The Greek Dark Ages: The History and Legacy of the Era Between the Fall of the Mycenaeans and the Rise of the City-States

By Charles River Editors

Picture of a Mycenaean vase in the Louvre

About Charles River Editors

Charles River Editors provides superior editing and original writing services across the digital publishing industry, with the expertise to create digital content for publishers across a vast range of subject matter. In addition to providing original digital content for third party publishers, we also republish civilization’s greatest literary works, bringing them to new generations of readers via ebooks.

Sign up here to receive updates about free books as we publish them, and visit Our Kindle Author Page to browse today’s free promotions and our most recently published Kindle titles.

Introduction

Picture of a Mycenaean gold earring in the Louvre

When people think of ancient Greece, images of philosophers such as Plato or Socrates often come to mind, as do great warriors like Pericles and Alexander the Great, but hundreds of years before Athens became a city, a Greek culture flourished and spread its tentacles throughout the western Mediterranean region via trade and warfare. Scholars have termed this pre-Classical Greek culture the Mycenaean culture, which existed from about 2000-1200 BCE, when Greece, along with much of the eastern Mediterranean, was thrust into a centuries long Dark Ages. Before the Mycenaean culture collapsed, it was a vital part of the late Bronze Age Mediterranean system and stood on equal footing with some of the great powers of the region, such as the Egyptians and Hittites.

Despite being ethnic Greeks and speaking a language that was the direct predecessor of classical Greek, the Mycenaeans had more in common with their neighbors from the island of Crete, who are known today as the Minoans. Due to their cultural affinities with the Minoans and the fact that they conquered Crete yet still carried on many Minoan traditions, the Mycenaeans are viewed by some scholars as the later torchbearers of a greater Aegean civilization, much the way the Romans carried on Hellenic civilization after the Greeks.

Given that the Mycenaeans played such a vital role on the history in the late Bronze Age, it would be natural to assume there are countless studies and accurate chronologies on the subject, but the opposite is true. Although the Mycenaeans were literate, the corpus of written texts from the period is minimal, so modern scholars are left to use a variety of methods in order to reconstruct a proper history of Mycenaean culture.

In fact, even the name “Mycenaean” can be a bit misleading since it refers only to one locale in Greece. However, since the city was the first Bronze Age site discovered, it became a reference point for archeologists and historians to use to refer to any Bronze Age discoveries in Greece. Archeology has provided the basis for all studies of the ancient Mycenaeans, as does art history, which can be the study of any material culture including pottery, sculptures, reliefs, and jewelry. The Homeric epics also provide some information about Mycenaean culture, though Homer was a poet who lived hundreds of years after the collapse of the Mycenaean culture. Classical Greek historians and geographers also wrote about the Mycenaeans, but their works should be consulted with caution as some of their statements have proved false and they, like Homer, received much of their information through oral traditions.

The Greek Dark Ages, sometimes referred to as the Homeric Age or the Geometric Period, spans the era of Greek history from the end of the Mycenaean civilization around 1100 BCE and the emergence of the Greek poleis in the 9th century BCE. It is an era that has provided little in terms of extant archaeological evidence, which in part explains the name “Dark Ages,” but this lack of evidence has led some archaeologists and historians to make the very great assumption that little of any real significance occurred during these 200 years. Instead, they view it as a sort of hiatus between the collapse of the Mycenaean culture and the emergence of Archaic Greece. As with other so-called “Dark Ages,” this assessment is simplified, and an absence of evidence should never be assumed as evidence of absence. While these two centuries were, indeed, a period of transition, they included events and developments that were specific to the time, most notably the development of iron for weaponry, and many of these developments were highly significant in the subsequent evolution of Archaic Greece. After all, it’s crucial to keep in mind that places like Athens and Sparta were inhabited throughout this time, and the impact of the Minoans, Mycenaeans, and others shaped their futures.

The Greek Dark Ages: The History and Legacy of the Era Between the Fall of the Mycenaeans and the Rise of the City-States examines the overlooked time period, what life was like during it, and how it facilitated the rise of the famous poleis. Along with pictures depicting important people, places, and events, you will learn about the Greek Dark Ages like never before.

The Greek Dark Ages: The History and Legacy of the Era Between the Fall of the Mycenaeans and the Rise of the City-States

About Charles River Editors

Introduction

The Minoans and Mycenaeans

The Start of the Dark Ages

Homer

Culture

Bouncing Back

The Legacy of the Greek Dark Ages

Online Resources

Further Reading

Free Books by Charles River Editors

Discounted Books by Charles River Editors

The Minoans and Mycenaeans

Nearly 2,500 years after the Golden Age of Athens, people across the world today continue to be fascinated by the ancient Greeks, but the Greeks themselves idolized their predecessors. In Homer’s The Odyssey, Odysseus makes note of “a great town there, Cnossus, where Minos reigned.” It was perhaps the earliest reference to the Minoan civilization, a mysterious ancient civilization that historians and archaeologists still puzzle over, but a civilization that renowned historian Will Durant described as "the first link in the European chain.”

Nearly 2,000 years before Homer wrote his epic poems, the Minoan civilization was centered on the island of Crete, a location that required the Minoans to be a regional sea power, and indeed they were, stretching across the Aegean Sea from about 2700-1500 BCE, with trade routes extending all the way to Egypt. The Minoans may have been the first link in the “European chain” leading to the ancient Greeks and beyond, but questions persist over the origins of the civilization, the end of the civilization, and substantial parts of their history in between, including their religion and buildings.

Minoan economy expanded over the years because they controlled a vast trade network, the full extent of which is not precisely known. However, it is clear from finds in Egyptian tombs and sites elsewhere in the Middle East that the Minoans’ sea-empire was incredibly widespread, perhaps stretching from modern Spain to Syria and Egypt. Findings in Egyptian tombs include representations of Minoan vessels in art, particularly on seals, and one appears in an Egyptian tomb painting. The Minoan ships varied in size, from quite modest coastal vessels to larger ships with a mast in the middle supporting a square sail. As many as 15 oars on each side were used to propel the ship on windless days. Some of the art depicts Minoan ships that had high prows and sterns and were steered by a single oar managed from a deck at the stern. The ships are shown with cabins amidship or at the stern. Excavations at Minoan seaports on Crete, at places like Kydonia, Rethymnon, and Amnisos, have also shed some light on Minoan maritime commerce and shipbuilding.

The exact nature and extent of the Minoan empire is not clearly understood at present. There seem to have been colonial cities established around the eastern Mediterranean and on the islands of the Aegean, including Kythera, Naxos, Rhodes, Iasos and Miletus. The relationship between these towns and cities with the cities on Crete is not entirely clear. They may have been vassal city states, or they may have been equal trade partners. The most significant find of a Minoan colony is at Akrotiri on the island of Thera. There were probably Minoan colonies on mainland Greece as well.

The extent of Minoan trading is evidenced by decorative art that has been found in archaeological sites around the Mediterranean. In addition to exporting fine crafts, the Minoans sent timber and woolen cloth to Egypt in exchange for linen and possibly papyrus. It is likely that the Minoans exported surplus olive oil and grain in trade for exotic materials used in the production of luxury goods, such as copper from Sardinia and Etruscan tin from Italy. Tin may even have been imported from as far away as Britain, and there is evidence that some amber found at Knossos may have come from southwest England.

The Minoans also traded their excess wine and olive oil with the Myceneans on mainland Greece and imported a vast array of goods including minerals such as black obsidian from Anatolia, lapis lazuli from Syria (originally brought from Afghanistan), and amethyst and carnelian from Egypt. Egyptian beads and scarabs have been found in some Cretan sites as well.

Like Egypt, the Minoan civilization was governed by centralized seats of administrative power, the most famous and influential of which was the palace complex at Knossos in Crete. The Minoans flourished from c. 3000–c. 1100 BCE, and, also like Egypt, the rulers at Knossos exercised sole authority over all Cretan trade.

Minoan trade around the Mediterranean exploded around 1800 BCE, but over the next few centuries, it began to decline as Crete lost its control over the seas to new traders, the Mycenaeans. Cretan goods have been found as far east as Mesopotamia and as far west as Spain. The Minoans were connected to Asia and Egypt through trade with Byblos, which served as an intermediary between the three corners of the eastern Mediterranean during the early years of ancient trade.[1]

In fact, there is ample evidence of an early cultural exchange between Crete, Egypt and the Near East stretching back to the beginning of the third millennium BCE. Egyptian scarabs have been found in Crete, while the style of Minoan art, exemplified by the famous wall paintings from the palace at Knossos, influenced the murals in royal buildings in Egypt and Canaan.

These cultures came to influence one another because of their increasing contact due to trade. Minoans exported ceramics and agricultural produce (like wine and olive oil) to Egypt and got raw materials (like ivory) in return. At the same time that this trade contact expands, researchers begin to see artistic influences appearing in both cultures, showing how these two processes were closely related.

By c. 2000 BCE, Minoan Kamares wares pottery was being used in sites all around Egypt and even in Syria, demonstrating a growing trade in luxury items throughout the eastern Mediterranean.[2] Kamares wares were made of extremely fine ceramics, decorated with the rich designs that are distinctive of Minoan art, and were intended for use by the royalty and elite who inhabited the palace complexes. The fact that Kamares wares were some of the earliest exported products from Crete highlights the nature of early trade in the region – it was conducted by the wealthy, and it was intended for consumption by the wealthy.

Minoan Kamares ware jug, c. 2100–1700 BCE[3]

In this sense, early Minoan and Egyptian trade was similar in character, but one of the key differences between the ancient Minoan and Egyptian approaches to trade was geography. As an island-dwelling culture, the Minoans were skilled mariners and used their sailing experience to establish a wide network of trade contacts throughout the Mediterranean. This was partly due to necessity since travel between Mediterranean regions was much easier and faster by sea than by land. Egypt, on the other hand, controlled a large, land-based empire, so while the Mediterranean provided an expedient means of transporting exotic goods and raw materials from the East, overseas trade was not such a strong determinant in shaping their economic development until Alexander the Great built up the harbor at Alexandria in 331 BCE.

The Minoans used their maritime skills to dominate ancient Mediterranean trade, but they also used it to develop one of the world’s first navies. Military presence at sea was intimately linked to trade because, as Linder noted, “Peace at sea is essential to any political entity whose economy is based on maritime trade and communications…The seas must be free of pirates who have plagued the sea routes since the earliest maritime commercial ventures, looking for the easy prey of isolated and unprotected merchantmen.”[4]

This was the lesson that Wenamun learned on his dangerous journey to Byblos, but while Egypt had failed to effectively police the Mediterranean, the seafaring Minoans made ensuring the safety of trade routes a top priority. The rulers of Knossos had the wealth and power needed to build a navy capable of patrolling the Aegean. While there is no evidence of any sea-battles fought by the Minoans, their cities famously had no defensive walls surrounding them, meaning their main source of protection lay in their ships. Merchant fleets were equipped with weapons to fight off would-be pirates, and the Cretans’ unchallenged domination at sea has been interpreted as a kind of ancient thalassocracy, a “rule over the seas.”

