Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Full Access “Born from the Earth”: The Political Uses of an Athenian Myth

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

“Born from the Earth”: The Political Uses of an Athenian Myth

Full text article:

  • XML
  • PDF
Add to Favorites

image of Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions

AbstractThis paper analyzes the evolution of Athenian myths of their origins from the eighth century to the fourth century BCE. The analysis shows that Athenian myths of origins changed in emphasis and significance according to political needs. In the earliest period (c.800-480 BCE), the Athenians emphasized their descent from earthborn kings who were nurtured by Athena. In this way, the Athenians laid claim to the territory of Attica and to a place in the panhellenic cultural landscape through their connection to Athena. By the mid-fifth century, Athenian myths of origins shifted emphasis in order to stress Athenian superiority over the other Greeks, especially their chief rivals, the Spartans. At this time, the Athenians adopted a new term to describe their origins, namely autochthony. Through this term, the Athenians emphasized their continuous habitation of the territory of Attica, in opposition to those cities (especially Sparta) whose population had emigrated from elsewhere. By the fourth century BCE, the myth changed emphasis again. At this time the Athenians focused on their common birth from the same mother (earth) as a way of affirming the principle of political equality among citizens following the restoration of democracy after the bloody oligarchic revolutions of the late fifth century.

1. Anderson B. Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism 1983 London
2. Chantraine P. Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Grecque 1983 Paris
3. Connor W.R. "“The Ionian era of Athenian civic identity”" Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 1993 Vol 137 194 207
4. Connor W.R. Boegehold A.L. , Scafuro A.C. "“The Problem of Athenian Civic Identity”" Athenian Identity and Civic Ideology 1994 Baltimore 34 44
5. Davies J.K. Athenian Propertied Families, 600–300 BC 1971 Oxford
6. Detienne M. "Comment" etre autochthone: du pur Athénien au Français raciné 2003a Paris
7. Detienne M. "“Being Born Impure in the City of Cadmus and Oedipus”" Arion 2003b Vol 10 3 35 47
8. Detienne M. Lloyd Janet The Greeks and Us 2007 Malden Polity Press
9. Dougherty C. Ober J. , Hedrick C. "“Democratic Contradictions and the Synoptic Illusions of Euripides’ Ion”" Demokratia: A Conversation on Democracies, Ancient and Modern 1996 Princeton 249 270
10. Ermatinger E. Die attische Autochthonensage bis auf Euripides 1897 Berlin
11. Forsdyke S. Fisher N. , van Wees H. "“Peer-Polity Interaction and Cultural Competition in Sixth-Century Greece”" Competition in the Ancient World 2011 Swansea 147 174
12. Forsdyke S. Arnason J.P. , Raaflaub K. , Wagner P. "“The Impact of Democracy on Communal Life: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose?”" The Greek polis and the invention of democracy: a politico-cultural transformation and its interpretations Blackwell Forthcoming
13. Frisk H. Griechisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch 1960 Heidelberg
14. Gotteland S. Fromentin V. , Gotteland S. "“L’origine des cités grecques dans les discours athéniens”" Origines Gentium 2001 Paris 79 93
15. Hall J. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity 1997 Cambridge http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605642
16. Hall J. Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture 2002 Chicago
17. Harding P. Marincola J. "‘Local History and Atthidography’" A Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography 2007 Oxford 180 188
18. Hobsbawm E. , Ranger T. The Invention of Tradition 1983 Cambridge
19. Isaac B. The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity 2004 Princeton
20. Janko R. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol.IV. Books 13–16 1992 Cambridge
21. Kannicht R. Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta. Vol. 5 Euripides 2004 Göttingen http://dx.doi.org/10.13109/9783666257551
22. Kron U. Die zehn attischen Phylenheroen 1976 Berlin
23. Lape S. Race and Citizen Identity in the Classical Athenian Democracy 2010 Cambridge http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676024
