Greek Myths and Mesopotamia

Parallels and Influence in the Homeric Hymns and Hesiod

Charles Penglase

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2003
• ISBN:
  9781134729296
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Historia
• Categoría: Historia antigua

The Mesopotamian influence on Greek mythology in literary works of the epic period is considerable - yet it is a largely unexplored field. In this book Charles Penglase investigates major Mesopotamian and Greek myths. His examination concentrates on journey myths. A major breakthrough is achieved in the recognition of the extent of Mesopotamian influence and in the understanding of the colourful myths involved.
The results are of significant interest, especially to scholars and students of ancient Greek and Near Eastern religion and mythology.

1
FOUNDATIONS

Apollo strides through the halls of Olympos bending his radiant bow, and the gods spring up from their seats in alarm at the sight of the young god. His mother Leto comes forward and takes the bow and quiver from her impetuous son and hangs them on a golden peg. She bids him sit and presents him to the supreme god Zeus, his father, who offers him nectar and ambrosia.

The scene is found at the beginning of the Homeric Hymn to Apollo, in which it is one of the descriptions of the first arrival of the young god in the Assembly of the supreme god. The scene is typically Greek but, like the whole hymn to Apollo, it is full of motifs and ideas which are central features in Mesopotamian myths. In fact, the profound significance and purpose of these motifs and ideas in the hymn become clear only in the light of the mythology of Mesopotamia, where they are found in texts dating from the end of the third millennium BC to the middle of the first millennium BC.

The Homeric Hymn to Apollo is not alone. There are several other Greek myths of the early archaic period which display a similar number and range of parallels and the same awareness of the significance of the ideas underlying the activities of the gods which are presented in the myths. These ideas are of central importance to the myths analysed in this study, which, in the discussion of Greek myths, confines itself to literary works of the early archaic era or slightly later. The main works are the longer Homeric hymns, which were composed for the most part in the seventh century BC, and the poems of Hesiod, the Theogony and Works and Days, which slightly preceded the Homeric hymns. Almost all of the Mesopotamian and Greek myths analysed in this investigation of parallels and influence involve journeys, and one of the major ideas which is followed through them is the idea of the god’s acquisition and demonstration of power in the journey.

Parallels between Near Eastern and Greek myths, and the question of influence have been pursued for a long time with varying degrees of success. Some Near Eastern, including Mesopotamian, origins and influence have long been generally accepted in certain areas of Greek religion and mythology. Possibly the most famous parallels with Near Eastern material are found in Hesiod’s Theogony. Close parallels in the succession myth which forms the backbone of the plot in the work have been found with Hurrian/Hittite and Mesopotamian, specifically Babylonian, cosmological myths, and these have been discussed at length since the discovery and reconstruction of the Near Eastern texts.¹ The difficulty in the comparison in many cases is just what kind of connection is involved. Near Eastern influence is generally accepted in the case of aspects of Hesiod’s Theogony.

An example of religious and perhaps even cultic influence rather than just mythological influence is found in the case of the goddess Aphrodite. The general view of classicists is that many aspects of the goddess that the Greeks worshipped in historical times appear to have come ultimately from the major Mesopotamian goddess Ishtar. Even those who look for Indo-European origins of Greek myth and religion are apt to concede that Aphrodite seems to have received aspects from the Mesopotamian goddess or her derivatives.²

A remarkable case of Mesopotamian influence in Hesiod’s poems was pointed out by Jacqueline Duchemin in the 1970s and early 1980s. The parallels in role and function of the god Prometheus in the myth of Pandora and Prometheus with those of the god Enki in some of his myths were discussed by Duchemin and by other scholars.³

While the correspondences which have been discussed are striking, there are, in fact, a phenomenal number of parallels between the myth of Prometheus and Pandora and the myths of Enki which have not yet been treated. These correspondences are found especially in ideas of the creation of Pandora and of the origin and early history of mankind. The Flood story is one of the more recognizable motifs, one which has been discussed to a certain extent, and there are many more parallel ideas and motifs which all point convincingly to Mesopotamia.

Hesiod’s works in which most of these parallels are found, the Theogony and Works and Days, were composed in the early archaic period or slightly before, and there are other works of this period in which parallels with Near Eastern, especially Mesopotamian, material have been discussed. Prominent among these works is the Iliad of Homer, who is generally believed to have sung his epic shortly before Hesiod composed the Theogony. Homer is placed between 750 and 700 BC. The most notable possibilities have been stressed by Walter Burkert. One parallel is that between Okeanos and his wife Tethys and the corresponding Babylonian pair Apsu and Tiamat, respectively the fresh- and saltwater oceans.⁴ Okeanos and Tethys are spoken of as the origin of the gods, or even of all (Iliad 14.201, 246, 302), and Apsu and Tiamat in the Babylonian cosmological epic Enuma Elish are certainly the origin of all, including the gods (Tablet I.1–5).⁵ Another parallel is the scene in which Aphrodite is wounded by Diomedes and withdraws and complains to her parents Zeus and Dione in Olympos (Iliad 5.311–430) with the scene in the Epic of Gilgamesh in which Ishtar is insulted by Gilgamesh and goes off to her parents Anu and Antu in heaven to complain (Tablet VI. 1–106). There are several correspondences in these scenes.⁶

