The Pelasgian Origins of Athenian Democracy: The Forgotten Indigenous Order and the Paradox of Civilizational Memory

The Pelasgian Origins of Athenian Democracy: The Forgotten Indigenous Order and the Paradox of Civilizational Memory

Abstract

This paper aims to reinterpret the origins of Athenian democracy by departing from the traditional Hellenocentric perspective and situating them within a dialectical relationship with the forgotten legacy of the indigenous “Pelasgians” who lay at its historical foundation. It argues that Athenian democracy was not a purely Hellenic creation but a complex and contradictory product born through a fierce “politics of memory” that simultaneously resonated with, suppressed, and reconstituted a tradition of ritual consensus that may have existed in indigenous society. To investigate this, the study adopts an interdisciplinary method integrating archaeology, genetics, classical texts, and the cultural memory theory of Jan and Aleida Assmann.

The findings reveal that the ritual-centered, consensual order of Aegean indigenous society collided and fused with the patriarchal, hierarchical chiefdom of the Yamnaya-derived peoples who arrived from the north, thereby forming the hybrid Mycenaean civilization. In particular, Athens—which maintained an independent continuity even after the Mycenaean collapse—transformed the divinity of its patron goddess Athena from a matriarchal goddess of fertility into a patriarchal virgin goddess, and secularized core democratic institutions such as sortition and ostracism in ways that exhibit structural similarities to the ritual logic of the indigenous people.

This process is closely connected to the politics of memory. While Athens drew on its Pelasgian origins as a source of pride through the myth of “autochthony,” it systematically excluded the matriarchal and feminine elements inherent in it by branding them “barbaric.” This suturing of memory was completed through the tragic stage and philosophical discourse, and was further consolidated within a field of “competitive memory” against external rivals such as Sparta.

In conclusion, Athenian democracy was a paradoxical structure built upon a forgotten legacy, and its identity is the product of an unceasing struggle between memory and forgetting. This prompts a critical reflection on the view that seeks the origins of Western civilization in a single, pure source, and suggests that every political community’s self-narrative necessarily involves a process of selection and exclusion.

Keywords: Athenian democracy, Pelasgians, cultural memory, politics of memory, Hellenocentrism, autochthony, Yamnaya culture, Greek tragedy, gender, performance studies

---

Chapter 1. Introduction: Beyond Hellenocentrism

1.1. Background of the Study and Statement of the Problem

Ancient Athenian democracy has been celebrated as the cornerstone of Western civilization and as the independent product of a pure Hellenic spirit. According to the conventional view, in 507 BCE Cleisthenes invented dēmokratía—that is, the rule of the people—and gave birth to the world’s first democracy. This perspective defines Athenian democracy as a uniquely Greek political innovation brought to completion through a series of reforms from Solon to Pericles, and esteems it as the greatest legacy that ancient Greece bequeathed to humanity (Hansen, M. H., 1999, The Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes). However, this kind of Hellenocentric narrative has deliberately overlooked or forgotten the political culture and social order of the indigenous Pelasgians—who may have formed its historical soil—by confining the origins of Athenian democracy solely to developments internal to the Greeks themselves.

Interestingly, the ancient Greeks themselves left records acknowledging that the origins of Athens were not of purely Hellenic lineage. The historian Herodotus recorded that the Athenians were originally “a Pelasgian people who never left their native land” (Herodotus, Histories, 1.56). This suggests that the indigenous roots of the Athenians were later assimilated into Hellenic culture. However, this “theory of Pelasgian origins” was gradually forgotten within the official historiography of Athens, or even disparaged as a “barbaric past” (Hall, J. M., 2002, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture). The present study departs precisely from the point at which this politics of memory and forgetting operates. This paper seeks to challenge the Hellenocentric orthodoxy and to understand the complex phenomenon of Athenian democracy more deeply by re-examining the roots of Athenian democracy within the political order and cultural memory of the indigenous Pelasgians.

1.2. Definition of Concepts and Scope of the Study

Before entering into the main discussion, it is necessary to clarify the definitions and scope of the key terms used in this paper.

• Pelasgians: Even in ancient texts, “Pelasgians” is used less as a unified entity than as an ambiguous label encompassing the various non-Greek-speaking indigenous groups who inhabited the Aegean region before the Hellenes. This paper does not presuppose the “Pelasgians” as a single people. Instead, it uses the term as a heuristic concept designating the cultural sphere archaeologically and linguistically presumed to belong to the pre-Indo-European era—particularly the indigenous cultures of Attica and the Aegean region. The use of this concept is not intended to fix these peoples as a homogeneous “cultural bloc,” but rather to serve as a starting point for exploring the diverse cultural tendencies of indigenous groups who were “othered” by the later Hellenic gaze.
• The Pelasgian tradition: Accordingly, the “Pelasgian tradition” is defined as a concept encompassing the common cultural tendencies presumed to have originated in these indigenous cultures—namely, goddess-centered ritual, the possibility of a matrilineal kinship system, and the ritual consensus order of agrarian communities. Here, we wish to draw a strict terminological distinction, focusing on the possibility of matriliny as a rule of kinship and inheritance rather than on matriarchy as a power structure. Moreover, rather than relying entirely on Marija Gimbutas’s “Old Europe” hypothesis, we will approach the matter cautiously, critically adopting her problematic while keeping in mind the later objection (e.g., Anthony, D. W., 2007) that the frequency of goddess figurines does not in itself prove social structure.
• Cultural Memory: While drawing on the theory of Jan and Aleida Assmann, this paper focuses in particular on how the past is selected, excluded, formalized, and transformed for the construction of collective identity. In addition, recognizing the distinction between short-term communicative memory, transmitted orally across generations, and long-term cultural memory, transmitted through institutionalized media such as myth, ritual, and texts, we take as our analytical framework the question of how the Pelasgian tradition was converted from the domain of communicative memory into the domain of cultural memory—or was dropped in the process (Assmann, J., 2011, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization).

1.3. Research Method and Structure

Building on the conceptual framework outlined above, this study proceeds by means of an interdisciplinary method that critically synthesizes textual interpretation and scientific data.

