mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
*Alternative models of intercontinental interaction towards the earliest
Cretan script*
*
**by Wim van Binsbergen**

*Introduction

*The history of writing systems in the Eastern Mediterranean and the
Ancient Near East in general is pertinent to the **/Black Athena/**
debate in various ways. *

*                        First, literacy is a dominant feature of the
Graeco-Roman classical civilisation, and therefore any exploration of
the latter?s historical antecedents is bound to touch on writing
systems, their genesis and spread. As a 4th-millennium invention,
writing (though not of course the alphabet) at the height of Greek
classical civilisation had been in existence for a much longer period
than separates us today from the Ancient Greeks. This sobering
realisation testifies to the plausibility of the **/Black Athena/**
thesis claiming extensive ?Afroasiatic? (i.e. Ancient Egyptian and
Semitic) ?roots? for classical civilisation. At the same time it makes
it understandable why such a claim, in its generality, had already been
contemplated among non-classicist students of the Ancient Near East, for
decades preceding Bernal; it is the powerful and
synthetic, multidisciplinary phrasing of this claim, with full
realisation of its implication for multicultural identity politics
today, and with emphasis not so much on Syrian, Canaanite, Anatolian and
Mesopotamian but on alleged **/Egyptian/** contributions, which mark
Bernal?s originality and constitute so many bones of contention. *

*                        Secondly, Martin Bernal himself has shown an
intense interest in the topic, not only in the two volumes of **/Black
Athena/** published so far, but also in a separate
study, which contrary to conventional wisdom in this field
argues the early (mid-2nd millennium) introduction of the alphabet to
the Aegean and beyond. This ?by-product? (p. xi) of Bernal?s project has
been rather aloof from the spate of criticism, although it has not
escaped dismissal by one of his principal foes, James Muhly.

**/Cadmean letters/** is in many ways a most interesting
product of scholarship. While also here Bernal cannot help engaging in
excursions on the sociology of knowledge attending scholarly theories of
the history of the alphabet, the overall argument is characterised by
such methodological rigour and such command of the entire corpus of
relevant data (all ancient alphabetic and syllabic scripts of Southwest
and Northwest Asia, North and Northeast Africa, and Europe) that it
contrasts with the **/Black Athena /**volumes, on whose broad canvas
rapid and thin brush strokes sometimes had to suffice ? with predictable
and justified methodological objections from the specialists. This
reminds us of the need to see Martin Bernal?s work as an evolving oeuvre
all of whose parts must be taken into account, rather than as a series
of disparate works. Against the occasional suggestion of Egyptocentrism
of the **/Black Athena /**volumes, Egypt scarcely features in **/Cadmean
letters/**. On the basis of a wave theory of transmission making for
multiple, successive centres of transmission and reorientation, the role
of the Levant is highlighted, and considerable justice is done to the
multicentred nature of cultural exchange in the ancient Eastern
Mediterranean. Bernal casts new light on the Greek letter names, and
from the erratic distribution pattern of individual letter forms in all
the alphabets under consideration, derives the conclusion phrased in his
subtitle. In fact, if anything, Egypt features too little in this study,
for Bernal?s refusal to go beyond a subtly and convincingly
reconstructed (but not systematically tabulated) ?alphabet of primary
transmission? in what can only be a West Semitic context, prevents him ?
with considerable tactical insight, no doubt ? from raising the ultimate
question of origin of the alphabet. The same reticence almost reduces
the decipherment of the Sinaitic proto-alphabet by Martin Bernal?s
grandfather the leading Egyptologist Alan Gardiner (on the basis of an
acrophonic use of Egyptian hieroglyphic signs for Semitic phonemes)
to a mere family anecdote worth only a dedication, six lines
of text (p. 115), and a chatty appendix based on family papers. This may
well obscure from the reader?s consciousness the essentially
Egyptianising context of Sinai and Palestine in the first half of the
second millennium BCE. A fundamental point of departure for Bernal in
**/Cadmean letters/**, and one with which I do disagree, is the idea
that a script is as old, not as its youngest sign (which marks
the completion of that script as a full and integrated package), but as
its oldest sign. This assumption allows him to view the history of
alphabetic diffusion ? with, I admit, impressive success ? in an
extremely fragmented fashion: as the successive ephemeral resultants of
the interlocking diffusion histories of individual signs.*

*                        Thirdly, the very nature of writing systems as
conventionalised systems of signs ? as **/formal/** systems ? allows
them (much like other formal systems e.g. board games and divination
practices) to extend and ramify widely in time and space beyond
the rather more conservative boundaries within which culture-specific
and language-specific systems of localised meaning tend to be contained.
We may fruitfully study writing systems even externally and ignorantly,
looking for formal clues in their distribution, patterning and
structuring, even when we are still unable to gauge the specific
meanings they may have had for their original users. The tendency of
formal systems to cross cultural and linguistic boundaries, as well as
their proneness to leave permanent, indelible material traces, make them
useful ?guiding fossils? in the search for historical interconnections
in time and space. All the same we have to remind ourselves of the
probability that earliest forms are virtually never preserved; and that
specifically the earliest forms of writing may have been on perishable
materials (wood, leaves, shells) only later to be replaced by attested
carriers which, while of less perishable material, in their external
shape may still retain a reminiscence of their vanished predecessors.

*                        In the study of ancient writing systems from
the Eastern Mediterranean, Crete occupies a pivotal position: by virtue
of its geographical situation between three continents; as the principal
home of Linear B; as an early meeting ground of Indo-European,
Afroasiatic (including Semitic, and for Crete perhaps also Egyptian) and
possibly other language groups; and by consequence as an academic battle
ground. While Egyptian influences have been recognised (although they
have remained somewhat elusive) in such fields as architecture, stone
vessels, cultic symbols and practices, and myth, 
until recently no substantial Egyptian influences were
claimed for the oldest Cretan script, as it appears on seals c. 2000
BCE. Even Bernal, with all his searching for Egyptian presences in the
Aegean in the third and second millennium BCE and his specific
argument
on extensive Egyptian presence on
Crete, discusses Cretan writing systems without reference to Egypt.

