It surprises me how much ink has been spent (and how many trees have given their lives) in explaining the kinks in the Ancient Greek psyche that created the Amazons. I wonder why they bothered.
I can see the argument for the Amazons to be a myth, a fiction, because a tribe of a single gender is ultimately unsustainable. But that doesn't mean the myth is down to some psychological twist any more than the myth of Centaurs is. Surely there's some space for the concept of poetic licence and hyperbole?
The Greeks were contemporary with the Celts and the Botai. The Celts tribal territories extended through Illyria, with detours via Delphi. It's extremely unlikely that the Greeks wouldn't have encountered them, and when they did, they would have been struck by the power and prominence of the women - Celtic women fought in battle, and Celtic queens had real power. Is it so outlandish that this strange set-up would have grown in the telling?
The Botai were some of the south eastern tribes of what we now call Mongolia. They would have encountered the Greeks near Macedon, Troy and the area around Byzantium. They were horse-tribes, who virtually lived in the saddle, and who needed no words or whips to steer their horses. It would have looked like a creature of one mind to a Greek merchant. Again, is it so strange to allow for the hyperbole of wonder in the tale's re-telling?
Why do we feel the need to explain everything in arcane terms when common sense ones will do? Or does that just make a better story?
No comments:
Post a Comment