Essay Question:

Why did the Greeks go 'overseas'?

Essay written by David Rohl (1st Year Ancient History/Egyptology).

Submitted to Riet van Bremen on 1st March 1988.

The Greek Colonisation Movement – When and Why?

Having put forward, in the previous essay, the proposal that the Greek Dark Age may, in fact, be a scholarly invention and that the interval of time between the collapse of Mycenaean culture and the Archaic revival was relatively short, I now propose to consider what effect such a reduction in the chronology would have on the causes of Greek expansion in the Mediterranean. At the same time I will endeavour to give a brief summary of the archaeological evidence for continuity of occupation between the Bronze and Iron Age stratigraphy found at the principal colonisation sites under discussion. This will hopefully show that there are good reasons to suggest that the colonisation movement began with the Homer's Achaeans and that the subsequent Archaic expansion directly followed the earlier founding of cities on the coasts of Sicily, Italy, Anatolia and the Levant by the Achaeans, thus avoiding the requirement of a two phase colonisation hypothesis.

Current thinking on the reasons for the colonisation movement

“Many parts of the Greek world seem to have suffered from the eighth century onwards from overpopulation, attested to indirectly by the considerable increase in the size and numbers of settlements revealed by archaeology.” [1]

In this statement from Austin and Vidal-Naquet we have the major explanation as to why the Greeks decided to settle on foreign shores in the 8th to 6th centuries BC. The scenario was developed on the following basic lines:

Approximately 100 years after the Trojan War (c. 1250 BC), the Mycenaean Bronze Age came to a rather sudden end (during the century 1200 to 1100) and Greece plunged head-long into a dark age. Sometime in this historical void there may have been a movement of peoples, known by the later Greek writers as the Dorians, into the Peloponnese but the effect of this movement is not clear in the archaeological record. Along with this Dark Age came a severe depopulation as evidenced in the archaeological remains for this presumed 350-year period:

“The substantial reduction in the number and size of occupied sites is proof of widespread depopulation: indeed some areas of the Aegean have so far produced no evidence of habitation during this period. Depopulation was accompanied by regional fragmentation and isolation, as communications ceased not only within the Aegean but also with areas beyond. A significant feature of the Dark Age is the scarcity of architectural remains at most sites.” [2]

Then, around 1000 BC, the coast of Western Anatolia was colonised by the Ionians – this is regarded as the first phase of colonisation by Greek-speaking peoples. Two centuries or so later, without any obvious explanation, the population of Greece rose sharply, resulting in the failure of the agriculturally-based society to support itself. The mountainous terrain of the Greek mainland afforded little room for agricultural expansion to cope with the crisis, and so the Greeks chose a policy of emigration for a part of the population as a solution to their dilemma. Thus at around 800-750 BC we find the second major colonisation phase of the Mediterranean World by the Greeks getting underway. The two phases of colonisation are regarded as quite separate both in terms of chronology and causality:

“One major gap in our knowledge concerns the situation in the Greek settlements of Asia Minor, the foundation of which goes back to the Dark Age and which do not belong to the same movement at the colonization of the eighth century and after.” [3]

Going hand in hand with this policy was the natural development of maritime trade brought about by improvements in ship-building technology and the need to find grain supplies from other regions to help feed the population which remained at home.

The low-chronology scenario in outline

Most of the basic points in this scenario would not come under challenge with a non-Dark Age chronology, but the time spans involved would be radically reduced. It would, however, be finally possible to find a solution to the problems of the rapid population changes which are apparent in the high-chronology model and to harmonise actual historical events with the histories of the later Greek commentaries.

There is no doubt that over-population was a major factor in the Greeks going overseas, but an explanation for that population increase must be readily identifiable in the historical evidence (both written and archaeological) for any hypothesis to carry weight. In the low-chronology model on offer here the decrease in population, brought about by the Dark Age recession, does not occur at all, precisely because there is no 350-year Dark Age to consider. This alternative scenario goes as follows:

After the Trojan War the Mycenaean Bronze Age culture degenerates through infighting amongst its aristocracy:

“Even after the Trojan War Hellas was in a state of ferment; ... There was party strife in nearly all the cities, and those who were driven into exile founded new cities. Sixty years after the fall of Troy, the modern Boeotians were driven out of Arne by the Thessalians and settled in what is now Boeotia, ... Twenty years later the Dorians with the descendants of Heracles made themselves masters of the Peloponnese. … Thus many years passed by and many difficulties were encountered before Hellas could enjoy any peace or stability, and before the period of shifting populations ended. Then came the period of colonization. Ionia and most of the islands were colonized by the Athenians. The Peloponnesians founded most of the colonies in Italy and Sicily, and some in other parts of Hellas. All of them were founded after the Trojan War.” [4]