* Meanwhile, however, Jan Best, in a passionate argument whose style and
approach recall Cyrus Gordon?s classic book on the subject, has called the
scriptural isolation of Crete a myth, and has proposed to base a
provocative and contentious reading of the earliest Cretan script on the
identification of three distinct sources for its signs: *

*?          35 signs as derived from Egyptian Hieroglyphic*

*?          30 signs from Luwian Hieroglyphic and*

*?          10 signs from hieroglyphic and linear scripts from Byblos.*

* Best goes on to interpret the political culture of early Palatial Crete
by idiosyncratically identifying ?Egyptianising? elements on Cretan signs:
the bee interpreted as a symbol of kingship, the beer pot interpreted as a
symbol of the high-ranking Egyptian court office of ?butler?, cup bearer
or steward, symmetrical convolutions as a ?streamlined? symbol of the
goddess Hathor with her head-dress of bovine horns, etc. Beyond Bernal?s
wildest dreams, Best conjures up a distinct Egyptian mercantile, perhaps
even politico-tributary, presence for early Palatial Crete, on the basis
of the scrutiny of the multi-sided seals which already afforded Arthur
Evans an occasion to apply his proverbially unusual (for as incisive as
myopic) powers of perception.*

*                        The most problematic feature of such an
Egyptianising interpretation of the earliest Cretan texts consists in
its claim of a direct, unadulterated, unfiltered access to Egyptian
lexical, scriptural, cultural and institutional elements by the 20th
century BCE. *

* What are the technological requirements for such access in terms of
nautical technology? Homer shows that by the early Iron Age direct
navigation between the Aegean and Egypt was taken for granted. The Thera
frescoes, with what has been interpreted as North African scenery and
human physical types as well as Egyptian boats, may carry that suggestion
at least half a millennium back into the Bronze Age. Bronze Age nautical
techniques in general are reputed to have preferred coastal navigation
with nocturnal breaks ashore, so that the sea route from Egypt to Crete
would have started along the Libyan coast, followed ? from what is today
the port of Bardiyah and Ras (Cape) al-Muraysah on the eastern Cyrenaican
coast ? by the shortest possible north-bound traject; or alternatively,
and unlikely for **/Egyptian/** ships in the light of political
circumstances, all the way along the Levantine and Anatolian coast. Helck
& Drenkhahn, however, question this conventional wisdom and argue in
favour of direct Egypt/ Aegean navigation across the high seas, which, in
view of the constancy of nautical technology since the Neolithic, they
think may even be very old; however, they do not enter into a discussion
of the techniques for determining a ship?s position, the impact of the
growth of astronomy in this connection, etc. The distinct find patterns of
Egyptian, Syrio-Palestinian and Anatolian goods on Crete as summarised by
Best, with concentrations of geographical provenance concentrating on the
parts of the island nearest to these directions, also suggest a plurality
of access routes to the island existing side by side. *

*                        With this in mind, let us try to spell out the
implications, both geographically and systematically, of Jan Best?s
claim ? plausible in itself ? concerning the Egyptian, Luwian and
Byblian components in the earliest Cretan script.*

* *

*Model I. Crete as the supposedly unique geographical locus of
transformative localisation*** <#_ftn25>** <#_ftn25>**
<#_ftn25>*[25]* <#_ftn25>** <#_ftn25>** <#_ftn25>** <#_ftn25>* of
the intercontinental contributions towards the earliest Cretan script*

*The simplest model, as originally envisaged by Jan Best, stipulates
that the formative contributions from the three different sources
travelled independently, along separate routes, to Crete and only there
were integrated, and transformed, so as to constitute Cretan
Hieroglyphic. Possible routes are set out in my diagram 1: *

*?     from Egypt, either via Cyrenaica (A); direct (B); via Byblos (C)
then direct (D); or via Byblos, and from there by any of the coastal
routes (E/ F/ G-H-J);*

*?     from Byblos, either direct (D); or via any of the coastal routes
(E/ F/ G-H-J);*

*?     from Anatolia, via the coastal route H-J.*

*Diagram 1. Crete as the supposedly unique geographical locus of
transformative localisation of intercontinental contributions towards
the earliest Cretan script*

*                        Route C is well-attested and in fact Egyptian
influence in Byblos was so overwhelming that Byblian Hieroglyphic
unmistakably derived from Egyptian Hieroglyphic.
Diagram 1 merely sums up the various theoretically possible routes for
intercontinental contributions to the earliest Cretan script. As my
argument develops most alternatives will be discarded and one route will
emerge as the most likely one. *

*                        From a nautical and archaeological point of
view there would be little objection against the Egyptianising reading
proposed by Jan Best. Also Gordon made allowance for occasional
hieroglyphic readings of Cretan material. Best?s
conclusion ties in with Bernal?s prudent claim that *

*?it is possible that the was Egyptian suzerainty over Crete and the
Cyclades during the Egyptian Middle Kingdom?.
*Best?s reading of the name of a major Cretan seal owner as ?Cat-Snake?
may even appear in a new light once we realise that the Feline (an
epiphany of the sun god Re?) and the Serpent (as an epiphany of the
powers of darkness) form a conventional pair of adversaries in Egyptian
mythology. With both feline and snake thus
having clear Egyptian connotations, the contentious combination of these
arch-enemies in one name might in principle be interpreted as the kind
of cosmological bricolage one might expect to find at the early Aegean
periphery of a developed Egyptian culture. But on further reflection the
interpretation remains highly problematic. Despite Best?s ingenuous
invocation of a principle of interpicturality, the ?cat? ? so prominent
on one of the seals that it was honoured to be stamped in gold on the
cover of Arthur Evans **/Scripta Minoa/*** from
which most of Best?s material derives ? is scarcely if at all visible on
at least one seal he discusses in his article. It would have been
equally hard to find on the ground, on Crete in the beginning of the
second millennium. Although the wild feline (lion or wild cat) as sacred
to the goddess Bastet is attested throughout Ancient Egyptian
iconography and mythology, domestication of the cat only took place very
late, and it is only after 1000 BC that its iconography settled
accordingly for a domestic cat. The authority on the history of
domesticated animals, Zeuner, states: *

*?In the New Kingdom (sixteenth century onwards), however, the cat
appears as a domesticated animal, helping to hunt birds and sacred to
Bastet or Bubastis, a goddess of the delta. (...) Some archaeologists
indeed hold that the cat was domesticated in Egypt from the first
dynasties onwards (c. 3000 B.C.) but the evidence is ambiguous. (...)
But by eighteenth-dynasty times the cat has become popular and properly
domesticated. (...) Following the intense traffic from Egypt across the
Aegean Sea (...) cats actually reached Greece from time to time. The
earliest record appears to be one from Crete, where a terracotta head of
late Minoan age has been interpreted as that of a cat by Bosanquet
(...). it comes from Palaikastro and should
be earlier than 1100 B.C. At that time domestic cats abounded in Egypt,
and this find may provide another cultural link between that country and
Greece.?

* *

*Model II. Byblos and the North Syrian/ South East Anatolian coast
as distinct focal points of transformative localisation of the
intercontinental contributions towards the earliest Cretan script*

*Model I is strikingly implausible for more systematic reasons than
Egyptian iconography and the geographical distribution of mammals. In my
opinion as an anthropologist, a script is not merely an arbitrary and
ephemeral conglomerate of signs that happen to be present at the same
time and place, but a systematic and integrated package, all of whose
elements have a specific, interdependent function; it can only function
culturally by virtue of these characteristics. One can hardly imagine
that knowledge of three writing systems arrived independently on Crete,
c. 2000 BCE, and only there was arbitrarily and eclectically used to
construct Cretan Hieroglyphic with elements from all three.
Specifically, if a script combines a sizeable proportion of Egyptian and
Byblian signs, our most likely hypothesis is that such a script was
formulated in what was, geographically and culturally, the Egyptianising
context of Byblos. Then again, if the script incorporates a sizeable
proportion of Luwian signs, our most likely hypothesis is that such a
script was reformulated in what was, geographically and culturally, a
Luwian context. *