24. Loraux N. Né de la Terre. Mythe et Politique à Athènes 1996 Paris
25. Luraghi N. The Ancient Messenians. Constructions of Ethnicity and Memory 2008 Cambridge http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481413
26. Luraghi N. "“The Local Scripts from Nature to Culture”" 2010 Vol 29 68 91 Classical Antiquity
27. Malkin I. Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity 2001 Cambridge, MA
28. Montanari E. Il mito dell’ autoctonia: linee di una dinamica mitica-politica ateniese 1981 2nd edition Rome
29. Rosivach V. "“Autochthony and the Athenians”" CQ 1987 Vol 37 294 306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800030512
30. Sahlins M. "“Alterity and Autochthony: Austronesian Cosmographies of the Marvelous”" Apologies to Thucydides. Understanding History as Culture and Vice-Versa 2004 Chicago n.d. Lecture Ann Arbor
31. Saxonhouse A. Euben P. "“Myths and the Origins of Cities: Reflections on the Autochthony Theme in Euripides’ Ion”" Greek Tragedy and Political Theory 1986 Berkeley 252 273
32. Shapiro H.A. Boedeker D. , Raaflaub K. "“Autochthony and the Visual Arts in Fifth-Century Athens”" Democracy, Empire and the Arts in Fifth-Century Athens 1998 Cambridge, MA 127 151
33. Sourvinou-Inwood C. Derow , Parker "“Herodotus (and others) on Pelasgians: some perceptions of ethnicity”" 2003 103 144 2003
34. Szegedy-Maszak A. "“Legends of the Greek Lawgivers”" GRBS 1978 Vol 19 199 209
35. Thomas R. Herodotus in Context. Ethnography, Science and the Art of Persuasion 2000 Cambridge
36. Trevor-Roper H. Hobsbawm E. , Ranger T. "“The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland”" The Invention of Tradition 1983 Cambridge 15 41
37. Ulf C. Ulf C. "“Griechische Ethnogenese versus Wanderungen von Stämmstaaten”" Wege zur Genese griechischer Identität: die Bedeutung der früharchaischen Zeit 1996 Berlin 240 280 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783050072197
38. West M.L. Hesiod Theogony. Edited with Prolegomena and Commentary 1966 Oxford
39. West M.L. Studies in the text and transformation of the Iliad 2001 Munich
40. Zeitlin F.I. Playing the Other. Gender and Society in Classical Greek Literature 1996 Chicago
41. FN0 * I would like to thank Chris Faraone for his invitation to participate in the conference upon which this volume is based. I am also grateful to David Branscome and John Marincola for their invitation to give this paper before a helpful audience at Florida State University.
42. FN1 1Good recent discussions include Hall 1997, 1–33, Malkin 2001, 1–28 and Luraghi 2008, 6–14.
43. FN2 2For discussion and bibliography, see Isaac 2004, 25–37.
44. FN3 3Hall 1997, 25.
45. FN4 4Hall 1997, 21.
46. FN5 5Hall 1997, 143–181; Luraghi 2010.
47. FN6 6Hobsbawm and Ranger 1983.
48. FN7 7Trevor-Roper, 1983.
49. FN8 8Connor 1993.
50. FN9 9On Sparta and Dorian identity, see Ulf 1996. On Sicyon and Dorian identity, see Forsdyke 2011.
51. FN10 10Hall 1997.
52. FN11 11Hall 2002. For discussion and critique of this developmental model, see Malkin 2001.
53. FN12 12Birth from the earth distinct from autochthony: Rosivach 1987; Hall 2002. Other scholars argue that the two concepts were interrelated from the earliest times: Ermatinger 1897; Loraux 1996; Shapiro 1998.
54. FN13 13The Atthidographers, or local historians of Attica, recorded several precursors to Kekrops, including Ogygos (the first man), and Aktaios (from whom, according to these sources, Attica took its name). These generations were destroyed by a flood ( kataklusmos) and, according to these traditions, Attica was uninhabited for 189 years until Kekrops appeared. Interestingly, these traditions record that even Ogygos was believed by the Athenians to be autochthonous (Ὠγύγου τοῦ παρ’ ἐκείνοις αὐτόχθονος πιστευθέντος), apparently in the sense of born from the earth, and therefore fulfills the same ideological role as Kekrops, linking the king to the land (see below). The earliest attested representation of Kekrops comes from Palermo and is dated to shortly after 500 BCE: see Kron 1976, Table 1 and 4.
55. FN14 14On ethnic groups named after animals, see Osborne 1996, 283, Strid 1999, Luraghi 2008, 39–43, and Forsdyke 2011. Interestingly, the term “pelargikos” “of the stork” gets confused with Pelasgikos “Pelasgian” in some of our sources, suggesting that both terms had similar connotations of primordiality.