Thus the 'many years' envisaged by Thucydides for the collapse of the Heroic Age and the interval of time between the Trojan War and the Colonisation Period amounted to 80 plus circa 20 years only: a period of around a century at most. The population did not decrease because the interval of time between the return from Troy and the Dorian invasion was a mere 3-4 generations, and it was precisely this invasion from the north which created the sudden rise in the population in southern Greece. The influx of this new group was the very stimulus which forced the indigenous Achaean population into their new adventure overseas.

The identity of the early colonisers according to the ancient written sources

The above version of events is in almost complete agreement with the ancient writers themselves, as the following selected extracts indicate:

Strabo on the founding of Croton (Italy) and Syracuse (Sicily):

“... Antiochus says that when the god directed the Achaeans by oracle to found Croton, Myskellos departed to examine the site. ... He returned and founded Croton. Archias the founder of Syracuse also shared in the task, having sailed up by chance, when he was setting out upon the establishment of Syracuse.” [5]

Strabo on the founding of Tarentum (South-East Italy):

“They were sent out and came upon the Achaeans, who were fighting with the barbarians. Sharing in the danger they founded Tarentum.” [6]

In both these examples it should be noted that it is the Achaeans who are identified as the colonisers.

Thucydides on the Trojan colonisation of the Western Mediterranean:

“After the fall of Troy, some of the Trojans escaped from the Achaeans and came in ships to Sicily, where they settled next to the Sicanians and were all called by the name of Elymi.” [7]

It is again Thucydides who describes the atmosphere of migration that appears to have been a characteristic of the Late Bronze Age times:

“It appears, for example, that the country now called Hellas had no settled population in ancient times; instead there was a series of migrations, as the various tribes, being under the constant pressure of invaders who were stronger than they were, were always prepared to abandon their own territory.” [8]

It is, of course, one of the more persistent traditions that the Villanovans of Northern and Central Italy (Early Iron Age Etruria) were refugees from Troy who eventually became the Etruscans, but it also seems reasonable to suggest that the other Villanovan group in the neighbouring region of Emilia might also be considered to be the Elymi described by Thucydides. Without overemphasising the point one can readily see a close association between these names and the Homeric 'Troy' and 'Ilium' and perhaps the 'Taruisa' and 'Wilusa' of the Hittite texts.

The archaeological evidence for the early colonisation of the Western Mediterranean by the Mycenaean/Achaean population

The archaeology from a number of the above sites argues strongly in favour of the later Greek historians' views on colonisation. In Southern Italy, at the sites of Porto Perone and Scoglio del Tonno (Tarentum), excavation has revealed the occurrence of Mycenaean pottery in the same archaeological context as both Sub-Apennine and Proto-Villanovan ware. Indeed, in the case of Scoglio, the excavator, Quagliati, unearthed a house with an earlier stratum containing Sub-Apennine material and then a later stratum represented by both Mycenaean and Proto-Corinthian ware together in the same deposit [9] The archaeology therefore appears to confirm Strabo's statement that Homer's Achaeans colonised Southern Italy and that this was certainly not a considerable time (if any time at all) before the main colonisation period of 750-650 BC.

In Sicily the Pantalica North cemetery contained violin bow and simple fibulae characteristic of the late-Mycenaean age and an LHIIIC1 vase, indicating some contact with Late Bronze Greece. After the previous Thapsos culture the archaeological record shows a period without settlements (exactly on the Greek Dark Age model) until the colonisation period at around 730 BC. Only evidence of cemeteries remains. In the words of Bernarbo Brea:

“... a real Dark Age set in, only to be brought to an end five centuries later with the Greek colonisation of Sicily.” [10]

What is really meant here is that there is practically no evidence of settlement in Sicily between the rich Thapsos culture (presumed to have ended c. 1250 BC) and the Finocchito phase (c. 730-650) other than the cemeteries of the so-called Pantalican culture which appear to have almost no identifiable settlements. The implication is reasonably clear: like Greece, the chronology of the Pantalican phase must be dramatically compressed in order to explain the lack of material culture in Sicily for the Early Iron Age and, indeed, the Pantalican cemetery material itself may rather reflect the end phase of the Thapsos culture, contemporary with the Mycenaeans, or perhaps a short transition into the Late Geometric Finocchito phase.

