Athena and Assorted Oddments

I want to try and clarify some of John's most confusing posts on Athena.

The derivation of Athena from At??-Hanahana is "fortement douteux", to say the least.

If she were derived from Hanahana, this would mean either that the Greeks brought her with them, or that she was already there amongst the "Pelasgians".

There is no evidence to support either hypothesis. Indeed, if we are to believe Herodotos (and Rex), the Pelasgians did not have a complex mythology, but instead preferred to lie under oak trees, eating psychotropic plants, watching the birds and listening to the wind.

I would remind John, that Linear B is Greek, not Pelasgian, so why is it surprising that there is no mention of "Pelasgian" Titans? Coming as they do from the end of the Mycenean period, whatever gods are mentioned in the tablets cannot be adduced as being pre-Greek. In the same vein, Linear B cannot be used to draw any inferences on pre-Greek Cretan mythology.

Most experts seem to agree that the Greek language and religion was essentially formed during the Bronze Age, and that there is a clear cultural continuity through to classical times. Thus, any possible Aegean influences on Phoenicia as a result of Sea People settlements are irrelevant, even though, if the Philistines can be taken as typical, they soon assimilated to the local languages and culture.

As regards John's statement that all Greek references to the link Athena-Neit post-date the Saite 26^th Dynasty and the close relations between Amasis and the Greeks, this is very hard to refute, given that there are very few extant Greek texts from before this time. In particular, the kind of investigation into their cultural roots and history a la Herodotos et al. seems to be very much a reflection of the great pride the Athenians took in themselves following on their successes in the Persian Wars. In such circumstances, it is surprising that the Greeks accepted so readily their indebtedness to Egypt and Phoenicia, although the facts were presented in the best light, i.e. god-equalling Pelasgians sheltering Egyptian and Phoenician refugees, who then by some unknown mechanism made themselves their rulers.

Nevertheless, there are some ancient cult centres of Athena, particularly in Boiotia, which seem to pre-date the Saite period, and where Athena is associated with such names as Onga/Onka, Itonia and Alalkomena. All of these obscure names appear to have plausible roots in Egypt and the Levant.

João's equation of Yam with Poseidon is very interesting. This would put Poseidon into a relationship with Egyptian Set, via the identification of Yam with Set, particularly in Hyksos times, and to whom the Hyksos are said to have been particularly devoted. So John may have a point in seeing this as a struggle, but with reference to the Hyksos invasion of and eventual expulsion from Crete.

Nevertheless, this may also been seen as a more general concept of the struggle between untamed nature represented by Set/Yam/Poseidon and its taming, particularly by irrigation, represented by Neit/Athena. This aspect of Neit is especially connected with the draining of the Fayyum, and may be seen in the cults of Poseidon and Athena centred around Lake Kopais and at Asea and Sparta, the source of the flood plain of the Eurotas.

Lewis Farnell wrote, of Athena and Poseidon "In no part of Greek religion was there any connection between Pallas (Athene) and Poseidon that points to an original affinity of character." So, I think the attempts to link them via Potnia and Poteidaon are not viable. Besides, potnia may signify merely "mistress, guardian" (cf. des-pot-), and of course A-ta-na may not be Athena, who to my knowledge has no connection with labyrinths.

Regarding Aphrodite, it should be noted that there is a statue base of a priest of Wdyt found in Middle Minoan Crete, carved with hieroglyphs so irregular as to suggest they were done locally. Several figures of a goddess holding two snakes have been found from this period - Wdyt being particularly associated with snakes.

The further comments in the same posting about Ugarit being the first port of call for Mycenean and Cretan merchants is, frankly, nonsense. To quote Anita Yannai on the subject of the Ugaritic texts :

"the fact remains that although Canaanites, Assyrians, Hurrians, Egyptians, Alasiotes (Cypriots) and inhabitants of virtually every city up and down the Syro-Palestinian coast are mentioned in the abundant archives, these have not yielded any ethnic, geographic or personal names that are indisputably Greek, nor any Linear B texts".

This statement could be extended to just about any Bronze Age Levantine city whose archives have been found. The lack of any mention of trading activities is also very noticeable in the Linear B tablets.

The importance of the Ugaritic archives is that, unlike at other locations, they have provided texts of a poetic and mythological nature that give an insight into 2^nd millennium (i.e. pre-Sea Peoples) West Semitic mythology, and that this has been found to have remarkable parallels with Greek mythology. Given that there is no evidence of Greek settlements in the Levant at this period, the natural conclusion is that these myths were brought to Greece by the Levantines.

Cheers

Dennis