They also were the first to establish colonies to secure their trade interests and serve as stopping points along key trade routes. A Minoan colony was founded at Kastri in Kythera as early as 2500 BCE to bridge the western route across the Mediterranean to southern Greece. To the east, the islands of Thera (modern Santorini), Miletus, Samos and Rhodes also had colonies built to funnel resources to and from the Near East. These colonies used the language of the Cretan palace administrators, known as Linear A, a predecessor of Ancient Greek.[5] This suggests that Knossos exerted some kind of direct political control over its colonies, showing how important these trade routes were to the Minoan kings.

These sites all used the Minoan system of weights and measures, making it easier to conduct international trade in a uniform way.[6] They also helped spread Minoan art, culture and religion: frescoes from Akrotiri on Santorini, excellently preserved after having been buried by ash from a volcanic eruption over 4,000 years ago, bear the classic trademarks of Minoan wall-painting, including an interest in scenes from the natural and maritime world. Through trade, the Minoans were able to spread their culture, language and art far and wide across the Mediterranean world.

Minoan colonization also exemplifies the way in which economic considerations were now beginning to shape political policy. Sending out colonists to establish a city and live on a foreign island year-round and setting up political structures that helped the mother-city control the internal government in these places was an entirely new way of thinking about how to exert power in the Mediterranean. There had been no reason before to want to take over another island or secure geographically advantageous locations along certain routes, but the profitability of international trade drove rulers to view these places as an important part of their economic strategy.

The Minoans set the stage for the way that trade would develop in the ancient Mediterranean. After the collapse of their civilization and the destruction of the Minoan capital at Knossos, the trade routes and systems they had built would be exploited by their successors, the Mycenaeans, whose culture was itself heavily influenced by Crete.

During the height of their culture from about 1400-1200 BCE, the Mycenaeans were part of a complex trade network that connected the Aegean with the Levant, Egypt, and Anatolia, and the expansion of Mycenaean power is documented through texts, art, and archaeological remains. In particular, the Mycenaeans appear to have mastered the sea, much like their Aegean predecessors the Minoans, but ultimately the sea also played a major role in the collapse of the Mycenaean culture.

Before the Mycenaeans built complex trade networks that connected them to the likes of the Egyptians and Hittites, they developed land routes throughout Greece and into Europe. In fact, the Mycenaeans were the first people to bring roads to Europe, which they used to crisscross Greece for merchant activities (Samuel 1966, 103). Specifically, wheat from Thessaly and oil from Attica was imported to the primary Mycenaean cities of Mycenae, Pylos, and Tiryns on the Peloponnese (Samuel 1966, 103).

Eventually Mycenaean merchants penetrated deep into the Balkans region into what were non-Greek speaking areas, such as on the shores of Lake Ohrid in what is today modern Albania. Mycenaean pottery discovered in Albania testifies that Mycenaean trade goods, if not the Mycenaeans themselves, went to northern regions that classical Greeks knew little about hundreds of years later (Samuel 1966, 105). Mycenaean merchant activities in Greece and southeast Europe no doubt helped provide a template when the classical Greeks established more extensive and complex trade routes throughout the region 1,000 years later, despite the fact the Mycenaeans were basically forgotten until modern times.

The trade networks that the Mycenaeans established in southeast Europe were impressive, but the great wealth that was required to build the large tholos tombs discussed earlier was the result of extensive overseas trade with the long established kingdoms of the Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean. Although the Minoans are known for being a maritime power, the Mycenaeans eclipsed their Aegean neighbors when it came to open sea trade. The Mycenaeans were able to establish sea routes to the west long before the Minoans would attempt such a difficult journey, and they did so hundreds of years before the classical Greeks would exploit these very routes (Samuel 1966, 114). Specifically, the Mycenaeans established trade routes with the islands of Sardinia and Sicily, as well as the Libyan coastline (Morkot 1996, 28-29).

Archeological evidence seems to suggest that the Mycenaeans imported more goods than they exported; metal from Cyprus and Anatolia was imported to make weapons, while grain was imported from the Black Sea and Egypt (Vermeule 1960, 66). In return, the Mycenaeans exported their fine pottery and finished weapons throughout the Mediterranean (Morkot 1996, 28-29).

Trade obviously brought the Mycenaeans into direct contact with a number of different foreign peoples, especially the Egyptians and Hittites. Archeological evidence confirms that the Mycenaeans and the Egyptians had extensive contact with each other from about 1500-1300 BCE, but Egyptian-Aegean connections began long before that period; contact between the Egyptians and Minoans began before 2000 BCE, and from 2000-1500 BCE, permanent links between the two kingdoms appear to have been established. Egyptian scarabs and statues excavated at Knossos, dated to the Middle Minoan II period (ca. 2000-1700 BC), confirm contact between Egypt and the Aegean (Samuel 1966, 108).

The links that the Minoans established with Egypt were then taken over by the Mycenaeans around 1500 BCE, which coincided with the Late Helladic I period in Greece and when the first tholos tombs were built (Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 242). It is unknown in what context the Mycenaeans took over the role that the Minoans played in the Aegean-Egyptian trade network, but the evidence from Egypt is dated to the period right before the Mycenaeans conquered Crete, so it may have been a case of the Mycenaeans forcefully expanding their influence in the region and physically taking over the Minoan trade networks. Whatever the case, the first confirmed contact between the Mycenaeans and the Egyptians took place during the reign of the Egyptian king Thutmose III (ca. 1504-1450 BCE), who was known for his war-like nature and forceful expansion of the Egyptian empire. In that context, it may have been that the Egyptians sought the Mycenaeans out as partners to replace the increasingly weak Minoans.

A tomb of an Egyptian noble provides an interesting primary source on the relationship between the Mycenaeans and Egyptians during the Bronze Age. On the west bank of the Nile River across from the ancient city of Thebes are a collection of nobles’ tombs, and most of the tombs are fairly standard in terms of New Kingdom design and function: they contain a sarcophagus that once housed the coffin and remains of the deceased. The walls of the tombs are adorned with formulaic inscriptions that were intended to help the deceased transition into the afterlife, but some of the inscriptions contain historical references that can help modern scholars reconstruct the nature of international relations during the Bronze Age.

The tomb of the vizier Rekhmire, who served under Thutmose III, is one of these tombs. Besides the numerous theological inscriptions and spells that comprise the majority of the texts in Rekhmire’s tomb, there are some lines that refer to the “tribute” that the vizier oversaw coming into Egypt. The inscription reads, “Reception of the tribute of the south country, besides the tribute of Punt, the tribute of Retenu, the tribute of Keftyew, besides the booty of all countries which the fame of his majesty, King Menkheperre (Thutmose III) brought; by the heredity prince . . . Rekhmire.” (Breasted 2001, 2:295-5). The peoples listed in the inscription are now identified as the following: Punt is the Horn of Africa (Faulkner 1999, 88); Retenu is Phoenicia/Lebanon (Faulkner 1999, 154); and Keftiyu is generally thought to refer to Crete (Faulkner 1999, 285).

Two important points are raised in this inscription concerning the nature of Mycenaean-Egyptian relations. If the Mycenaeans were trading partners with the Egyptians, why is Crete listed instead of mainland Greece, and why are they listed as giving tribute, which assumes an inferior status?

The first question can be answered by examining the relief that accompanies the text. In the relief, the Aegean ambassador is wearing a Mycenaean kilt, but closer examination reveals that the kilt was painted over traditional Minoan garb (Sandars 1987, 58). Apparently the Mycenaeans took over the Minoan-Egyptian trade network while Rekhmire was still alive, and the vizier then simply had the art in his tomb touched up to reflect the new trade partners.

The question of “tribute” is a bit more difficult to answer and probably concerns the Egyptians’ image of themselves as much as semantics. The Egyptians viewed themselves as superior to all other peoples and depicted themselves as such in their art, especially during the New Kingdom, the period in which Rekhmire lived. Following this logic, foreign peoples, including the Mycenaeans, were never depicted as trading on an equal status with the Egyptians but were in an inferior position while bringing tribute to the Egyptians. The reality is the that Egyptian armies never came close to setting foot in Greece or even Crete, so the Egyptian text represents a propagandistic interpretation of reality. Moreover, the equivalent words for “trade” and “tribute” were essentially interchangeable in ancient Egyptian.

The high point of the Mycenaean-Egyptian trade network appears to have been during the reign of the Egyptian king Akhenaten (ca. 1364-1347 BC). It is during his reign that the highest volume of Mycenaean artifacts have been discovered in Egypt (Samuel 1966, 110).

The relationship between the Mycenaeans and Egyptians was fairly straightforward and reflected a relationship of reasonably equal status; but the relationship between the Mycenaeans and Hittites was more complex, and modern scholars are still searching to understand all its nuances. The Mycenaeans’ relationship with the Hittites continues to be shrouded in mystery because scholars remain confused about where exactly the land the Hittites called “Ahhiyawa” was located. Many believe that Ahhiyawa was located on the western Anatolia coast or perhaps on the adjacent Aegean islands where some Mycenaean settlements were located (Kuhrt 2010, 1:237). The phonetic similarity between the word “Ahhiyawa” and “Achaean”, which was the word used for many of the Mycenaeans by Homer, has led some to believe that they were one and the same (Bryce 2007, 57-60). Since the Mycenaeans were never unified under a central state and instead were a collection of several kingdoms, it may be that the Hittites referred to all Mycenaeans as “Ahhiyawa” without even knowing about mainland Greece (Samuel 1966, 126).

Other scholars, such as Eric Cline, have argued that Ahhiyawa referred to both the Mycenaeans as a people and mainland Greece geographically. Cline has further posited that the Mycenaeans are the only logical people who can be Ahhiyawa. He wrote, “However, we should not forget that there is, on the one hand, an important late bronze age culture otherwise unmentioned in the Hittite texts (Mycenaeans) and, on the other hand, an important textually attested late bronze age ‘state’ without archaeological remains (Ahhiyawa). It seems reasonable simply to equate the two.” (Cline 1996, 145).

Archaeological and textual evidence from the ruins of the Hittite capital, Hattusa, give some more indications that the Mycenaeans were Ahhiyawa and their relationship with the Hittites was at times acrimonious. A Hittite letter dated to the reign of Tudhaliya II (ca. 1400-1390 BC) mentions that the Ahhiyawans may have been aligned with Aššura, which was an Anatolian state opposed to the Hittites (Cline 1996, 147). A fragment of a Hittite bowl discovered at Hattusa and dated to the late 15th century BCE depicts a warrior that looks remarkably similar to known images of Mycenaean warriors (Cline 1996, 147). A bronze sword was also discovered in the ruins of the Hittite capital in 1991 that was dated to the reign of Tudhaliya II and contains the following inscription: “As Duthaliya the Great King shattered the Aššuwas country, he dedicated these swords to the storm-god, his lord.” (Cline 1996, 138). The sword is an interesting find because it is what archeologists term a Type B sword, which was indicative of Mycenaean workmanship.