Similar chronological problems occur all around the Western Mediterranean for which there is insufficient space here to give any detail. They can best be summarised by a single example of the sort of difficulty archaeologists have found themselves in when using the high chronology as a means of dating artefacts from the region. Quoting the British Museum report on the analysis of material from the Santa Maria Hoard discovered in Sardinia:

“Dr Macnamara has argued ... for the derivation of the Santa Maria Tripod-stand 2 from the metal-working tradition of the Late Cypriot III period, which provided a terminus post quem between 1230 and 1050 BC. A terminus post quem between 850 and 775 BC is suggested by the comparison of the Rattles 136 and 137 with a Sardinian miniature 'stool' in a Villanovan grave at Vulci. In the round figures appropriate to speculation, these two extremes leave us with a minimal range of four centuries: from the beginning of the twelfth to the end of the ninth.” [11]

The colonisation of the Eastern Mediterranean – a new connection with the Sea Peoples' movements

In Homer's Odyssey we have glimpses of the period of Achaean colonisation in its earliest phase - a phase not far removed from an era of brigandry and piracy. Two examples from the exploits of Odysseus will suffice to create a picture of Greek sea faring activity at this time:

“... before the sons of the Achaeans ever set foot on the land of Troy, I had nine times had under my command men and swift ships to sail against foreign shores, and hence much booty reached my hands; ...” [12]

“From Ilion the wind drove me along and brought me to Ismaros, in the land of the Ciconians. There I sacked the city and put the men to death. We captured from the city their wives and much treasure, and divided it all among us, in such a way that no one went away deprived of his fare share through me.” [13]

The marauding Achaean fleet described here brings to mind the threat posed by the Akwasha (Ahhiyawa/Akhaiwoi/Achaeans?) of Merenptah's inscription and the 7 ships attacking Ugarit described in the archive of Hammurabi [14], conventionally dated to c. 1200 BC but on the revised model to c. 900-850 BC. One is also reminded of the story in the Odyssey where the Greeks ravage the Delta of Egypt before being put to flight by the Egyptian army – a remarkable parallel to the maritime battle described in the Sea Peoples reliefs at Medinet Habu.

Clearly there was Mycenaean/Achaean expeditions to the east coast of the Mediterranean at this time as evidenced by the a quantity of LHIIIC ware found near Al-Mina. We also have the Mopsus tradition now confirmed to a degree by Hittite records. All this led Boardman to suggest the very idea that this was a colonisation movement but he too was unable to go further than to recognise the similarities with the 8th-century undertakings:

“At the end of the Late Bronze Age, when Mycenaean Greeks had won ascendancy over the Aegean and succeeded to the Minoan 'empire', there are more clear indications of what can almost be called colonizing by Mycenaean Greeks in the Near East, although the establishments may have been no more than trading posts admitted under treaty with local kingdoms. ... On eastern shores, as on the western coastline of Asia Minor, it was to the same areas and cities that the Greeks returned after the Dark Ages, to found new settlements or open new markets, but here there was clearly a complete break in the continuity of Greek occupation, despite the survival or memory of names like Mopsus or the Danaans.” [15]

Needless to say, the break in continuity referred to was not an archaeological one but a requirement of the Dark Age chronology currently in use. With a date of the turn of the 12th century for the Sea Peoples invasions, contact with Egypt, in the orthodox chronology, appears to cease for many centuries:

“In the Dark Age the Greeks lost all touch with Egypt, and contact was not resumed until c. 650, appreciably after the period when the Homeric poems took their present shape.” [16]

The low chronology only has a period of around two and a half centuries between the large scale movements by sea at the end of the Bronze Age and the establishment in the Delta of the Greek city of Naucratis in c. 640 BC. During this time interval the Greeks were busy colonising the rest of the Mediterranean and founding new cities such as Cumae and Al Mina (750 BC), Naxos, Syracuse, Mende and Sybaris (734-720 BC), Croton and Taras (708-6 BC), and Gela, Locri and Byzantium (688-660 BC). Egypt and the coast of North Africa (including the founding of Cyrene c. 630 BC) appears to have been the last major area to receive the attentions of the Greek colonists.

On the west coast of Anatolia the Achaean colonisers were also very busy and there is little doubt that it was in this area that overseas settlement first began. The founding of Miletus and other famous Ionian cities at the end of the Mycenaean period has been well documented, so there is no need to deal further with them here, but I would like to return to the city which was the starting point for this essay – the city at the centre of the great event which may have been the initial catalyst of the colonisation movement.

Troy – the missing centuries

The city of Troy typifies the problems raised by the insertion of the Dark Age into Greek history. City VIIA at Hissarlik is generally accepted as the Troy destroyed by the Achaeans - it is usually ascribed a date of c. 1250 BC for its demise. This city was followed by City VIIB in which a new form of pottery called 'knobbed ware' (Bukelkeramik) first appears. This city is assumed to have been abandoned around 1150-1100 BC and the site left unoccupied for 400 years:

“There is nothing at Troy to fill this huge lacuna. For 2000 years men had left traces of their living there; some chapters were brief and obscure, but there was never yet a chapter left wholly blank. Now at last there is silence, profound and prolonged for 400 years; we are asked, surely not in vain, to believe that Troy lay 'virtually unoccupied' for this long period of time.” [17]

It is only in around 700 BC that a Greek population is established at the site and the new city of Ilium is brought to life again on the ruins of the Homeric citadel. This, of course, is all very well, but the scenario produces two major problems (a) identifying the people who occupied VIIB, bringing with them the 'knobbed ware', and (b) explaining the continuity of the local Grey Minyan ware pottery across a four-hundred-year period of abandonment.

Under the alternative low chronology model, the new occupants of City VIIB, following the Greek sack of Troy (c. 900-850 BC), were the Phrygians who crossed the Hellespont bringing with them the 'knobbed ware' – a type of pottery which archaeologists have found in abundance in the Balkan region. The site was never abandoned for more than a generation before the Greeks re-occupied the city around 700. The Grey Minyan ware continued in use throughout this much shorter period with its manufacture in the hands of the indigenous population – the surviving Trojans who never left the site to colonise the western Mediterranean during either of the Phrygian or Greek occupations.

The archaeology of the site strongly supports this hypothesis. In particular a villa within the citadel walls was occupied throughout the period with no lacuna and with the use of Geometric pottery in the level ascribed to City VIIB which was supposed to have fallen around 1100 BC. The archaeologist, Blegen, hinted at the consequences of this discovery but could not quite bring himself to draw the conclusion which was clearly in his mind.

“It has been argued that Troy VIIb came to its end about 1100 B.C. Generally considered, our evidence leads us to believe that a gap of 400 years exists between the end of Troy VIIb and the beginning of Troy VIII, but the possibility of a contrary view is established by the evidence of several successive floors of house 814, and also by the presence of Geometric sherds in a context of Troy VIIb.” [18]

Conclusion

So we have come full circle in our review of the beginnings of the colonisation movement. The findings at Troy are fairly typical of the sort of problems discovered at most of the major colonisation sites around the Mediterranean coastline. Something does not quite sit well with a long Dark Age chronology, as neither the archaeology or the writings of the later historians fit the picture for this hypothesis. Any alternative proposal which can bring together the Achaean migrations with those of the traditional colonisation movement of the 8th century should be welcomed if simply to demonstrate that the work in this area is very much in need of further study and research.

Notes and References

1. M. M. Austin & P. Vidal-Naquet: Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece: An Introduction, (London, 1986), p. 58.

2. R. J. A. Talbert (ed.): Atlas of Classical History, (Beckenham, 1985), p. 11.

3. M. M. Austin & P. Vidal-Naquet: op. cit., p. 65.

4. Thucydides: History of the Peloponnesian War I, 12, (R. Warner trans.).

5. Strabo: Geography VI, 1, 12.

6. Strabo: VI, 3, 2-3.

7. Thucydides: VI, 2.

8. Thucydides: I, 2.

9. Q. Quagliati: 'Taranto: relazione degli scavi archeologici che si eseguirono nel 1899 in un abitato terramaricolo, allo Scoglio del Tonno, presso la citta' in Notizie degli Scavi di Antichita, (1900), pp. 411-464.

10. L. Bernarbo Brea: Sicily Before the Greeks, (London, 1966), p. 130.

11. E. Macnamara et. al.: The Bronze Hoard from S. Maria in Paulis, Sardinia (BM Occasional Paper 45, 1984), p. 17.

12. Homer: The Odyssey XIV 222, (W. Shewring trans.).

13. Odyssey IX, 39-42.

14. N. K. Sandars: The Sea Peoples, (London, 1978), p. 143.

15. J. Boardman: The Greeks Overseas, (London, 1980), pp. 35-6.

16. J. V. Luce: Homer and the Heroic Age, (London, 1975), p. 54.

17. D. Page: 'The Historical Sack of Troy' in Antiquity 33, (1959), p. 31.

18. C. W. Blegen et. al.: Troy IV:1, (Princeton, 1958), p. 250.