least twelve were destroyed or suffered damage,2 and over twenty were abandoned.3 The number of settlements occupied seems to drop sharply in many areas: in Boeotia twenty-six sites have been observed to have L.H. III B remains and only four to have L.H. IIIC;4 in Corinthia the figures are seventeen and six;6

1 For full discussion of the archaeological evidence see V. Desborough, The Last My- cenaeans and their Successors (Oxford, I964), (henceforth referred to as Desborough); P. Alin, Das Ende der Mykenischen Fundstatten auf dem griechischen Festland (Lund, i962), (henceforth Alin); G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton, 1966),

especially 218-229 (henceforth MMA); C. W. Blegen, The Mycenaean Age (Cincinnati, i962); E. T. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age (Chicago, I964), especially 269-279;

A. E. Samuel, The Mycenaeans in History (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1965), 131-I36;

R. Hope Simpson, A Gazeteer and Atlas of Mycenaean Sites (B.I. C. S. Supp. I6, I965),

(henceforth Atlas) is a valuable listing of over 550 Mycenaean sites, only a handful of which have been excavated, with useful citations for each site.

2 Mycenaean sites destroyed: Kandia (Alin 49f., Atlas #i82); Zygouries (Desborough, 84, Atlas #48), Rizomilo (Atlas #I82; Desborough 95f.), Menelaion (Atlas #95; Desborough 88), Pylos (Atlas #197), Gla (Atlas #402), Thebes (Mylonas, MMA, 2I9), though Thebes may be a little earlier than the others, and probably, Malthi (Atlas# 242, Alin, 76-78). Mycenaean sites damaged: Mycenae (Mylonas, MMA, 22I, 22Sf), Tiryns (Mylonas, MMA, 220f.), Athens (Mylonas, MMA, 2I9) Delphi (Alin, 129f., Atlas #446), Krisa (Atlas #447, Alin, 130-I32), Volos (Mylonas, MMA, 219) though V. must be dated in L. H. III C-i.

3 Mycenaean sites abandoned: Heraion (Desborough 77f., Atlas #4), Lerna (Alin, 45f), Berbati (Atlas #5, Desborough, 77), Volymidhia (Atlas #201), Peristeria (Atlas #235), Mouriatadha (Atlas #236, Desborough 93f.), Kakovatos (Atlas #255), Klidhi (Atlas #257), Nisaia (Atlas #391), Haliartos (Atlas #409; Alin, 12I), Eutresis (Atlas #417, Desborough 120), Drachmani (Atlas #457), Petra (Atlas #499, Alin, 142), Pharsala (Atlas #534, Desbo- rough, 13I), Asea (Alin 73), Koukournara (Atlas #226), Kirrha (Atlas #449), and perhaps Orchomenos (Desborough I20).

' Alin 124 and Desborough 22if. and 120-122 observe a drop, but the figures for this and the following notes are based on the data in Hope Simpson's Atlas, and the numbers are his serials. The sites in Boeotia where L. H. IIIB remains have been observed include: Orchomenos (#396), Polyira (#397), Pyrgos (#399), Stroviki (#400), Gla (#402), Ayia Marina (#403), Ayios lonnis (#405), Megali Katavothra (#406), Kastraki (#407), Onchestos

(#408), Kalami (#4'I), Larymna (#413), Thebes (#4I6). Thespiai (#418), Thisbe (#4'9), Livadostro (#422), Tourleza (#426), Dritsa (#427), Kastri (#428), Tanagra (#429), Schima- tari (#43i), Dramesi (#432), Vlicha (#435), Chalia (#436), Anthedon (#437), and Chaironea

(#439). Those where L. H. III C remains have been observed include: Orchomenos (#396), Thebes, the cemetery (#4I6), Dritsa (#427), Anthedon (#437).

6 Corinthia, with L. H. IIIB: Cleonae (#47), Zygouries (#48), Ayia Triadha (#49), Old



The Mycenaean Time of Troubles 277

in the Argolid twenty-seven and ten ; in Laconia twenty-nine and seven;7 in

Messenia and Pisatis fifty-six and ten or eleven.8 These figures are based in large part on the collecting of sherds and so are not too reliable, but they do reinforce the general impression of extensive depopulation in several districts. It seems clear that the "Mycenaean world on the Greek mainland had suffered a crushing blow and had for the most part been reduced to poverty and impotence at the end of Mycenaean IIIB."9

The zone of destruction covers Boeotia, western Attica and the Megarid, Corinthia, western Argolid, northern Laconia and Messenia.10 The districts

Corinth (#56), Mylos Cheloitou (#57), Aetopetra (#58), Ayios Gerasimos (#59), Korakou (#6o), Arapiza (#6i), Gonia (#62), Isthmia (#63), Perdikaria (#64), Cenchreae (#65), New Corinth (#66), Perachora (#75), Vasiliko (#77), Gonoussa (#8o). With L. H. IIIC: Old Corinth (#56), Aetopetra (#58), Korakou (#6o), Ayia Kyriaki (#69), Perachora (#75), Aigeira (#82).

6 Argolid, with L. H. III B: Mycenae (#x), Priphtiani (#2), Vreserka (#3), Argive Heraion (#4), Berbati (#5), Dendra (#6), Midea (#7), Tiryns (#8). Nauplion (#9), Argos (#12) Lerna (#13), Magoula (#15), Schoinochori (#i6), Gymsio (#i8), Asine (#19), Arkadiko (#20), Ligourio (#2i), Apollo Maleatis (#22), Old Epidauros (#23), New Epidauros (#24

and 25), Kandia (#26), Ano Iria (#28), Ayios Ioannis (#29), Hermione (#3'), Ayios Yeoryios (#39), Ayia Eirini (#44), With L. H. III C: Mycenae (#I), Dendra (#6), Midea (#7), Tiryns (#8), Nauplion (#9), Argos (#I2), Asine (#19), Old Epidauros (#23), Ano Iria (#28), Hermione (#31).

7 Laconia, with L. H. III B: Sparta (#94), Menelaion (#95), Kophovouno (#96), Amy- klaion (#97), Vaphio (#98), Ayios Vasilios (#99), Laina (#103), Apidia (#io6), Ganganea (#107), Ayios Strategos (#iio), Karaousi (#I12), North of Cesteri (#I13), Trasi (#I 5), Skala (#xi6), Xeronisi (#117), Lekas (#iI8), Ayios Stephanos (#I20), Karneas (#I2i),

Paizoulia (#123), Cranae (#124), Mavrovouni (#125), Pellanes (#113), Vourvoura (#I35), Kotroni (#141), Sykokis (#142), Epidaurus Limera (#I46), Daimonia (#152), Stena (#I53), Neapolis (#154). With L. H. III C: Amyklaion (#97), Karousi (#112), Xeronisi (#II7),

Ayios Stephanos (#120), Cranae (#124), Mavrovouni (#125), Epidauros Limera (#146). 8 Messenia, with L. H. III B: Kalamata (#I66), Kardamyle (#I70), Thouria (#I74),

Petroyephyra (#175), Pedhima (#176), Karteroli (#178), Aristodhemion (#i8o), Tourkoki- vouro (#x8i), Rizomilo (#I82), Viglitra (#I85), Ayios Elias (#I89), Kaphrio (#193), Chara- kopeio (#194), Ayia Analipsis (#195), Pylos (#197), Volymidhia (#201), Lagou (#202), Ka- nalos (#203), Koryphasion (#208), Platasios (#21 I), Pappoulia (#213), Korphasion (#217),

Osmanaga Lagoon (#219-221), Palaiochori (#222), Vigla (#223), Kokkinia (#225), Koukou- nara (#226), Phourtsavrisi (#228), Koumbe (#229), Platania (#230), Chilia Chora (#231),

Peristeria (#235), Mouriatadha (#236), Stylari (#238), Malthi (#242), Lepreon (#245), Kakovatos (#255), Zacharo (#256), Klidhi (#257), Pontikokastro (#258), Strephi (#263), Kafkania (#264), Lantzoi (#265), Drouva (#266), Altis (#267), Pisa (#268), Epitalion (#270), Ayios Elias (#272), Chania (#273), Yerakovouno (#274), Diasela (#275). With L. H. III C: Tragana (#205), Osmanaga Lagoon (#219-22i), Altis (#267), Epitalion (#270),

Chassia (#273), Diasela (#275), and possibly Koukounara (#226), Pylos-lower town (#197),

Volymidhia (#201).

