INTRODUCTION

SIMILAR STRANDS IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN, AND HESIODIC CREATION MYTHS.

Dare one postulate the theory that, the myths of creation around the eastern Mediterranean arise from a common ancestry. Looking at a map of the area one could surmise that the coastal hugging merchant traders could move easily between the coastlines of Iraq, Egypt, the Holy Land, Asia Minor, and finally to Greece and the Roman Empire. An even better assumption would be that Crete acted as a central axis of the trade routes. West (19XX) says "That the 'Theogony' was a 'Hellenised' version of an oriental myth amongst which is the 'Enuma Elish'. We cannot say where or how it was first taken over by the Greeks, but it seems to have made its way via Crete". This would allow all the coastal nations to meet and exchange not only goods etc, but also beliefs and values pertaining to each other's nations. Each civilisation in accepting the other, would add or subtract its beliefs according to its then present culture. Thus could a central common myth be postulated? Kirk (1970) says, "Myths can migrate between civilisations

This essay will to look for some of the common strands that may strengthen this hypothesis. Cornford (1912) says, "We must recognise the remarkable structural resemblance of 'Hesiods Theogony' to the Babylonian epic of creation 'Enuma Elish". We will therefore confine our essay to the creation myths from Mesopotamia, and that from 'Hesiods Theogany". It is however important to realise, that other creation myths exist in nearly every civilisation. ie. (Genesis etc.).

It is interesting to postulate that 'Hesiod' became a poet through the effect of 'The Muses', and as such could be said to have a mystic beginning. The recanting of the 'Enuma Elish' was also a mystical story told yearly, (probably the story was held by the priests of the era, to maintain its base during successive kingly changes). Neither saw the need to be based in provable fact, thus both relied on the skill of the storyteller. Firstly, Leeming (1980) says that "We should appreciate that both myths moved from an oral tale into the written word and thus from then on 'became fixed in time'. This fact means, that from this event, the myths ceased to be alterable in content or context".

Because of the importance for all civilisations to have a commonly recognised beginning. (A basis for existence). Both myths provided that need by eliciting that the world, earth and the heavens had a primordial source, and natural elements such as water and soil etc. In both myths, man had to find some acceptable deities to be responsible for the basic structure of their cosmos. In 'Enuma Elish' we have 'Apsu and Tiamat' and in the 'Hesiod' we have 'Ouranos and Gaia'. It is interesting that both myths enjoy a period of calm during the construction. However as in all good myths, mankind felt a need to introduce an 'action scenario' in order to give a spice to the myth.

Both myths have a an origin and fixed genealogy, whereby promotion is by succession of the fittest and bravest god. "It was not long" says Grave (1960) "before the first generation of 'super-god' was introduced". Firstly we have 'Marduk' (Enuma Elish) as a supreme warrior god that fought against the perceived enemy 'Tiamat'. His price was total subservience by all others. In the 'Hesiod' a parallel warrior god 'Zeus was created again with awesome powers. (His most notable battle being that against 'Typhoeus'.) Even the weapons used where awesome and had to be supplied by the other Gods. 'Zeus's' weapons by 'Cyclops', and 'Marduk's' by a consortium of 'drunken minor gods'. Both the super-heroic gods where vested with a natural progression, whereby their deeds gained them more power and praise. This was maybe the first concept of hero worship.

Coupe (1997) says that "Patricide was also a common strand within the two myths" whereby 'Ea' slew 'Apsu' and 'Kronus' killed 'Uranus' (by castration). The male ego was satisfied by the move from a matriarchal to a patriarchal succession, (whereby, we move from deities such as Tiamat and Gaia).

One of the most interesting couplets in the myths was the emergence of 'man', almost as an afterthought. This was after the 'Gods' had sorted out the worlds structure and order, and of course after having made themselves invincible etc. In both myths man was made in a similar way from the basic element clay. The 'Hesiod' myth says that man was created from clay/water (by 'Prometheus'). In the 'Enuma Elish' man was made from clay/blood (by 'Marduk' who used the blood of the defeated 'General-god Kingu'). Mans role in both myths was well defined, and only differed slightly. In the 'Enuma Elish', man was made to serve the gods as workers. In the 'Hesiod', man was more on par with the gods themselves.