1. Critical examination of archaeological and genetic data: While citing particular archaeological strata and genetic data (e.g., Lazaridis, I. et al., 2017; Skourtanioti, E. et al., 2023), we clearly recognize their limitations. In particular, in the case of ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis, we give full consideration to the limited number of samples, the uncertainty of excavation contexts, and the room for statistical interpretation, and guard against reductionist interpretations that take genetic proportions as determinative of cultural and social institutions (cf. Shennan, S., 2018). We also acknowledge the need for an approach that, rather than directly linking the Pelasgians to a particular archaeological style (e.g., serpent or bear iconography), reconstructs multiple regional traditional groups that may have been called “Pelasgian” by synthesizing diverse indicators such as pottery, burial practices, and diet through multivariate statistical analysis.
2. Contextual reading of classical texts: By analyzing the texts of Herodotus, Thucydides, and the tragedians within the political and ritual contexts of their time, we reveal that their accounts were not records of objective fact but “practices of memory” serving particular purposes.
3. Critical dialogue with existing research models: This study does not seek to deny or replace existing social, economic, and military models that explain the development of Athenian democracy—for example, the political effects of the hoplite reform (Cartledge, P., 2002), the development of maritime trade and the rise of the propertyless citizen (thetes) class (Starr, C. G., 1986), or the class struggle after Solon (Finley, M. I., 1983). Rather, the aim of this paper’s cultural-memory approach is to complement and deepen existing research by clarifying the cultural soil upon which such structural changes could be endowed with meaning and ideologically legitimized for the people of the time.
4. Introduction of a Performance Studies perspective: In particular, when analyzing the suturing of memory through tragedy, we strengthen the empirical force of our argument by considering not only the text itself but also the concrete performative conditions under which the “apparatus of memory” operated—such as the audience, place, and festival context of the performance (cf. Goldhill, S., 1990).

Synthesizing these approaches, this paper is organized into four parts. Part I (Chapters 1–3) presents the problematic of the study, reconstructs the character of the Pelasgian tradition and the Yamnaya culture, and analyzes the complex interaction between the two worlds. Part II (Chapters 4–6) traces how Athens’s hybrid identity and institutions were formed through the transitional period following the Mycenaean collapse. Part III (Chapters 7–9) offers an in-depth analysis, from the integrative perspective of the “politics of memory,” of Athens’s ambivalent attitude, the suturing of memory through tragedy, and the philosophers’ reconstruction of origins. Finally, Part IV (Chapters 10–11) examines competitive memory in relation to the external world, and presents the overall conclusions and scholarly implications of the study.

---

---

Part I: Origins and Collision: The Forgotten World and the Prelude to a New Order

Chapter 2. Ritual and Consensus: Reconstructing the Pelasgian Political and Cultural Order

In order to explore the indigenous origins of Athenian democracy, we must first reconstruct the characteristics of the social and political order of the pre-Hellenic Pelasgians. Although a complete restoration is difficult owing to the absence of direct textual records, we can infer its archetypal form through archaeological evidence and the fragments of myth and tradition handed down to later ages. This chapter argues that the “Pelasgian-like local groups” may have taken communal consensus through ritual as their core principle rather than secular power, and that in this process the religious and social roles of women functioned importantly.

2.1. Pelasgian Tradition and the Ritual and Political Roles of Women

Although Pelasgian society in ancient Greek tradition cannot be flatly characterized as an explicit matriarchy, it provides clues suggesting that the religious and social roles of women had an important influence on the running of the community. A representative example is the Thesmophoria festival, held throughout Greece including Athens, a state ritual in which only married women participated to pray for the city’s prosperity and fertility. Presided over by women while male citizens were excluded, this ritual may have functioned as a quasi-political space in which women, ordinarily excluded from the public sphere, made ritual decisions directly bearing on the welfare of the community (Zeitlin, F. I., 1982, “Cultic Models of the Female: Rites of Dionysus and Demeter,” Arethusa 15.1/2).

Furthermore, the oracle of Dodona of Zeus—whom Homer referred to as “the god of the Pelasgians”—was the oldest oracular site, where female prophets originally undertook the role of conveying the will of the god (Homer, Iliad, 16.233–235). Herodotus also linked the origins of these priestesses to Egypt (Herodotus, Histories, 2.54–57), which shows the possibility that in the Pelasgian religious tradition the spiritual authority of women was deeply involved in deciding the community’s most important matters (Parke, H. W., 1967, The Oracles of Zeus: Dodona, Olympia, Ammon). The leading role of women found in the fertility rituals and oracular traditions of such agrarian-based societies raises the possibility that Pelasgian society did not exclude women from the process of consensus-formation through ritual, and that this tradition became the prototype for the collective decision-making culture of the later polis.

2.2. Ritual-Centered Governance and Communal Consensus

In Pelasgian society there likely existed an integrated structure of governance in which politics and ritual were not separated. The order of the community was maintained less by secular power than by the stratum that presided over ritual, and the act of governing itself may have taken the form of ritual. In ancient Greece, festivals were a core part of the social and political order, to the extent that about 120 days of the year were devoted to various religious festivals (Parker, R., 2005, Polytheism and Society at Athens). Under such circumstances, even rulers consulted oracles when making important decisions, so that religious ritual functioned as the de facto process of policy-making. For example, according to Athenian tradition, when a plague struck, the cult of Artemis at Brauron was established as a state ritual in accordance with the command of the Delphic oracle. The Suda lexicon records that “an Athenian maiden could not marry without performing the bear-dance (ἀρκτεία) at Brauron,” showing that the state regulated religious rites with legal compulsion (Suda, s.v. Ἄρκτος ἢ Βραυρωνίοις; cf. Sourvinou-Inwood, C., 1988, Studies in Girls’ Transitions). This ritual-centered social structure had the effect that all members of the community participated indirectly in governance through ritual, and this tradition may have been carried over even within the democratic politics of classical Athens as an emphasis on ritual consensus.

2.3. Cultural Traces in Archaeology and Texts

The Eleusinian Mysteries: The Persistence of Indigenous Ritual Tradition

The Eleusinian Mysteries of Demeter trace their origins back to indigenous beliefs predating the arrival of the Greeks. Archaeological excavations have confirmed beneath the ritual space of the Telesterion a structure bearing traces of ritual from the Late Bronze Age (around the 15th century BCE) (Mylonas, G. E., 1961, Eleusis and the Eleusinian Mysteries). This is a case in which the tradition of a sacred site of the indigenous Pelasgians was reactivated across the Dark Age; it was because the memory of this earlier ritual existed that the cult of Demeter could be revived around the 8th century BCE (Cosmopoulos, M. B., 2014, “Cult and Politics at Eleusis,” in The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age). It is noteworthy that the Eleusinian Mysteries were open to all without distinction of sex or of free and slave (Clinton, K., 1992, Myth and Cult: The Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries). This inclusive character is a case in which the mother-goddess worship tradition of the Pelasgians continued into the classical age, and it shows that the participants realized social integration—a kind of ritual democracy—through a shared sacred experience.