9 C. W. Blegen, The Mycenaean Age (Cincinnati, I962), 24. See also 0. Broneer, Hesperia 35 (1966), 357.

10 Desborough, 222 makes this point very clearly; see also Blegen, op.cit., (n. 9), 22-24;

and C. C. Thomas, Historia I5 (I966), 393-395.



278 ROBERT J. BUCK

outside this area, eastern Attica, Achaea, Elis, the Ionian Islands, eastern Argolid, and southern Laconia, seem to have received influxes of population in L.H. IIIC." In Elis and Achaea eleven sites have been observed with L.H. III B remains, but thirteen have L.H. IIIC, including six where no L.H. IIIB has been recorded.'2 Five of the ten L.H. III C sites in the Argolid lie in the eastern sector, and six of the seven in Laconia are in the south."' Eleven L.H. IIIC sites lie in eastern Attica.4 The term "refugee areas" is sometimes employed for these districts.',

Some important sites, such as Mycenae and Tiryns, show evidence of continued occupation, or of re-occupation, after extensive damage, but others, such as Pylos, lay desolate. Towns that show continuing occupation, like Amyklai, preserved a Mycenaean culture, with no sign of external influence.' There are indications in L.H. III C-i of a faint revival, typified by the produc- tion of the Close and Granary styles of pottery. This revival had some influence in the Cyclades, eastern Attica and the Iolkos area, but not, apparently, at Argos.17 By the end of L.H. IIIC-i, a few decades after the great disaster Iolkos was destroyed and Mycenae and Tiryns underwent further damage.'8 The revival withered.

The ceramic remains of L.H. IIIB and of L.H. IIIC present a significant contrast. In the former no local varieties have been recognized in Greece, except on the basis of fabric; shapes and decorative motifs from different areas are as uniform as possible with handmade material. In the latter recognizable local styles evolve quite rapidly, although certain affinities between various centres are observable.'9 It has been inferred that extensive intercommunication

11 Desborough, 222.

12 Elis and Achaea: L. H. III B only; Paraleimni (#282), Ayios Pantaleimon (#286),

Drakotrypa (#297), Vrisasion (#303); L. H. III B and III C, Aroe (#287), Koukoura

(#289), Troplaneika (#290), Kallithea (#291), Chalandritsa (#293), Ayios Athanasios

(#298), Gourgoumisa (#299); L. H. III C only, Ammouli (#279), Kanghadli (#283), Agra- phidia (#288), Prostovitsa (#296), Lomboka (#300), Vromoneri (#302).

13 Argolic sites in east: Nauplion, Asine, Old Epidauros, Ano Ira, Hermiolne. The La-

conian sites, except for Amyklaion, are around Gytheion and Monemvasia. The distribution would seem to exclude a seaborne landing in the Laconian area.

14 Ayios Kosmas (#353), Alyki (#355), Vourvatsi (#359), Keratea (#360), Kopreza

(#364), Ligori (#366), Perati (#367), Brauron (#368), Spata (#37'), Velanideza (#373), Ninoi (#379).

16 Desborough, 222; Broneer, Hesperia 35 (i966), 359f. Desborough and N. G. L. Ham-

mond, CAH2, II, ch. 36, 5 (sep. fasc.). 1' Desborough, 224.

17 J, Deshayes, Argos, Les louilles de la Deiras (Paris, I966), 248f.; slight recovery:

Desborough, 226, 228, Vermeule, 270; Mylonas, MMA, 228-231.

18 lolkos: Mylonas, MMA, 219, quoting the excavator. Mycenae and Tiryns; ibid., 2 29f.

19 Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery (Stockholm, 1941), 540; Desborough, 25f., 228;

Blegen, Mycenaean Age, 24f.




existed throughout the Mycenaean world until the end of L.H. III B, but that it was much diminished after the disasters.20

Whether the devastations took place at much the samie time in Central Greece and the Peloponnese or over a span of several generations cannot be determined on the archaeological evidence.21 The erection and strengthening of walls and fortifications around many cities duiring L.H. III B have led some to believe that trouble of some sort was expected.22 The building of a Cyclopean wall across the Isthmus of Corinth in the closing phases of L.H. III B leads to the inference that the population of the northeast Peloponnese expected this trouble from the north.3 Consequently many authorities have deduced an invasioni or series of invasions in a fairly short lapse of time.24 The route would be overland, with perhaps additional sea attacks along the Adriatic side, because the Cyclades show no signs of destruction at this time: they seem to continue an undisturbed existence.> On the other hand, the archaeological evidence is not incompatible with internecine wars, disputes between areas, class warfare, or disputes between overlords and feudatories,26 and no archaeological trace has yet been discovered that can be convincingly credited to any invaders.2"

The purpose of this paper is to examine the possible counterparts in Greek tradition to this archaeologically attested time of troubles on the Greek mainland, to see whether as good a case can be made for associating any of the f or- mer with any of the latter. Many of the arguments, however, will depend on the archaeological placing of the Trojan War, since it is a pivotal point in anicient tradition. The evidence is equivocal and the interpretation difficult. The majority of scholars follow Blegen in equating the destruction of Troy VII a with the legendary capture. Many agree with him in setting it about or "before the middle stage of ceramic style [L.H.] III B."2 Some, however, consider thic

20 By Desborough, 225f., Mylonas, MMA, 230f. 21 F. H. Stubbings CA H2, It, ch. 27, I3f. (esp. fasc.); Desborough, 222. 22 Most erected in L. H. III B, though some work was done in III A; cf. Mylonas,

MMA, 44f; trouble expected - cf. Starr, Origins of Greek Civilization (New York, 1961), 6of. with citations.

33 Broneer, Hesperia 35 (I966), 346-362, on the wall, its date and its defensive location against the north. Broneer also infers that a central authority would be necessary tc obtain the necessary resources of manpower (356f).

24 Desborough, 221-225; Blegen, Myc. Age, 25-28; 0. Broneer, Antiquity 30 (1956),

9-18; C. Nylander, Antiquity 37 (i963), 9f.; to mention only a few. 25 Desborough, 223f.

26 Mylonas, MMA, 224-229, iS sceptical about such overland invasions. See also Stub- bings CAH2, II, ch. 27, x6f., (sep. fasc.) and Hammond, ch. 36, 48f., (sep. fasc.), who point out pertinent facts about the nostoi and a possible period of stasis. But see below.

27 As Mylonas, MMA, 228, and Broneer, Hesperia 35 (I966), 360, both agree. 28 Blegen, The Mycenaean Age, I5. A date in general agreement with that he has said

before: Troy, IV, I2; CAH2, "Troy", 14 (sep. fasc.).



280 ROBERT J. BUCK

far too early and date it very close to the end of the period.29 Others accept a late date for Troy VII a, but regard VI h as the one destroyed by the Greeks, thereby combining a late Troy VII a with an early Sack of Troy.3 This serious divergency of interpretation must be kept in mind as the various possibilities are considered.

A favorite of many scholars is the equation of the destructions at the end of L.H. IIIB with the final Return of the Heraklids, which is usually taken as the Dorian invasion.31 This Return took place, according to Thucydides (i. I2. 3) eighty years after the taking of Troy; others say two or three generations or so.32 The fortifications erected or strengthened around many towns during L. H. IIIB. could be a response to a threat overhanging the whole area. The wall at the Isthmus could be a line of defence to protect the Peloponnese in case central Greece were to be overrun (the Spartans' wall after Thermopylae and Justinian's in the time of the Slavic onslaught would be parallels). According to Thucydides, Boeotia fell twenty years before the Peloponnese, that is, central Greece was overrun first. The destructions in Boeotia could be earlier than those in the Peloponnese; Thebes was destroyed sometime near the end of L.H. III B, perhaps somewhat earlier than Peloponnesian sites.`* The wide devastations could be considered the work of the Dorians and their fellow hillmen of the Northwest Greek tribes as they flooded into the Mycenaean areas; the refugee areas would be those to which many of the surviving Mycenaeans fled. Herodo- tus (I. I45; cf. 7. 94) and Pausanias (7. I. 7, 2. i8. 8, 6. 38. I) tell how the defeated Achaeans occupied Achaea; how Attica became a haven for exiles (Thuc. i. 2. 6); and how the Neleids left Pylos in haste (Paus. 4. 3. 3-8).

