[641] What I mean by the term 'Homeric civilisation' will probably be clear from Chapters X and XI. I cannot admit that a satisfactory case has been made out for believing the civilisation of the Heroic Age to have differed widely from that of the poets' own times. The excavations at Cnossos have brought to light the existence (in 'Late Minoan' times) of a highly organised bureaucratic system, for which analogies enough are to be found in Egyptian records of the same period. But the poems themselves do not give the slightest hint of acquaintance with such a system. The absence of striking inconsistencies which has been remarked above (p. [241]) is unintelligible unless the civilisation with which the poets themselves were acquainted—presumably in Aeolis—was a more or less direct continuation of that of the Heroic Age. Such changes as had taken place were in general probably of a retrograde character, in spite of the growing use of iron and possibly also of riding. But there is no ground, so far as I can see, for supposing that the Homeric poems are records of the people and events of a highly civilised age preserved by the traditions of a semi-barbaric society.
[642] Both in Ionia and Cyprus there were of course cities which, according to tradition, had been founded by Achaean colonists. But the Greek population as a whole made no such claim in either case. For Cyprus cf. Herodotus VII 90.
[643] Aristotle (Meteorolog. I 14. 21 f.) applies the term Ἑλλὰς ἡ ἀρχαία to the country round Dodona and the Acheloos; but it is commonly held that in this he was following a late Molossian story relating to Dodona, rather than a genuine tradition. Yet the part played by the Acheron in Greek religion and poetry (cf. p. [422]) suggests that this region was at one time traditionally regarded by a portion of the Greek race as its homeland.
[644] A different view is taken by Prof. Meyer (Gesch. d. Alt.2, I § 473, note) who accepts the statement of the Lydian historian Xanthos (quoted by Strabo, XIV 5. 29; cf. XII 8. 3) that the Phrygian invasion took place μετὰ τὰ Τρωικά. He holds that this statement is confirmed by a passage in Proclus' epitome of the Telegony (cf. Kinkel, Epic. Gr. Fragm., p. 57), where the Thesprotoi are represented as being at war with the Brygoi. But the latter are clearly the Brygoi of Albania; and there is nothing in the context to suggest that the Phrygians (of Asia) were believed to be still with their kinsfolk in the west. It seems to me that the statement of a fifth century writer, who is known only from fragments, requires stronger confirmation than this before it can be accepted as evidence for the chronological relationship of events which took place some seven centuries before his time. Especially is this the case when such a statement is directly opposed to several passages in the Iliad, which clearly recognise the presence of the Phrygians in Asia. In view of the fact that the queen (Hecabe) is said to be a Phrygian it is scarcely safe to assume that these elements are unessential or late additions to the story. But, more than this, Xanthos' account itself does not appear to be free from Homeric influence. The names Βερεκύντων and Ἀσκανίας may possibly be derived from Phrygian tradition—perhaps ultimately from the same source as Il. II 862 f.—but the leader's name (Σκαμάνδριος) is not only Homeric but obviously a derivative of Σκαμάνδρος, the name of a river in the Troad. It may be observed that a hero of the same name (Hector's son) figures in a somewhat similar story recorded by Strabo elsewhere (XIII 1. 52); and for my part I see no reason for attaching more importance to Xanthos' account than to this. The expression ἐκ ... τῶν ἀριστερῶν τοῦ Πόντου clearly suggests that he had confused the tradition of the Phrygian invasion with certain much later movements (of the Bithynians, Thynoi, etc.), some of which do seem to have proceeded from the quarter indicated. On the other hand all the evidence which we have (cf. Herodotus, VII 73 and VIII 138, and the position of the Brygoi in historical times) points to the western part of the Balkan peninsula as the original home of the Phrygians.
As to the nationality of the Trojans themselves—the Homeric Trojans—Prof. Meyer does not appear to have expressed an opinion. The question will doubtless be discussed in the next volume of his work. His theory however would seem to involve that any historical events which may underlie the story of the Iliad must be referred at least to the thirteenth century; for the date which he gives for the Phrygian invasion is about, or shortly after, 1200. Here again however I cannot help thinking that the evidence is far from conclusive. There may very well be a connection between the fall of the Hittite kingdom, which apparently did take place about this time, and the invasion encountered by Rameses III (cf. p. [188]). But I am by no means clear why it is necessary to conclude that the Phrygian invasion immediately preceded these events. If the Masa and Dardenui of the Poem of Pentaur are rightly identified with the Mysians and Dardanoi we shall probably have to date the earliest settlements at least a century before this time. As for the Dardanoi—who apparently were regarded as the parent stock of the Homeric Trojans (cf. Il. XX 215 ff.)—I see no reason for doubting their European origin any more than that of the Phrygians (Brygoi) and the Mysians (Moisoi), whose neighbours they were both in Asia and in the Balkans. But at the same time there seems to me to be equally little reason for referring the events on which the Iliad is based to times anterior to the eleventh century.
[645] Under such conditions the nearest approach to the heroic spirit is afforded by athletic contests. Such contests have at times produced what we may call 'heroic' poetry of Stage I (cf. p. [94]). But the motive for further elaboration of the stories is wanting.
[646] In the folk-tale—at least in some forms of it—the hero's arrival in the cave is involuntary.
[647] In this chapter I am using the word 'Roman' in a very wide sense, viz. for the civilisation of the Empire as a whole. Both the material objects and the influence of which I am speaking came doubtless rather from the provinces than from Italy itself. In many cases it would probably be more correct to use the term 'Romanised Celtic'; cf. The Origin of the English Nation, p. 189 ff., though I think now that I was mistaken here in doubting the importance of (strictly) Roman influence upon the Angli—especially in military matters.
[648] It appears from the Notitia Dignitatum that troops of Attacotti were largely employed by the Romans on the Continent at the beginning of the fifth century. According to St Jerome (Adv. Iouinianum, II 7) the Attacotti were a British people; and they are mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus (XXVI 4. 5; XXVII 8. 5) as ravaging the province of Britain, together with the Picts and Scots, in the reign of Valentinian I. It is commonly held that they belonged to the south of Scotland, though opinions differ as to whether they were Britons (properly speaking) or Picts of Galloway.
[649] This appears to be the view taken by Prof. Meyer (Gesch. d. Alt.2, I pp. 701, 719 f.). The problem will no doubt be discussed more fully in his next volume. Here I need only mention that the recent discoveries of wall-paintings at Tiryns and elsewhere seem to me to weigh rather heavily against the view that the inhabitants of these buildings were of a totally different nationality from the 'Minoan' Cretans. It is gradually becoming clear also that—contrary to what had been supposed at first—the use of writing was not unknown on the mainland; cf. Evans, Scripta Minoa, I p. 56 ff.