The Cult of Artemis at Brauron: Rite of Passage and Social Integration

The worship of the goddess Artemis and the girls’ rite of passage carried out at Brauron in eastern Attica are another trace of indigenous culture. The site of Brauron had been a place of habitation since the Neolithic period, and after passing through the Mycenaean age it was rebuilt as a sanctuary around the 8th century BCE (Papadimitriou, J., 1963, “The Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron,” Scientific American 208/6). The core of the ritual was the arkteia (bear-dance), in which girls aged five to ten, representing all of Athens, dressed up as bears and danced. This ritual is mentioned even in Aristophanes’ play as an indispensable stage in the growth of Athenian girls (Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 641–647), so much so that it was regarded not as a mere local festival but as a religious obligation of the whole polis. Requiring maidens to undergo this rite before marriage is a case in which ritual became a social norm, and it is regarded as an example of the ritual–social integration function of the Pelasgian tradition carrying over into ancient Athens.

A Comparative Examination of the Ionian Region: Anatolian Goddess Worship and the Pelasgian Tradition

The influence of the Pelasgians is also found in the religious traditions of the Aegean and the Ionian region. The cult of Artemis at Ephesus is a case in which the Anatolian mother-goddess faith, which existed before the Greek migration, was identified with the Greek Artemis (Rogers, G. M., 1991, The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City). This goddess, of a distinctive form with numerous protrusions, symbolized abundance and fertility. Herodotus also recorded that the cult of the Kabeiroi on the northern Aegean island of Samothrace was transmitted by the Pelasgians (Herodotus, Histories, 2.51). This comparative examination shows that the goddess worship and mystery traditions of the Pelasgians were widely diffused, and that the Greeks absorbed them and integrated them into their own polis religion. This suggests that the inclusive religious customs of the indigenous people served as an important foundation for the formation of Greek folk culture.

2.4. Summary: The Pelasgian Legacy as the Cultural Soil of Democracy

In sum, the political and cultural order of the indigenous Pelasgians likely tended to value communal cohesion and consensus through ritual rather than explicit law. Even if it was not an egalitarian society in the modern sense, their society may have developed an inclusive consensus structure in which diverse members shared a common sacred experience through goddess-mediated festivals and rites, thereby achieving social integration. The act of governing was no different from a religious act, and the members of the community contributed indirectly to the process of collective decision-making by participating in ritual.

This ritual-centered tradition may have served as the cultural soil in which democracy later flowered in Athens. For if the core of Athenian democracy lay in the consensus and participation of all members of the polis, the ritual tradition of the Pelasgians may have provided an archetypal experience in which all members built up a sense of solidarity by participating in a common action. Therefore, the origins of Athenian democracy can be grasped more fully when it is understood not as a creation out of nothing, but as a political tradition in which particular elements were selectively inherited and secularized from the culture of the indigenous Pelasgians.

Chapter 3. The Interaction of Two Worlds: Pelasgian Ritual Society and the Yamnaya Chiefdom

If the Pelasgian society reconstructed in Chapter 2 represents the long-standing indigenous order of the Aegean region, the influx of a new population beginning in the late third millennium BCE created a fundamental fault line in the history of this region. This chapter seeks, on the basis of the latest achievements in archaeology and genetics, to clarify the character of these migrants—namely, the Yamnaya culture groups—and to analyze how they collided and fused with the ritual-centered society of the indigenous Pelasgians to give birth to the Mycenaean civilization, the prototype of later Greek civilization.

3.1. Migration from the Northern Steppe: The Influx of the Yamnaya-Derived Groups and Their Character

In the late third millennium BCE, the Yamnaya culture groups of the Black Sea–Caspian northern steppe spread across all of Eurasia on the basis of pastoralism, horsemanship, and bronze technology (Anthony, D. W., 2007, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language). They formed a warrior chiefdom society characterized by patrilineal descent and hierarchical order. Their migration was not a mere diffusion of culture but was accompanied by large-scale population movement on a scale that altered the genetic landscape of the region.

The development of molecular genetics clearly shows the routes of their migration. Analysis of the DNA of Bronze Age Mycenaeans has revealed that they carried an admixture of northern Yamnaya-derived genes that scarcely appear in the preceding Minoans of Crete. While an early study (Lazaridis, I. et al., 2017) estimated this proportion at 4–16%, recent studies with increased sample sizes (Skourtanioti, E. et al., 2023; Lazaridis, I. et al., forthcoming 2024) raise the possibility that this admixture rate may be revised somewhat downward, which suggests a gradual and complex process of intermixture. Archaeologically as well, layers of destruction and upheaval are confirmed at several settlements on the Greek mainland around 2200 BCE (Caskey, J. L., 1960), and in the subsequent Middle Helladic period (around 2000–1550 BCE) new burial customs, northern-derived weaponry, and tomb styles resembling the kurgan (barrow) appear. This shows that a new ruling group was formed not through a single war of conquest, but through gradual penetration and cultural fusion (Rutter, J. B., 1973).

3.2. Ritual versus Force: The Heterogeneity of the Two Cultures’ Governing Structures and Worldviews

The two cultures that met on the Greek mainland were heterogeneous in almost every respect. If the Pelasgian society reconstructed earlier tended toward a ritual-centered society centered on goddess worship, agrarian ritual, and communal consensus, the newly arrived Yamnaya-derived society had the characteristics of a warrior-aristocratic society centered on male deities (gods of the sky and storm), military hierarchy, and patrilineal descent. This contrast between the indigenous culture that Marija Gimbutas named “Old Europe” and the Indo-European culture suggests that the meeting of the two cultures inevitably led to a clash of worldviews (Gimbutas, M., 1991, The Civilization of the Goddess).

However, this contrast is merely a heuristic model for analytical convenience, and it must not lead to a dichotomous framework that views the two cultures as fixed, homogeneous entities. The discovery of weaponry such as bronze daggers in Yamnaya graves suggests a warrior culture (Reich, D., 2018, Who We Are and How We Got Here), but this does not mean that Aegean indigenous society was entirely peaceful. The actual historical process was likely a complex spectrum in which mutual penetration and transformation occurred, going beyond mere collision.

3.3. Collision, Fusion, and the Birth of Hybridity: Mycenaean Civilization

The meeting of the two cultures unfolded not as a one-sided replacement but as a complex process of hybridization—domination, absorption, and mutual transformation. The militarily superior Yamnaya-derived chieftains likely established themselves as the ruling class of the existing Pelasgian communities, but they too would have undergone change through interaction with the indigenous culture. Genetically as well, a pattern emerges in which, while genes of the externally derived male line (Y-DNA) flowed in, the indigenous female line (mtDNA) shows high continuity, suggesting that the migrant men formed a new ruling class by intermarrying with indigenous women.