In addition to these parallels between Greek and Mesopotamian myths, there are many other correspondences and indications of influence which have been pointed out. Some are complex and even detailed parallels, while others are mere suggestions.⁷

Difficult and hazardous are words which describe the study of Mesopotamian influence in Greek myths, and an appropriate method is essential. To establish influence, or at least the likelihood of influence, there are two main steps. First it is necessary to establish the historical possibility of influence, and then the parallels between the myths of the two areas must fulfil a sufficiently rigorous set of relevant criteria.

There are two main parts to the first step of establishing the historical possibility of influence. First, there must be connections between the two regions involved—for instance, trade and cultural connections. Cultural contact generally follows trade-routes. The second requirement is that the literary material needs to have existed in some form at the time of trade and other contacts between the two regions.

The second step of the method is to demonstrate the existence of parallels of the correct nature between the Mesopotamian and Greek literary material. Parallels must have qualities which conform to a suitable set of criteria in order to indicate influence or its likelihood.

The first concern is therefore to demonstrate the existence of contact between Mesopotamia and Greece and the periods of such contact. There were two periods when Greece was especially open to influence from the Near East, including Mesopotamia, and this existed in trade and cultural contacts. The first period was in the late Mycenaean times of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries BC, when Greeks established settlements in cities like Tarsus and in the northwest of Syria. The second period of extensive contact is in the first millennium: according to one view, from about 800 BC onwards or, according to another, from about 850 BC onwards, when Greece was especially open to Near Eastern, including Mesopotamian, cultures. These two periods were eras of intensive contact which involved the establishment of entrepôts. Without these signs of extensive commercial activity, less intensive contact existed in the socalled Dark Ages between these periods, although it was comparatively limited. The recent finds at Lefkandi on Euboea, where Near Eastern artifacts dating from the tenth and ninth centuries BC were found, are some of the strong indications of this.⁸ Before these recent finds, scholars had already concluded, on the basis of pottery remains and other objects revealing Near Eastern origin or influence, that a certain degree of continuing contact existed between the two periods of more intensive interaction.⁹ However, the most visible effects in surviving material in Greece are seen in what is called the Orientalizing period of Greek art, which lasted for about a century from approximately 750 to 650 BC. In the first millennium the Greeks returned generally to the same areas, and to others such as Tell Sukas.¹⁰ Generally speaking, both periods of heightened level of contact with this area of the Near East were times of Assyrian power. Babylonian influence is, of course, not excluded, but the contacts with Mesopotamia in the first millennium especially may have been a result of Assyrian activity, especially the expansion to the West from the ninth century on, but in particular after the mid-eighth century with the activities of Tiglath- Pileser III. Extensive contacts therefore existed between Mesopotamia and Greece at these times, with limited contact possible in the couple of centuries preceding the reestablishment of the notable level of contact in the second half of the ninth century BC.

The second part of the method involved in establishing the historical possibility of influence concerns the literary material which needs to have been in existence at that time. The Mesopotamian works relevant to this study seem to have been extant down to at least NA times, the latest period when they, or rather the ideas which are seen in them, could have influenced the Greek works analysed here. Regarding the Mesopotamian literature, the time of composition and the dates of the extant tablets are included, and discussed where necessary, in the chapters in which the works are analysed. Their dates and existence in the first-millennium libraries will also be discussed in the chapters in which they are relevant to the Greek myths. Tablets of most of the texts of relevance existed in Neo-Assyrian libraries at a time when contact with Greece was intensive.

The literary texts in the libraries were clearly not confined to the use of a few scribes. For instance, a version of the Gilgamesh epic was found in the remains of Hattusha, the Hittite capital. In fact, extended usage of the texts and acquaintance with the stories is indicated: scribes took copies of tablets, and taught private schools of students, who learnt the texts. In addition, no doubt worshippers in the various cults concerned would have known of the stories and myths. Indeed, one would expect extended knowledge of these stories in a form similar to those in the texts, and a thorough acquaintance with the ideas involved in them, since they are part of the basis of the belief system of Mesopotamia. The forms in which the stories and ideas were transmitted from one culture to another and the methods can be manifold. As the subject relates to Mesopotamia and Greece in the present state of knowledge, it is also speculative and is not the concern of this study since it is not essential to the discussion at hand.