29 Mylonas, MMA, 2f5f., and Hesperia 33 (x964), 352-380, argues for a date at the end

of L. H. III B on the basis of the Mycenaean pottery at Troy, some of which is transitional

III B-C, he says. Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, 274-278, dates Troy VIIa to early

L. H. III C and the war to a brief period of recovery after the devastations. 30 C. Nylander, Antiquity 37 (i963), 6-ii, and 0. Broneer, Hesperia 36 (1966), 36If.

Their date for the Trojan War is about the same as Blegen's, while they place the end

of Troy VIIa in L. H. III C. 31 Stubbings, CAH2, II, ch. 27, igf. (sep. fasc.); Blegen, The Mycenaean Age, 25-28,

and AJA 64 (ig60), 159f.; Lord William Taylour, The Mycenaeans (London, i963), 175;

Broneer, Hesperia 35 (I966), 357-362, and Antiquity 30 (1956), 9-i8; G. L. Huxley, The

Early Ionians (London, I966), 19f.; C. G. Starr, The Origins of Greek Civilization (New

York, i96i), 6I-64; for earlier literature see H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte2 (Munich,

I 960), 49-5 1. 32 E.g., Paus. 4. 33, 8. 5. I; Vell. Pat. I. 2. i. Thucydides' figures are often supposed,

for no particularly good reason, to derive from Hellanikos. Hammond, CAH2, II, ch. 36,

pp. 22f., 26f., 33 (sep. fasc.), argues by extension from Thuc. I. 9. 2. that the sources were

ultimately Mycenaean, especially since figures (60, 8o, roo years) not generations are given,

and these to not give convenient multiples of a generation. Possible, but not too convinc-

ing. 3' See Blegen, The Mycenaean Age, 28, for an equation of the Fall of Thebes with the

Dorian Invasion; see also A. Schachter, Phoenix 21 (i967), 8f.



The Mycenaean Time of Troubles 28I

This theory has not, however, met with universal acceptance. Two different objections have been made. In the first it is pointed out that the great majority of sites in the areas of the Peloponnese later held by the Dorians lay abandoned and desolate after the end of L.H. III B. In the few that were still occupied, or were re-occupied, including Mycenae, Tiryns, Argos and Amyklai, a Mycenaean culture was maintained until well down into L.H. III C.m Furthermore a slight recovery is observable in the Argolid and some other areas; the very doubtful traces of new, non-Mycenaean, features do not appear until L.H. IIIC-2.36 Where, then, is the evidence for new peoples and for new settlers right after the troubles? Certainly the Dorians must have entered the Peloponnese at some stage, but, so the argument runs, they must have done so much later than the end of L.H. III B. Even if the evidence for new features is to be rejected, this objection is still very persuasive against any belief in an assault immediately followed by settlement, and consequently against a single Dorian invasion as a satisfactory counterpart to the archaeologically attested destructions.

The second objection is far less compelling. It is made by some of those who place the sack of Troy near the end of L.H. III B, a few years before the destructions on the Mainland. Since there is a traditional timespan of eighty years, or two to three generations, between the capture of Troy and the return of the Heraklids, obviously, it is argued, the destructions at the end of L.H. III following so soon after the Trojan war, cannot be the work of the Dorians.36 On the basis of a chronology from tradition a Dorian invasions at that time is rejected.

The cautious use of traditional materials, including chronological indications, may be permitted in confirming or supporting other evidence; but, given the nature of early Greek chronologies, it is most unwise to rely on them in con- structing an argument. Forsdyke37 has said all that is needful on their dubious qualities. In this case chronologies and genealogies based on tradition are of little value for denying the possibility of a Dorian invasion at the end of L.H. IIIB. But the first objection is valid. Therefore the final Dorian attack of tradition is an unlikely counterpart for the destructions at the end of L.H. III B.

A second possible counterpart might be one (or more) of the earlier attempts of the Heraklids to return. At least four are found in tradition, and they form an extremely tangled mass, confused in chronology and in event.

One has it that the Heraklids overran the Peloponnese "and took all the cities. After a year had elapsed plague visited all the Peloponnese, and an oracle made it clear that this had happened because of the Heraklids: they

34 Desborough, 250-257 and CAH2, 1I, ch. 36, 5-7 (sep. fasc.). 35 Desborough, 252.

86 Mylonas, Hesperia 33 (I964), 352-380, and MMA, 227f. 37 Greece before Homer (London, 1956), esp. pp. 28-43.



282 ROBERT J. BUCK

had come back before the proper season."" A kind of addendum notes that Tlepolemos, after killing Likymnios, went into exile from Argos during that year. The chronological indications do not help much: this attack took place some three generations before the final assaults, which gives a fairly wide range around the Trojan War. The setting before the War seems to depend on the inclusion of Tlepolemos. But he is readily separable from the tradition of invasion. Page and others are doubtless correct in regarding him as an anachronism vis-a-vis the rest of the Heraklids, from an originally separate tradi-

tion, and to be disassociated from the Dorians.39 Some have even regarded the presence of Tlepolemos at Argos as an attempt, probably of Argive manufac- ture, to connect the Argolid and Rhodes ;40 for in Diodoros (4. 58. 5-7) he enters Argos peaceably. Clearly a tradition of invasion was utilized to give an alter- native explanation of his entrance into Argos. The invasion may be severed from Tlepolemos, and can then be dated as late as a generation after the War. Unfortunately, however, one cannot say whether it is an old tradition or not. It may be Pherekydan, but it may have originated from a dramatic source at Athens about the time of the Great Plague.

Two of the other invasion tales are very much alike. An attack was made on the Isthmus; the Heraklids were defeated and lost a leader in the process, Hyllos by the hand of Echemos in one story, Aristomachos by the hand of unnamed persons in the other.u The Heraklids withdrew, in the Hyllos version to eastern Attica (Trikorythos in Diodoros), and presumably there in the one about Aristomachos. They agreed to remain for a span of time, fifty or one hundred years in the Hyllos version (depending on the source).

The fourth was an abortive combined land and sea assault based on

Naupactus. Some unspecified disaster destroyed the fleet, and a famine dis- couraged the army.42

The assault by Aristomachos and the combined operation are set a couple of generations after the Trojan War, in the reign of Tisamenos at Mycenae. The Hyllos story is usually dated a generation earlier than the War, but Pausanias (I. 4I. 2), puts the incident in the reign of Orestes, though he later

retracts (8. 5. I).

The Hyllos and Aristomachos stories are so very similar that they are surely duplicates, given different leaders for chronological reasons. This is not an improbable occurrence in Greek legend. Echemos in association with Hyllos

-m Apollodoros 2. 8. 2.

39 Page, History and the Homeric Iliad (Berkeley, I959), 147-I49; see also E. Wust,

RE 12 (I937), I614-I6I8 S.V. "Tlepolemos," and references i617.

40 Wilst, op.cit., (n. 39), I617 and Rieman, RE Supp. 8 (1956), 259 s.v. "Likymnios"; Hammond, CAH2, II, ch. 36, 28 (sep. fasc.).

41 Apollodoros 2. 8. 2. For the Echemos-Hyllos version see Diodoros 4. 58. I-5; Paus.

I. 41. 2, I. 44. IO, 8. 5. I, 8. 45. 3, 8. 53. Io; IIdt. 9. 26. Echemos is mentioned in Hesiod

(frgs. go, 93 Rz). 42 Apollodoros 2. 8. 2.




seems most unlikely. Dikaiarchos, quoted in Plutarch (Thes. 32), tells how Echemos and a certain Marathos came to Attica from Arcadia with the Tyn- darids; after some fighting they took Aphidna and, apparently, areas further south: Marathos is the eponym for Marathon, and Echemos allegedly for the Academy (a bad guess). Echemos, then, is given some connection with eastern Attica, the area where the Heraklids are supposed to have settled, when (as far as I can compute) Hyllos and his kinsmen are supposed to have been there.