The Mycenaean civilization that resulted from this fusion was not a simple sum of two cultures but an unstable contested field in which heterogeneous elements coexisted in a relationship of tension. The Mycenaean king (wanax) was a descendant of the Indo-European warrior chieftain, but his rule was legitimized by absorbing the religious traditions of the existing Pelasgians. On the Linear B tablets of Mycenae, alongside the male Olympian gods, a powerful goddess called Potnia, meaning “Mistress,” appears prominently (Chadwick, J., 1976, The Mycenaean World). In particular, the name “Atana Potnia” shows that the later patron deity of Athens was deeply rooted in the indigenous goddess faith.

This process of cultural reorganization remained as a symbolic memory in Greek myth. The Titanomachy—the story of the war between the Olympian gods and the Titans—can be interpreted as a mythic compression of the process by which the old order (Pelasgian deities) was incorporated under the new order (Indo-European deities). This may be a narrative reflecting the historical process in which the Yamnaya-derived chiefdom reigned over Pelasgian society and gave birth to a new hybrid civilization.

3.4. Summary: The Prelude to a New Order, a Hybrid Legacy

In conclusion, the complex interaction of the Pelasgians and the Yamnaya-derived groups fundamentally transformed the political and cultural landscape of ancient Greece. This process was not a simple destruction or rupture but a process in which two heterogeneous cultural elements combined to bring forth a new hybrid civilization. The Mycenaean civilization that resulted inherited a double legacy: the hierarchical, military tradition of the Yamnaya-derived peoples and the ritual-centered, communal tradition of the Pelasgians. The tension and interaction between these two legacies would continue to exert a profound influence on Greek society—and especially on the political development of Athens—even after the Mycenaean collapse.

---

---

Part II: The Birth of Hybridity: The Formation of Athenian Identity and Institutions

Chapter 4. Athens in the Transitional Period: The Mycenaean Collapse and the Reorganization of Identity

Around 1200 BCE, the Mycenaean palatial civilization met a sudden collapse. Amid this upheaval that swept across the entire eastern Mediterranean, most of the Mycenaean centers were destroyed or abandoned, but Athens and its surrounding region of Attica exhibited exceptional continuity and came to walk an independent path of development. This transitional period was the decisive era in which Athens reorganized its identity and, fusing its Pelasgian legacy with Hellenic elements, formed a distinctive cultural identity.

4.1. The City That Escaped Destruction: The Archaeological Continuity of Athens

According to archaeological evidence, when the major Mycenaean palaces of Mycenae, Pylos, and Thebes were destroyed by fire, the Acropolis of Athens escaped severe destruction and continued to be inhabited (Mountjoy, P. A., 1995, Mycenaean Athens). At the Athenian sites, an unbroken evolution of pottery styles is observed leading from the end of the Bronze Age into the early Iron Age, and in particular the Proto-Geometric style and Early Geometric style created by Athenian potters in this period spread throughout all of Greece, so that during the so-called “Dark Age,” Athens served as a center of cultural innovation (Snodgrass, A. M., 1971, The Dark Age of Greece).

This cultural flourishing was due to the continuity of its demographic base. The ancient historian Thucydides explains that, because the soil of Attica was so poor that outside powers did not covet it, the same people had continued to inhabit it from the distant past without any replacement of the population (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.2). He recorded that after the Mycenaean collapse, refugees driven out of other regions flocked to Athens, and that the resulting population expansion led to the Ionian colonial activity. Recent genetic research likewise shows that there was no abrupt change in the population composition of the Greek mainland after the Mycenaean collapse, supporting this ancient tradition (Clemente, F. et al., 2021, “The genomic history of the Aegean palatial civilizations,” Cell 184.11). That is, because demographic continuity was maintained despite the political upheaval, the indigenous lineage and traditions of Athens were able to continue unbroken.

4.2. The Half-Human, Half-Serpent King: Cecrops and the Myth of Hybrid Identity

This demographic and cultural continuity is also revealed at the level of myth and collective memory. The myths of Cecrops and Erichthonius, worshipped as the founding kings of Athens, symbolically display the hybrid identity of Athens in this period. Cecrops is described as a being “born of the earth (autochthon),” yet possessing two natures (διφυής)—human in his upper body and serpent in his lower body (Apollodorus, Bibliotheca, 3.14.1). This form indicates that he was a being who mediated and integrated the indigenous native people (the serpent, a symbol of the earth) and the new foreign power (the human). Ancient historians sometimes interpreted his dual form as deriving from his having had a dual identity of Greek and non-Greek (Eusebius, Chronicon).

Erichthonius too was born in connection with the earth-mother goddess Gaia, appears in a form entangled with serpents, and ascends to the throne under the rearing of the goddess Athena. These myths suggest that, over the period leading from the end of the Bronze Age into the Dark Age, the Athenian community fused a dual identity—the earth faith of the indigenous Pelasgians and the human-centered order of the nascent Hellenes. That is, through the image of a king who was “half serpent, half human,” the historical memory of the union of conquest and the indigenous was sutured in mythic form.

4.3. The Persistence of Sanctuaries: Sites of Memory and the Reorganization of Ritual

This transitional structure is also verified by the persistence of material culture and religious space. After the collapse of the Mycenaean world, most palaces and citadels became ruins, but the important ritual sites of Attica passed through the Dark Age and were revived with new meaning around the 8th century BCE. Representatively, at Eleusis, the Megaron B building, where religious ritual had already been performed in the Mycenaean age, was not entirely abandoned but remained, so that when the cult of Demeter was later introduced, that very spot was chosen as the location of the temple (Cosmopoulos, M. B., 2014, “Cult and Politics at Eleusis”). This was possible because the local inhabitants preserved the memory of the past sanctuary.

Brauron in eastern Athens was likewise a place where there had been a Mycenaean-era settlement; after declining for a time, traces of religious activity appear again from around the 9th century BCE, and in the 8th century it was rebuilt as a clearly defined sanctuary (Papadimitriou, J., 1963, “The Sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron”). In this way, the cases of Eleusis and Brauron show that in the Athenian region, ritual tradition was inherited without rupture. Even though the agents and forms of ritual may have changed, the collective memory of sacred space survived and was integrated into new faiths and political ideologies.

4.4. Summary: Hybrid Identity and the Search for a New Order

In conclusion, throughout the transitional period from the Late Bronze Age to the Geometric period, Athens maintained the continuity of its material and human base and walked a distinctive path of development even amid the collapse of the Mycenaean world. Attica, as an unconquered land, carried on its indigenous lineage, and this took its place as the memory of Pelasgian origins within myth, ritual, and its own historiography. At the same time, by accepting new elements of Hellenic culture, its political structure and identity were also reorganized.