The Hattusa sword and another similar one discovered near the modern Turkish city of Izmir represent another piece in the puzzle of Mycenaean-Hittite relations. The swords may have been brought from Greece by Mycenaean warriors who fought on the side of Aššura against the Hittites and left behind after battle, or, as the inscription on the Hattusa sword implies, they were spoils of war. The swords may also have been two of the many finished weapons that the Mycenaeans traded throughout the Mediterranean, or the swords may have been manufactured in Anatolia but inspired by the Mycenaean style (Cline 1996, 139).

Another Anatolian archaeological site, known as Panaztepe today, has also yielded remains of Mycenaean pottery, an Aegean sword, and Egyptian scarabs, which suggests that widespread international commerce may have taken place at the site (Cline 1996, 142). The totality of the sources clearly point to some interactions between the Mycenaean and Hittites, but the level and context of the contact remains open for debate.

Conversely, the extensive contact that the Mycenaeans had with the Minoans is unquestioned, and the latter obviously had immense influence over the culture of the former. As suggested earlier, the Mycenaeans had more in common with the Minoans than they did with later classical Greeks (despite sharing a similar language and ethnicity with them). While the Minoans were the preeminent culture in the Aegean, the Mycenaeans must have looked on the island people with a degree of admiration and possibly envy. Indeed, the Minoans represented the pinnacle of human civilization; they developed writing, created beautiful works of art, and developed long distance trade and communication with other civilizations.

Possibly out of a combination of this admiration and jealousy, the Mycenaeans conquered the Minoans sometime between 1450 and 1400 BCE, which was undoubtedly destructive but did not end the influence of Minoan culture in the Aegean. In fact, the Mycenaeans proved to be able bearers of Aegean civilization, just as the Romans were with Hellenic civilization when they conquered Greece around 1300 years later in 146 BCE.

The Mycenaeans’ invention of Linear B script happened to coincide with their conquest of Crete, as did their role in the extensive international trade networks of the Late Bronze Age. In fact, the destruction that the Mycenaeans leveled on Crete when they invaded was for the most part minimal enough to allow them to quickly rebuild the primary city of Knossos so that it looked much as it did before they arrived (Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 167). An examination of the palace architecture and art at Knossos after the Mycenaean invasion reveals that any changes they made to the palace after they rebuilt it was done to meet their growing commercial needs (Preziosi and Hitchcock 1999, 165).

Naturally, Mycenaean trade routes were an expansion of those established by the earlier Minoans. They sourced raw materials, like ivory, tin, copper, gold and glass, from the Near East and Western Europe and brought them back to Mycenaean settlements to be turned into finished goods by local craftspeople. These products, bearing the distinctive mark of Mycenaean culture, were then exported and sold in foreign markets.

Evidence for this movement of goods came from a shipwreck that was discovered near Uluburun in modern-day Turkey, which has been dated to c. 1450 BCE. The Uluburun ship was made of cedar and oak from Lebanon, but the pottery discovered amongst the wreckage is Mycenaean and was probably used by the ship’s crew for storing foodstuffs for the voyage. It had a carrying capacity of around 20 tons and was filled mostly with raw materials making their way from the Near East to Mycenaean workshops. A large portion of its cargo consisted of copper and tin ingots from Cyprus, which would be smelted in Mycenae to produce bronze objects, and fragmented silver and gold jewelry from the Levant, also intended to be melted down and reused for making new products. The ship also carried a significant amount of cobalt blue glass bars from Egypt, and ebony, ivory and hippopotamus teeth from Africa.[7]

Modern replicas of Mycenaean pottery from the Uluburun wreck

The contents of the Uluburun shipwreck illustrate perfectly the character of ancient Mycenaean trade, which was truly international in scope and catered to the tastes of the wealthiest in society. The variety of materials onboard also reveals that trade was no longer centrally controlled by a single political power, but instead was being carried out by enterprising traders who were willing to travel far and wide to collect an array of valuable materials for export. In response to this change, key trading centers, like the city of Ugarit in modern Syria, began taxing trade rather than directly controlling it themselves. This allowed individual merchants to assume all the risk of overseas trade, while the government benefited by taking a percentage of the profits through taxation.[8]

The Uluburun wreck also underscored the inherent risks involved in ancient maritime trade. It has been estimated that the value of the ship’s contents would have been sufficient to feed a city for an entire year. This made ships a great target for pirates, but all of that potential value could also be lost due to a single storm at sea.

The lucrative trade routes connecting the eastern and western Mediterranean were probably responsible for one of the most legendary military conflicts in history: the Trojan War. Troy was situated at the mouth of the Hellespont, a narrow channel linking the Aegean to the Black Sea, and it therefore had great significance as a trading center for goods passing from the Near East to the Mycenaean world. Despite what the legends say about the Trojan prince, Paris, stealing away Helen of Troy from her husband, the Mycenaean king Menelaus, it is more likely that the Trojan War was started because Mycenaean traders sought to take over this key area from the Hittite rulers who controlled it in the 14th century BCE. Trade had become so important to the Mediterranean world that people were willing to go to war to protect and control it.

The early period of Mediterranean trade had been dominated by the influence of large, centralized governments in Egypt and Crete. Because the wealthy ruling-classes controlled trade, the first goods that were imported and exported across the region were luxury items, such as precious metals and stones, expensive oils, and lumber for large building projects. While centralized seats of power no longer dictated trade routes in Mycenaean times, the customers for traded goods continued to come from the highest classes of society.

Mycenaean influence in the Mediterranean reached its zenith around the time of the legendary Trojan War, during which perhaps thousands of Mycenaean warriors converged on the Anatolian city and then dispersed after its destruction to invoke the same fate on numerous other cities, some of them Mycenaean.

The historicity of the Trojan War is no longer debated, but scholars still argue over its scope, and, by extension, its overall impact on Mycenaean culture and the Late Bronze Age in general. To begin with, establishing a date for the war is important in terms of the overall historical context. Numerous classical historians place the destruction of Troy sometime between 1334 and 1183 BCE (Wood 1985, 28), while some modern scholars assign a more precise date of 1220 BCE (Drews 1993, 42). This date for the destruction of Troy is based on the more general movements and destructions caused by the various peoples generally referred to as the “Sea Peoples” (which will be discussed further below). On this matter, it is important to note that the Greeks of Homer’s epics, including Agamemnon, the king of Mycenae, did not call themselves Mycenaeans or even Greeks but Achaeans, Danaans, or Argives (Wood 1985, 21).

Ironically, modern scholars now believe that regardless of whether it was the legendary city of Troy from the Iliad, the destruction of Troy VIIa was committed by the Sea Peoples, and that it also signaled the beginning of the end of Mycenaean culture. (Vermeule 1960, 66).

Beginning around 1220 BCE, the Bronze Age system that the Mycenaeans were a part of came crashing down in a series of raids, invasions, and sackings by a mysterious collection of disparate peoples now known collectively as the Sea Peoples. The Sea Peoples contributed to the destruction of the Hittite Empire and the kingdom of Ugarit, and they even unsuccessfully attacked Egypt twice.

The Sea Peoples invasions were also a major factor in the collapse of the Mycenaean culture, which is ironic since at least some of the Sea Peoples tribes were ethnic Mycenaeans. The Sea Peoples were a number of different tribes who only occasionally seemed to have worked together, and they were mostly illiterate, so all modern information about them and their movements comes through archeology, classical Greek and Roman sources that were written hundreds of years later, and (most importantly) ancient Egyptian inscriptions. The Egyptians successfully repulsed two attacks by Sea Peoples confederations around 1219 BCE during the reign of Merenptah and around 1162 BCE during the rule of Ramesses III. Both of these wars were commemorated by the Egyptians on the walls of their temples in both hieroglyphic inscriptions and pictorial reliefs, which have provided modern scholars with the most information about the Sea Peoples in terms of the names of their tribes, what type of clothing they wore, and what type of weapons they used.

The inscriptions concerning the first Sea Peoples attack on Egypt relates important information about the Mycenaean-Sea Peoples connection. According to the Egyptian sources, a battle between the Egyptian army led by the pharaoh Merenptah and a Sea Peoples confederation of five tribes allied with the Libyans took place that lasted for six hours and left 9,000 Sea Peoples and Libyans dead (Breasted 2001, 3:239). The names of the five tribes are enumerated in the inscriptions: “The wretched, fallen chief of Libya, Meryey, son of Ded, has fallen upon the country of Tehenu with his bowmen . . . Sherden, Shekelesh, Ekwesh, Luka, Teresh, taking the best of every warrior and every man of war of his country. He has brought his wife and his children . . . leaders of the camp, and he has reached the western boundary in the fields of Perire.” (Breasted, 2001, 243).

The Start of the Dark Ages

As invaders who were responsible for the collapse of Mycenae or at least played a role in it, the Dorians played a crucial role in the story of the Dark Ages since it is from them that one of Greece’s two major ethnic groupings ultimately emerged. Sparta was Dorian, and that fact alone makes an exploration of their history essential. It is not known from where, exactly, the Dorians originally came. In ancient Greece, it was believed to be the north of Greece around Macedonia and Epirus, but tradition does not provide information as to what brought them south into the Peloponnese or caused them to migrate to some of the Aegean islands, southern Italy, Lapithos, and Crete. In Greek mythology, they were descended from Dorus, son of Hellen, the mythological patriarch of the Hellenes.

In modern scholarship, the term “Dorian” is often directly associated with the population speaking the Doric Greek dialect - known from records of classical north-western Greece - within a hypothetical Proto-Greek speaking population. Administrative records of the former Mycenaean states suggest that East Greek speakers were once dominant in the Peloponnese but were later displaced by West Greek speakers. Greek tradition linked the “Return of the Heracleidai” with the Dorian invasion. This theory of a return or invasion is based on the supposition that West Greek speakers from northwest Greece overran the Peloponnese, but since there are no records from the time, the matter cannot be proven one way or the other. The in-depth study of the development of the Classical Greek language has led some modern academics to concur with the theory of a Dorian invasion, as this seems to represent the best account for the replacement of dialects and traditions in southern Greece in pre-classical times and the presence of the Dorians in Greece. However, current evidence does not allow for a definitive conclusion as to whether the Dorian invasion was the primary cause of the collapse of the Mycenean civilization.