The second step of the method involves the discussion of parallels in the myths, and this comprises the major part of this book. In the discussion, very careful adherence to a set of appropriate criteria for parallels and for the indication of influence, if any, is essential. It is all too easy to run eagerly after superficial parallels which cannot really be sustained under a closer scrutiny. Accordingly, the parallels must have similar ideas underlying them and, second, any suggestion of influence requires that the parallels be numerous, complex and detailed, with a similar conceptual usage and, ideally, that they should point to a specific myth or group of related myths in Mesopotamia. Finally, the parallels and their similar underlying ideas must involve central features in the material to be compared.¹¹ Only then, it would seem, may any claim stronger than one of mere coincidence be worthy of serious consideration. These criteria also require that literary material be used, as literature is the only source that provides the necessary context to allow the underlying ideas behind the motifs and other features to be identified and adequately defined. In this book, a vast number of parallels emerges from the comparison of the Mesopotamian and Greek myths, and although the criteria of the method are very strict, it is only by adhering to these that any assessment of influence that is the consequence of the study can be considered reliable.

All of the myths analysed here involve journeys carried out by the gods, and the comparisons between the myths are based almost entirely on the structural composition of the journeys and the ideas which are expressed in them. One of the central ideas is the god’s acquisition and demonstration of power in the journey. This ‘journey for power’ is one of the major purposes of the god’s performance of the journey sequences, and it is pursued throughout the Mesopotamian and Greek myths. In these myths, it often forms the context in which many other ideas can be understood and defined clearly.

The idea of the journey for power must be thoroughly demonstrated in the Mesopotamian myths before the parallels between the ideas in Mesopotamian and Greek myths can be appreciated. The idea has a special place in the comparison in the Greek myths, and together with the journey sequences it forms the context for the definition of many other features. Since no study of the Mesopotamian myths has yet discussed this idea comprehensively, the analysis of the Mesopotamian myths in the two following chapters concentrates on the exposition of the journey and this accompanying idea. The other features of the myths, which also become important in the discussion of the Greek myths later, are seen in the course of the discussion of the journey and the power involved.

This comparison between the journey myths concentrates on the comparison of ideas or motifs in the journeys, not on their concretizations or crystallizations, which vary considerably from myth to myth. For instance, it is not the chariot and trophies of Ninurta on his return journey to Nippur that matter, but the fact that they represent the god’s power in the situation and are clearly seen to be functioning with such a significance in the light of surrounding elements. Similarly, the elements of apparel which Ishtar wears in her ascent from the netherworld are not important, but the fact that they, like the chariot and trophies of Ninurta, represent power in the journey is crucial. Again, the importance of the object which Gilgamesh plucks from the bottom of the sea in the Epic of Gilgamesh lies in the fact that it is a food of life and another symbol of power. The fact that it is a plant and perhaps may be explained as a piece of coral is not of significance. Once again, the function of the plant as a food of life is clearly demonstrated by the context of the story. In short, it is the ideas which underlie the actions of the gods and the accompanying elements in the stories that are of concern here, for it is they that express the belief system of the peoples concerned. This is one of the keys to understanding the myths in this study.

To help to make the ideas in the exposition as clear as possible, some definitions are necessary. Myth has been defined generally as a ‘traditional tale’. ¹² A slight qualification is required for this study, in which myths are considered to be tales about the gods and the divine world, or tales involving this world. However, the nature of the Greek myths in this study as ‘traditional’ is open to question. It depends on the extent to which they were altered by the poets who composed the works in which they are found, and how old they really are. At any rate, the inclusion of the religious aspect in the definition has the purpose of emphasizing the fact that the religious element forms the core of the literary works, in which form the myths are presented, since the material analysed in this study is religious mythological literature. While the literary works may incorporate political, religious, social, historical, cultic, scientific, environmental, folktale and other elements, it is the religious element that forms their core.

The study concentrates on concepts underlying the myths and the material involved in them, and other terms reflect this preoccupation. The term ‘motif is used generally to refer to the idea underlying certain elements in the narrative: for example, the ‘noise’ motif. This motif lies behind such situations as that where Apollo plays his lyre as he approaches Olympos, and where Ninurta thunders like a storm as he approaches the city Nippur. The term is sometimes used to refer to the concretization of this idea in the myth, but the distinction in usage is always made clear.

The term ‘idea’ is generally used to refer to a complex concept, like that of the ascent sequence, which usually involves many motifs. However, it is sometimes employed to refer to an element that is otherwise described as a motif, but this occurs when it stresses that the motif is a concept in the myth under discussion. The context makes the relevant meaning of the term clear in the exposition of the myths.

An important key to assist in unlocking the ideas in the myths is the approach which forms the basis of the analysis and is a crucial feature in this study. The ideas are isolated by simple analysis of the primary sources, the myths themselves. Use of various philosophical approaches such as anthropological, sociological, psychoanalytic, Lévi-Straussian structuralist, and so on, is avoided. ¹³ The intention is to stay as close as possible to the myths and...