In this process, Athens was confronted with the task of melding the Pelasgian memory of the matrilineal tradition and the patriarchal monarchical order formed across the Dark Age into a single polis culture. The tension and fusion of these two heterogeneous legacies formed the substratum culture of classical Athenian democracy, and their most dramatic expression appears through the way in which the divinity of Athens’s patron goddess Athena was recreated. The next chapter will analyze in depth this process of ideological reorganization through the transformation of the image of the goddess Athena.

Chapter 5. The Transformation of the Goddess Athena’s Divinity and Its Political Ideologization

The divinity of Athena, the patron goddess of ancient Athens, underwent a dramatic transformation from a goddess of life and fertility of indigenous matrilineal culture into the classical armed virgin goddess. This change was not a mere shift of religious myth but the product of a political ideologization that accompanied conquest and cultural reorganization. That is, the figure of Athena, reborn from a goddess of the Pelasgians into a wise yet warlike protector of the city, shows how Athens absorbed the matrilineal tradition even as it denied and distorted it.

5.1. From Mistress of the Palace to Armed Virgin: The Reorganization of Athena’s Divinity

According to the research of classical scholars, the goddess Athena originally derived from a palace-guardian goddess of the Aegean region (Nilsson, M. P., 1950, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion). In the Cretan-Mycenaean age she was a goddess who guarded the peace of the household and the city, presiding over domestic affairs, crafts, and fertility, and bearing as her symbols emblems of life-force such as the serpent and the olive tree (James, E. O., 1959, The Cult of the Mother-Goddess). The name “Atana Potnia,” which appears in the Mycenaean Linear B documents, supports her pre-Greek origin (Burkert, W., 1985, Greek Religion).

But over the course of the Mycenaean age and the Dark Age, Athena was gradually reorganized in a direction that emphasized a martial character and perpetual virginity. From an originally peaceful goddess of fertility and craft, she was transformed into a bellicose goddess of war. In Homer’s epics she already appears wearing armor and bearing a spear. In this process her sexual aspect too was wholly transformed, and she was defined as a virgin who would never marry (παρθένος, parthenos). This is interpreted as reflecting a male-centered ideology by excluding the maternal element latent in the goddess (Pomeroy, S. B., 1975, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves). This ideological change runs parallel to the actual legal and economic changes of the 7th–5th centuries BCE, in which women’s property rights and marriage norms were gradually subordinated to male guardians.

5.2. The Daughter Born from the Father’s Head: The Myth of the Denial of the Maternal Line

The politicization of myth underlying the change in Athena’s divinity is most clearly revealed in the myth of her birth. According to the tradition of Hesiod, after Zeus swallowed Metis, the goddess of wisdom, he himself gave birth to a fully armed Athena from his own head (Hesiod, Theogony, 886–900). This extraordinary birth story symbolizes the complete denial of the maternal line. By erasing the traditional birth from the maternal womb, Athena becomes a being that originates solely from the paternal line. The narrative that the father absorbed the mother Metis, who was the source of wisdom, and that a daughter was born as a result, was a symbolic device that made even wisdom the possession of the father.

In this way, the myth of Athena proclaims the victory of the paternal order and preaches the ideology of the new polis community in an inviolable form. That the Athenians sculpted the figure of Athena being born from Zeus on the eastern pediment of the Parthenon on the Acropolis is a case in which this ideology was visually proclaimed. The figure of a goddess born a virgin and representing only the will of the father was a powerful symbol showing that Athenian democracy stood upon a motherless father (patriarchal legitimacy).

5.3. The Submission of the Erinyes: The Reorganization of Order in Aeschylus’s Tragedy

Aeschylus’s Eumenides, the final play of the tragic trilogy The Oresteia, dramatically presents the ideological completion of this transformation of divinity. In this work Athena presides over the trial of Orestes, who killed his mother, and confronts the Erinyes, the goddesses of vengeance who represent the old order (the blood-vengeance of the maternal line). In the trial, the god Apollo argues that “the mother is not the true parent of the child, but only the father is the true parent,” and he puts forward as proof Athena, who was born from the father without a mother (Aeschylus, Eumenides, 658–666).

In the end, Athena casts her deciding vote to acquit Orestes, declaring, “I am wholly on the father’s side.” With this she establishes the superiority of the paternal line as the justice of the Athenian state. Furthermore, Athena does not destroy the defeated Erinyes but co-opts them as the “Kindly Ones (Eumenides),” the guardian goddesses of the city of Athens. On the surface this appears to be a reconciliation of the old gods and the new gods, but in essence it means that the Pelasgian matrilineal order submitted to and was integrated beneath the patriarchal polis order (Zeitlin, F. I., 1978, “The Dynamics of Misogyny: Myth and Mythmaking in the Oresteia,” Arethusa 11.1/2). Through this adjustment, Athena, without entirely denying the deep-rooted past of Athens (the power of the earth), subordinates it within the new order, thereby completing a myth of social integration.

5.4. Summary: The Goddess as Ideology and the Formation of Institutions

In short, the history of the transformation of the goddess Athena’s divinity is a symbolic narrative showing how ancient Athenian society sutured the memory of the indigenous people into the ideology of the conqueror. On the one hand, Athena rose as an Olympian goddess of wisdom and war, but at the same time she secretly retained the Pelasgian legacy represented by the serpent and olive tree beside her shield and by the stories of heroes born from the earth. Thanks to this duality, Athenian democracy could mythically resolve the ambiguity of its own origins. That is, through the paradox of a virgin goddess who denies the maternal line performing the role of mother of the city, the Athenians could pride themselves as those born from this land while at the same time redefining their cultural origins around the paternal line.

This ideological reorganization of Athena did not remain merely in the realm of myth. It likely influenced the concrete institutional design of Athenian democracy as well. The next chapter will examine in concrete terms how core Athenian institutions such as the assembly, sortition, and ostracism contained traces of the Pelasgian tradition while at the same time excluding and distorting the matrilineal element that was the core of that tradition.

Chapter 6. The Institutions of Athenian Democracy and Pelasgian Traces

The institutions of classical Athenian democracy are esteemed as a political experiment without precedent in human history. However, rather than these institutions having been created entirely anew, it is worth exploring the possibility that they transformed and reconstituted the long-standing indigenous tradition of the region of Attica. This chapter analyzes the structural similarities that the core institutions of Athenian democracy exhibit with the Pelasgian tradition of consensus and with ritual. At the same time, it wishes to make clear that this interpretation must be understood not as a linear causality, but as a process in which a ritual vocabulary was re-appropriated for political function.

6.1. The Assembly and the Council: The Possibility of Institutionalizing a Tradition of Collective Consensus

The Ecclesia (Assembly) and the Council of Five Hundred (Boulē), the heart of Athenian democracy, operated on the basis of the participation and collective consensus of all citizens (Hansen, M. H., 1999). This structure appears innovative at first glance, but in fact it can be seen as having developed upon the long-standing communal tradition of the region of Attica where Athens was located. As we saw earlier, Attica was a rare region that maintained demographic and cultural continuity even after the Mycenaean collapse, which suggests the possibility that the communal tradition of consensus of the indigenous people (the Pelasgians) persisted.