Most of the Dorians settled in the Peloponnese, but they also founded settlements at Rhodes, Sicily, and southern Italy. The Dorian Hexapolis was a federation of six Dorian cities: Halikarnassos and Knidos in Asia Minor, as well as Kos, Lindos, Kameiros, and Ialyssos on the island of Rhodes. Traditions relating to the foundation of Dorian settlements remained strong well into the Classical Period - Thucydides, for example, saw the Peloponnesian War as "Ionians fighting against Dorians," and he claimed that the Syracusans in Sicily were of Dorian descent,[9] which would play a major role in the creation of their identity and the Spartans’ identity. This tradition appears to be based on a fragment from a poem by Spartan poet Tyrtaeus that stated, "Sparta is a divine gift granted by Zeus and Hera" to the Heracleidae.[10] In another version, Tyndareus gives his kingdom to Heracles in gratitude for restoring him to the throne, but Heracles "asks the Spartan king to safeguard the gift until his descendants might claim it."[11] Hall argues that the Dorians are the people of the gift, and he makes comparisons between Spartans and Hebrews, who both had a tradition of being “chosen people.” He relies on Herodotus's version of the myth that the Hellenes under Dorus did not take his name until reaching the Peloponnese.[12]

Dorian social structure was built on communal living and the separation of the sexes, and all males were expected to be fit and make themselves available for military service. When not campaigning, men stayed in all-male residences, focusing on military training until the age of 30, regardless of marital status. Homosexual relations were not frowned upon and were commonplace enough that the Dorian city of Gortyn’s legal codes included penalties for the rape of men as well as women. All of these traditions had an impact on the development of Spartan society. Dorian women had greater freedom and economic power than most other Greek women and were able to own property and manage family estates. This tradition also passed into Spartan practice, where women possessed significant economic power. Dorian women wore the peplos, once common to all Hellenes, a garment pinned at the shoulders by brooches with slit-skirts baring the thighs and permitting more freedom of movement than the Ionian chiton.

In addition to their Doric dialect, Doric settlements retained their characteristic calendar, revolving around a cycle of religious festivals. The two most important of these were the Hyacinthia and the Carneia. The Spartans celebrated the Hyacinthia in the Spartan month Hyacinthius (which corresponds to early summer). It lasted three days, and the rites gradually evolved from mourning for Hyacinthus to the worshipping of Apollo. This festival primarily marked the passage from spring to summer and the ripening of the grain. Hyacinthus was a pre-Hellenic god brought to Greece by the Dorians. The relationship to Apollo is obscure, but he was eventually totally assimilated into Apollo’s cult. The link may be Helios, who was particularly important to the Dorians, more so than to other Greeks.

The Dorians are mentioned by many ancient writers, including Herodotus, Thucydides, and Pausanias, from the Classical Period. Many others living in later periods wrote about them, too, often based on sources that are now lost. Plutarch and Diodorus Siculus, for example, wrote extensively on Spartan customs based on Dorian practices.[13] Homer’s Odyssey has one reference to the Dorians on Crete,[14] and Tyrtaeus implies that Dorians rose to supremacy on the island at the end of the Dark Ages.[15]

Herodotus was from Halicarnassus, a Dorian colony on the southwest coast of Asia Minor, and he offered a general account of the events he termed "the Dorian Invasion." He wrote that their original home was in Thessaly and expanded on the tale in mythological terms: “And inquiring he found that the Lacedemonians and the Athenians had the pre-eminence, the first of the Dorian and the others of the Ionian race. For these were the most eminent races in ancient time, the second being a Pelasgian and the first a Hellenic race: and the one never migrated from its place in any direction, while the other was very exceedingly given to wanderings; for in the reign of Deucalion this race dwelt in Pthiotis, and in the time of Doros the son of Hellen in the land lying below Ossa and Olympos, which is called Histiaiotis; and when it was driven from Histiaiotis by the sons of Cadmos, it dwelt in Pindos and was called Makednian; and thence it moved afterwards [sic] to Dryopis, and from Dryopis it came finally to Peloponnesus, and began to be called Dorian.”[16]

According to Herodotus, the Dorians did not name themselves after Dorus until they had reached the Peloponnese, but he repeated the myth that Achaeans displaced from the Peloponnese moved to Athens under Ion and became identified as "Ionians."

Thucydides had little to say about Greece before the Trojan War, but he did mention that 60 years after the Trojan War, the Boeotians were driven out of Arne by the Thessalians into Boeotia, and 20 years later, "the Dorians and the Heraclids became masters of the Peloponnese." Thus, he drew the lines between the Dorians and the Aeolians/Boeotians with the Ionians, former Peloponnesians who would remain crucial in coming years.[17] He framed the Peloponnesian War as an ethnic war, even though it came shortly after the poleis united during the Persian Wars: "For a short time the league held together, till the Lacedaemonians and Athenians quarreled, and made war upon each other with their allies, a duel into which all the Hellenes sooner or later were drawn."[18]

In his Description of Greece, Pausanias claimed the Achaeans were driven from their land by Dorians coming from Oeta near Thessaly, led by Hyllus, son of Heracles, but they were defeated by the Achaeans and forced out of the Peloponnese. They returned and successfully took over the region in an event that passed into myth as “The Return of the Heracleidae.”[19] Pausanias saw this as the return of Dorian families ruling in Aetolia and northern Greece to a land they had once ruled. He gave a number of details about the return and the resettlement of Laconia, Messenia, Argos, and elsewhere, as well as the emigration from there to Crete and the coast of Asia Minor. Diodorus is another valuable source for traditional information on the mythology and history of the Dorians, especially his Library of History, although since he does not differentiate between obvious myth and historical fact, his work is treated with caution.

It is not possible to confirm or refute the concept of a mass and violent invasion that toppled the Mycenaean civilization, but either way, the accounts seem to confirm that the period after the collapse was not a pleasant one for Greeks on the mainland. Boardman reinforced the gloomy picture of a depopulated countryside with few settlements of any size, and he specifically pointed to the lack of sophistication in pottery art as an indicator of the regression being experienced in all aspects of life at the time.[20]

Whether overly pessimistic or not, the physical evidence indicates very real depopulation in the 11th century BCE. Mass emigration has also been blamed for this, but even allowing for the fact that some emigration to Crete and Cyprus did occur, the numbers involved could not account for the significant population decreases in Greece.[21]

Another factor that must be considered is the economic collapse over a period of about 200 years. Antony Snodgrass argued the decline in the economic situation could be seen both in the quality and quantity of goods produced and the nature of building projects undertaken.[22] The population, he estimated, declined by over 75%. Inevitably, key skills were lost, and each loss further exacerbated the downward spiral, leading to ever-poorer living conditions for those remaining. Agricultural production fell, as did standards of technology, and against this backdrop, the number of settlements gradually shrank. At its low point, the population of mainland Greece may have been the smallest it had been in over 1,000 years. Hope Simpson compiled a list of these sites, calculating that they numbered between 200 and 250, considerably fewer than the numbers existing at the height of the Mycenaean era.[23] Moreover, many established Mycenaean settlements beyond mainland Greece failed, and many of the islands were depopulated for the entire period known as the Dark Ages.

Fewer and smaller settlements are common indicators of famine and depopulation. In Greece, there were a further number of important factors resulting from this new situation. As an example, the Linear B writing of the Greek language used by Mycenaean bureaucrats stopped almost entirely, and today’s Greek alphabet would not develop until the beginning of the Archaic Period. The decoration on Greek pottery after about 1100 BCE is very different from the figurative decoration characteristic of Mycenaean ware, which was restricted to simpler, generally geometric styles until the 8th century BCE. Boardman analyzed Attic pottery of the time in some detail, noting the contrast and “shoddy wares” produced when compared to previous Mycenaean examples, referring to the style as “sub-Mycenaean” in the period immediately following the Mycenaean collapse.[24]

Giovanni Dall’arto’s picture of pottery dating to the Greek Dark Ages

The demoralized and more scattered communities surviving in Greece in the late 11th century BCE and early 10th century BCE ultimately provided the basis for the eventual revival of Greek culture. Some links to the outside world were preserved, probably due to Mycenaean emigrants, particularly in Cyprus. It is from Cyprus that ironwork came to mainland Greece in the first half of the 11th century BCE. Having arrived in Greece, iron production and working were scattered along the Greek Aegean coastline. Attica, the Argolid, Thessaly, and Naxos became major centers, but there is no evidence of collaboration or cooperation between them, so it seems they each developed independently, and other than these coastal centers, ironworking does not appear to have been carried out away from the coast at the time. Contrary to what might be assumed, the iron industry did not develop near deposits of iron ore; instead, the key development was taken on by communities with access to materials and the outside world. More importantly, they tended to be more organized communities that were better equipped to deal with and survive the isolation characteristic of the period.

The regions in which ironworking developed were not contiguous territorially and included one or two islands, suggesting that one key ingredient in the process was sea-based trade routes. At the same time, however, there is no extant evidence as to the types of ships that were used. Earlier representations from the Mycenaean period and Cretan vessels might indicate the likely designs, and it can be assumed that ships from that time would have been symmetrical with high bows and sterns, oared, and in all probability fitted with a ram. The remains of 8th century BCE ships are clearly designed both for transportation and warfare, and it is likely these earlier versions would have served the same purpose.[25]

While there is no obvious deterioration in the quality of shipping used in Greece following the Mycenaean collapse, the same cannot be said for the standard of architecture. Very few examples exist of high-quality stone structures dating from this period, and they are found only in the most advanced regions. These include the site of the Mycenaean palace at Iolkos, where there are remains of a Proto-geometric settlement that archaeologists have confirmed through four distinct building phases. It included stone-built rectangular houses. The Mycenaean settlement on Naxos was rebuilt in Proto-geometric times and included a megaron-style building.

The work at both of these sites has been dated to just after the collapse of the Mycenaean civilization, but despite the timing, there is no evidence that the full range of Mycenaean skills and craftsmanship had been utilized, so it must be assumed those skills had already been lost. The finest examples of Late Bronze Age structures were made of large fitted and smoothed boulders worked by bronze saws, with pieces of emery set in the edges. There is nothing to indicate that either the techniques or the tools survived into the Dark Ages. The stone walls constructed to create houses in the Early Iron Age were all small and usually formed of two rows of blocks with a squared outer face and small stones fitted between them. The use of stone for house building dates mainly from the full Geometric period, with houses in the earlier period being constructed of mud bricks about 30 centimeters thick - there were limitations on what could be built with this building material.

House plans from this time provide further proof of discontinuity in Mycenaean architecture. The forms most often used in Early Iron Age Greece were apsidal and occasionally oval, though oval houses were non-existent prior to this point in Greek history. These buildings were simple, one-story structures, often with only one room and a steep-pitched thatched roof. The apsidal house was developed many centuries before the Dark Ages, but Iron Age examples have some important differences. They often had a convex curvature on the longer sides, linking them to the oval designs developed at the time, and it is probable that oval houses were the most common. By the later 9th century BCE, the more rectilinear design came into fashion, and a flat roof became the norm. Streets between houses were paved, and the tombs, although inferior to those of the Mycenaean period, were of a higher quality than the houses.

Although it’s fair to say that the quality of life and the production of goods declined, there was evidence of initiative and energy in the ironworking centers. In particular, the Ionian Migration can be dated to this time. The term “Ionian Migration” has to be taken in its widest sense to include Aeolic and Doric settlers as well as Ionian. J.M. Cook contended that Ionic settlement began around 1000 BCE, and he argued that Dark Ages migrations were not simply reinforcements of already existing Greek settlements.[26] Homer wrote nothing about the Ionic coast, and when researchers take that into account with the archaeological evidence currently available, the conclusion must be that this migration was a new initiative, indicative of the vitality of a number of Greek communities.