*                        Massive Egyptian influence did travel to and
via Byblos. This means that routes A and B in diagram 1 can be discarded
**/as far as Egyptian scriptural influence upon the earliest Cretan
script is concerned; /**of course this does not say anything against the
mercantile and cultural utilisation of these routes in general, outside
the context of the origins of the earliest Cretan script. It also means
that the Egyptian and the Byblian influence did not travel along
separate routes to Crete. More probably, they were already amalgamated
in Byblos in some provisional, hitherto unattested form (which I
provisionally designate ?*proto-Cretan I?; see below) long before
reaching Crete. *

*                        Another shunting point comparable to Byblos
would appear to be the Upper Syrian coast, where according to
Woudhuizen Luwian Hieroglyphic originated. It
seems most probable that here the provisional package of *proto-Cretan I
was transformed as a result of combination with a further substantial
contribution from the Luwian Hieroglyphic which by that time (the end of
the 3rd millennium BCE) was **/in statu nascendi/**. In other words, in
terms of my proposed alternative model the intercontinental
contributions towards the earliest Crete script, from Egypt, Byblos and
North Syria were amalgamated, not in Crete, but (after an earlier stage
in Byblos) in North Syria and hence travelled, as a package, to Crete
(diagram 2) via coastal navigation. *

*                        Recent research is meanwhile suggesting an
important economic incentive behind what looks like intensified maritime
connections between Crete, Luwian lands, Byblos and Egypt around 2000
BCE as shown in this diagram: the general shift to tin-bronze precisely
at this time, and the crucial role in this respect of a recently
discovered tin mine at Goltepe, South Anatolia.
**

*Diagram 2. Byblos and the North Syrian coast as two distinct focal
points of transformative localisation of the intercontinental
contributions towards the earliest Cretan script.*

*                        The model propounded in diagram 2, although
greatly narrowed down as compared to diagram 1, insofar as geographical
routes of inter­continental contribution are concerned, is still
unsatisfactory in that it depicts the three constituent influences on
the earliest Cretan script as travelling separately and parallel to each
other. In view of my emphasis on the script being an integrated package,
a more plausible model emerges from diagram 3, which visualises the
genesis of proto-Cretan II (= Cretan Hieroglyphic as attested) as the
result of successive and accumulative transformations, first in Byblos
(where the unattested *proto-Cretan I was formed), then in coastal North
Syria. This resulted ? in all likelihood: still on the Upper Syrian
coast ? in ?proto-Cretan II?, which however so far has only been
attested from Crete, 1000 km to the west, under its accepted designation
of Cretan Hieroglyphic; unless we consider Luwian Hieroglyphic (40%
overlap with Cretan Hieroglyphic) as a mere variant of the latter.*

*                        Diagram 4 finally projects the model underlying
diagram 3 back onto the map of the eastern Mediterranean:*

*Diagram 3. An unattested *Proto-Cretan I script phase as an implication
of Model II.*

* *

*Diagram 4. Schematic geographical connections involving a *proto-Cretan
I scriptural phase in the formation of the earliest Cretan script (=
proto Cretan II).*

* *

*Conclusion: From Egypt via the Levant, with additional
contributions from Anatolia, to Crete*

*The emerging model of intercontinental interactions towards the
earliest Cretan script would appear to have applicability beyond the
emergence of Cretan writing alone. Model I would amount to claiming an
extensive, direct and unfiltered Egyptian influence on Crete, in terms
of which we would be justified to speak (as Jan Best does) of
?Egyptianising? ? not only with regard to the Cretan Hieroglyphic, but
also with regard to the cultural, political and cultic contents
expressed in that script and left for us to decipher and interpret. If
however, as I have proposed through my increasingly complex Model II,
any Egyptian influence on the earliest Cretan script was filtered
through two successive transformations effected far away from Egypt in
contexts only considerably (Byblos) or even scarcely (North Syria)
informed by Egyptian culture c. 2000 BCE, then a
very different interpretation presents itself. Egyptian influence is
then relegated to a status of remoteness and indirectness, and while it
still transpires in the **/purely formal/** characteristics of part of
the scriptural signs, it can no longer be claimed to largely, let alone
fully, determine **/cultural contents/**. *

*                        If Model II is the more plausible one, then the
cultural, political and religious meanings expressed in the earliest
Cretan script could scarcely be direct, even detectable, reflections of
Egyptian institutions at the time. An Egyptianising reading as proposed
by Best then becomes implausible. The long (nearly 2000 km) detour
postulated by Model II involves substantial transformation and
amalgamation of scripts, while along the way these scripts were almost
certainly used for languages very different from Egyptian (else Egyptian
script would have been retained). Under such conditions, it is highly
improbable that such specifically Egyptian semantic complexes like
kingship and stewardship (as rendered by strings of Egyptian
Hieroglyphic signs **/often/** ? not **/always: /**writing variants are
characteristic of the Egyptian script ? featuring a bee, a beer pot,
etc.) could have reached Crete while retaining much of their original
form and contents. Instead, the attending signs are much more likely to
have lost such iconographic connotations as they once had in the
original Egyptian cultural environment. They must have become highly
conventionalised, retaining hardly any reference to Egyptian
institutions and to the Egyptian lexical items designating such
institutions. *

*                        Of course, behind this reasoning is the whole
intricate question of the nature of hieroglyphic signs as symbols
corresponding with the real-life items that many of the individual signs
appear to represent, or alternatively as mere conventionalised sings
having only phonetic or lexical value. Decipherment of Egyptian
Hieroglyphic texts only became possible once it was realised, by the end
of the 18th century, that these contained primarily signs, not symbols.
However, much of Ancient Egyptian funerary ritual and magic
was based on the idea that symbolic qualities
remain lurking in the signs and can be activated; similarly, such
activation was supposed to be prevented by careful and consistent
mutilation of the signs as if of living creatures themselves. It is
quite likely that in peripheral, far less literate
or even illiterate conditions, e.g. such as obtained when Egyptian
script was taken to distant Crete c. 2000 BCE, magical and symbolic
elements become stressed over the sign-oriented technicalities of the
script. Jan Best clearly takes recourse to the assumption of symbolic
qualities clinging indefinitely to the signs, even after diffusion.
Considering the very long route of my diagrams 2 and 4, such an argument
strikes me as unnecessary. *

*                        More in general, my model II reinforces the
view ? which in the context of the **/Black Athena/** debate has been
expressed by Sarah P. Morris among others ? that Egyptian influence on
the Aegean was by and large not a direct one, but was mediated via
Palestine and Syria: *

*?In other words, these two sets of pictorial fragments in Aegean style
[from Tell al-Dab?a, i.e. Avaris, in the Nile Delta; and from Tell
Kabri, Northern Israel] clearly reveal the strong connections between
Minoan Crete (Keftiu, Kaphtor) and the northern Levant, rather than
directly between Crete and Egypt.?

*?Bernal?s view of the ancient equivalent of such a route leapfrogs from
Egypt to Greece, disregarding more critical connections via the land of
the alphabet?.