Cleisthenes dismantled the kinship-based tribal system and introduced a residence-based system of demes (demos), which created a new community of citizens transcending the traditional clan confederation (Ober, J., 2008, Democracy and Knowledge). As a result, the Athenian assembly and council came to stand upon the representativeness of indigenous local communities rather than upon lineage, which can be interpreted as an attempt to absorb into the political structure the land-based communal bonds that the Pelasgian indigenous people had long built up. That is, in that the core institutions of Athenian democracy granted sovereignty to a collective rather than to a single individual, they suggest the possibility of being a secularized and institutionalized form of the Pelasgian tradition of consensus.

6.2. Sortition and Ostracism: The Possibility of a Political Transfer of Ritual Logic

Sortition and ostracism can be interpreted as the cases that best demonstrate the possibility that Athenian democracy transformed the ritual customs of the indigenous people into secular politics. Sortition, the selection of officeholders by lot, was a democratic device that excluded the influence of wealth and family and granted equal opportunity to all citizens (Manin, B., 1997). It is noteworthy that the drawing of lots was employed throughout ancient societies as a sacred means of ascertaining the will of the gods (cleromancy). Of course, there clearly existed rational and economic motives behind the introduction of sortition as well—lowering the cost of obtaining office (archê, high office) and resolving informational opacity. Nevertheless, the interpretation that the vocabulary and form of the drawing of lots, which had been a sacred act, were re-appropriated as a principle guaranteeing political fairness remains valid.

Meanwhile, ostracism was an institution that sought to purify the state of internal danger by banishing through a vote a person who might pose a threat to the community. The logic of this institution shows a notable structural similarity to the ancient religious scapegoat ritual—that is, the Pharmakos rite (Burkert, W., 1979). Of course, the two institutions show clear differences in the social status of the scapegoat (lowest class vs. highest class) and in the agent of compulsion (ritual participants vs. the state). However, this raises the possibility that the grammar of ritual thought—”excluding a particular individual in order to restore the community’s purity”—was transferred into the domain of a political institution. This can be seen not as a linear causality but, as Marshall Sahlins pointed out, as a case of the “transformation of the structure,” in which an existing cultural structure is repurposed for a different function within a new historical situation.

6.3. The Exclusion of Women: The Rupture and Distortion of the Pelasgian Legacy

However, even as the institutions of Athenian democracy appeared to resonate with the Pelasgian tradition, they systematically excluded and distorted the matrilineal element that may have been the core of that culture. The most conspicuous example is the complete exclusion of women from political participation. In classical Athenian democracy, women could be the wives and mothers of citizens, but they were never recognized as political subjects (polites) with the right to public speech and the vote (Pomeroy, S. B., 1975).

Interestingly, a myth has been handed down that explains the origin of this exclusion. When the goddess Athena and the god Poseidon competed for the position of the city’s patron deity, Athena won by the vote of the women; the enraged Poseidon then brought down a disaster, and to appease him the men permanently stripped the women of their voting rights (Augustine, City of God, 18.9). Through the narrative structure of “men seized the political rights that women originally possessed,” this myth paradoxically reveals that the influence of women rooted in the Pelasgian matriarchal tradition was deliberately suppressed within the polis system. As Pericles said—that “for a woman, the greatest honor is not to be talked about among men at all” (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 2.45)—the public non-existence of women was regarded as a virtue of Athenian democracy.

Despite this political exclusion, women performed important roles in other domains. In particular, the labor of women artisans was indispensable in the ritual and economic domains, such as the weaving of the peplos dedicated at the Panathenaic festival and the production of funerary lekythos pottery (Blundell, S., 1995, Women in Ancient Greece). This shows that Athenian society took a dual attitude toward the role of women: “political silence” and “economic and ritual visibility,” and it suggests that a gender analysis must explore complex relations of power beyond a simple narrative of exclusion.

6.4. Summary: Institutions Built upon Memory and Forgetting

In conclusion, the institutions of Athenian democracy were both a transformed resonance with the Pelasgian tradition and a product of contradiction that deliberately ruptured the core of that tradition. The indigenous legacy of collective consensus and ritual purification may have been reborn as institutions such as the assembly and sortition, but in that process the role of women and matrilineal values were thoroughly excluded. While the Athenians retained the Pelasgian pride of being autochthones, born and raised in this land, they at the same time consciously denied that indigenous legacy—especially the respect for women and the matrilineal kinship system—thereby consolidating a democracy of male citizens alone.

This selection and forgetting of memory is a key clue showing how the Athenians perceived and narrated their identity and history. How did they remember their past, and what did they try to forget? From the next chapter onward, from the integrative perspective of the “politics of memory,” we will analyze in depth the ambivalent attitude that the Athenians displayed toward their Pelasgian origins and its cultural expressions.

---

---

Part III: The Politics of Memory: The Construction of the Self-Narrative of Athenian Democracy

The establishment and consolidation of Athenian democracy was not merely a process of creating institutions. It was a fierce politics of memory that reinterpreted the past, selected particular memories, and forced uncomfortable legacies into oblivion. In this Part III, we analyze in depth, through the framework of cultural memory theory, how Athens dealt with its indigenous, Pelasgian origins. We will trace the process from the ambivalent attitude the Athenians displayed (Chapter 7), to the attempt to suture memory through the public stage of tragedy (Chapter 8), and finally to the way in which Plato and Aristotle reconstructed origins in the name of reason and thereby completed this system of memory (Chapter 9).

Chapter 7. The Dialectic of Memory and Forgetting: Athens’s Ambivalent Attitude toward Its Pelasgian Origins

The self-identity of classical Athens stood upon a deep contradiction. On the one hand, they put forward that they were autochthones, born from this land, and took their Pelasgian origins as a source of pride; but on the other hand, they sought to despise and exclude the “barbarity” and “non-Hellenic” elements inherent in those origins. This ambivalent attitude is the result of the operation of the mechanisms of selection and exclusion of cultural memory of which Jan Assmann spoke.

7.1. The Source of Pride: The Political Use of the Myth of Autochthony

The Athenians prided themselves that their ancestors “had dwelt in this land continuously, generation after generation” (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 2.36). In Plato’s Menexenus as well, Athens is described as “pure Hellenes unmixed with foreign blood such as that of Pelops or Cadmus” (Plato, Menexenus, 245d). This myth of “autochthony” functioned as a core ideology that legitimized democratic equality and communal cohesion, through the powerful metaphor that all citizens were brothers born from a single mother (the earth) (Loraux, N., 1986, The Invention of Athens: The Funeral Oration in the Classical City). It was an effective political asset, especially in asserting their own legitimacy and their eternal ownership of the land of Attica against rival poleis such as Dorian Sparta.