The most reasonable explanation for this state of affairs would seem to be that two interpretations were later made of a vague folk-memory of an incursion of Peloponnesians into Attica anid of their temporary settlement. By somle it was taken to refer to Heraklids, by others to Arcadians and Laconians. The latter, since the "refugee areas" of L.H. III C seem Mycenaean, is presumably the interpretation closer to truth. A warm memory of the killing of an enemy chief might well be cherished among a dispossessed group of Arcadians. Since they were not the only refugees in the area,"3 the story could be spread, and become common property, and suffer some mutation in the process. To judge by analogies in other oral traditions, a memory of some disaster at the Isthmus and of a separate killing of an enemy chief could easily be combined into a tale of the defeat and death of that chief at the Isthmus." Thus the tradition about Echemos should be regarded with great suspicion.

The story of Hyllos is equally improbable. Several modern scholars have suggested that he and his brothers were originally cast in the role of conquerors of the Peloponnese;45 when genealogies were compared he seemed a little too close to Herakles for a comfortable fit. Consequently he was moved back before the Trojan War, and his invasion with him. Echemos was recruited to put him firmly in place. One might conclude from all this that there was no first invasion, but to do so would probably be wrong.

For one thing all these legends, excepting the Hyllos version as we now have it, agree that something happened a couple of generations after the Trojan War, earlier than and not to be confused with the final Return. The tradition in Pausanias (9. 5. 8) that Autesion, the king of Thebes, two generations after the Trojan War, settled with the Dorians, might be considered here as well. Then there is one little scrap, the famous oracle that told the Heraklids to wait until the "third crop."46 However this is interpreted, it seems very probable

43 There is a tradition that Orchomenians and other Boeotians set out from Thorikos with many Peloponnesians. Nikolaos of Damascus, FGrH go F 51.

44 Compare, for example, the Song of Roland with what is recorded as having happened in history.

"@ E. N. Tigerstedt, The Legend of Sparta in Classical Antiquity (Stockholm, 1965), 34 and his notes for earlier citations. Add Eitrem, RE 17 (19I4), 123 s.v. "Hyllos", no. 3.

48 Apollodoros 2. 8. 2; see also K. Muiller, The Dorians (London, 1839), I, 63f, who argues for a source in Attic drama for the passage in Apollodoros.



284 ROBERT J. BUCK

that it was based on a folk-memory of a gap of tllree generations between a first attempt and a final reduction, both after the Trojan War. The story, in Pausanias (5. 4. 2), that Oxylos, the Elean leader in the final Return, was a contemporary of Orestes' great-grandson would also fit a three-generation interval.

One therefore can argue that the tangled traditions of early Heraklid assauilts reflect a preliminary attack, or more probably a series of attacks, coupled with withdrawals in some areas (but not all), starting some three generations before the final push. Such an argument suffices, especially if one holds the reasonable belief that the legends are based on "living folk tradition which preserved the memory of the decisive event in the history of the Peloponnesian Dorians, whereas all the details are later embellishments and constructions."47

A structuring of the tradition along these lines would provide a close corre- spondence to the archaeological evidence: the first devastating series of assaults would be placed at the end of L.H. III B; these would be followed by withdrawal from some areas, like northern Laconia, and settlement in others. The faint revival in Mycenae and Tiryns would correspond to the pause (at least in some areas of the Peloponnese) of the three or so generations reported in the legends. Then the attacks on the unfortunate Tisamenos and his defeat would match the final overthrow of the Mycenaean fortresses at the end of L.H. III C-i.

This second possible counterpart is open to several objections, none very compelling. The first is that the Dorians and their fellow West Greeks seem unlikely as the deliverers of a series of blows hard enough to cause the collapse of the Mycenaean world. They are commonly conceived of as hillmen, like the modem Vlachs, or the Albanians of the nineteenth century, primitive groups of herders and drovers, with no material wealth beyond their flocks arid not too many surplus resources." A priori such a population seems most unlikely to have much wealth to invest in the extensive weaponry and to have the skill and manpower necessary to overthrow a vigorous and flourishing civilization. Vlachs and Albanians, it is true, occupied extensive sections of Greece in later times, but only after the lowlanders had been severely handled by Turks, Normans, or Venetians. Granted that the Dorians and their neighbours eventually did occupy many areas, they should be followers, latecomers, the deliverers of a cotup-de-grace in the middle of L.H. IIIC, not the devastators of the end of L.H. IIIB.'9 Other explanations should be given for the fortresses and walls of L.H. IIIB than for defence against hillmen.

This objection is somewhat weak, because there is good evidence that the West Greeks were much more formidable than might at first appear. Many

47 Tigerstedt, op.cit., (n. 45), 36, as the conclusion of a closely reasoned examination

of several traditions, 28-36. 44 Cf. Hammond, CA H2, II, ch. 36, 27 (sep. fasc.). 4" Vermeule, Greece in the Bronze Age, 279; Hammond, CAH2, II, ch. 36, 49f. (sep. fasc.);

Desborough, 250-252; Mylonas, MMA, 232.




bronze swords and spears of L.H. III B and L.B. III C dates have been recovered from Epirus, more than might be expected to be held by prinmitive herders.50 The flocks, and their wool, provided some degree of prosperity and hence of (imported) bronze swords of good Mycenaean style. Mountaineers well equipped with weapons have frequently in history subdued their lowland neighbours.

A second objection is that the concentration on the early Dorians and their adventures in the Peloponnese is apt to lead to neglect of the problems of Central Greece and Thessaly. These areas must be accounted for, if the traditional counterpart is to fit satisfactorily. This is not really much of an objection. The traditional evidence from Boeotia and Thessaly is pretty scanty at best; their chronologies (in spite of Thucydides) are shaky, but Thessalian and Boeotian settlements be/ore the final capture of Mycenae, Tiryns, etc., as Thucydides says, but after a series of attacks by the various West Greek tribes had broken the main enemy resistance would dovetail nicely. A possible objection that the attack on Mycenae was by surprise and so could not be part of a full-fledged invasion,5' has no merit at all.

In general the traditions that can be interpreted to give this second counterpart are tangled and weak. But there is nothing inherently improbable in having a set of hard-fighting invaders deliver a series of heavy blows, fall back or withdraw from certain areas, and later filter into a depopulated land in increasing numbers, finally overthrowing nearly all of the surviving Mycenaean fortresses in Greece. The technique of erecting a strongpoint within convenient distance of the citadel to be reduced, and from it ravaging the surrounding countryside, was remembered at Argos (Polyain. 2. 2) and Corinth (Thuc. 4. 42).

This would, presumably, be an effective tactic at any stage. Several authorities support a third possible counterpart from tradition for the

troubles at the end of L.H. III B: the discords attendant on the return of the heroes from the Trojan War, and the stasis that lasted for a couple of generations afterward.52 Several warriors were killed, deposed or exiled on their arrivals back home; others, for one reason or another decided to go elsewhere." Various grim tales record the post-war feuds between rival factions at Athens, Mycenae, Argos and elsewhere." The Neleids at Pylos were regarded with sus-

60 N.G.L.Hammond, Epirus (Oxford,I967), 325-33I, 353-361. 51 Mylonas, MMA,22j 62 Stasis: Hammond, CA H2, II, ch. 36, 48f. (sep. fasc.). Disputes between rival factions

of nobles: Mylonas, MMA, 232; Vermeule, Archaeology 13 (I960), 71; Wace, Historia 2

(1953), ui8 and Viking, 1954, 222. Social revolution: M. Andronikos, Hellenika i3 (1954),

221-240.

53 Thuc. I. 12. 2 is often quoted in this context, and Apollodoros, Ep. 6. See Stubbings CAH2, II, ch. 27, 16-20 (sep. fasc.) on the Nostoi and a good selection of heroes.

5 Post-War factions: Leukas against Idomeneus; Kometes against Diomedes; Aegisthus against Agamemnon; Theseids against Menestheus; the Suitors against Odysseus; and Nauplios against assorted veterans. There are many others.