*                        In a very critical yet fair discussion of the
**/Black Athena/** thesis, Mario Liverani goes beyond such a
programmatic statement and actually presents a dynamic historic model
(properly periodicised into Late Bronze, Iron I+II, and Iron III, each
with very different structural characteristics) that highlights the
specific shifts in regional economies and state systems in the course of
which the Levantine rather than directly Egyptian influence on Greece
must be situated.
Meanwhile we should not exaggerate
the difference made by explicit allowance for the Levantine
contribution, in view of the fact that cultural influence of Egypt in
these regions was considerable ? as brought out, for instance, by the
hieroglyphic background of the alphabet itself.*

*                        This is not to deny the importance of the
Egyptian, or more in general African, contribution in third and second
millennium BCE inter-continental cultural interactions including those
leading to the earliest Cretan script, but to call attention to **/the
transformative localisations (involving amalgamation with other
influences locally available) this ? and presumably other ? Egyptian
material underwent/**, before and after it reached the Aegean. Here we
encounter the problematic invariably attending diffusionist arguments in
the study of culture: the argument of provenance, of diffusion, always
needs to be complemented by the argument of transformative localisation
once a destination has been reached. Elsewhere
in this collection I argue how Martin Bernal has
acknowledged this insight under the heading of ?modified diffusionism?. *

*                        If, as I argue for Cretan Hieroglyphic, there
have been two intermediate destinations serving as focal points of
transformative localisation of Egyptian scriptural influence before it
could even reach the ultimate destination Crete, such intervening
localisation will have substantially eroded and adulterated whatever
original cultural contents were there to be diffused. In the process,
reference to specifically Egyptian cultural and institutional features
most probably underwent shifts to such an extent that the Egyptian
elements were reduced to mere formal correspondences, were far from
?overwhelming? and must not be read as evidence of
massive influence of ?Egyptian culture? **/per se/**. *

*                        An exploration of non-Egyptian contributions to
the oldest Cretan script would add further relief to Jan Best?s
argument. Particularly a Mesopotamian contribution is at least suggested
by the following elements in his analysis. First there is his claim as
to iconographic evidence of a conception of hybrid creatures,
?Mischwesen?, a prominent and persistent feature in ancient Mesopotamian
culture but much less so in ancient Egyptian
representations. Moreover the ? apparently Luwian ? sign consisting of
two isosceles triangles, probably should be read not as a reference to
any Egyptian ?pyramid city?. The latter is an abode of the dead rather
than of the living; the string of Egyptian
Hieroglyphic signs depicting ?town? (**/dm?/**) is totally different ?
and in general a detailed analysis of ?Gardiner? hieroglyphic signs as
invoked by Best would reveal such a looseness of fit as to defy any
notion of direct and massive Egyptian influence. 
Instead the triangles may, for instance, derive from the
early forms of the Sumero-Akkadian cuneiform writing system, which
contains several signs with triple or dual triangles.
The Luwian connection, meanwhile, and particularly the
emphasis on stag or deer and other animals, suggests a second set of
non-Egyptian/ non-African contributions besides Mesopotamia: those
linking up with the animal style/ steppe / shamanistic complex and thus
with Central and Northern Asia.

*                        Although there is no **/prima facie /**reason
why the antecedents of the earliest Cretan script should provide a
widely applicable heuristic model, the possible implications of my
proposed Model II for the **/Black Athena/** thesis are obvious. Athena
(who stands metonymically for the Greek, subsequently European,
subsequently North Atlantic and increasingly global civilisation) may
not have been autochthonous but that in itself (as
the argument of origin and diffusion) does not necessarily give her
predominantly or exclusively Egyptian, i.e. African, ancestry ? the more
likely model providing for multiplex, multidirectional cultural
exchanges. Perhaps more important even is the argument of transformative
localisation: it is doubtful, as I maintain for the specific case of
Crete?s oldest script, whether any such transcontinental ancestry would
have been able to decisively determine **/substance/**, beyond mere
remote reminiscences so eroded as to become conventionalised,
superficial, and purely formal. Both the multidirectional element and
the transformative element are present in Martin Bernal?s approach, but
not always with such clarity and emphasis as to
withstand the temptation of reformulations and appropriations stressing
unidirectionality and passive reception.*

*to homepage* <index.htm>*
*

------------------------------------------------------------------------

** <#_ftnref1>*© 1997 Wim van Binsbergen*

*[1]I am indebted to Jan Best for generous and intensive discussions
from which the present argument originated; to Arno Egberts for
Egyptological advice; to Peter Broers for advice on West Semitic
languages; and to the theme group on ?Religion and magic in the Ancient
Near East?, Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities
and Social Sciences?, 1994-95, for creating an inspiring setting in
which I could pursue this topic and related topics. *

** <#_ftnref2>** <#_ftnref2>** <#_ftnref2>*[2]* <#_ftnref2>**
<#_ftnref2>** <#_ftnref2>** <#_ftnref2>*Cf. Wim van Binsbergen,
?**/Black Athena/** Ten Years After: Towards a constructive
re-assessment? (this volume).*

** <#_ftnref3>** <#_ftnref3>** <#_ftnref3>*[3]* <#_ftnref3>**
<#_ftnref3>** <#_ftnref3>** <#_ftnref3>*Bernal, M., 1987, **/Black
Athena: The Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization, I. The
fabrication of Ancient Greece, 1785-1985/**, London etc.: Free
Association Books, **/passim /**(see that book?s index); Bernal, M.,
1991, **/Black Athena: The Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization,
II. The archaeological and documentary evidence/**, New Brunswick
(N.J.): Rutgers University Press, **/passim/**.*

** <#_ftnref4>** <#_ftnref4>** <#_ftnref4>*[4]* <#_ftnref4>**
<#_ftnref4>** <#_ftnref4>** <#_ftnref4>*Bernal, M., 1990, **/Cadmean
letters: The transmission of the alphabet to the Aegean and further west
before 1400 B.C./**, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns; cf. Bernal, M., 1987, ?On
the transmission of the alphabet to the Aegean before 1400 B.C.?,
**/Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research/**, 267: 1-19.*

** <#_ftnref5>** <#_ftnref5>** <#_ftnref5>*[5]* <#_ftnref5>**
<#_ftnref5>** <#_ftnref5>** <#_ftnref5>*Muhly, J.D., 1990, ?Black Athena
versus traditional scholarship?, **/Journal of Mediterranean
Archaeology/**, 3, 1: 83-110, p. 92f. *

** <#_ftnref6>** <#_ftnref6>** <#_ftnref6>*[6]* <#_ftnref6>**
<#_ftnref6>** <#_ftnref6>** <#_ftnref6>*Gardiner, A. H., 1916, ?The
Egyptian origin of the Semitic alphabet?, **/Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology/**, 3: 1-16; Cerny, J., 1971, ?Language and writing?, in:
Harris, J.R., ed., **/The legacy of Egypt/**, 2nd ed., Oxford:
Clarendon, pp. 197-219, 214f and table ?The alphabet? at the beginning
of that book. *