7.2. The Object of Exclusion: The “Barbarization” of the Pelasgian Tradition and the Suppression of the Feminine

However, even while boasting of their autochthony, Athens’s official memory systematically suppressed and distorted the concrete content of the Pelasgian tradition that was its root—especially the matrilineal and feminine elements. In ancient texts the Pelasgians were often depicted as a primitive, “barbaric” other, and Athens claimed that it had overcome this “barbarity” and achieved Hellenic civilization (Hall, J. M., 2002, Hellenicity: Between Ethnicity and Culture).

This politics of forgetting operated in particular in the direction of erasing the role of women. In vase paintings before the 5th century, women frequently appear playing a central role in funerals and rituals, but in the public narrative of classical Athens this contribution of women is scarcely mentioned (Oakley, J. H., 2004, Picturing Death in Classical Athens: The Evidence of the White Lekythoi). The forgetting of the Pelasgian tradition was directly connected to the concealment of women and matrilineal divinity, and Athens’s system of memory consolidated a male-centered polis identity by structurally excluding these aspects.

7.3. Summary: The Politics of Memory and Cultural Practice

In conclusion, Athens took an ambivalent attitude of affirmation (pride) and negation (contempt) toward the past of its Pelasgian origins. This was not a mere contradiction but a sophisticated strategy of political memory for constructing their democratic identity. They strengthened civic solidarity through the myth of autochthony, while at the same time legitimizing their own order by defining the non-patriarchal, non-masculine elements contained within it as “barbaric” and excluding them. This complex negotiation of memory did not remain confined to political discourse. It was actively performed and resolved upon the public stage of tragedy, which was at the center of Athenian civic life.

Chapter 8. Suturing upon the Stage: The Struggle and Reorganization of Memory in Greek Tragedy

Ancient Greek tragedy was not mere entertainment but a laboratory of memory that connected the community’s mythic past with its present-day problems, thereby reflecting upon and reaffirming collective identity. However, its function cannot be fully understood by remaining only at the level of textual analysis. By introducing the perspective of performance studies, we must analyze how memory was sutured within the concrete spatiotemporal context in which tragedy was performed (Goldhill, S., 1990, “The Great Dionysia and Civic Ideology,” in Nothing to Do with Dionysos?).

8.1. The Performative Apparatus of Memory: The Dionysia Festival

The Dionysia festival at which tragedy was performed was itself a powerful apparatus of memory. Each spring, all the citizens of Athens (and foreigners) gathered in the Theater of Dionysus to watch the tragic competitions for several days. This process was a comprehensive site of civic education, sponsored by the state, judged by the citizens, and accompanied by patriotic rituals such as the procession of war orphans. It was precisely in this space that the suppressed memories of the past could be safely summoned and reinterpreted beneath the ideology of the polis.

8.2. The Return of the Repressed and Its Institutionalization: The Case of The Oresteia

The work that most clearly demonstrates this struggle and suturing of memory is Aeschylus’s trilogy The Oresteia.

• Part 1, Agamemnon, and Part 2, The Libation Bearers: The process by which the primitive justice of maternal-line blood vengeance steeps the polis in blood can be interpreted as the image of the suppressed memory of the Pelasgian past haunting like a ghost.
• Part 3, The Eumenides: At the climax of this tragedy, the primitive earth-goddesses (the Erinyes) who demand vengeance for matricide face the verdict of the court of the Areopagus presided over by the goddess Athena. Athena, defending the principle of the paternal line, acquits Orestes, and instead of destroying the enraged Erinyes, she incorporates them into Athens’s system of guardian deities under the new name of the “Kindly Ones (Eumenides)” (Aeschylus, Eumenides, 892–995).

This ending is not a mere textual reconciliation. Performed in 458 BCE, during a period of political upheaval in which the powers of the actual court of the Areopagus were being curtailed, this work performatively demonstrated, before an audience of thousands of citizens, the process by which the old principle of kinship trial was subsumed under the principle of the new civic court. Through this, the process by which the primitive power of the Pelasgian past was subsumed beneath and institutionalized within a new civic legal order was symbolically sutured.

8.3. Summary: Tragedy, a Cultural Apparatus for Reorganizing Memory

In conclusion, Athenian tragedy was a key cultural apparatus that summoned the chaotic memories of the Pelasgian past onto the stage and reinterpreted and integrated them in accordance with the contemporary democratic and patriarchal order. Through tragedy, the Athenians constructed their identity not by rupturing with the past, but through the selective inheritance and reorganization of the past. The memories of the past, thus ritually processed and purified upon the stage, were now ready to be formalized into a rational and systematic historical narrative by the philosophers, the greatest intellects of the age.

Chapter 9. In the Name of Reason: Plato’s and Aristotle’s Reconstruction of the Origin Myth

The politics of memory that Athens’s statesmen and playwrights carried out through cultural practice is brought to completion as rational, systematic discourse in the two great philosophers Plato and Aristotle. In explaining the origins of Athenian democracy, they cut the past to fit their own philosophical systems and created an idealized origin myth. In this process, the Pelasgian matrilineal tradition and the role of women were thoroughly pushed into the domain of oblivion, and only a male-centered rational order was formalized as the sole origin of civilization.

9.1. Plato’s Ideal State and the “Noble Lie”

Plato, through several of his works, reconstructed the origins of Athens from the perspectives of myth, lineage, and reason. In the Republic, he proposes a “Noble Lie” in order to bind together the citizens of the ideal state. This is the myth that all citizens are “brothers born from a single mother, the earth” (Plato, Republic, 414d–e). This appears to borrow the structure of the Pelasgian indigenous faith, but in reality it is a political device that erases the reproductive role of women and induces the loyalty of the citizens by making the state a metaphorical “mother.” In the Laws, he describes humanity after the great flood as beginning from “patriarchal rule by the eldest son” and thus forming the state, locating the origin of civilization in masculine authority (Plato, Laws, 680e–681a). In this way, Plato deliberately excluded the Pelasgian element and idealized the origins of Athens around rational design and a genealogy of male heroes.