286 ROBERT J. BUCK

picion by the populace (Paus. 4. 3. 6); Hesiod (Erg. I58-i68) tells of the Race of Heroes who were utterly destroyed, chiefly in Greece and in the Trojan War, as well as of the Brazen Race destroyed before the war. There are many stories, too, of unrest and warfare in pre-War Greece: the troubles at lolkos; the quarrels in the family of Tyndarus; the destruction of Thebes; the feud of Atreus and Thyetes; the devastations by Heracles; the defeat of Eurystheus. It was pointed out long ago that breaks occur in the genealogies a couple of generations before the War,55 as if new ruling families had taken over in many parts of Greece. All in all there are plenty of traditions reflecting much unirest around the time of the War, both of disputes between factions of nobles, and of warfare between districts. The War itself is sometimes regarded as a major incident among these, an unwise one."M

There is a small amount of external evidence that may, perhaps, bear on this argument. The Hittite records occasionally refer to a land termed Ahhijawa.57 Sometime between I250 and I200 i.e., in the latter part of L.H. IIIB, the Ahhijawans seem to have been active along the coast of Asia Minor, particularly in the west. There is mention of Attarssiyas the Ahhijawan indulging in raids and warfare, and the king of Ahhijawa is present at one stage." If the Ahhijawans can be equated with the Mycenaean Greeks (Achaiwoi or some such), in spite of certain philological difficulties,69 then the latter were cam- paigning on the coasts of Asia Minor, just as the legends say they were, at an appropriate time. It might be argued that a combination of dislike by the populace of the ruling families, perhaps aggravated because many were new- comers, and of suspicion of these new rulers in the older noble families, had produced certain strains within the L.H. IIIB area. In easing these strains certain areas, such as Thebes, had suffered violence. Both defeated and successful groups went overseas on raids and expeditions, not too successfully. Heavy Mycenaean casualties in Asia Minor (as reflected in the Trojan legends) may have produced a dangerous situation back in Greece, one that erupted at the end of L.H. IIIB. By the time the fighting was over, a combination of local hatred and family feuds had wrought heavy damage, the leadership was dead

5 Sir John Myres, Who Were the Greeks (Berkeley, 1930), 308-312. 56 J. F. Daniels, AJA 52 (1948), IO9.

57 Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, i-I9 for a useful summary of the evidence. 68 Ibid., 97-11 I2 -

59 Ibid., 3. Page points out that A. must be overseas, and concludes (15f.) that it is the island of Rhodes. It is important that on other than philological grounds he concludes

that A. is the Hittite term for (a section of) Greece. Pace Sommer, it is also worth re-

membering that people do mangle foreign words. The late Professor Morris Swadesh told

me that the Indians of Vancouver Island, for example, had a place name "h'uuchuk tli'

ath"; the English rendering is Youchaklsit. No doubt the Hittites could do equally badly with Greek.




or discredited, and the Mycenaean world was ruined. The Dorians and their friends simply moved in to fill a vacuum.60

This possible counterpart, attractive though it may sound, runs into trouble. Popular revolts and local hatreds might well affect the great centres, but it is hard to understand why the devastation was so widespread, why so many minor sites like Zygouries, Berbati and Eutresis were abandoned, and why there were such considerable movements of population.6' It is true, on the other hand, that civil wars of a really savage nature between rival factions might cause widespread damage and great expulsions, but, if these happened, it is very odd that the traditions of several of the areas hardest hit at the end of L.H. III B, such as Messenia, Laconia and Boeotia, have little or nothing to say about civil difficulties of any sort after the Trojan War. There is nothing to support any theory of stasis in these districts, and, hence, no traditional counterpart. Messenia is represented as enjoying, somewhat grudgingly, years of peace and prosperity under the guidance of Nestor and his two or three Neleid successors.62 The ravagings of Herakles are placed, as early as Homer, well before the Trojan War." Laconia continued peacefully, if reluctantly, under the successors of Menelaus for two generations." Its dynastic quarrels fall before the Trojan War. There is no hint of internecine trouble from Boeotia unitil three or four generations after the Trojan War.0 The bloody family fights and the disputes between towns are all set before the War, these, too as early as Homer. It is possible, I suppose, to argue that the various disasters affecting these areas somehow got shifted in date by Homer or his predecessors, but such an argument raises more problems than it solves.

Lowering or raising the archaeological date of the Sack of Troy does not help much. If it is placed near the end of L.H. III B, traditions of civil discord may provide an explanation for damage at Mycenae and Argos, but not for any in Messenia, Laconia, or Boeotia." If it placed in the middle of L.H. IIIB, the destructions at the end of the period are far too late to arise from immediate post-War problems anywhere. In the latter case the traditions of stasis could provide a possible explanation for a weaking of the Mycenaeans, so that a

0 E. Fischer, Antiquitas Hungarica i (I947), I6-i9. I owe this reference to the kindness of Professor T. Kelly.

61 Desborough, 223; cf. Blegen, The Mycenaean Age, 23-25. s2 Paus. 4. 3. 3; Blegen, The Mycenaean Age, 22.

8 Iliad 5. 392-397; ii. 689-692. 6 Paus. 3. I. 5. These were Orestes and Tisamenos. r In Paus. 9. 5. 8. Tisamenos is succeeded by Autesion, who goes with the Dorians; he

by Damasichthon of a different family. He in turn by Ptolemaios and Xanthos, his son and grandson.

6 This point has been noted by Mylonas, MMA, 227, who is therefore compelled to summon "a piratical attack by people who remain unknown" to explain the destruction of Pylos. This is perilously close in spirit to the Illyrian theory that he deplores so strongly.



288 ROBERT J. BUCK

later incursion succeed, but they are at present difficult to tie in with any archaeological data.

The wall at the Isthmus presents a problem: it implies that a considerable and united effort was possible in L.H. IIIB; it faces north. If it is considered as a Peloponnesian defence against Mycenaean Central Greece, it does not fit well with most traditions. They tell of aggression from Argos and Mycenae against Central Greece, e.g., the Seven and the Epigoni against Thebes, and Eurystheus against Athens. Very few tales may be read to signify attacks in the other direction: the Rape of Helen by Theseus, and, perhaps, the assaults of Herakles. Certainly the wall does not serve any theory of post-War civil disputes that looks to tradition.

All in all, no matter when the Sack of Troy is dated, the legenids of the Nostoi and of post-War stasis do not provide a satisfactory traditional counterpart to the devastations of the end of L.H. III B. At the best they may indicate trouble among the ruling classes of some areas, with grave after-effects on their ability to undertake effective defence.

It is always possible that the destructions at the end of L.H. III B resulted from some civil wars forgotten by tradition, but the use of a traditional counterpart, if discoverable, seems a more economical proposition. It seems, then, likely that the Nostoi and attendant disputes preceded the disasters of the end of L.H. IIIB.

It is not surprising under these circumstances that several scholars have argued for still another theory, an incursion into Greece at the end of L.H. II B unattested in any tradition, most popularly by the Illyrians.67 This movement is usually contemplated in the larger context of the disturbances in the eastern Mediterranean that saw the destruction of the Hittite Empire and the defeat and settlement of the Philistines. Since sea raids on Greece via the Aegean seem now excluded by the evidence," the scheme should be one of overland or Adriatic raiders swooping down for loot, and then either settling or moving on overseas to Egypt and the Syrian-Palestinian coast. A recently revived variation on this sees the first wave of Greek-speaking immigrants, those of the East Greek branch (lonians, Arcado-Cyprians and Aeolians), coming in at the end of L.H. III B, followed soon after by their linguistic kinsfolk of the West Greek branch.69

67 G. Bonfante, CP 36 (1941), 1-20 and AJA 50 (1946), 253 esp. note 9; H. Krahe, Antike, I944, 5ff.; V. Milojcic, AA, 1948-49, 12-I5; H. Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte2,

49-51; C. Nylander, Antiquity 37 (1963), 9f.; see also C. Starr, The Origins of Greek Civili-

zation, 66-69; Vermeule, 271-279.

68 See p. 279 This does not mean that Islanders and Mycenaeans may not have joined in

the journeys to Syria and Egypt, but there was no damage by sea to Greece. 69 S. Hood, The Home of the Heroes (London, 1967), 122-130, following J. P. Harland

el at.




Concerning the Illyrians, there is no good evidence for their presence in later Greece; doubtful toponyms are nothing to build on. It is most unlikely that the Illyrians settled.70 To envisage them looting Greece, joining various Islanders and proceeding to the Levant is hard, especially in light of the inland location of most of the damaged sites, and the seaboard setting of most of the refugee areas. Perhaps the Illyrians dislodged the ones who did the damage at the end of L.H. III B, but they cannot be given more credit than that.