** <#_ftnref7>** <#_ftnref7>** <#_ftnref7>*[7]* <#_ftnref7>**
<#_ftnref7>** <#_ftnref7>** <#_ftnref7>*Bernal, **/Cadmean letters/**,
p. 12; the idea derives from: Ullman, B.L., 1934, ?How old is the Greek
alphabet??, **/American Journal of Archeology/**, 38: 359-81.*

** <#_ftnref8>** <#_ftnref8>** <#_ftnref8>*[8]* <#_ftnref8>**
<#_ftnref8>** <#_ftnref8>** <#_ftnref8>*Cf. van Binsbergen, W.M.J.,
1997, ?Rethinking Africa?s contribution to global cultural history:
Lessons from a comparative historical analysis of mankala board-games
and geomantic divination? (this volume); van Binsbergen, W.M.J., in
press, ?Board-games and divination in global cultural history: A
theoretical, comparative and historical perspective on mankala and
geomancy in Africa and Asia?, in: Finkel, I., ed., **/Ancient
board-games/**, London: British Museum Press; van Binsbergen, W.M.J.,
1996, ?Time, space and history in African divination and board-games?,
in: Tiemersma, D., & Oosterling, H.A.F., eds., **/Time and temporality
in intercultural perspective: Studies presented to Heinz Kimmerle/**,
Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 105-125.*

** <#_ftnref9>** <#_ftnref9>** <#_ftnref9>*[9]* <#_ftnref9>**
<#_ftnref9>** <#_ftnref9>** <#_ftnref9>*Helck, W., revised by R.
Drenkhahn, 1995, **/Die Beziehungen Ägyptens und Vorderasiens zur Agäis
bis ins 7. Jahrhundert v. Chr/**., Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 2nd rev. ed., p. 15f.*

** <#_ftnref10>** <#_ftnref10>** <#_ftnref10>*[10]* <#_ftnref10>**
<#_ftnref10>** <#_ftnref10>** <#_ftnref10>*Cf. Bernal, **/Black Athena
II/**, pp. 154ff and references cited there.*

** <#_ftnref11>** <#_ftnref11>** <#_ftnref11>*[11]* <#_ftnref11>**
<#_ftnref11>** <#_ftnref11>** <#_ftnref11>*Bernal, **/Black Athena
II/**, pp. 164-186; for additional arguments cf. Helck rev. Drenkhahn.*

** <#_ftnref12>** <#_ftnref12>** <#_ftnref12>*[12]* <#_ftnref12>**
<#_ftnref12>** <#_ftnref12>** <#_ftnref12>*Bernal, **/Black Athena II/**: *

*?This independence [of Crete] is reflected in the fact that palatial
Crete did not adopt Egyptian hieroglyphics, cuneiform or a Byblian
script, but used its own hieroglyphic and syllabic systems.? (p. 162)*

** <#_ftnref13>** <#_ftnref13>** <#_ftnref13>*[13]* <#_ftnref13>**
<#_ftnref13>** <#_ftnref13>** <#_ftnref13>*Gordon, C.H., 1966,
**/Evidence for the Minoan language/**, Ventnor (NJ): Ventnor Publishers.*

** <#_ftnref14>** <#_ftnref14>** <#_ftnref14>*[14]* <#_ftnref14>**
<#_ftnref14>** <#_ftnref14>** <#_ftnref14>*Best, J.[G.P.], 1997, ?The
ancient toponyms of Mallia: A post-Eurocentric reading of Egyptianising
Bronze Age documents?, (this volume); cf. Best, J.G.P., & Woudhuizen,
F., 1988, eds., **/Ancient scripts from Crete and Cyprus/**, Leiden:
Brill; Woudhuizen, F., 1989, ?The Cretan branch of Luwian hieroglyphic?,
in: Best, J.G.P., & Woudhuizen, F., 1989, eds., **/Lost languages from
the Mediterranean/**, Leiden: Brill, pp. 65-138; Best, J.G.P., 1997,
?The Luwian branch of Cretan writing?, Amsterdam: Najade Press, working
paper. *

** <#_ftnref15>** <#_ftnref15>** <#_ftnref15>*[15]* <#_ftnref15>**
<#_ftnref15>** <#_ftnref15>** <#_ftnref15>*Because the word ?bee?
(**/bit/**) and the ?bee? sign (Gardiner, A.H., 1957, **/Egyptian
Grammar/**, 3rd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 477 sign L2,
cf. p. 50, 51, 73) features in the titles ?King of Lower Egypt? and
?King of Upper and Lower Egypt?. The general, unmarked Egyptian word for
?king? however, **/nsw/**, as would probably be applicable to rulers
outside Egypt e.g. on Crete, for historical reasons implies a reference
to Upper Egypt and has no bee connotations whatsoever.*

** <#_ftnref16>** <#_ftnref16>** <#_ftnref16>*[16]* <#_ftnref16>**
<#_ftnref16>** <#_ftnref16>** <#_ftnref16>*Gardiner, p. 530, sign W23.*

** <#_ftnref17>** <#_ftnref17>** <#_ftnref17>*[17]* <#_ftnref17>**
<#_ftnref17>** <#_ftnref17>** <#_ftnref17>*Cf. Gardiner, sign C9, p.
449; horns surrounding a circle (iconographically and sculpturally not
the absolute prerogative of Hathor) make up only a small part of this
sign, which essentially depicts an entire seated woman seen in profile.
The Egyptologists Helck and Drenkhahn specifically deny the Hathor
connection, **/o.c./**, p. 19; Goodison however does see at least the
Egyptian goddesses Isis and Nephthys on Cretan seals: Goodison, L.,
1989, **/Death, women and the sun: Symbolism and regeneration in early
Aegean Religion/**, London: Institute of Classical Studies.*

** <#_ftnref18>** <#_ftnref18>** <#_ftnref18>*[18]* <#_ftnref18>**
<#_ftnref18>** <#_ftnref18>** <#_ftnref18>*Evans, A., 1909, **/Scripta
Minoa/**, **/I/**, Oxford: Clarendon Press.*

** <#_ftnref19>** <#_ftnref19>** <#_ftnref19>*[19]* <#_ftnref19>**
<#_ftnref19>** <#_ftnref19>** <#_ftnref19>*/Od/**. 3, 285f.*

** <#_ftnref20>** <#_ftnref20>** <#_ftnref20>*[20]* <#_ftnref20>**
<#_ftnref20>** <#_ftnref20>** <#_ftnref20>*Immerwahr, S. A., 1983, ?The
people in the frescoes?, in 0. Krzyszkowska and L. Nixon, eds.,
**/Minoan Society: Proceedings of the Cambridge colloquium 1982/**,
Bristol: Bristol Classical Press, pp. 143-154; Morgan Brown, L., 1978,
?The ship procession in the miniature fresco?, in C. Doumas, ed.,
**/Thera and the Aegean world: Papers presented at the second
international scientific congress, Santorini, Greece, August 1978/**,
vol. I. London, pp. 629-644; Marinatos, S., 1969, ?An African in Thera?,
**/Analekta Archaiologika Athenon/**, 2, pp. 374-5; Marinatos, S.,
1973b, ?Ethnic problems raised by recent discoveries on Thera?, in R. A.
Crossland and A. Birchall, eds., **/Bronze Age migrations in the
Aegean/**, pp. 199-201; Bernal, **/Black Athena II/**, p. 386f; Morgan
Brown, L., 1988, **/The miniature wall paintings of Thera: A study in
Aegean culture and iconography/**, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1988.*

