The Heroic Age

by H. Munro Chadwick

We have left the Greek Heroic Age until the end because in this case historical information is wanting. Here also it is clear that a high civilisation had existed in a portion of the area then occupied by the Achaeans; and there can be no doubt that the latter were deeply affected thereby. The difficulty lies in determining the relationship of the Achaeans to this civilisation. Prof. Ridgeway's theory on the question has already been discussed. At the same time however it was mentioned that there are other scholars who hold that the Achaeans themselves were partly responsible for this civilisation. Some believe that the prehistoric civilisation of Crete was non-Achaean until its fall, and yet claim an Achaean origin for the fortresses on the mainland (Mycenae, Tiryns, etc.)[649], while others attribute to the Achaeans not only the buildings on the mainland but also the later palaces in Crete[650]. It is recognised by the advocates of this latter view that a different type of civilisation appears in other—more western—districts which have at least as good a claim to be regarded as Achaean lands. The explanation given is that the more primitive pottery and less elaborate buildings of these districts are true products of Achaean art and handicraft, while the remains found at Mycenae and elsewhere are due to native, or rather Cretan, craftsmen and builders, who worked for Achaean lords.

Both these explanations are open, as we have seen, to the serious objection that they fail to account for the differences between Homeric and Mycenean (Late Minoan) civilisation. It has been observed that in regard to armature the affinities of the former lie apparently rather with the Warrior Vase (cf. p. [185]), which belongs to a later period than the true Mycenean age. All indications favour the view that this type of armature is derived from that of the Shardina rather than from earlier Mycenean or Cretan types. Again, I do not see that the presence of vases of 'Late Minoan II' style in the tombs found at Kakovatos—which is identified with the Homeric Pylos—can fairly be held to prove that these tombs date from that period[651]; for, when the manufacture of such vases had ceased they may very well have been preserved as precious heirlooms for a considerable time. Nor can it be said with certainty that these tombs date from the Achaean period[652], or at all events from the last days of it[653]. The evidence of the pottery[654] found in the ruins of the citadel seems rather to suggest that this site was inhabited at a later date than the tombs[655].

In the Homeric poems we certainly find the Achaeans in possession of the chief centres of the prehistoric civilisation both in Crete and on the mainland. Mycenae itself is represented as the principal seat of the most important of the Achaean dynasties. But the poems themselves do not tell us by whom these places had been founded—though the origin of Troy does seem to be known. If we are right in believing that only the stratum represented by the Warrior Vase and the Stele corresponds truly to the conditions depicted in the poems, it is a probable inference that the Achaeans came into possession of Mycenae at a very late period in its history. In that case the presence of Agamemnon in this city would be a phenomenon somewhat parallel to that of Theodric (Dietrich von Bern) in Ravenna. In later times, it is true, we meet with stories according to which Tiryns and Mycenae were founded by Proitos and Perseus, though it is not made clear whether these persons were regarded as Achaeans. But have we any reason for believing that such stories are more trustworthy than the medieval traditions which attribute the foundation of famous Roman buildings to Dietrich von Bern? In view of the parallel cases, both Teutonic and other, which we have discussed in earlier chapters, it seems to me a highly improbable hypothesis that the men of the Greek Heroic Age had long been in possession of an advanced civilisation—still more that they had themselves initiated the construction of great palace-fortresses such as those of Tiryns and Mycenae.

The problem which we are considering has been complicated by the prevalent assumption that the Achaeans were the first Greek-speaking inhabitants of the land—an assumption which seems to me to be incompatible with the evidence of linguistic geography. The objections noted above to the Achaean origin of Mycenean civilisation would not apply with the same force to the hypothesis that this civilisation had been taken over from an earlier branch of the Greek race, represented perhaps in later times by the Arcadians and Ionians. For such an explanation a certain parallel might be found in the occupation of the (Roman) cities in Britain by British chiefs from the north and west (cf. p. [446] f.). But in this case, if we wish to press the analogy, we must bear in mind that the civilisation of the British cities was not of native origin but superimposed on the country by invaders from overseas. It is by no means impossible that such may have been the case also in Greece. Yet on the whole the complete break between the prehistoric civilisation and that of historical times must be regarded as an argument—not conclusive of course but weighty—against any form of the theory that the possessors of the former were of Greek nationality.