The Achaean hypothesis, as it was once called, demands first, a denial of the validity of Ventris' decipherment of Linear B as Greek; second the assumption of a (Mycenaeanized) Greek homeland existing outside Greece - in Macedonia and northern Pindus, for example; third, a belief that the inhabitants of the refugee areas, Cyprus, Arcadia, Achaea, Attica, learnt Greek from the first wave, the one that chased them out (they learnt it on the run, apparently), retained this speech in the face of a second wave, that came after a generation or two, and spread it through the Central Aegean. A little too much all at once.

A little better case can be made for a fourth possible counterpart, an invasion by Thracians. There was a widespread belief that they had had dominion over much of Greece at some early time as the result of an invasion. There is, however, a chronological problem in placing them. Hekataiosn says that the Thracians held Attica and Daulis under Eumolpos and Tereus respectively. Thucydides (2.

29.3) and Euripides72 date these two to the reigns of Erechtheus and Pandion, well before the Trojan War.

Ephoros did not accept such an early dating.73 His sequence, which is rather complicated, runs as follows: i) first expulsion of the Cadmeans from Thebes, by the Epigoni; ii) first return, "after a short time," iii) second expulsion of the Cadmeans, by the Thracians and Pelasgoi; iv) their stay in Thessaly "for a long time," during which they became called Boeotians; v) second return to Boeotia, at the time when "the children of Orestes were sending the [Aeolic] expedition into Asia;" vi) alliance of Boeotians and Orchomenians, and the expulsion of the Pelasgoi into Attica and of the Thracians up into Parnassus; vii) co-operation with Penthilos in the colonization of Aeolis. From all this, particularly (iii), it is clear that Ephoros places the Thracian invasion at about the time of, or a little later than, the Trojan War. It is worth noting that Hieronymos (in Diod. I9. 53-54), although very different from Ephoros in most parts of his discussion of the vicissitudes of Thebes, does agree in placing an expulsion of the Thebans during the Trojan War. He credits it, however, to the Pelasgoi alone.

Still others place the incursion after the War. According to Hellanikos,74 the Thracians expelled the Minyans from Orchomenos, whence they settled at

70 Mylonas, MMA, 228. 71 FGrH I F II9. 72 Erechtheus, 464 Nauck. '3 FGrH 7o F II9. 3 followed by Demon, 327 F 7. 74 FGrH 3 F 42(b) = 323a F 5(b) (dated to Ionian migration by Jacoby, commentary

on 3 F 42, p. 450), and followed by Diodorus the Periegete, 372 F 39.

'g Historia XVIII13



290 ROBERT J. BUCK

Munychia. This is to be dated to the time of the Ionian migrations. A similar but separate tradition, found in Nicolaos of Damascus,75 tells us that the Minyans were expelled by the Phocians (Thracians from Daulis? Phlegyians?) and emigrated to Asia Minor by way of Thorikos on the eastern coast of Attica.76 Neither Hellanikos nor Nicolaos makes any mention of Thebes. Thus the Thra- cian invasion is placed by some before the Trojan War, by others at a time contemporaneous with it, and by still others some time later.77

The dating before the Trojan War is probably based on a cross-reference from the genealogy of the Eumolpidae to early Athenian monarchs. This Eleusinian priestly family had a vested interest in showing in high antiquity for their founder, the higher the better: the closer to the first rulers of Athens, the more august their family might seem. Such witnesses may be rejected. The theory of Thracian ties for such very early figures as Athamas, Salmoneus, Sisyphus and various other Aeolids78 seems somewhat farfetched; but I suppose it is possible that folk-tale accretions from Thracian sources could be grafted on to pre-existing historical figures, or that folktale characters could be endowed with a spurious antiquity. In any case such evidence would be of little use in determining when the Thracians entered Greece. There is little in favour of a date before the Trojan War.

The historians who make the invasion conitemporaneous with the War are not too convincing. Ephoros and his doubling of invasions and exile and returns gives the impression of attempting to harmonize variant traditions or literary doublets. He does not inspire confidence. Nor does Hieronymos with his precise dates; his whole tale of Theban tribulations is highly schematic and inaccurate.

We are left with Hellanikos and Nikolaos and their late dating of the invasion. They used separate traditions, doubtless gathered in Asia Minor from two different groups of Minyans, the one descended from a band that emigrated via Munychia, the other from a group that departed from Thorikos. Both preserve memories of an overwhelming of Orchomenos from the west, and both associate the disaster with the Ionian migration. Their dating of the incursion seems to be most likely.

Only in Ephoros and Hieronymos is there any mention of Thracians at Thebes, although there were many Cadmeans in Asia Minor and several traditions of their settlement have survived.79 Whether or not Thebes suffered at

75 FGrH go F 51.

76 This tradition has left traces in Hdt. I. 146 and Paus. 7. 2. 4, 7. 2. I0 according to Wilamowitz, SDA W, I906, 65.

77 Nilsson, Mycenaean Origins, 15i, draws the wrong inference from such evidence and posits several waves of invasion.

78 R. Carpenter, Folk Tale, Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Berkeley, 1946),

117-133.

79 Sakellariou, La Migration grecque en lonie, 76-gI (Priene), I I5 (Magnesia), 147-I60

(Colophon), 178-i87 (Teos), 192-I96 (Chios).




this time cannot be ascertained on the archaeological evidence. On the one hand, the city is supposed to have been devastated by the Epigoni a generation before the Trojan War; on the other, there is a tradition of some survival.80 It seems, however, that the tales of Thracian assaults on Orchomenos were transferred to Thebes, in part to justify various extra Cadmean wanderings, and in part in an anachronistic error that gave Thebes the dominion it held much later.8'

It may be that the Phlegyians answer at Thebes to the Thracians elsewhere, but their presence at Thebes could be the result of improper reconstruction. They are dated after the Trojan War, but their connection with Thebes could be secondary, a transferral from Orchomenian or Panopean tradition.82 They do seem, however, to have been a tribe closely associated with the Thracians, if not Thracian themselves.83

The traditions of the Thracian invasion speak of heavy fighting, especially in Phocis, Boeotia, and west of Athens, of the defeat of the defenders," and of refugees fleeing from their homelands. Thracians were remembered in Megara (Paus. I. 4I. 8), and there are strong hints of their presence in Arcadia.8 Place- names of Thracian affinities, like Phrygia and Nysai, are found in Malis, Attica, Euboea and Arcadia.86

A Thracian attack on Greece after the Trojan War would agree with the archaeological evidence reasonably well. There are archaeological hints of a northern incursion found in Thessaly, though at present not observed further south.87 The fact that the devastation and depopulation was not followed by settlement in the Peloponnese would fit into a picture of the Thracians attacking, looting and withdrawing, leaving behind only scattered bands here and there, especially in Western Boeotia and Phocis.88

80 A. Schachter, Phoenix 21 (1967), 4. 81 Jacoby, FGrH II, 2, commentary pp. 68-71 on 70 F 1 19. 82 II. 13. 301-303 puts them on the Thracian marches during the Trojan War. Their

associations are with Orchomenos. See Paus. 9. 34. 4 and 9. 36. 83 S. Eitrem, RE 20 (I94I), 267, S.v. "Phlegyas", hesitantly distinguishes them from

Thracians because Homer seems to do so. P. Kretschmer, Glotta 24 (1936), 226, doubts whether the Phlegyians were Greek. H. Krahe, Glotta r7 (1929), Ioi, sees Balkan-Illyran parallels, as does E. Kirsten, RE 20 (I941), 265, S.V. "Phlegya", Homer really does not make any distinction.

4 See, for example, Zenob. 4. 37; Polyain. 7. 43; Str. 9. 2. 4, 10. 3. 17; Hellanikos, FGrH 323a F 5(b).

85 Paus. 8. 4. 3-4 tells about Elatos of Arcadia aiding the fight with the Phlegyians shortly after stating that the Phrygians around Steunos were Azanian colonists. See also Carpenter, Folk Tale, 117, II9-I21 for Arcadian parallels to Thracian cult practices and 129f. for links.

86 S. Casson, Macedonia, Thrace and Illyria (Oxford, 1926), 102-104. 87 Desborough in CAH2 II, ch. 36, Io (sep. fasc.). influx of population of Macedonian

affinities. 88 Desborough, 222-224.

'9.