Transporting settlers over 100 miles across dangerous seas to found settlements on hostile shores is no easy feat, but even though those expeditions had to require organization and resources, it does not appear that these ventures were state-sponsored, as was the case with later migrations. Migrants taking up the challenge of beginning new lives in Asia Minor usually formed independent groups and were likely led by aristocrats who became the founding fathers of the Ionian cities. In addition, these cities had their own views as to who had founded them. From them, it can be discerned that they sailed from Athens, although they were not necessarily Athenians. For example, the Pylians are thought to have fled to Athens and sailed to Ionia from there. Tradition in Ionia suggests that other settlers came from Boeotia, Euboea, and Phocia.[27] Athens remained a relatively vibrant center during the Dark Ages, so it is no coincidence that it became the focal point for these migrations.

All the while, the dichotomy between the cultures of the more advanced regions and smaller settlements of mainland Greece was profound. The first manifestation of this difference was in pottery. The Proto-geometric style was an entirely new artistic current, indicating a reasonably high technical standard based on a fast wheel, compasses, and multiple brushes. Its early spread is evidence of genuine transmission from the major centers, but it did not spread farther to the outlying parts of Greece. A similar pattern in other aspects of technological and cultural developments can be seen as well. Proto-geometric styles appear in Attica, the Argolid, Thessaly, Naxos, and western Asia Minor, as did the adoption of cremation. Once again, the reason seems to be that the more advanced areas shared easy access to the Aegean, but it is hard to distinguish between cause and effect in these developments.

The migrations to Ionia had were directly linked to access to the Aegean, and the growth in the more advanced settlements encouraged Greeks from less prosperous regions to move from the west to the east. The movement of people facilitated and stimulated further economic activity, and in time, created the need to expand outward even further east. The new settlements in Ionia established strong trading links with centers on the Aegean Coast, making the coast the focal point in Greece, even more than ever. All this activity meant that the Aegean became a Greek sea, something that had never been achieved in the Mycenaean era. This development proved permanent, and foreign military or commercial presence in these waters became the exception.

The neglect of the Greek hinterland in the west resulting from the focus on the Aegean coast did not, however, prove permanent. There were natural land routes across the mainland, including waterways such as the Gulf of Corinth, that inevitably encouraged use. However, some surviving western settlements became even more insular, and some, like Corinth, focused their attention on the west. New powers such as Sparta looked to the west as the obvious area for expansion, and pan-Hellenic religious centers, including Elis and Phokis, developed at this time. While little is recorded that can be confirmed about individuals or families, later generations, especially in Athens and Sparta, often linked family names and lineal descent as far back as the Dark Ages.

Due to depopulation, the west experienced a number of relatively quiet and isolated years, during which a slow recovery began. The activities related to this recovery were, by their very nature, hardly likely to inspire tales and legends, but they were crucial to the prosperity that later generations came to enjoy. Progress was not uniform or linear - there were periods, often as long as three generations, that were stagnant, where isolation became even more pronounced. Commodities imported by the western settlements - including gold, ivory, amber, and faience, as well as copper, and tin - all dried up.

These changes had an impact on daily life. The reluctance on the part of Greeks to travel outside the Aegean area led to a rethink about what could be utilized from local resources. Iron ore deposits were exploited, and silver was extracted from lead at Argos and Thorikos. Again, most of these initiatives were in the most advanced coastal areas - Attica and Argos - and no assumptions can be made that similar developments occurred in more isolated parts of Greece. There is no doubt that Greece’s isolation at this time spelled poverty for many, but it also encouraged the use of local resources, and at the time, Greece had many more resources than today (for example, timber was plentiful). Nevertheless, the remaining population had to work hard to survive.

There is a lack of examples of tools used at this time, and conclusions must be drawn from artifacts found in places such as Crete. From that evidence, it seems the Greeks of this time had sickles, metal hoes, picks, and plow shoes (though Hesiod’s description of how to make a plow does not include any reference to metal).[28] The rearing of livestock can also be inferred from what is known of previous and later periods, and it is clear that hunting was widely practiced to supplement the food supply. Therefore, it seems that a meat-based diet was not uncommon. By Hesiod’s time, however, the move to arable farming was well underway, and the Dark Ages saw the start of the process that eventually led to a grain-based diet, similar to what we know as a Mediterranean diet today. Any change would undoubtedly have been slow, and different areas would have altered their practices at different times.

Reasons for the change probably lie in the fact that stock breeding requires a great deal of land, as each beast needs a large area upon which to graze. As the population recovered, land shortage would have been a major issue and would have played its role in immigration in the latter part of the Dark Ages. For most of the period, meat was the central component of the diet, and evidence in the form of animal bones from funerary meals and in cemeteries provides physical proof. There is the widespread assumption that the Dorians were nomadic herdsmen, which would reinforce the idea that for most of the Dark Ages, the Greeks subsisted mainly through stock breeding. From approximately 850 BCE onward, a number of graves in Attica contained circular terracotta models representative of granaries, and the foundations of structures thought to have been granaries have been discovered at Geometric sites, providing early evidence of a change in agriculture practice.

Silver mining and shipbuilding are activities that impoverished villages might have avoided, but the physical evidence suggests these industries actually flourished. The loss of writing is the most obvious retrograde step, but representational art also declined, although this loss is unlikely to have had a negative impact on the lives of ordinary Greeks who were more concerned about securing basic needs. The regression in architectural skills had a real impact on their day to day lives, leading to an overall decline in living standards. However, it must be kept in mind that archaeological evidence is in short supply, and it may well be that further excavations may change the picture.[29]

There were very few Dark Ages settlements. This, coupled with the fact that known excavations are incomplete, leaves the door open for a major rethink of what actually went on at the time. In the meantime, available evidence continues to point to the poverty of the period. Many Proto-geometric graves contain artifacts made from clay rather than the leather, wood, or wicker expected from more affluent communities. Similarly, blades and weapons found in graves tend to be of obsidian rather than metal, suggesting a shortage of metal, which would inevitably have raised its price. The substitution in Dark Ages metal grave goods with other items of inferior quality is a recurring theme, also seen in finger rings and spacer beads from this period. The contrast with metal items found in Mycenaean sites is decidedly marked.

A picture of tomb artifacts dating back to the Dark Ages

Weapons were still placed in many graves, but in addition to the weapons now being made mostly of obsidian, the number of such items was also reduced. Whereas previously a sword, a spear, and a dagger would not have been uncommon, in this period the norm was either a sword itself or a spear and a dagger together. It is only at the end of the Proto-geometric era that all three are found again, suggesting greater levels of prosperity. This pattern in the depletion of weapons found in graves suggests that weapons available to warriors were curtailed and that swords and spears had become alternatives rather than complementary. One commonly used indicator of prosperity is the nature of heirlooms accumulated within communities. In this period, the type of goods passed on were humble items, often things previous generations would never have considered valuable enough to pass down to the next.

Given the current archaeological finds, it seems reasonable to conclude that the majority of secluded, small and humble settlements of the time consisted of communities who struggled to eke out a basic existence, and for the majority, the standards of life enjoyed were inferior to those of their ancestors. No matter how basic living standards had fallen, there had to be a social and political structure to maintain cohesion. For this, there is even less evidence than in other aspects of life, and reference to what went before and what came after is the only way to reach a conclusion about what was happening in politics at the time.

In political terms, it can be inferred that the Dark Ages saw a shift in power from centralized monarchies supported by a literate bureaucracy (as in Mycenaean times) to smaller, often mobile groups dominated by an aristocrat and his family. These aristocratic units had shared interests, and it was those common goals that gradually led to the foundation of city-states that, in size at least, became comparable to the Mycenaean kingdoms by the end of the Dark Ages. These groupings, whether large or small, were ruled by a king, known as a basileus, and this pattern was maintained until the 8th century BCE. That said, a basileus cannot be regarded as the same as a Mycenaean king, as the term basileus was in use in Mycenaean times and referred to a ruler lower in status than the wanax. However, in the Dark Ages, the term wanax was replaced with basileus and was in general use by the time of Hesiod.

Similarly, the evidence available suggests that distinctions between horizontally divided classes were unclear and flexible. The small, independent units headed by aristocratic families proved to be resilient, and their nature allowed for the creation of tribal groups, which often formed the basis for migrations such as those to Ionia. Toward the end of the Dark Ages, these pyramidical groups were systemized, and by around 800 BCE, social groups known as phratries were created, operating in both civilian and military aspects of life. They may originally have been kinship groups that gradually extended their membership broadly and deeply.

Mycenaean descendants, in all probability, maintained power for a limited period in which the subjects did not migrate or they did so en masse. Tisamenos, for example, led his people from the Argolid into Achaea;[30] but the fact his successors were a number of his grandsons all of which bore the title basileus is proof that the old-style monarchies were dying out. In Athens, according to tradition, the monarchy was usurped by Melanthos, who was not a native-born Athenian. There is doubt as to whether these “new” men actually lived, but if they did, they were the first of the ruling basileis. They did not always have royal blood, nor were they wealthy as such, and their graves provide proof of their relative impoverishment; however, they were able to gather a retinue of sufficient size to take control of their local areas. The fact that Bronze Age kingdoms had fragmented into so many smaller, independent units facilitated the process.

Homer

Whether Homer can be taken as a serious source for life in the Dark Ages is a matter of considerable debate. The political and military system outlined in the Iliad has been argued to be a realistic account of the situation at the time of Ionian migration by many. The social system he describes has been dated to the years immediately following this migration, and it is an extremely difficult conundrum to resolve. There are only two positively and generally accepted historical strata in Homer’s world: that of the Mycenaean era and that of his own day, commonly believed to be the 8th century BCE.[31] The kings in Homer’s epics are autocrats set in the political geography of the Mycenaean world, yet there are features that do not fit and trappings that are more than Mycenaean but which do not fit in with his time. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Homeric political system is an artificially constructed amalgam of widely separated historical stages.

It is tempting to be over-simplistic when analyzing Homer’s structures and conclude that the migration period was one when wanax ruled from megaron type palaces, maintained large households, and had great wealth at their disposal. However, his writing also indicates this was a time when the king was also threatened by any number of basileis, and his autocratic rule was tempered by councils and assemblies. Similarly, even his military command could be weakened by the loose military structure and individualism of specific leaders, each in control of his retinue. It is unlikely the tangle associated with changes in political and military evolution from the Mycenaean period to Homer’s will ever be resolved; however, there are other areas where information provided by Homer lends itself more readily to confirmation or refutation.

