The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 03 : $b Greece to the Peloponnesian War
History
The historians' history of the world in twenty-five volumes, volume 03 : $b Greece to the Peloponnesian War
World history
In other respects, also, there is absolutely no proof to support the
supposition of a migration of peoples upon the Grecian peninsula. The
“Mycenæan” civilisation was not, as has been supposed, suddenly destroyed
by an incursion of uncivilised tribes, but was gradually merged into the
civilisation of the classic period. Even Attica, in connection with which
there is no tradition of a migration, had its period of Mycenæan culture.
The so-called “Doric” institutions are limited to Crete and Laconia,
and in the latter country they are not older than the Spartan conquest
in the eighth century; hence they have nothing whatever to do with the
Doric migration. In the same way the serfdom of the Thessalian peasants
may very well have been the result of an economic development, like the
colonia during the Roman empire or serfdom in Germany after the end of
the Middle Ages. Also the differentiation of the Grecian dialects came
about, as we saw, after the colonisation of Asia Minor, and hence should
not be traced back to the migrations which took place within the Grecian
peninsula at some time preceding this period. And, in any case, after the
Dorians settled in the Peloponnesus they must have adopted the dialect of
the original inhabitants of the country, who were so far superior to them
in numbers and civilisation; just as no one doubts that the Thessalians
did the same after their immigration into the Peneus river basin. A
“religion of the Doric race,” however, exists only in the imagination of
modern scholars; Hercules himself, the ancestral god of the Dorians, is
of Bœotian origin. Finally, it is extremely doubtful if the Argives and
Laconians were any more closely related to each other than to the other
Grecian tribes--the so-called Doric Phyleans, at least, have until now
been traced only in Argolis and in the Argolian colonies. But even if a
closer relationship did exist between the two neighbouring tribes, it
would by no means necessarily follow that the Argo-Laconian people first
immigrated into the Peloponnesus at a time when the eastern part of the
peninsula had already reached a comparatively high grade of civilisation.
There is indeed no question but that the Peloponnesus got its Hellenic
population from the north, that is directly from middle Greece; and
it is very probable that, even after the Peloponnesus was already in
the possession of the Greeks, tribal displacements still took place in
Greece. But they occurred in so remote a period that they have left no
distinguishable trace, even in tradition. If the Greeks of Asia Minor
remembered only the bare fact of their immigration, how could a tradition
have been maintained of tribal wanderings which took place long before
this colonisation? It is an idle task to try to discover the direction of
these migrations or the more particular circumstances under which they
took place.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account