292 ROBERT J. BUCK

A relative sequence utilizing tradition could run: first, the taking of Troy; second, the Thracian attack and the withdrawal of most of the raiders; third, entrance of the Thessaloi into Thessaly and the expulsion of the Boiotoi; fourth, the entrance of the Boiotoi into Boeotia; fifth, the Return of the Heraklids. If the destruction of Troy VII a is set in the middle of L.H. III B, then the Thracian attack comes two generations or so later. This span of time would allow for the nostoi and the attendant confusions. The Thessalian invasion, involving the collapse of Iolkos in L.H. IIIC-i, could cross the wake of the withdrawing invaders, who would be turning their attention elsewhere. Possibly the Knobbed Ware of Troy VIIb was left by the forerunners of the Thracians, Phrygians, and Mysians.89 The story that Thracians in Boeotia were eventually defeated and driven into the fastnesses of Parnassus by the Boiotoi90 is explica- ble if it refers to a straggling group left behind. The entrance of the Boiotoi could, then, fit Thucydides' sixty years quite well. The Dorians, doubtless somewhat disturbed in their habitats of Doris and Phocis, could start moving their straggling bands to fill the vacuum in the Peloponnese, some by sea from Naupactus, some by land through Isthmus. Twenty years after the invasion of Boeotia by the Boiotoi they could have finally overthrown the disturbed and weak, though slightly reviving, power of Mycenae. In summary, this theory looks to Thracians to deliver a series of hard blows at the end of L.H. III B, with the Dorians and their associates drifting into the Mycenaean areas later.

In spite of all the arguments, this theory is not particularly attractive either. Tradition preserves no memory of a Thracian attack on the Peloponnese. There are hints of a Thracian presence in Arcadia; vague memories of some fighting, somewhere, sometime; obscure links with the Thracian Phlegvians; and some affinity between Arcadian and Thracian cult practices. This is, however, all very tenuous, and nothing to build from. The wall at the Isthmus is another difficulty. If it represents a response to an overrunning of Bueotia, then the Thracian assault on Central Greece should be set back to mid L.H. III B, which is on archaeological evidence most unlikely. If it is a response to a Thracian threat, then this threat must have been apparent as early as mid L.H. IIIB. This is possible, but not too probable. All in all, if one posits a Thracian assault as the cause of the destruction at the end of L.H. III B, one finds a fairly good fit with the evidence from Central Greece, but no fit at all with that from the Peloponnese.

It is possible, however, that a Thracian assault on Central Greece should be associated with the early Heraklid attack on the Peloponnese. While the Thracians were reducing Boeotia, the Heraklids could be profiting by the confu- sion and could be attacking via the Isthmus. The traditions of the refugees from the Peloponnese would speak of a Heraklid invasion, with, perhaps, some

89 Blegen, CA H2 "Troy", 14-I5, (sep. fasc.). 90 Ephoros, FGrH 70 F 119. 3.




difficulty occurring at the Isthmus, while those from Boeotia of a Thracian onslaught, and, vaguely of some Heraklids passing through their land.

Such a combination of traditionis from the Peloponnese and from Boeotia would provide a satisfactory counterpart for the archaeological evidence, particularly if an early dating is given the destruction of Troy VII a. It would be chronologically reasonable, since the traditional invasion would be set a couple of generations after the Trojan War, i.e., at the end of L.H. IIIB (ca. 1200). A withdrawal of most of the Thracians and a pause in Heraklid attacks would allow time for the resettlement of refugees, for the start of overseas movements and for the "revival" of Mycenae in the early part of L.H. IIIC. The final assault on Mycenae would follow after two or three generations (ca. II25), a few years later than the entry of the Boiotoi into Boeotia and the defeat of the remaining Thracians. Certainly such an attack would be historically reasonable: on the face of it West Greek hillmen combined with a horde of Thracians could cause considerable damage. This modifica- tion, in fine, would seem to provide the closest match between tradition and archaeology of any of the possibilities so far examined.

The hypothesis may be tested by attempting an historical reconstruction. This will demonstrate whether the traditions are used economically or not.

The tales of the feuds involving the various royal houses before the Trojan War, the hints of the establishment of new dynasties, the stories of mutual antagonisms between such towns and districts as Athens and Mycenae, Orcho- menos and Thebes, and Pylos and Elis, lead to the inference that serious troubles were then affecting the Mycenaean world, and that it was badly divided. The archaeological period corresponding to the gory happenings described in the legends should be L.H. III B prior to the destruction of Troy VIIa, and perhaps part of L.H. IIIA. It is well to note that in this timespan extensive fortifications were constructed, including the wall at the Isth- mus91 and there are hints of destructions and rebuildings at Mycenae, Pylos and Thebes. On archaeological grounds only, the deduction has been made that the Mycenaean world was then in difficulties.92 A reasonably close correspond- ence can be observed between the inferences drawn from the legends and from the archaeological evidence. In a word, there was a serious weakness, disunity appeared within the Mycenaean world or was severely aggravated, and consequently the land was unable to provide a united defence. Doubtless the building of the wall at the Isthmus was symptomatic of this disunity.

Perhaps the social organization played some part in producing the weakness that I have argued existed in L.H. IIIB. From the LinearB tablets many scholars have argued for a stratified society, with the citizenry divided into

91 See Mylonas, MMA, 1 1-45; the fortifications of some sites may have been commenced in L. H. III A, but the greater part of the construction and the most impressive remains date from L. H. III B. 92 Starr, Origins of Greek Civilization, 6o-62 and note 3 on p. 6o.



294 ROBERT J. BUCK

somewhat specialized roles." The palace seems to have had a tight control over the lines of command and to have had rigid channels of communication; and it has been suspected that this system was organized to keep the populace subdued.4 A highly centralized and controlled society can easily become dis- organized under heavy stress; or, at the least, the centralization and control become increasingly ineffective. If the populace were becoming disenchanted with and hostile to their rulers, the possibility of a strong defence would be substantially reduced.

A disunited or distracted area mav, however, act in such a way that it appears to have a united and vigorous foreign policy, as history has often demonstrated. One may consider the state of western Europe in the time of the first three Crusades as an example for analogy: great disunity existed amongst the Crusaders, but from a Saracen point of view they were all too united. The evidence from Hittite sources of extensive activity by the "Ahhiya- wa" in Asia Minor in L.H. III B would not be out of place for such a Mycenaean world as is posited here. The Hittite evidence gives the impression that the "Ahhiyawa" were roughly handled; epic and other legends give the Greeks ultimately a victors, but make it plain that losses were heavy in various adventures in Asia Minor, and that any limited confidence originally entertained in the leadership was gone by the end of the Trojan War. The result could be the situation underlying epics of the Trojan Cycle and of the legends of the 'Nostoi': loss of confidence in the leadership; hatred and bitterness against the nobles; consequent attempts at replacement; revolution; interstate wars; civil wars; murders and exiles. If this were the case, with the military classes decimated and the survivors fighting amongst themselves, the Mycenaean world doubtless be so weakened and riven with hatreds that it would no longer be capable of puttinig up any unified or effective resistance to any external attack. The collapse of a neighboring state could be regarded with joy rather than alarm-until it was too late.

The traditions of the Nostoi then, should, at best, refer to troubles in various states between the Trojan Wars and the Great Catastrophe, troubles perhaps contributory to the disaster, but not part of it.

Several traditions state that victorious attacks were made against Greece after the Trojan War. The names of the attackers vary from area to area: Thessaloi against Thessaly; Thracians and, later, Boiotoi against Boeotia and other parts of Central Greece; Dorians anid other West Greeks against different districts of the Peloponnese. All were hillmen, or displaced by hillmen, a heterogeneous series of bands, originally situated around the periphery of the

93 Page, History and the Homeric Iliad, 179-187 for a good description. 94 Mylonas, MMA, 227f., suggests that "the elaborate control over every aspect of life

indicated by the tablets from Pylos" may stem from a regime established by a small

group of "foreign" warlords over a peaceful agrarian population.




lands holding a Mycenaean culture.Y5 Their attacks are traditionally set some time after the Trojan War, from immediately after to two generations later with a preponderance giving a date of about two generations. Occasionally a pre-War date is given for the incursion of one or other of these folk, but in each case grave doubt can be cast on the chronology, and there are other indications of a post-War time." If the modern scholars are correct who set the capture of Troy in the middle or latter part of L.H. III B, i.e., sixty or seventy years before the end of the period, (whether their Troy is VIh or VII a is immaterial at this point), then the time-spans indicated by many traditions and by archaeological evidence match very well.