At least some of Homer’s descriptions of items were based on his personal recollections of items he concluded would have been similar in the period before his own. His descriptions are under constant review, as new findings change the current understanding of the Dark Ages, and the more that is found, the more dubious Homer’s descriptions. For example, Gray points out that Homer’s assumption that all Dark Ages weapons would have been bronze is clearly unsustainable, given what is known of the development of ironworking at the time. This is also contradicted by his assumption that many agricultural tools attributed to the era were of iron.[32] Historians concur that the exclusive use of bronze at the time to which Homer refers is illogical, but his assumptions about the widespread use of iron implements in agriculture are also probably inaccurate, given that his conclusions stem from his observation of agricultural practices in his time. There are other inconsistencies in his descriptions, such as his reference to the use of twin throwing spears, which were a feature of warfare both before and after the period about which he is writing.[33]

Homer’s epics are of enormous value for understanding Greece in the 8th century, but they are much more limited when it comes to providing clear insight into the Dark Ages. It should be remembered that some aspects of life did not change, and that consistency - for example, in the exploitation of vine and the olive trees inherited from Mycenaean times - would have gone some way in mitigating the effects of the dramatic reduction in economic activity. But the limitations are also clear, as evidenced by the fact that the Dark Ages may have literally been dark. For example, in terms of artificial lighting available, there is no evidence of the existence of lamps dating to the end of the Mycenaean civilization to the later stages of the Proto-geometric.[34] Indeed, Homer’s descriptions suggest that firelight and braziers were normal sources of both light and heat in most dwellings. What is apparent is that writing, reading, and more intricate artwork undoubtedly declined or disappeared entirely, and items such as shoes and clothes were simpler and plainer than before. The Doric peplos - a simply designed one-piece garment requiring no cutting or sewing - gradually came to be the choice for most women, or at least historians think so due to the absence of pins in graves. The new fashion spread outward from Athens throughout Greece and the Aegean islands. The garment it replaced was a shaped, sewn, buttoned dress worn by all women, other than those who could afford something more elaborate. For men, the chiton, or tunic, is the only clothing for which there is evidence at the beginning and end of the Dark Ages. While the design may have remained consistent, it is unlikely they were made of linen at this time as was the case before and after, since linen was imported from the near east.

Sharon Mollerus’ picture of terracotta boots dating back to the Greek Dark Ages

Culture

Religion and art were intertwined in the Dark Ages, just as they were in other periods in ancient Greek history. There is a general absence of religious architecture, and it is from unrefined figurines that historians have learned what little they know about cultic practices. Purely secular art is simply nonexistent for most of the Dark Ages, and as for the sites that became major sanctuaries in subsequent centuries, while there might have been a high degree of continuity from the Mycenaean to the Archaic Period, there is little evidence that such sanctuaries were extensively used in the Proto-geometric or early Geometric period, so any claim for continuity cannot be based on architectural evidence for the majority of sites. One difficulty is the problem of identifying what qualifies as a place of worship, as the Bronze Age concept was markedly different from that of the time of the great sanctuaries. The Mycenaean religion favored natural sites such as caves, a copse of trees, or open-air enclosures. Rarely was a building needed, and when it was, only a single room would ever be given over to worship. As such, most religious sites from the Mycenaean era have been identified through dedicated offerings.

There are sites identified as Bronze Age cult centers that subsequently became sanctuaries, and on occasion the history of a building provides tentative indications of the continuation of being used as a place of cult. In a few of these, such as at Ayia Irini on the island of Keos, Proto-geometric and Geometric shards were found near a partially repaired building used for cultic purposes. One of the site’s female statues was used as a cult image in Archaic times and was still a focus of veneration into the 4th century BCE. However, no such linkages have been discovered at the major sanctuaries. For example, although the Hall of Mysteries at Eleusis was built on the site of a Mycenaean megaron-style building in an enclosure and may have been a shrine, it has yielded insufficient physical evidence to conclude that the site continued to be used in the Dark Ages. There are remains of what might be an oval or apsidal building - which could have been a temple - dating to the Geometric period, but there is not enough evidence to make any assumptions about its use.

A similar hiatus is apparent on Delos, although Gallet de Santerre has argued that the dedications expected from the Dark Ages period could have been lost when the Mycenaean shrine was replaced by a temple to Artemis. He concludes that Mycenaean and later objects may have been buried in the foundations of the newer temple.[35] Other historians, including Snodgrass and Desborough,[36] tended to discount such theories, while Boardman adopts a half-way house approach, suggesting there may have been intermittent use of Mycenaean shrines in the Dark Ages.[37] At any rate, there were not enough physical sources to prove unbroken continuity in the usage of Mycenaean sites through this period until a number re-emerged as important centers of cult in the Archaic period.

There is evidence that some previous sites of cult activity were only used occasionally; however, it is not necessary for Dark Ages religious sites to have been similarly used in the Bronze Age. Apart from a few sites that might have had cult activity in the period, there are a number of other sites where an Iron Age Cult was centered on what had been secular Mycenaean sites. For example, it is known that, in the Geometric period, activity took place at the sites of Mycenaean tombs, a practice that seems to have been widespread throughout Greece. A relatively large number of Mycenaean domestic buildings also appear to have developed into sanctuaries post-Dark Ages. The shrines of Agamemnon at Mycenae[38] and Menelaus near Sparta[39] provide proof of the re-emergence of grave cults by at least the later part of the 8th century BCE. It was at that time that a number of Mycenaean sites became sites of sanctuaries. At Delphi, Aphaia, and Apollo’s shrine near Epidaurus, human and animal figurines were found among Mycenaean finds, but none provide an indication of cult activity until the later stages of the Geometric period.

At the palace of Mycenae, an Archaic temple was built over one of the palace rooms. This has been proposed to be a shrine, given that the north-south orientation has been maintained, and pottery found there indicates that cult activity may have gone on before the Geometric period. None of this proves an already existing place of worship was consciously retained in the Dark Ages. The claim that Olympia was a site in continuous use based on primitive terracotta and bronze figures found there suggest a pre-Geometric origin cannot be confirmed. In general terms, it was domestic Bronze Age structures that tended to be used for the creation of cultic sites rather than pre-existing sacred ones. To maintain religious observances at known sacred Bronze Age sanctuaries was the exception rather than the rule for early Dark Ages Greeks, and many, such as the Cave of Pan at Oinoe near Marathon, were totally forgotten.

Despite this noticeable lack of physical proof, there are arguments to be made in favor of historical Greek religion having its foundations in the Mycenaean cult. This largely involves linking up the conscious revival of a “Heroic Age” in the 8th century BCE stimulated by Homer, the rediscovery of Mycenaean tombs, the resettlement of some Mycenaean sites, and a religious revival that appears to have tried to establish the rites used in this mythical past. While the growth of religious zeal is apparent from the rise in the number and size of new sanctuaries in the 8th century BCE, this linking is not an easy task since the practices were not in use in the period immediately preceding the revival. It seems that conclusions regarding the rites were made on the basis of faint recollections.

A particular feature in historical Greek religion was its festivals. These events were organized by followers of a cult and had little to do with officially organized worship, and many of them date to the Mycenaean era or earlier. The lack of documentation is not as significant for the assessment of Dark Ages activity in this area because they often did not leave material records. It is no surprise that little was found to confirm that many festivals continued throughout the Dark Ages, but given their nature, it is entirely possible there was some degree of continuity in this area of religious practice. It is more than likely that some Mycenaean religious festivals would have been maintained, and it could well be that these practices were remembered later, during the period of religious revival.[40]

A few echoes of Bronze Age representational art survived into the Dark Ages, but the general technical regression experienced at the time meant that post-Mycenaean craftsmen did not have the skills needed to produce carved stone reliefs of any quality, engraved gems, objects made from precious metals or cast in bronze, or painted plastered walls. The only craft remaining was that of clay modeling. There is a single figure of a painted ox from Athens decorated in the Mycenaean style from the early Dark Ages, but its uniqueness tells a story of the loss of artistic skill.[41] There is, again, almost a near-vacuum in both religious and artistic objects from this time in mainland Greece, and the lack of surviving material is in marked contrast to the many finds from Crete that date to the Dark Ages, but both religious and artistic continuity is evident.[42] Snodgrass succinctly sums up the religious and artistic situation at the time: “Greece was not forging ahead in a new direction, she was reappraising her way of life in a realistic mood and waiting.”[43]

Bouncing Back

This period of waiting came to an end in the late 10th century BCE. Change was slow and not necessarily uniform across Greece, any more than the decline had been. As might be expected, recovery began in the more accessible areas, those that had best survived the economic downturn, but the first shots of recovery indicate the real end of the Dark Ages began with a demonstrable easing of major factors causing the collapse, namely depopulation, isolation, and a shortage of metal. Combined with the first signs of revival in basic architectural, artistic skills, and a leveling up between regions, this suggests that things were on the rise.[44]

The modest movement of traders and settlers in and around the Aegean in the early Dark Ages was replaced by new settlements and evidence of the development of new styles of pottery and other artifacts in the late 10th century BCE. These changes began in more advanced regions and spread, though they were still largely confined to Aegean coastal areas. Communities in the west of Greece were largely left to their own devices, though some may have re-established links with major centers based on Proto-geometric pottery discoveries on a number of western sites. The links are, however, weak, and the overriding picture for this area of Greece was one of continued poverty, isolation, and backwardness.

Given this situation, it is no surprise that by and large, new innovations brought to Greece from other parts of the Mediterranean world tended to be confined to coastal settlements. Cyprus was a particularly important part of this revival in trade with the outside world, and its iron, gold, and copper were instrumental in the development of eastern Greece’s metallurgy industries. Recent excavations show that pottery exported to Cyprus is from settlements around the Aegean (there are no examples from the west). The pottery shows the slow evolution of wares from these settlements from Proto-geometric through early- and middle-Geometric phases, though precise dating is not possible.

The best case for any renaissance can be made for Attica. The later stages of the Proto-geometric period witnessed the diffusion of this style from Athens to all parts of Attica. The late 10th century BCE saw the political and cultural unification of Attica under the leadership of Theseus, according to tradition.[45] Whoever led the process, the result was that Athens championed the way for many ensuing advances in the following years. Attic pottery was imported from Attica and copied throughout Greece. In parallel with its artistic dominance, Athens found itself relatively wealthy again, and this fact is reflected in the rich graves of the period, which have yielded elaborately crafted jewelry that indicates Attic craftsmen were beginning to rediscover lost skills, such as engraving. Other finds, such as an ivory plaque with an incised face and decorated cup handles, provide further proof of the upturn in craftsmanship.[46] Other than in Argive graves from this time and on some Aegean settlements, there have been no comparable finds to confirm this improvement was widespread. The picture is somewhat clearer when it comes to developments in architecture.

In the 9th century BCE, there is a marked increase in the number and quality of domestic buildings surviving into modern times - many are much larger than those dating from the early Dark Ages. With this change comes the first conclusive proof of separate structures built for specifically religious purposes, though it is still difficult to differentiate between homes and temples, and it is possible that some structures served both purposes at the time. There is also the possibility that some community dining halls were used for sacrifices and sacred meals, though there is no indication of them being used to house cult statues. In the structures that are clearly early temples, the sacrificial altar is usually located in the middle of the building, but some homes had similar features with a centrally located hearth.

Even in larger buildings believed to have been temples, there is a shortage of votive offerings, but that may not necessarily negate the conclusion as to their function. Apsidal plans for most structures became the norm, and this shape is apparent in some graves from the period. The first confirmed apsidal temple is that of Hera Akraia at Perachora, which dates to around 800 BCE. There, offerings discovered include a terracotta model of an apsidal building, probably a representation of the temple itself. Other oval and apsidal buildings from the 9th century BCE have been found in Athens and Antissa. Based on fragmentary finds, it seems likely that temples of an oval design were built at this time. Generally, the return to constructing buildings similar to Mycenaean megaron style structures is apparent, though these later Dark Ages buildings were more symmetrical and had a rectangular plan.