** <#_ftnref21>** <#_ftnref21>** <#_ftnref21>*[21]* <#_ftnref21>**
<#_ftnref21>** <#_ftnref21>** <#_ftnref21>*Cf. O?Connor, D., 1996,
?Egypt and Greece: The Bronze Age evidence?, in: M.R. Lefkowitz & G.
MacLean Rogers, eds., **/Black Athena revisited/**, Chapel Hill &
London: University of North Caroline Press, pp. 49-60, p. 54.*

** <#_ftnref22>** <#_ftnref22>** <#_ftnref22>*[22]* <#_ftnref22>**
<#_ftnref22>** <#_ftnref22>** <#_ftnref22>*Helck rev. Drenkhahn, p. 32f.
Useful diagrams of navigation routes in the eastern Mediterrenean during
the Bronze Age also in: Liverani, M., 1987, ?The collapse of the Near
Eastern regional system at the end of the Bronze Age: The case of
Syria?, in: M. Rowlands, M. T. Larsen and K. Kristiansen, eds.,
**/Centre and periphery in the Ancient World/**, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, pp. 67-73.*

** <#_ftnref23>** <#_ftnref23>** <#_ftnref23>*[23]* <#_ftnref23>**
<#_ftnref23>** <#_ftnref23>** <#_ftnref23>*Astronomical analysis
suggests that the constellations were defined in the third millennium in
the eastern Mediterranean; this may have led to a dramatic improvement
of navigational techniques; cf. Ovenden, M.W., 1966, ?The origins of the
constellations?, **/The Philosophical Journal/** [**/Transactions of the
Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow/**] , 3: 1-18.*

** <#_ftnref24>** <#_ftnref24>** <#_ftnref24>*[24]* <#_ftnref24>**
<#_ftnref24>** <#_ftnref24>** <#_ftnref24>*Best, ?Ancient toponyms?.*

** <#_ftnref25>** <#_ftnref25>** <#_ftnref25>*[25]* <#_ftnref25>**
<#_ftnref25>** <#_ftnref25>** <#_ftnref25>*Cf below, conclusion, and:
Wim van Binsbergen, ?**/Black Athena/** Ten Years After?.*

** <#_ftnref26>** <#_ftnref26>** <#_ftnref26>*[26]* <#_ftnref26>**
<#_ftnref26>** <#_ftnref26>** <#_ftnref26>*Dunand, M., 1945, **/Byblia
grammata: Documents et recherches sur le développement de l?écriture en
Phénicie/**, Beyrouth: Imprimérie Catholique; Diringer, D., 1996, **/The
alphabet: A key to the history of mankind/**, New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal, reprint of the 1947 British edition, pp. 158f; Dussaud, R.,
1946-8, ?L?origine de l?alphabet et son évolution première d?après les
decouvertes de Byblos?, **/Syria/**, 25: 36-52; on Byblos in general,
cf. Helck, W., 1975, ?Byblos?, in W. Helck & E. Otto, **/Lexikon der
Ägyptologie/**, vol. I, cols. 889-91; Kitchen, K. A., 1967, ?Byblos,
Egypt, and Mari in the early second millennium BC?, **/Orientalia/**,
36: 39-54.*

** <#_ftnref27>** <#_ftnref27>** <#_ftnref27>*[27]* <#_ftnref27>**
<#_ftnref27>** <#_ftnref27>** <#_ftnref27>*Gordon, legend to Plate XII.*

** <#_ftnref28>** <#_ftnref28>** <#_ftnref28>*[28]* <#_ftnref28>**
<#_ftnref28>** <#_ftnref28>** <#_ftnref28>*Bernal, **/Black Athena
II/**, p. 524; italics added. Bernal argues that in the second
millennium the Levant was under a more or less diffuse Egyptian cultural
influence and the whole of the Eastern Mediterranean tended to form an
interlocking, cosmopolitan whole (**/Black Athena II/**, pp. 52-56).
Then ? as he admits ? no direct suzerainty but merely rather less
focused mercantile and military interactions from the Levant (such as
Hyksos invasions to the Aegean, which he claims like Eduard Meyer and
Frank Stubbings before him) would rather suffice to account for such
equally diffuse and indirect Egyptian influence on the Aegean as the
archaeological record seems to indicate. Perhaps the linguistic record
(as brought out by Bernal?s numerous but as yet dispersed claims of
Egyptian etymologies in early and classical Greek) is more impressive,
but mercantile and military interactions involving Egyptian speakers
among others would equally account for it. Cf. M. Bernal, in press,
?Response to John Baines?, in: M. Bernal, **/Black Athena writes
back/**, Durham: Duke University Press: *

*?As I see it, the sporadic nature of the Egyptian dominance in the
Aegean and the frequent mediation of the Levant in its contact with
Egypt mean that it was possible for a hybrid and distinctive Greek
culture to emerge. Such a picture allows for substantial Egyptian
cultural and linguistic influence without the massive archaeological
testimony of Egyptian presence found in zones of sustained colonization.?*

** <#_ftnref29>** <#_ftnref29>** <#_ftnref29>*[29]* <#_ftnref29>**
<#_ftnref29>** <#_ftnref29>** <#_ftnref29>*Budge, E.A. Wallis, 1969,
**/The Gods of the Egyptians: Or studies in Egyptian mythology/**, 2
vols., New York: Dover, republication of the first edition, Chicago:
Open Court Publishing Company & London: Methuen & Co., 1904, pp. ii
363f. Hart however makes clear that the Cat/ Apophis connection is
typical of the Late Period, so that by the beginning of the second
millennium BCE, Bastet was probably still associated with a wild feline,
a lion; Hart, G., 1993, **/A dictionary of Egyptian gods and
goddesses/**, London: Routledge, first published 1986.*

** <#_ftnref30>** <#_ftnref30>** <#_ftnref30>*[30]* <#_ftnref30>**
<#_ftnref30>** <#_ftnref30>** <#_ftnref30>*Evans, **/Scripta Minoa,
I/**, cover and p. 270.*

** <#_ftnref31>** <#_ftnref31>** <#_ftnref31>*[31]* <#_ftnref31>**
<#_ftnref31>** <#_ftnref31>** <#_ftnref31>*Bosanquet, R.C., & Dawkins,
R.M., 1923, **/The unpublished objects from the Palaikastro excavations
1902-1906/**, British School in Athens Suppl. Pap. 1, p. 54.*

** <#_ftnref32>** <#_ftnref32>** <#_ftnref32>*[32]* <#_ftnref32>**
<#_ftnref32>** <#_ftnref32>** <#_ftnref32>*Zeuner, F.E., 1969, **/A
history of domesticated animals/**, London: Hutchinson, first published
1963, pp. 390-392. *