56. FN15 15Russo et al. 1992, 83. For the proverb, see e.g., Homer Odyssey19.163, Hesiod Theogony35 with West 1966, 167–169.
57. FN16 16One might compare this strategy of foundation myths with traditions of early lawgivers like Charondas, Solon and Lycurgus, who all were said to have spent time in Egypt. The subsequent legal systems alleged to have developed from this cross-cultural contact therefore similarly draw on the prestige of Egypt. For discussion, see Szegedy-Maszak 1978.
58. FN17 17See note 14 above.
59. FN18 18Another example of the alternative model of ethnic origins, namely alterity, in Athenian traditions is the idea that the Athenians are Pelasgians, a non-Hellenic race that inhabited Greece before the coming of the Greeks (cf. Hdt. 8.44, Hdt. 1.56–58 with Sourvinou-Inwood 2003 and Thomas 2000). Thomas argues that Herodotus is deliberately contesting Athenian national traditions not only by pointing to an alternative tradition, but by connecting the Athenians to a non-Hellenic race. She comments “Herodotus seems to be developing the contrast between Athenian and Dorian in a way which is at the very least mischievious.” (p. 122). Another example of Herodotus’ contestation of Athenian myths of national origins can be found in his care to note—alongside his Athenian characters’ claims that they were the only autochthonous people (e.g., Hdt. 7.161)—that other ethnic groups were also autochthonous (Hdt. 8.73). Similarly, as Harding 2007 notes, the local historians of Attica challenged Athenian myths of autochthony by pointing to other autochthonous Greeks (Hellanicus FGrHist323a F27) and by moderating the Athenians’ claim to autochthony by suggesting that they were only the first to settle down after the wanderings, not that they never wandered at all (Philochorus FGrHist328 F2a–b; cf. Thuc. 1.25, 2.36.1).
60. FN19 19For this passage as an interpolation, see West 2001. Janko (1992, 29–30) on the other hand, argues that there is no linguistic evidence for interpolation, and therefore takes this passage as part of the text dating back to the eighth century.
61. FN20 20Parker 1987, 201. In Parker’s well-chosen phrase, Erechtheus and Erichthonius are “joint heirs to a single mythological inheritance.” Cf. Ermatinger 1897, 37–62, Kron (1976) 37–9.
62. FN21 21Chantraine 1968, 372; Frisk 1960, 561.
63. FN22 22The name Erechtheus was subject to some false etymologizing in antiquity, being linked to the verb “ἐρέχθω” “to rend or break,” probably as a result of its use as an epithet of Poseidon: Chantraine 1968, 372; Frisk 1960, 556–57.
64. FN23 23For visual representations of the birth of Erectheus/Erichthonius, see Kron 1976 (plates 2–10) and Shapiro 1998.
65. FN24 24Cf. Euripides Medea824; Aristophanes Knights1015, 1030. The term is also used to refer to members of the tribe of Erechtheus, one of the ten Cleisthenic tribes.
66. FN25 25Parker 1987, 194.
67. FN26 26Parker 1987, 194.
68. FN27 27Parker 1987, 194. For the myth, see Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.14.6 and Fig. 2 (Hephaistos pursuing Athena. Red-figure neck-amphora. Bologna, Museo Civico 158. C. 480 BCE. [=Shapiro Fig.7]. Athenian vase painting, furthermore, sometimes depicts Hephaistus as present at the birth of Erectheus/Erichthonius: Fig. 3: Red figure stamnos, Antikensammlungen Munich 2413. C. 460 [=Shapiro Fig.3].
69. FN28 28In this sense, the Athenians’ assertion of an association with Athena is parallel to their inclusion in the Hellenic genealogy through their descent from Xouthos, one of the sons of Hellen. In this sense, the Hellenic genealogy is not wholly incompatible with the myth of Erechtheus/Erichthonius in so far as both place the Athenians within a panhellenic cultural frame. While Hall (2007, 53–54) is right to emphasize that the theme of autochthony becomes more prominent in the fifth century, there is no need to think that the idea of birth from the earth originates only then. The evidence (Homer, vase-painting) suggests that it goes further back and that the Hellenic genealogy coexisted with the myth of Erechtheus/Erichthonius in the archaic period.
70. FN29 29 Agam.536; cf. Suppl.250 with discussion in Rosivach 1987.
