From: Dennis Poulter
Message: 3275
Date: 2000-08-19
----- Original Message -----
From: John Croft <jdcroft@...>
To: <cybalist@egroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, 19 August, 2000 7:06 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Athene
John, yes I don't diagree with much of what you say. Of course, there is
syncretism, obfuscation, propaganda and all the rest at work. I would just
make the following points :
1. Archaeology is not a hard science. The facts that it reveals are in
themselves useless without interpretation, and therein lies the source of
contention. For example, you have claimed that the abundant finds of Cretan
and Mycenean pottery around the East Mediterranean points to Greek/Cretan
domination of the trade of the area. I, on the other hand, see this as a
relatively unimportant part of a trade whose principal components were
consumable items, such as grain, metals, and cloth, which by their very
nature have left virtually no trace, and this produces an false picture of
the trading patterns and relative positions of the trading partners.
2. I agree that the whole area was a huge melting pot, with influences going
this way and that. I am not arguing for Egyptian purity or exclusivity, just
their inclusion as an important element in this melting pot.
3. I also agree that one has to read the ancient authorities with due care
to any ideological positions they may have (e.g. Josephus). But as the
furore over Martin Bernal has revealed, the same can be said of modern
authorities. The ancients however do have one advantage - access to copious
documentation, the majority of which has been lost, and written in languages
that were fully understood, with all their nuances.
4. Finally, you talk of what is real, but what is reality? To the
Christians, that Jesus is God is a reality. So, if ancient Athenians
believed that Athena was Neit, is that not also a reality?
Cheers
Dennis