** <#_ftnref33>** <#_ftnref33>** <#_ftnref33>*[33]* <#_ftnref33>**
<#_ftnref33>** <#_ftnref33>** <#_ftnref33>*Woudhuizen, F., 1989, ?The
Cretan branch of Luwian hieroglyphic?, in: Best & Woudhuizen, **/Lost
languages/**, pp. 65-138, p. 128f.*

** <#_ftnref34>** <#_ftnref34>** <#_ftnref34>*[34]* <#_ftnref34>**
<#_ftnref34>** <#_ftnref34>** <#_ftnref34>*Cf. Yurco, F.J., 1996, ?Black
Athena: An Egyptological review?, in: Lefkowitz & MacLean Rogers,
**/o.c./**, pp. 62-100, p. 97; Yener, K.A., & P.B. Vandiver, 1993, ?Tin
processing at Goltepe, an Early Bronze Age site in Anatolia?,
**/American Journal of Archaeology/**, 97, 2: 207-38; for a critical
view however, cf. Muhly, J.D., 1993, ?Early Bronze Age tin and the
Taurus?, **/American Journal of Archaeology/**, 97, 2: 239-53; but cf.
Yener, K.A., and P.B. Vandiver, 1993, ?Reply to Muhly?, **/American
Journal of Archaeology/**, 97, 2: 255-64. Also cf. Best, ?Ancient
toponyms?.*

** <#_ftnref35>** <#_ftnref35>** <#_ftnref35>*[35]* <#_ftnref35>**
<#_ftnref35>** <#_ftnref35>** <#_ftnref35>*The **/Story of Sinuhe/**
(Simpson, W.K., 1984, ?Sinuhe?, in W. Helck & E. Otto, **/Lexikon der
Ägyptologie/**, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, vol. V, cols. 950-956) suggests
that by this time Egyptian migrants were not absent from
Syrio-Palestine, but had dependent status. Sesostris I or III?s Asian
campaign ? which features prominently in the **/Black Athena /**debate ?
still had to take place, regardless of the question of just how much or
how little Egyptian cultural influence if may have left behind.*

** <#_ftnref36>** <#_ftnref36>** <#_ftnref36>*[36]* <#_ftnref36>**
<#_ftnref36>** <#_ftnref36>** <#_ftnref36>*Cf. Borghouts, J.F., 1995,
?Witchcraft, magic, and divination in ancient Egypt?, in: Sasson, J.M.,
with J. Baines, G. Beckman & K.S. Rubinson, eds., **/Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East, III/**, New York etc.: Scribner?s, pp. 1775-1785;
Budge, E.A.W., 1971, **/Egyptian Magic/**, New York: Dover; orig. ed.
London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Trübner, Books on Egypt and Chaldaea, II,
1901; Barb, A.A., 1971, ?Mystery, myth, and magic?, in: Harris, J.R.,
ed., **/The legacy of Egypt/**, 2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 138-169;
Ghalioungui, P., 1973, **/The House of Life: Per Ankh: Magic and Medical
Science in Ancient Egypt/**, Amsterdam: B.M. Israel, 2d ed.; Pinch, G.,
1994, **/Magic in Ancient Egypt/**, London: British Museum Press;
Wilkinson, R.H., 1994, **/Symbol and magic in Egyptian art/**, London:
Thames & Hudson.*

** <#_ftnref37>** <#_ftnref37>** <#_ftnref37>*[37]* <#_ftnref37>**
<#_ftnref37>** <#_ftnref37>** <#_ftnref37>*Goody, J., ed., 1968,
**/Literacy in traditional societies/**, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, espec. his introduction. *

** <#_ftnref38>** <#_ftnref38>** <#_ftnref38>*[38]* <#_ftnref38>**
<#_ftnref38>** <#_ftnref38>** <#_ftnref38>*Morris, S.P., 1996, ?The
legacy of Black Athena?, in: Lefkowitz & MacLean Rogers, **/o.c./**, p.
167-175, pp. 170.*

** <#_ftnref39>** <#_ftnref39>** <#_ftnref39>*[39]* <#_ftnref39>**
<#_ftnref39>** <#_ftnref39>** <#_ftnref39>*/Ibid./*

** <#_ftnref40>** <#_ftnref40>** <#_ftnref40>*[40]* <#_ftnref40>**
<#_ftnref40>** <#_ftnref40>** <#_ftnref40>*Liverani, M., 1996, ?The
bathwater and the baby?, in: Lefkowitz & MacLean Rogers, **/o.c./**, pp.
421-427; cf. Liverani, ?The collapse of the Near Eastern regional
system?.**//*

** <#_ftnref41>** <#_ftnref41>** <#_ftnref41>*[41]* <#_ftnref41>**
<#_ftnref41>** <#_ftnref41>** <#_ftnref41>*Cf. Wim van Binsbergen,
**/?Black Athena/** Ten Years After: Towards a constructive
re-assessment? (this volume).*

** <#_ftnref42>** <#_ftnref42>** <#_ftnref42>*[42]* <#_ftnref42>**
<#_ftnref42>** <#_ftnref42>** <#_ftnref42>*/Ibidem/**.*

** <#_ftnref43>** <#_ftnref43>** <#_ftnref43>*[43]* <#_ftnref43>**
<#_ftnref43>** <#_ftnref43>** <#_ftnref43>*Best, ?The ancient toponyms?.*

** <#_ftnref44>** <#_ftnref44>** <#_ftnref44>*[44]* <#_ftnref44>**
<#_ftnref44>** <#_ftnref44>** <#_ftnref44>*Cf. Wiggermann, F.A.M., &
A.R. Green, 1994, ?Mischwesen?, in: **/Real­lexikon der Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie/**, ed. D.O. Edzard with P. Calmeyer, J.N.
Postgate, W. Röllig, W. von Soden, M. Stol & G. Wilhelm, Bd 8, pp. 222-246.*

** <#_ftnref45>** <#_ftnref45>** <#_ftnref45>*[45]* <#_ftnref45>**
<#_ftnref45>** <#_ftnref45>** <#_ftnref45>*Cf. Gardiner, p. 183 n. 1.*

** <#_ftnref46>** <#_ftnref46>** <#_ftnref46>*[46]* <#_ftnref46>**
<#_ftnref46>** <#_ftnref46>** <#_ftnref46>*See my notes 11-13 above.*

** <#_ftnref47>** <#_ftnref47>** <#_ftnref47>*[47]* <#_ftnref47>**
<#_ftnref47>** <#_ftnref47>** <#_ftnref47>*Labat, R., 1988, **/Manuel
d?épigraphie akkadienne: Signes, syllabaire, idéogrammes/**, 6th ed.,
rev. F. Malbran Labat, Paris: Geunthner (1st ed. 1948), pp. 166f, 176,
179; Borger, R., 1971, **/Akkadische Zeichenliste/**, Kevelaer/
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/ Neukirchener Verlag, p. 64; cf.
Evans, **/Scripta Minoa/**, **/I/**, pp. 223f. Evans acknowledges that
the Egyptian Hieroglyphic signs (Gardiner numbers N25 and N26) are
similar in shape and meaning, but they are rounded, not pointed. *