The hillmen were presumably moved by greed, a desire to seize a golden opportunity and by pressure from further north.97 Many groups must have had exceptionally capable leaders - the names of the "Heraklids" must have stuck in the traditions for some good reason. On the other hand tradition does not speak of or imply a co-ordinated or united assault, but of invasions mounted at different times in different places by different peoples.

Of course, in the troubled years after the invasions, when the traditions seem to have originated, there was little if any communication between various areas. Consequently even if the attacks had been co-ordinated one would not expect either that the victims would have had any knowledge of it, or that the attackers would have preserved its memory.

The course of the invasions must have been confused, and the memory of them survives in bits and pieces. In Boeotia Orchomenos was defeated in battle, by Thracians out of Phocis, and some survivors fled to Attica. There they were later joined by Thebans, Tanagraeans and other natives of the Boeotian area.98 At Athens resistance to all assaults was successful, but it was accompanied by heavy loss, including a king.9' Gaps in the citizenry seem to have been filled by recruitment from some of the refugees. In the mean- time the Peloponnese had been entered by various tribes, including Dorians under Heraklid and other leadership. Pylos was sacked; some of the survivors fled to Athens, while others, perhaps, sailed directly to Ionia.100 Mycenae and its king were defeated, and some survivors fled; Corinth was eventually taken by a conditional surrender. The traditions here provide a good explanation for the assaults noted on archaeological grounds.

The course was not as clear as the paragraph would seem to make it. In sections of Arcadia and at Amyklai, for example, the population seems to

95 Hammond is especially informative on this point: see CAH2. II. ch. q6. 27. 96 See above, p. 290 97 Hammond, CAH2, II, ch. 36, 34. 98 Cf. Aelius Aristides Panath., I, 176-177. 99 Is it significant that some Athenian tradition remembered Codrus as the last Athenian

king? Perhaps originally he was thought of as thc last Wanax, not the last Basileus. For unsuccessful assault see Broneer, Hesperia 35 (I966), 357.

100 Mimnermos, frg. I2 Diehl.



296 ROBERT J. BUCK

have made some sort of deal with the invaders.'0' The archaeological pecul- iarities of Argos, which indicate a separation from Mycenae during L.H. III C, might be well explained by a similar joining with the invaders and a consequent sundering of relations with the Mycenaean survivors.'?2 In some areas besides Attica the invaders may even have received temporary checks.

At any rate the Mycenaean political and social organization was shattered. In numerous areas the population had its villages sacked and its food supplies destroyed or stolen. Many must have been killed, or have died of famine or sickness in the aftermath of the social collapse. Many fled to Arcadia, Achaea, Attica or to the coastal areas, anywhere that there was a rumour of food, a hope of security, and a chance to get out. Areas like northern Laconia, central Messenia and the interior of Boeotia seem to have been left desolate.

The invaders may have begun to settle some areas, e.g., western Argolid, central Laconia, western Boeotia, but let others lie empty for a time. The population was gone; there was nothing left worth looting. Resistance in a few areas may also have given potential settlers pause. Eventually, however, reinforcements began to come up: the rear echelons; various friends and relations attracted by the reports of exciting happenings and good land. Area after area began to be resettled, particularly Thessaly, Elis, Messenia, Laconia and Boeotia and West Attica, to judge by the evidence of new forms of inhumation, observable during L.H. IIIC.103

Meanwhile the Mycenaean survivors continued to occupy some of their old sites, such as Athens, Nauplia, Epidaurus, Asine and, perhaps, Corinth, as well as the refugee areas. They also began to re-occupy a few of the sites that had been overrun - if they had ever completely abandoned them - such as Mycenae and Tiryns.104 A "revival" becomes observable in areas in cultural contact with Mycenae, and Mycenae itself seems to be the home of two important ceramic styles of L.H. III C, Granary and Close.lcr This revival, however, enjoyed but a tenuous existence. When the pressure of the invaders had built up sufficiently, these shadowy remnants of Mycenaean power were swept away. The Granary at Mycenae was destroyed a few decades after the end of L.H. III B,106 and the level of culture thereafter slid down a few more notches.

101 For Arcadia, see Paus. 8. 5. 4; for Amyklai see Ephoros, FGrH 70 F 117. 102 See J. Deshayes, Argos, les fouilles de Deiras, 248-250; the situation in L. H. III C

might have had some influence on the description of the Argolid in the Catalogue in the

Iliad, where Diomedes' rule over Argos has long been thought rather odd. 103 Desborough, 230-232; 233-235. 104 Mycenae probably continually occupied, Tiryns perhaps with broken occupation.

See Mylonas, MMA, 229f.

105 For discussion of styles see Desborough CAH2, II, ch. 36. 6. 106 Destruction of the granary Mylonas, MMA, 232; Desborough, 72-75, 230f. Mycenae

was occupied after the fire, but not for too long. Desborough, 231.




Tradition occasionally indicates that a modus vivendi was reached between invaders and the surviving inhabitants and some of the refugees. In some cases, as in Thessaly and Laconia, it was highly disadvantageous to the natives;107 in others, not quite as bad.l10

If Thucydides' remarks have significance, the final destruction of Mycenae during L.H. IIIC should be equated with date given for the Return of the Heraklids. The destruction of Iolkos during L. H. III C-i could mark the traditional date of entry of the Thessaloi into Thessaly and their dislodgement of the Boiotoi. The latter could enter Boeotia at a date between the Thessalian attacks and the final destruction of Mycenae. The Boiotoi had dislodged previous invaders, notably the Thracians,109 and gradually extended their sway over eastern Boeotia to what eventually became the Attic border. They expelled some of the previous inhabitants, and they absorbed others, both processes lasted presumably some time.

While the final assault on Mycenae was being awaited, and after it had succeeded, i.e., throughout L.H. III C, a continuing stream of emigration moved from Greece to the Islands and the coast of Asia Minor. The major paths were, to judge by the dialects, west to east, with the people from Thessaly occupying Aeolis, the emigrants from Central Greece occupying most of the islands and Ionia, and Dorians who did not settle in Greece for one ieason or another occupying Crete, the southernmost islands of the Aegean, and a small corner of Asia Minor. The Mycenaeans of the Islands had been relatively untouched earfier;110 but near the end of L.H. IIIC, they seemed to have abandoned some islands, and to have been attacked in others, perhaps by refugees from the Mainland."'' The Mycenaean culture of the Aegean flickers out in the later phases of L.H. IIIC. The Mycenaean Age was gone by Iioo B.c.

The reconstruction offered above uses the first Heraklid returns as the legendary counterpart for the destructions of L.H. IIIB and tries to fit the other possibilities, as far as they can be utilized, in suitable positions. Since it coheres together reasonably well, while attempting to account for all the pertinent evidence, it provides a good test. It makes a reasonable interpretation of, first, a series of devastations; second, a pause with a recovery among some of the devastated areas; third a final attack and the presence, possibly, of forms of inhumation new in Mycenaean areas.

107 The belief that the Helots are supposed to have been from Helos, (Ephoros, FGrH 7o F Ii 17) a maritime town in the refugee area at the northern end of the Gulf, is probably no coincidence.

108 In Corinth and Sicyon, the presence of other tribes beside the three Dorian has often been interpreted as evidence for the granting of rights to some non-Dorian stocks. See Muller, Darians II, 57-59, and his followers.

10g Polyain. 7. 43; Ephoros, FGrH 70 F 119. 3. 110 For peaceful conditions in the Aegean see Desborough, 223f., and 147-I5 8; Mvlonas.

MMA, 231. 11 Collapse in the islands, Desborough, 233.



298 BUCK, The Mycenaean Time of Troubles

The idea that a crumbling Mycenaean world collapsed before attacks from West Greek and other hillmen at the end of L.H. III B, hung on with a much changed and precarious existence in a few areas for a few decades, and was finally extinguished, even at Athens, when the last Peloponnesian citadels fell and the invaders were reinforced, seems to match best the archaeological evidence and a cautious analysis of the confused traditional material.

University of Alberta (Canada) ROBERT J. BUCK



Documents

Buck, Robert J. the Mycenaean Time of Troubles