In addition to these changes in architectural style - which confirm a greater level of prosperity - there are clear indications there was a move toward a greater organization of State. The development facilitated the co-ordination of town and country life, which would prove crucial in the emergence of the city-state. Again, this co-ordination is most evident in Attica, but examples of major building projects, for example, in Smyrna, all suggest that something other than a group of aristocrats would have been necessary to deliver them. The nature of the homes built inside the fortifications suggests a new level of conformity and quality unlikely to have been achieved by anything other than a corporate enterprise. The eastern Greeks paved the way for the development of the polis, and as far as can be discerned from available evidence, this was done internally. There is no evidence that any architectural advances or social developments were influenced by proximity to eastern civilizations, or even Cyprus. What happened at the time was the result of the Greeks addressing their issues, and in so doing, they prepared the ground for the emergence of Archaic Greece.

This stability matches up with what is known about places like Athens and Sparta near the end of the Dark Ages. For example, between roughly 1000 and 800 BCE, Sparta seems to have enjoyed a period of prosperity and growth, although historical sources from this period are nonexistent and what was written down about it subsequently is, to put it charitably, sparse. What does appear certain is that in the 8th century, Sparta suffered from a period of intense factionalism which led to a state of quasi-lawlessness and disunity. It is likely that this was a cause of the assimilation of four villages – Pitana, Limnai, Mesoa and Konoura – into the polity of Sparta, a process which evidently caused significant issues with the stability of the Eurotas valley region as each village had its own “kings” and entrenched ruling classes, all vying for supremacy in the new social order. It is a popular theory that Sparta’s famous “double kings” system, whereby two monarchs (much like the subsequent Roman consuls) shared equal amounts of power so that, if one were killed in battle, the Spartan state would not find itself leaderless, originated during this period: the villages of Pitana and Mesoa had formed a faction which vied for control of Sparta with Limnai and Konoura, and it seems likely that the leaders of these two twin factions eventually became Sparta’s dual monarchs. However, this period of instability is notable chiefly because, according to legend, it was during this time (according to Herodotus and Thucydides, during the reign of King Charillos) that Lycurgus the Law-Giver rose to power.

Bust of Lycurgus

It is hard to separate the myth of Lycurgus from the real man, and indeed many scholars doubt he ever even existed. However, to the Spartans, he was a very real figure indeed. Far from being a mythological being that was most likely a figurehead for a collection of reformers and monarchs, he was the foundation of all that it meant to be a Spartan. His famous reforms established the bedrock of classical Sparta, enjoining (among other things) all Spartan males who possessed a farm whose wealth was sufficient to maintain their upkeep to devote themselves solely to the practice of war and the inextricably linked field of athletics. Though the Olympics of ancient Greece were a harmonious event during which time no war could be waged, all events remained fiercely bellicose; the armoured sprint, the foot race, wrestling, javelin-throwing, discus throwing, boxing and the pentathlon were all meant to prepare a man for battle. Lycurgus also supposedly promoted clean, simple living and the abandonment of all luxuries both personal and of the state, allowing the Spartans the one “foible” of growing their hair long. The argument in favor of these prohibitions was that no other adornment made a good-looking man more handsome or an ugly one more terrifying.

The Laws of Lycurgus, regardless of whether they were the product of a single man’s imagination or the result of a drawn-out political process, gave Sparta much-needed stability. In the wake of the quelling of its internecine wars, Sparta began to devote itself to the subjugation of its neighboring territories, and the expansion of its influence throughout the entire Peloponnese. During the aftermath of the Lycurgan reforms, Sparta waged several successful wars against the neighboring (but ethnically distinct) Arcadians, and their fellow Doric Argives. The wars were a brutal affair in which hundreds or perhaps thousands of the defeated are said to have been put to the sword, displaced or enslaved, but the Spartans emerged triumphant. By around 750 BCE, they had added Amyclae, Pharis and Geronthrae to their domains, ensuring control of the entire upper Eurotas valley, in a war that was less about one polis (city-state) against the other than it was about one ethnic group attempting to wipe the other out. In this case, the Doric tribes wishing to exterminate the neighboring Achaeans, who had been the ascendant group, by and large, since before the Trojan War. The success of Spartan arms in this war, and the ruthlessness with which they pursued it, first established the basis for the Spartan tradition of victory, which would in subsequent centuries become so cemented as to be virtually ingrained in both their own psyche and that of all of Greece.

During the Mycenaeans’ height of influence, Athens was one of the most prominent cities in Greece, and there is ample archaeological evidence to support this. Though Athens somewhat surprisingly provides no great heroes to fight against Troy in Homer’s Iliad, the remains of ancient foundations and buildings indicate that the Mycenaean era was one of undoubted boom for the city. The remains of a sizeable Mycenean fortification atop the Acropolis, dated around 1400 BCE, indicate that the city’s inhabitants had, at the very least, sufficient wealth to make it worthwhile to build a fortress and curtain walls around their most important defensive outpost.

The Acropolis was also the site of a sprawling palatial complex, though little remains of it today except its foundations, and sometime around 1200 BCE the fortress was made even more formidable by the addition of a carved stone staircase, chiseled from the bare face of the Acropolis’s rock, which led down to a sheltered spring, thus enabling the fortress to have its own water supply. The construction of this staircase may have had something to do with the fabled Dorian Invasion around 1200 BCE that is said to have led to the fall of the Mycenean civilization.

Regardless of the impact of the Dorians on the Mycenaeans and the ushering in of the Dark Ages, Athens seems to have been spared direct damage by any Dorian invasion. Unlike their longtime rivals the Spartans, the Athenians claimed no Doric descent, citing instead their pure Ionian lineage, suggesting that the Dorian Invasion largely passed them by, possibly because of the Acropolis’ formidable natural defenses.

Though it was spared the ravages of war, Athens also seems to have suffered during the Dark Ages. Though it is unclear whether there was a particular population drop in the wake of the Dorian Invasion, the lack of any important centers left to trade with in Greece probably took its toll, and Athens went into a decline that lasted almost two centuries.

However, archaeological evidence from Iron Age sites across Attica (Athens’ heartland) seems to indicate that by 900 BCE, Athens was one of the preeminent cities in all of Greece, due to the combination of its unassailable fortified city-center and its proximity to one of Greece’s best natural harbors, a double advantage which was denied to the other great poleis, which could usually boast one or the other (Thebes and Sparta had impregnable heartlands, while Corinth had a fine harbor). Athens’ ascendancy led to a long process of assimilation, called synoikismos, or “forging into one house.” The synoikismos lasted approximately two centuries and does not seem to have been characterized by an excessive level of violence, suggesting the poleis around Athens seem to have meekly become assimilated into the whole. By the end of the Dark Ages, all of Attica was under direct Athenian administration and control, creating one of the most powerful city-states in Greece.

It appears that during this period, Athens was no longer governed by kings and had already taken the first step towards democracy by engaging in a species of oligarchy. According to tradition, the kings of Athens, who had held sway since around 1500 BCE, ended their line with Codrus, who was said to have repelled an invasion by the Dorians around 1000 BCE and whose descendants thereafter took on the role of archon rather than king (though the archonship was still hereditary for almost three centuries, its power was not as absolute as that of the kings). The archons were assisted in their rule by the eupatridae (“nobly-birthed”) members, who were elected to the council of the Aeropagus, which would later become an important political organ in Classical Athens. The Aeropagus, which was named after the hill sacred to Ares, the god of war, where it met, was responsible for the election of the polemarch (“warlord”) who was responsible for military matters, and a number of other minor archons later formalized as nine.

Though a social hierarchy existed, it had not yet acquired the weight of tradition and codification, and individual political and social rights were largely a question of what tribe the individual belonged to. If he was a member of one of the four main tribes whose synoikismos had given birth to Athens proper, then a citizen of Athens could expect a remarkable degree of freedom: he could induct (or “adopt”) someone into his tribe, thereby extending those rights to him; he could worship whoever he chose; he had the right to be buried on tribal land; he could inherit his forebears’ patrimony, as well as a say in the election of the Archons and other political figures; and he had the use of common tribal property. On the other hand, women had no political rights and could not inherit, nor could men marry within their own tribe unless a woman of the tribe was widowed and her family wished to preserve the dowry in her family.

The rule of the eupatridae, however, led to unavoidable consequences: a large, downtrodden and politically unrepresented workforce began to seethe with discontent, and by around 650 BCE. matters had come to a head with social unrest rife throughout Attica. Unlike the Spartans, who chose to answer social unrest with repression, the Athenians chose a different, less-trodden path: reform. Under the auspices of Draco the Law-Giver, a new constitution was drafted and (for the first time) immortalized in writing, to prevent abuse by the keepers of the oral tradition. The Draconian code was strict – hence the adoption of the term in modern English – but largely fair: murderers were sentenced to death, those guilty of manslaughter to exile, and debtors could face slavery if their creditor was more aristocratic than they were. However, the introduction of the death penalty for a host of minor crimes proved to be politically volatile and unsuccessful.

Thus, in the wake of the Draconian reforms, which took place around 620 BCE, the great legislator Solon took over the attempts at reform in 594 BCE.  All Draco’s laws, save for those punishing and distinguishing homicide and manslaughter, were repealed, and the constitution was redrafted with an eye to social equality. The male population of Athens was divided into four social classes, based on wealth and taxable property represented by sacks of grain. The pentacosiomedimnoi could serve as strageoi, or generals. The Hippeis, or knights, could fight as cavalry soldiers (less useful in Greek warfare but traditionally more aristocratic than their infantry brethren, the hoplites). Then came the zeugitai, or hoplites, and the Thetai, or working classes, who usually carried out their military service as volunteer rowers in the fleet. Although only pentacosiomedimnoi were eligible for the archonship and membership of the Aeropagus, all other citizens (including, for the first time, the Thetai) could sit on the Ecclesia, an administrative and judicial body which held the archons and the Aeropagus accountable.

Aside from sowing the seeds of Athenian democracy, Solon’s reforms went a step further by helping steer Athens away from its largely subsistence-based agriculture and into the nascent commercial sector. Though economy seems to have remained barter-based until about 50 years after Solon’s reforms, Solon encouraged the cultivation and export of olives, while forbidding that of other, necessary foodstuffs. Solon introduced new, standardized weights and measures, granted citizenship to skilled foreign tradesmen and craftsmen who emigrated to Athens, and finally ordered fathers to find their sons a job or risk not having the right to their sons’ support in their old age. Solon also put an immediate stop to the enslavement of Athenian citizens as a consequence of debt, though foreign slaves still existed. In short, Solon had sown the seeds for Athens’s future supremacy. Economic reform and a resurgent, politically involved lower class meant that Athens prospered, and though it would face more setbacks in the years to come, the course for greatness was set.