** <#_ftnref48>** <#_ftnref48>** <#_ftnref48>*[48]* <#_ftnref48>**
<#_ftnref48>** <#_ftnref48>** <#_ftnref48>*In this connection it is
interesting to note that the three animals identified by Jan Best as
symbols of a prominent Cretan seal owner, although belonging to totally
different sections of the animal kingdom, all are carnivorous hunters
and stalkers:*

*/animal/* 	*/presumable onomatopoeic sound/* 	*/number of legs/*
*/taxonomic section/* 	*/character/*
*cat* 	*mi* 	*4* 	*mammal, vertebrate* 	*stalker*
*snake* 	*zi* 	*0* 	*reptile, vertebrate* 	*stalker*
*spider* 	*-* 	*8* 	*insect, invertebrate* 	*stalker*

** <#_ftnref49>** <#_ftnref49>** <#_ftnref49>*[49]* <#_ftnref49>**
<#_ftnref49>** <#_ftnref49>** <#_ftnref49>*Attica?s culture heroes are
claimed to have been just that ? emphatically enough to raise our
suspicion; Frazer, J., ed., 1970, **/Apollodorus, The Library/**, 2
vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Loeb, first published
1921, II p. 97f, with relevant copious notes. The **/Black Athena
/**thesis finds an emblematic illustration in the claim that Athena?s
name and cultic persona derive from the Egyptian goddess Neith and her
temple or city. In this light it is ironic that Erichthonios/
Erechtheus, the Attic apical ancestor, was **/almost/** a child of
Athena, but not quite: allegedly the latter, having preserved her
virginity, in disgust wiped Hephaistos? sperm off her thigh with a tuft
of wool, and cast this to the Earth, who then conceived, and instantly
gave birth to what by a spurious etymology was understood in Antiquity
as ?Wool-Earthy?. However, the latter was immediately adopted by Athena.
(Cf. M. Bernal, ?Responses to **/Black Athena/**: General and linguistic
issues? (this volume), for a reference to the same myth.) *

*In myth analysis, I have generally found two methodological points very
fruitful: first, the interpretation must rely on close reading,
painstakingly scrutinising every minor detail, every word, for
implications that might yield clues; and secondly, contradictions and
non-sequiturs are our best guides to whatever kernel of historical truth
a myth **/might/** contain (cf. van Binsbergen, W.M.J., 1985, ?The
historical interpretation of myth in the context of popular Islam? in:
van Binsbergen, W.M.J., & Schoffeleers, J.M., 1985, **/Theoretical
explorations in African religion/**, London/ Boston: Kegan Paul, pp.
189-224; van Binsbergen, W.M.J., 1987, ?**/Likota lya Bankoya/**:
Memory, myth and history?, in: **/Cahiers d?Etudes Africaines/**, 27,
3-4: 359-392, numéro spécial sur **/Modes populaires d?histoire en
Afrique/**, sous la direction de B. Jewsiewicki & C. Moniot; van
Binsbergen, W.M.J., 1992, **/Tears of Rain: Ethnicity and history in
central western Zambia/**, London/ Boston: Kegan Paul International; and
references cited there). *

*In view of Athena?s Egyptian connotations (which were accorded her in
Antiquity even if we do not approve) the mythical play between refused
and prevented fertilisation and parenthood, yet adoption, and the
interaction between three agents (Athena, Hephaistos, Earth) in the
production of Erichthonios, opens up possibilities which have not yet
been sufficiently exploited in the context of the **/Black Athena/**
thesis. We might assume that at **/at least one level of analysis/** the
myth, like countless others, may be read as a geographical chart of
regional interactions. It is of course not sure that such an assumption
applies and, if it does, how much weight it should be given; e.g. it is
equally plausible that transposed to an Attic context the Erichthonios
scenario recounts an imported myth no longer understood. Among likely
candidates one would then enlist Egyptian myths featuring the principal
gods (including Osiris with his siblings, parents and grandparents,
depending on the theological regime and the period); these Egyptian
myths often highlight irregular forms of sexuality and reproduction
which with the proper structuralist instruments may well be argued to
produce, as one of their possible surface transformations, the Attic
narrative. *

*However, if we do try to identify the likely geographical/cultural
connotations of the protagonists in this story, the result is striking. *

*Earth is a crucial deity throughout the Ancient Near East and beyond
(the literature is voluminous but dispersed; for some of its symbolic
and iconographic connotations, see: van Binsbergen, W.M.J., ?Rethinking
Africa?s contribution to global cultural history: Lessons from a
comparative historical analysis of mankala board-games and geomantic
divination?, this volume). Yet Earth is always eminently local, and here
may be read as a reference to ?pre-Hellenic? and/or Indo-European
cultural contributions. *

*Whether we choose to stress Hephaistos? volcanic, Anatolian/Caucasian,
Phoenician or Tyrrhenian connotations (cf. Fauth, W., 1979,
?Hephaistos?, in K. Ziegler and W. Sontheimer, eds., **/Der kleine
Pauly: Lexikon der Antike/**, München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, Bd
II, cols. 1024-1028) these all point to the mountainous northern coast
of the Mediterranean, not to Egypt. *

*What shimmers through in the Erichthonios myth appears to be, not
down-right Egyptian derivation, but (in view of Athena?s catalytic ? or
pin-up, if you like ? role in what is essentially Hephaistos? siring of
Erichthonios by Earth) a suggestion of **/a vitally stimulating, but
indirect and catalytic/** Egyptian influence on local material primarily
fertilised from the Levant ? in other words a model surprisingly close
to the Model II advocated in the present paper. The possibly Tyrrhenian
dimension meanwhile requires further thought. *

*But of course, myths are there not only to remember, but also to
forget; they can never be proof that something (in this case: direct
Egyptian influence with retention of specific Egyptian cultural
institutions) was **/not/** the case. *

*Incidentally, a similar theme of denied or missed motherhood is found
in the myth of Athena?s own birth from Zeus? head; and if that myth does
have a geographical dimension and does hint at Egypt, it converges with
the Erichthonios myth. *

*Meanwhile, for evidence that the House of Neith/ Athena etymology is as
problematic as it is emblematic, cf. A. Egberts, ?Consonants in
collision: Neith and Athena reconsidered? (this volume), and M. Bernal,
?Responses to **/Black Athena/**: General and linguistic issues?,
?Response to Arno Egberts? (this volume). *

** <#_ftnref50>** <#_ftnref50>** <#_ftnref50>*[50]* <#_ftnref50>**
<#_ftnref50>** <#_ftnref50>** <#_ftnref50>*Thus Liverani, ?The
bathwater?, p. 423, does appreciate that*

*?The construction of a new multicentered model is a difficult scholarly
task. It is the main historiographical challenge of this generation.? *

*But he fails to see that this is precisely what Bernal tries to do: *

*?Bernal?s historiographical method is severely outdated and naïve. And
instead of offering a new, multicentric model he merely seems to suggest
an Afrocentric and Levantine model, reverting to the old-fashioned **/Ex
Oriente Lux/** position? (p. 424).*

*page last modified: 03-05-01 11:17:51* 	**