71. FN30 30Even the ancients seem to have been uncertain of the meaning of the adjective, as is clear from Harpokration’s discussion of its meaning: Hellanikos FGrHis323a 27: Harpokration s.v. autochthones. “The Athenians. Demosthenes in the speech On the False Embassy[says]: “For you alone out of everyone are autochthonous.” Apollodorus in the books On the Godssays they are called autochthonous because they first worked the earth (τὴν χθόνα), that is, the land (τὴν γῆν), which beforehand had been uncultivated. And [they are autochthonous] because they are not immigrants (τὸ µὴ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἐπήλυδας). But Pindar and the one who composed the Danaid poem, says Erichthonios, the son of Hephaistos, appeared from the land (ἐκ γῆς φανῆναι). But the Arcadians were also autochthonous, as Hellanicus says, and the Aeginetans and the Thebans.”
72. FN31 31LSJ, for example, give two basic definitions of αὐτόχθων: 1. “sprung from the earth itself ” 2. “indigenous, native.” Etymological dictionaries (Chantraine 1983; Frisk 1960) and most scholars (Ermatinger 1897; Loraux 1996; Shapiro 1998) accept that the essential meaning is “sprung from the earth.”
73. FN32 32Rosivach 1987, 297. Rosivach is followed in this interpretation by Hall 1997, 54.
74. FN33 33Thucydides makes further reference to the autochthony of the Athenians in Pericles’ Funeral Oration: Thuc. 2.36.
75. FN34 34Powerful Athenian families with non-Athenian ancestry include the Alcmeonids, who had connections not only with the tyrannical family of Cleisthenes of Sicyon, but also with the Lydian Kings. The Peisistratids, furthermore, traced their family back to Neleus, King of Pylos. Thucydides’ own family was intermarried with Thracian nobility, as is clear from Thucydides patronymic “son of Olorus,” a Thracian name. On these and other powerful Athenian families, see Davies 1971.
76. FN35 35For further discussion of this point, see Connor 1994 and Forsdyke forthcoming. Connor sums up his argument powerfully: “It seems likely, then, that the Athenian citizen body in classical times was more diverse than has commonly been allowed or than the Athenian panegyrists suggest. The claim of Attic autochthony is not a description of social reality. Far from it. It is a reflection of the anxiety of a people who knew that they were of very diverse origins and preferred not to look too closely at the descent lines of their fellow citizens” (1994, 37–39).
77. FN36 361996, 40.
78. FN37 37Shapiro 1998, 151.
79. FN38 38Detienne 2003, 2007.
80. FN39 39Literally, “equality before the law,” but used here as a by-word for democracy.
81. FN40 40By contrast Lysias continues to articulate an oppositional strategy in his Funeral Oration of the early fourth century BCE: “It was fitting for our ancestors to be single minded in fighting for justice. For the origin of their life was just. For they did not, as did many others, occupy land belonging to others by gathering together men from all over (πανταχόθεν συνειλεγµένοι) and after expelling other men. Instead, they being indigenous (αὐτόχθονες ὄντες), had acquired the same land as both mother and fatherland (µητέρα καὶ πατρίδα)” (2.17).
82. FN41 41Timaeus FGrHist566 F38 (= Diod 5.6.1) critiques Philistos for claiming that the Sicels came from Spain. Timaeus, according to Diodorus, proved irrefutably that they were autochthonous.
83. FN42 42See, for example, Hdt 7.161, cited above.
84. FN43 43Loraux 1996.
85. FN44 44Sahlins 2004, 2010.
86. FN45 45Hellenicus FGrHist4, F84.
87. FN46 46Shapiro 1998, 136, 149 with bibliography cited therein.
88. FN47 47Hobsbawn and Ranger 1983; Anderson 1983.
89. FN48 48I owe this suggestion to James Sickinger.
90. FN49 49See for example, Lysias 2. 7–10; Plato Menex.239b.
91. FN50 50See for example, Lysias 2. 11–16; Plato Menex.239b.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/156921212x629491
2012-01-01
2015-08-30

Affiliations: 1: 2160 Angell Hall, 435 S.State Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, Email: forsdyke@umich.edu, URL: http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to email alerts
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Name:*
    Email:*
    Your details
    Name:*
    Email:*
    Department:*
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
     
     
     
    Other:
     
    Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions — Recommend this title to your library

    Thank you

    Your recommendation has been sent to your librarian.

  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation