In historical times the Dorians were distinguished from other Greeks primarily by their dialect, but also by certain common social customs: for instance, each Dorian state was divided into three tribes, always with the same names; and there are a number of primitive institutions which can be found in widely separated Dorian communities, such as Sparta and Crete. The Dorians were unknown to the Homeric account of heroic Greece; yet later they occupied most of what had once been the centre of Mycenean power, the Peloponnese, and in certain areas such as Argos and Sparta they ruled over a serf population of non-Dorian Greeks. Legend explained that they had arrived only recently; the sons of the semi-divine hero, Herakles, had been exiled from Mycenae, and later returned with the Dorians to claim their inheritance. The legend of the ‘return of the sons of Herakles’ is a charter myth, explaining by what right a people apparently unknown to the heroic world had inherited the land of the Mycenean Greeks and enslaved some, part of its population. How much historical truth this legend also contains must be decided in relation to evidence of a different type.
A second group of legends concerns an expansion of the Greeks across the Aegean to the coast of Asia Minor to form another cultural and linguistic block, that of the Ionian Greeks. The stories are complicated, involving the foundations of individual cities, but the centre of departure is for the most part Athens: groups of refugees passed through Athens on their way to find new homes.
Thucydides describes how the victors from Troy had a hard homecoming to a land no longer fit for heroes, and the migrations that followed:
Even after the Trojan war there were still migrations and colonizing movements, so that lack of peace inhibited development. The long delays in the return of the Greeks from Troy caused much disturbance, and there was a great deal of political trouble in the cities: those driven into exile founded cities … Eighty years after the Trojan war the Dorians with the sons of Herakles made themselves masters of the Peloponnese. It was with difficulty and over a long period that peace returned and Greece became powerful; when the migrations were over, she sent out colonies, the Athenians to Ionia and many of the islands, and the Peloponnesians to most of Italy and Sicily and some parts of the rest of Greece. All these places were founded after the Trojan war.
(Thucydides 1.12)
There are obvious weaknesses in this account. Thucydides had no knowledge of the extent of cultural collapse in the Dark Age, largely because he had little conception of the power and wealth of Mycenean Greece. He writes of political troubles in terms appropriate to the revolutionary activity of his own day; he equates the Ionian migration with the later and more organized colonizations of southern Italy and Sicily, discussed in chapter 7. The reason for these limitations is clear enough: Thucydides is performing the same operation as a modern historian, attempting to construct a historical narrative out of myth and heroic poetry by applying the standards of explanation accepted in his own day. And in the legends and folk memory available to him, he could see much the same general pattern as we can.
The legends of the migration period find some confirmation in the distribution of dialects in historical Greece. The Greek language itself belongs to the Indo-European family; it seems to have entered Greece shortly before 2000, when the archaeological evidence suggests the arrival of a new culture; these new peoples will be the later Mycenean Greeks. Evidence of an earlier non-Indo-European language can be found in the survival of certain place names (for instance those ending in -nthos and -assos), which are those of known centres of culture in the third millennium; the extent to which the language spoken by the newcomers was transformed by contact with this earlier language is uncertain. But at least by the Mycenean period the language of the Linear B tablets was recognizably Greek.
In classical times Greek was split into various dialects, more or less closely interrelated. The Doric dialect was spoken in the southern and eastern Peloponnese, that is in what had once been the Mycenean heartland, Laconia and the Argolid (and perhaps Messenia). From there it had spread across the southern group of Aegean islands to Crete, Rhodes and the south-west coast of Asia Minor. The Ionic dialect was spoken in Attica, Euboea, the central islands of the Cyclades, and the central coast of Asia Minor. Further north in Asia Minor, the Lesbian (Aeolic) dialect is related to those spoken in Thessaly and Boeotia, though the language of these two areas is also connected to the north-western dialects spoken in Aetolia, Achaea and Elis. Finally in two remote and separate enclaves, the mountains of Arcadia and the distant island of Cyprus, an archaic form of Greek survived, known as Arcado-Cypriot.
This distribution obviously relates at least in part to the legends of the migrations in the Dark Age. The Arcado-Cypriot dialect seems closest to Mycenean Greek, and Ionic can be seen as a development from a common original; the distribution of Ionic clearly reflects the same events as the legends of the Ionian migration; and, given the continuity in Cyprus between Mycenean and classical times, it is reasonable to see Arcado-Cypriot as evidence for the survival of Mycenean Greek enclaves in remote and inaccessible areas. It has usually also been held that the relation between Doric and north-west Greek and their distribution support the legends of the post-Mycenean invasions from the north-west into the Peloponnese. In many ways that still seems the most reasonable hypothesis; but it is of course conceivable that some part of this dialect pattern goes back earlier, to the time of the first entry of the Greeks; and it is clear that many of the differences between the dialects are the result of divergent development after the various groups had reached their final homes.
The third type of evidence is archaeological; its contribution is more ambiguous. Strictly it is not even clear whether Troy VIIa or the Mycenean palaces fell first; and there is no archaeological evidence of who destroyed either culture. The sub-Mycenean period is one of extreme poverty and deprivation; its most striking characteristic is the absence of evidence, which points to extensive depopulation: there is no positive sign of the influx of a new people. The only major change that can be detected is in burial habits – the abandonment of communal burials and large chamber tombs for a return to the older practice of individual burial in cist tombs, and the gradual spread of cremation in place of inhumation. About a century after the final collapse of Mycenean culture occur the first signs of a reawakening. Renewed contact between Athens and Cyprus, the area of the Greek world which offers most archaeological continuity with the Mycenean past, brought from southern Asia Minor a major new technological advance, iron smelting; from about 1050 iron began to replace bronze as the metal in everyday use. About the same time in Athens a new style of pottery began to emerge, of considerably higher quality than before – Proto-Geometric (from about 1050 to 900), decorated with simple repeated geometric patterns and broad bands of dark and light. Again it is to this period, from about 1050 to 950, that the Ionian movement across the Aegean Sea from Athens to the coast of Asia Minor can be dated on the evidence of a number of excavated sites.
The site that has revealed most about development within the Dark Age is Lefkandi, a small low promontory on the inner coast of Euboea; here a single trial hole 8.5 metres deep to bedrock has provided an almost continuous sequence of artefacts from the early Mycenean period (about 2000 BC) through the Dark Age period to about 825 BC, with only a short gap of perhaps fifty years around 1150–1100; successive excavations in the surrounding area have revealed large cemeteries from the Dark Age period. This was clearly a substantial settlement with a remarkable level of continuity and prosperity across the Dark Age.
The most remarkable discovery at Lefkandi was made in 1980. A local headmaster chose the August bank holiday to hire a bulldozer in order to clear a tiresome unexcavated site in his garden: he revealed and half destroyed the most important and most puzzling Dark Age monument yet found. It is a building dating from about 950 BC, apsidal with a porch at the other end, at least 47 metres long by 10 metres wide, with complex internal dividing walls, an external wooden colonnade and a central row of supporting pillars for the roof. The clay floor was laid on levelled rock; the walls are of mud brick on a base of roughly shaped stone, and faced with plaster internally; the roof was thatched. It