It may be convenient now to recapitulate briefly the various points at issue. In the first place account must be taken of the undoubted existence of the prehistoric civilisation, regarding the character of which evidence is still gradually accumulating. Further, it is scarcely open to question that the Achaeans were brought into contact with that civilisation in some form or other, though almost all scholars are agreed that it did not originate with them. The chief questions which remain to be settled are (i) whether the civilisation was native or introduced from abroad (Crete or elsewhere), (ii) whether its possessors were Greeks or non-Greeks, (iii) whether its monuments were constructed under Achaean domination or before the centres of civilisation fell into Achaean hands. The first of these questions can only be settled by a thorough examination of the various sites, such as is now being conducted[656]. All that can be said as yet is that the buildings in several cases show work belonging to more than one period. It is now believed that the earlier parts of the fortresses at Tiryns and Mycenae go back at least to the beginning of 'Late Minoan' times, i.e. probably to the sixteenth century. On the second question something has been said above. But until further evidence is forthcoming a dogmatic expression of opinion would be out of place. With regard to the third it appears to me that such evidence as we have favours Prof. Ridgeway's view, viz. that the Achaeans came into contact with this civilisation only at its fall. In that case moreover the Greek Heroic Age will fall into line with all the other Heroic Ages which we have discussed above.

Lastly, it seems to me of essential importance that the relationship of the Achaeans to the 'sea-peoples,' more especially the Shardina, should not be overlooked. We cannot with certainty determine whether or not the Achaeans were actually descended from the Shardina. But the resemblance between the two in regard to armature scarcely leaves room for doubt that the one had at least come greatly under the influence of the other. Consequently, whatever may be thought as to the proposed identification of the Akaiuasha (cf. p. [188] f.), it is highly probable that the ancestors of the Achaeans had once been associated with the 'sea-peoples[657].'

We have seen that among the Teutonic peoples, as also among the Gauls and elsewhere, mercenary service was a factor of supreme importance in the development of those features which give to the Heroic Age its distinctive character. Now it is as mercenary soldiers that the 'sea-peoples' come before our notice from the time when they are first mentioned down to their disappearance. We know from the Tell-el-Amarna tablets that Shardina had entered the Egyptian service in the reign of Amenhotep IV or his predecessor, i.e. in the first half of the fourteenth century. Later we find them fighting under both Rameses II and Rameses III. The references therefore extend over a period of nearly two centuries. Nor was it only to the Egyptians that they lent their services. The army of the Hittites encountered by Rameses II at Kadesh is said to have contained Shardina, and warriors of the same stock were present in the Libyan army defeated by Merenptah.

With the Shardina we usually find a number of other peoples associated[658]; and there is no reason for doubting that these were employed in the same way. Reference may be made to the description of the allies of the Hittites in the Poem of Pentaur, where this is expressed quite clearly[659]. The Pulesatha also represented on the monuments of Rameses III are evidently well-disciplined professional soldiers.

There can be no question then that professional military service, very frequently in the employment of foreign nations, was the vocation of those bands of warriors whom we have to regard as the predecessors of the Achaeans of the Heroic Age. But we can scarcely suppose that this mercenary service first began in regions so distant as Egypt. It has been mentioned above that the earliest reference to Shardina in the Egyptian service goes back to a time when the Cretan palaces were probably still standing (cf. p. [184]). If so and if, as is commonly believed, the absence of fortifications in Crete was due to the possession of a thalassocracy by its rulers, we must conclude that these rulers permitted the early expeditions of the 'sea-peoples.' That can scarcely mean anything else than that the Shardina and their confederates were first employed as mercenaries by the Cretans themselves[660]. In that case the relations of these peoples with the civilised states of the Aegean were in all probability very similar to those of the Teutonic peoples with Rome before and after the fall of the Western Empire.

The ultimate origin of the Shardina and their confederates is a question which as yet can hardly be regarded as ripe for discussion[661]. Later discoveries may show that they were the inhabitants of the western or northern parts of Greece; or on the other hand they may confirm the view that these peoples had come in part from the western Mediterranean. All that can be said at present is that some of these peoples—the Pulesatha type—appear to have long been settled in the Aegean area[662] and that the resemblances and differences between these and the Shardina are of such a kind as to suggest that the two were peoples racially distinct[663], yet living in adjacent regions and following a similar mode of life, at least so far as the military element is concerned. On the whole the balance of probability seems at present to be in favour of the following propositions: (1) that the Shardina element was intrusive; (2) that its true home is to be looked for rather in the north than in the west[664]; (3) that its presence or influence in the Greek world is not unconnected with that series of national movements which introduced Thraco-Phrygian populations into Asia Minor[665].