Another common strand in both myths was the use of 'fantasy' monsters, who either helped or hindered the 'super-heroes'. One cannot help but think that the magical exploits of these monsters where used to carry out phenomena that man himself had no logical natural knowledge of.

In conclusion, one must ask that if the creation myth did have a common ancestry, then why did they change in they're 'telling'. The answer must be of course that myths serve a purpose other simply that of a story. They both had a very similar function; which was to 'Create order out of chaos', which could be modified to suit that countries beliefs and values. It could be said that both myths provided a 'religious cannon' for both 'Hellenes' and the 'Summerians'.

The Mesopotamian creation myth would allow that country to build up 'Marduk' as an awe inspiring God to serve as a warning to any intending belligerent neighbouring nation bent on invasion. The premise that "Our God is better and stronger than your God" would be a useful deterrent. Secondly as a figurehead 'Marduk' could inspire its warriors to expand into neighbouring territories as their civilisation developed

The Greek version ('Hesiods Theogony') served a much different need. Not only was it a story of the creation, It set the stage for a basic civilisation with rules not only for living with others in peace, but also how man should conduct himself. The use of 'God ' myths alongside creation explained the reasons for all mysteries that beset the nation at that time. It also provided the stimulus for its warriors to achieve victory over its perceived enemies.

It is worth noting that the date of the Babylonian/Summerian creation myth is about 12th century BCE, and that of the Hesiod about 8^th century BCE. Therefore one could surmise that the Babylonian myth was the one that travelled coastwise around the Mediterranean, and became enshrined into other creation myths. If this is so, then it is not surprising that the 'Hesiod' has many similar strands to that of the 'Enuma Elish'.

One must close by quoting Burkert (1985) who said "That both the myths of creation, whether you believe them or not, did serve a similar purpose for both the Summerian and Helenic civilisations". I believe that they should not be 'scoffed' at in the light of our scientific knowledge. The biggest plus they both had was to 'Create Order Out Of Chaos'', and we could do no better than to heed both of them as a valuable adjunct of their time.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that, in the 'Holy Land', the Genesis creation myth suited the migrating tribes, who had a need for a God that could create the world in seven days flat, allowing them to get on about their travelling. It suited them to have one god that did it all, without any help from others.! Although Coupe (1997) says "That although the time scale in 'Genesis' was shorter than other creation myths, many of the individual 'Godly' acts bear a remarkable similarity to the Mesopotamian and other creation myths".

REFERENCES

Burkert,W. (1985). Greek Religion. (Blackwell, London) p 11.

Cornford,G. (1912) Cited by Kirk,G.S.(1970) Myth & Meaning.(Univ Press.)

Campbell, J. (1964) Occidental Mythology. (Penguin, London,) p 18.

Coupe, L. (1997) Myth. (Routledge, London,) p 108. 220.

Graves, R. (1960) The Greek Myths. (Penguin, London,) p 41-42.

Kirk,G.S. (1970) Myth, Its Meaning & Functions. (University Press, Berkeley)

Leeming, D. (1990) The World of Myth. (Oxford Press, Oxford,) p 39-40.

West,M.L. ( ) Theogony and Works & Days. (Oxford Press, Oxford) p.11-12.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burkert,W. Greek Religion (Blackwell, London 1985.)

Bultmann, R. Mythologies. (Houghton, London, 1941).

Campbell, J. Occidental Mythology. (Penguin, London, 1964.)

Cornford,G. From Religion to Philosophy.(Cambridge Press,Cambridge,1912)

Coupe, L. Myth. (Routledge, London, 1997.)

Eliade, M. Myths, Dreams and Mysteries. (Fontana, London. 1960.)

Holm, J. Myth and History. (Pinter Press, London, 1994.)

Graves, R. The Greek Myths. (Penguin, London, 1960.)

Kirk,G.S. Myth, Its Meaning & Functions (University Press, Berkeley,1970).

Leeming, D. The World of Myth. (Oxford Press, Oxford, 1990.)

Meyer, M. The Ancient Mysteries. (Harper, San Francisco. 1987.)

Middleton, J. Myth and Cosmos. (National History Press, New York, 1967.)

Panikkar, R. Myth, Faith and Hermeneutics. (Paulist Press, New York, 1979.)

West,M.L. Theogony and Works & Days. (Oxford Press,Oxford,( ).