A bust of Solon

The Legacy of the Greek Dark Ages

Until relatively recently, academics had a different view of the Dark Ages. The Mycenaean civilization, it was believed, fell after several waves of invasions by different groups who brought extreme violence and chaos to overwhelm the Mycenaeans. The term “Dark Ages” was appropriate, given the apocalyptic view of a complex society being dismembered by nomadic invasions of Greece, reducing the region to a period of savagery. This picture was supported by a tradition that placed the blame for the Mycenaean civilization’s collapse at the door of the Dorians who were still in a stage of development requiring herding and hunting, and whose need for new pastures kept them constantly on the move. The Dorians’ superior weapons gave them military supremacy. It also, as the theory goes, gave them the ability to kill off the Mycenaean ruling class, leaving the survivors as rootless helots, struggling to survive in a time of constant upheaval, ultimately leading to mass migrations in an effort to seek a better way of life.[47]

In the past, these traditional accounts have been taken at face value, and historians have tended to look for evidence to confirm them, rather than analyze the extant evidence to reach a conclusion. As a result, a significant portion of the archaeological evidence dating from approximately 1200 BCE was wrongly attributed to the Dorians, including single burials and cremations, which were seen as Dorian innovations alien to the Mycenaean. The imposition of innovations such as these was used to confirm the traditional notion of a successful mass invasion as the key fact behind the Mycenaean collapse. Archaeological excavations on Dark Ages sites have increased dramatically since the 1960s, and many old assumptions have been challenged on the basis of new discoveries. Single burials, for example, have now been identified throughout the Mycenaean period at Argos. Proof has been found that cremation was practiced in Mycenaean times in western Anatolia, Attica, and Italy. The “proof” of Dorians overrunning Mycenaean palaces has, therefore, no legitimacy. It may be that Dorian tribes migrated to Greece at the time of the Mycenaean collapse, and it is possible they once played some kind of role there, but the available evidence provides no archaeological basis for such a definite conclusion of sole responsibility.

James Whitley argued that the term Dark Ages is a "rather loaded term,"[48] and similarly, Timothy Darvill described the term as "not very helpful."[49] Their views are that as archaeological finds increase, knowledge of the period will advance significantly, and terms such as the Early Iron Age (1050-900 BCE) and Geometric (900-700 BCE) are more appropriate. Nevertheless, the overall conclusion based on currently available evidence, even allowing for objections to the term, is that the Dark Ages was a period of system collapse without an identifiable central administration, and with depopulation and a very real decline in material culture. Snodgrass makes a persuasive case that in Dark Ages Greece, little was preserved of Mycenaean culture, and "that little then dwindled away to almost nothing, until some elements were artificially revived in the late 8th century BCE and later.”[50] This is, however, not the same as saying that nothing of note occurred.

Political changes, the tenuous maintenance of some cult activity, and the development of iron all played major parts in the following Greek Renaissance, which directly led to the Archaic Period. It was also during these years that the social changes necessary to enable the poleis to emerge took place. The Dark Ages also brought the evolution of key cultic practices that would come to play a crucial role in all aspects of Greek life. Some of these may have been carried forward from the Mycenaean period, while others were developed as specific responses to unique circumstances at the time. C.G. Starr concluded that the greatest contribution of the Dark Ages to Greek social conventions was the stabilization and consolidation that came after disruptions at the end of the Mycenaean Age.[51] He may have overstated the case somewhat given that the “Dark Ages” in Europe after the fall of Rome were characterized by superstition, famine, diseases, and a life expectancy under 30, but in the same vein, the fact that people were able to overcome the Greek Dark Ages and help bring forth the cradle of Western Civilization makes their accomplishments even more remarkable.

Online Resources

Other books about ancient history by Charles River Editors on Amazon

Other books about trade on Amazon

Further Reading

Boardman, J. (1967). Pre-Classical: From Crete to Archaic Greece. London:Penguin.

Boardman, J. (1988). Early Greek Vase-Painting: Eleventh to Sixth Centuries BCE: A Handbook. London: Thames and Hudson.

Folk Tale, Fiction, and Saga in the Homeric Epics by R. Carpenter (1946). Berkeley and Los Angles: University of California Press.

Carpenter, R. (1946). Folk Tale, Fiction, and Saga in the Homeric Epics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Chrestos, C. Tsountas. (1908). Ai proistorikai Akropoleis Dimeniou kai Sesklou. Trove. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21150960.

Cook, J.M. (1963). The Greeks in Ionia and the East. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

Darvill, T. (Ed.). (2008). Dark Ages. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

de Santerre. (1958). Délos Primitive et Archaïque. Paris: Ed. De Boccard.

Desborough, V.R. d’A. (1972). The Greek Dark Ages. New York City: St. Martin’s Press.

Dickinson, O. (2006). The Aegean from Bronze Age to Iron Age: Continuity and Change between the Twelfth and Eighth Centuries BCE London: Routledge.

Durant, W. (2011). The Life of Greece: The Story of Civilization Volume II. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gray, D.H. (1954). Metal-working in Homer. Journal Of Hellenic Studies, 74:1-15.

Hall, J.M. (2002). Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Halstead, P. (1992). The Mycenaean palatial economy: making the most of the gaps in the evidence. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society (PCPS) 38:57.

Herodotus. (1920). The Histories. (A.D. Godley, Ed.). Perseus Digital Library. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/.

Hesiod. (1914). Works and Days. (Hugh G. Evelyn-White, Trans.). Sacred Texts. https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hesiod/works.htm.

Homer. (800 BCEE.a). The Iliad. (Samuel Butler, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/index.html.

Homer. (800 BCEE.b). The Odyssey. (Samuel Butler, Trans.). The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.html.

Homer, The Iliad, XI.43; XII.298; XXI.145.

Morrison, J.S. and R.T. Williams. (1968). Greek Warships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nilsson, M. P. (1967). Geschichte der Griechischen Religion (3rd ed.). Munich: C.H. Beck Verlag.

Oakley, J.H. (2012). Greek Art and Architecture, Classical: Classical Greek Pottery In N.A. Silberman et. al. (Eds.), The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, Vol 1: Ache-Hoho, Second Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Pausanius. (1918). Description of Greece. (W.H.S. Jonas and H.A. Omerod, Trans.) THEOI Text Library. https://www.theoi.com/Text/Pausanias1A.html.

Plutarch. (1914a). The Life of Theseus. Bill Thayer’s Website. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Theseus*.html.

Plutarch. (1914b). The Parallel Lives: Life of Lycurgus. Bill Thayer’s Website. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Lycurgus*.html.

Siculus, Diodorus. (1954). The Library of History of Diodorus Siculus. Bill Thayer’s Website. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/20A*.html.

Simpson, R. Hope. (1981). Mycenaean Greece. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Snodgrass, A. (2000). The Dark Ages of Greece: An Archaeological Survey of the Eleventh to the Eighth Centuries BCE Philadelphia: Routledge.

Starr, C.G. (1962). Origins of Greek Civilisation 1100-650 BCE London: J. Cape.

Thucydides. (2009). The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides 431 BCE (Richard Crowley, Trans.). The Gutenberg Project. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7142/7142-h/7142-h.htm.

Tyrtaeus. (1931). The Elegiac Poems of Tyrtaeus. (J. M. Edmonds, Trans.). Perseus Digital Library. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0479%3Avolume%3D1%3Atext%3D2%3Asection%3D2.

Whitley, J. (2003). Style and Society in Dark Ages Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Free Books by Charles River Editors

We have brand new titles available for free most days of the week. To see which of our titles are currently free, click on this link.

Discounted Books by Charles River Editors

We have titles at a discount price of just 99 cents everyday. To see which of our titles are currently 99 cents, click on this link.

[1] Keith Branigan, “Further Light on Prehistoric Relations between Crete and Byblos,” American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 71, No. 2 (1967), 117

[2] Helene J. Kantor, “The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium BCE,” American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 51, No. 1 (1947), 18–19.

[3] Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AMI_-_Kamaresvase_1.jpg.

[4] Elisha Linder, “Ugarit as a Canaanite Thalassocracy,” in Gordon D. Young (ed.): Ugarit in Retrospect: 50 Years of Ugarit and Ugaritic, (Winona Lake, ID: 1981), 38.

[5] Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, “When Minos Ruled the Waves: Knossian Power Overseas,” British School at Athens Studies, Vol. 12 (2004), 394–395.

[6] Keith Branigan, “Minoan Colonialism,” The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 76 (1981), 28.

[7] Hayah Katz, “The Ship from Uluburun and the Ship from Tyre: An International Trade Network in the

Ancient Near East,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Bd. 124, H. 2 (2008), 130 ff.

[8] Katz, 134.

[9] Thucydides, 2009, XXX

[10] Antiokhos 555, FGrH 13.

[11] Arkhidamos, XVIII.

[12] Hall, 2002, pp. 85-89

[13] Plutarch, 1914b, XVI and XXV; Siculus, 1954, XXXX

[14] Homer, 800 BCEE.b, XIX, 177

[15] Tyrtaeus, 1931, Vol. 1

[16] Herodotus, Histories, I.56.2-3

[17]Thucydides, 2009, I.12

[18] Thucydides, 2009, I.18

[19] Pausanias, 1918, III.1.6; IV.30

[20] Boardman, 1978

[21] Simpson, 1981

[22] Snodgrass, 2000

[23] Simpson, 1981

[24]  Boardman is complimentary about Athenian Protogeometric pottery which he saw as being a new interpretation of older themes in design. He praised its proportions and concluded that it matched the best Bronze Age ware, which he thought was improved upon around 900 BCE, with the next stage being the Geometric style (Boardman, 1988).

[25] Morrison and Williams, 1968

[26] Cook, 1963, p. 23

[27] Herodotus, 1920, I.146

[28] Hesiod, 1914, 405

[29] For example, the conclusion about the quality of living conditions in terms of how and with what they were constructed has already been thrown into some doubt by the finds at Naxos and Iolkos, which indicate there were stone-built houses of quality being built in the Dark Age, at least, in some settlements.

[30]  Pausanias, 1918, VII.6,2

[31] Carpenter, 1946

[32] Gray, 1954, pp. 1-15

[33] Homer, 800 BCEE.a, XI.43; XII.298; XXI.145

[34] However, given that most homes of the time would have consisted of one room with a central hearth in the middle, the need for additional lighting was redundant.

[35] de Santerre, 1958

[36] Snodgrass, 2000 and Desborough, 1972

[37] Boardman, 1978

[38] Also known as the Treasury of Atreus. Pausanias mentions the tomb in his work (Pausanius, 1918, II.15-18).

[39] Known as the Menelaion (Pausanias, 1918, III.19,9).

[40] Nilsson, 1967, p. 339

[41] Snodgrass, 2000, p. 401

[42] Dickinson, 2006

[43] Snodgrass, 2000, p. 401

[44] More pessimistic commentators see these early signs as nothing more than a false dawn and do not accept that there was any kind of “Renaissance,” pointing to the fact that many important centers in Greece remained abandoned (Snodgrass, 2000, p. 402).

[45] Plutarch, 1914a

[46] Oakley, 2012, pp. 641-44

[47] Durant, 2011, pp. 62-63

[48] Whitley, 2003

[49] Darvill, 2008

[50] Snodgrass, 2000

[51] Starr, 1962, p. 137