The Mycenaeans versus Dorians debate

Introduction

The following information comes from the author's PhD thesis on Attic Geometric and Orientalising pottery. This is an isolated article that discusses a peculiar debate in Greek archaeology targeting ethnic identities.

The ‘Mycenaeans versus Dorians’ debate

The ‘Mycenaeans versus Dorians’ debate shows how ceramic studies were used to distinguish ethnic identities in Early Greece. As noted earlier, the debate over whether Greek Early Iron Age styles derived from indigenous or externally diffused inspirations began with the first stylistic studies of the 19th century. Among the early scholars, Helbig & Conze (1875) saw Indo-Germanic and Phoenician influences; Furtwängler & Loeschcke (1876) saw Dorian invaders; and Schweitzer (1917; 1918) saw connections with the Mycenaean past.

Kübler (1954) pioneered an analysis of human remains that showed the people buried at Kerameikos were no different from the previous inhabitants of Athens; therefore, no Dorian invasion could be proven on the basis of skeletal evidence. However, Desborough (1964, 106-11) argued that, by contrast to the homogeneity of pottery styles during Late Helladic IIIB, the emergence of diverse regional styles during Late Helladic IIIC (e.g. Submycenaean pottery) could be attributed to a new cultural group. Such people arrived in mainland Greece during the 11th century BC and were most likely the Dorians or invading Herakleidai of the Greek heroic past (Desborough 1964, 106-11). Desborough (1964), Schweitzer (1969), and Bouzek (1969) thus linked Early Iron Age styles to either new arrivals or Mycenaean ceramic traditions.

Snodgrass (1971; 2000, 48) explained that the Geometric style was not a new product that sprang up after the decline of the Protogeometric, but rather its logical culmination (Snodgrass 1971; 2000, 48). By contrast to Desborough’s (1964) theory of Dorian invasion, he (1971; 2000, 311-13) argued that there is no distinct differentiation between Mycenaean and Submycenaean cultures. He also maintained that Submycenaean ceramic decoration should not be treated as separate from Mycenaean, since both styles show continuity with Bronze Age traditions in the use of the potter’s wheel. Such technological traditions continued in Protogeometric and Geometric times (Snodgrass 2000, 28-40). Still, a year later, Desborough (1972, 339) insisted on the clear break between Mycenaean and Submycenaean traditions during the first fifty years of the Dark Age and the arrival of new peoples in mainland Greece.

With regard to the invading Dorians, Hector Catling (1981) noted the popularity of a ‘Barbarian ware’ in the Peloponnese after the destruction of the Mycenaean palaces at the beginning of the 12th century BC. This ware was dated almost a century earlier than the Submycenaean style in Attica, yet Catling (1981) saw it as the product of new peoples. In later years, Hall (1997, 128-9) suggested that ethnic identity may not always be visible in the archaeological record. Morris (1999, 198-207) argued against Catling (1981) that changes in material culture should be understood as decisions connected to adaptation to new conditions, rather than as migration by people with a different concept of identity. Small (1990) had previously suggested that changes in pottery styles at the beginning of the Iron Age could have been due to the collapse of the centralised pottery production system of the Mycenaean palaces, which was also affected by broader economic changes.

Even though the debate on the invading Dorians is now over, recent iconographic approaches to Early Iron Age finewares continue to stress the connections between Geometric and Mycenaean art (Crouwel 2006; Dakoronia 2006; Güntner 2006; Hiller 2006; Iacovou 2006; Wedde 2006; Bouzek 2011).