9.2. Aristotle’s “Natural” Patriarchy

In the Politics, Aristotle argues that the city (polis) developed “naturally” in the order of family–village–city. However, the family, which he calls the starting point of the “natural” community, is essentially a patriarchy. He declares that “the male is by nature superior and the female inferior; the one rules and the other is ruled,” defining the rule of the male and the subordination of the female as a principle of nature (Aristotle, Politics, 1254b). Under this premise, the matrilineal consensus structure of Pelasgian society or the political role of women becomes “unnatural” and loses even the value of being remembered. His historical work the Constitution of the Athenians is likewise narrated around the deeds of male lawgivers and tyrants such as Solon, Pisistratus, and Cleisthenes, and within this rational historical narrative centered on institutions and individuals, the Pelasgian tradition loses any place to stand.

9.3. Summary: The Formalization of Memory and Its Philosophical Legitimation

Plato and Aristotle performed the role of finally formalizing and legitimizing the cultural memory of Athens. Seen through the framework of cultural memory theory, they ① selected military heroic tales and male genealogies, ② excluded (damnatio memoriae) the matrilineal and goddess-worship traditions, and ③ formalized this reconstructed history through their philosophical writings. As a result, the origins of Athenian democracy were completed, with their Pelasgian roots cut away, into a powerful and enduring narrative of the manifestation of a rational and masculine Hellenic spirit.

The system of memory that these philosophers built was so powerful that subsequent Western civilization long came to understand Athenian democracy only through this perspective. But what lay behind this official memory? The next chapter will examine, through the external gaze—that is, through the memory of rival poleis and empires—how fiercely Athens’s self-narrative was formed within an environment of competitive memory.

---

---

Part IV: Competition and Transfer: The External Gaze and the Final Legacy

Chapter 10. The Gaze of the Other: Athens within the Field of Competitive Memory

Athens’s self-identity and origin myth were by no means created in a vacuum. They were a dynamic political product, constantly tested and reconstituted within relations with surrounding poleis and empires. As Aleida Assmann pointed out, collective memory often appears in the form of competitive memory that clashes among different communities, and sometimes, on the occasion of a great historical event, it undergoes a process of transitional memory that integrates into a new dimension (Assmann, A., 2011, Cultural Memory and Western Civilization). This chapter analyzes, through the “gaze of the other” of Sparta, Delphi, and Persia, how Athens’s myth of Pelasgian origins and its democratic ideology were formed and changed within interactions with the external world.

10.1. Sparta’s Counter-Memory: Descendants of the Dorians versus the Land of the Pelasgians

Sparta, Athens’s most powerful rival, presented a direct counter-memory against the Athenian origin myth. The Spartans identified themselves as Dorians of pure lineage and descendants of Heracles, and used the complex and heterogeneous origins of Athens as a pretext for attack. Herodotus records that most of Greece was once under the rule of the Pelasgians, and that the Athenians too were at that time Pelasgians—not Hellenes—called the “Cranai” (Herodotus, Histories, 1.56–57).

This narrative worked by inversely exploiting Athens’s claim to “autochthony” in such a way as to imply that their roots reached back to a “barbarian” and “non-Hellenic” past (Hall, J. M., 2007, “The Pelasgians and the Politics of Ethnic Identity in Ancient Greece,” in The Invention of Ancient Greece). That is, in Sparta’s gaze, Athens’s Pelasgian origins were not a source of pride but a stigma marking them as too impure in lineage to become the leader of the Hellenic world. In this way, the two poleis put forward different origin myths (the conquest of the Dorians vs. the autochthonous self-generation of the Pelasgians) and waged a fierce competition of memory over hegemony in the Hellenic world.

10.2. The Mediation of Delphi and the Materialized Competition of Memory

The temple of Apollo at Delphi, a sanctuary shared by all Greeks, was an important space that mediated and authorized memory among the poleis, as well as a place where the competition of memory was materially embodied. Athens had to legitimize its own distinctive origin myth and political actions through the Panhellenic authority of Delphi. A representative episode is the affair in which, during the Persian Wars, the Athenians interpreted the “wooden wall” oracle they received at Delphi as referring to maritime defense—that is, the building of a fleet—and thereby led the victory at the Battle of Salamis (Herodotus, Histories, 7.141–143).

This competition is starkly revealed in the construction of the Treasuries that each polis dedicated. For example, the splendid Ionic treasury built by the Siphnians at the end of the 6th century BCE, and the modest but dignified Doric treasury built by the Athenians after their victory at the Battle of Marathon, were a materialized arena of memory in which each displayed its own wealth and military achievement through architectural style and sculptural themes (Neer, R. T., 2002, The Art and Archaeology of the Greek World).

10.3. Persia as a Mirror: “Transitional Memory” and the Memory-Scape

The great external threat of the Persian Empire became the decisive occasion that integrated the competitive memories within Greece into a new dimension. As they experienced the Persian Wars, the competition of origins between Athens and Sparta was temporarily pushed aside, and the larger opposition of “Hellenes versus barbaroi (barbarians)” came to the fore. In this process, Athens’s memory underwent a significant transition.

If, until before the war, Athens’s myth of autochthony had been chiefly for internal cohesion and for competition with Sparta, then through the Persian Wars it was sublimated into a new narrative as “the first line of defense and savior of Hellenic civilization.” Herodotus’s depiction of Athens after the Persian Wars as “the savior of Greece” shows this well (Herodotus, Histories, 7.139). This new memory was permanently inscribed as Athens’s memory-scape through the rebuilding of the Acropolis in the age of Pericles. The deliberate preservation of the rubble of the old destroyed temples and the building of the Parthenon upon it was a vast apparatus of memory that made the victory against Persian barbarity and the glory of democracy something experienced within daily life.

10.4. Summary: The External Gaze and the Reorganization of Memory

In conclusion, Athens’s myth of Pelasgian origins and its democratic ideology were not the product of an isolated interior, but a result constantly refined and reorganized within fierce interaction with the external world. Sparta’s competitive memory caused Athens to defend and legitimize its origins ever more elaborately; Delphi, as a shared field of memory, became the channel through which that legitimacy was expanded to a Panhellenic dimension. Finally, the external threat of Persia provided the occasion that elevated Athens’s regional memory into a transitional memory as the guardian of all the Hellenes.

Chapter 11. Conclusion: The Dialectic of Memory and Forgetting and Its Paradoxical Legacy

This study has sought to reinterpret the origins of Athenian democracy by departing from the linear, Hellenocentric view of history and situating them within a dialectical relationship with the suppressed and forgotten legacy of the indigenous Pelasgians that lay behind it. As a result, it has been revealed that Athenian democracy was not a rational invention of some single moment, but a complex and contradictory product formed through long-lasting cultural collision and fusion, and through a fierce politics of memory to legitimize the result. Athenian democracy is essentially like a paradoxical edifice built upon a forgotten legacy.

11.1. Synthesis of the Study: The Selection, Transformation, and Suturing of Memory

Synthesizing the argument of this paper, the origins of Athenian democracy can be summarized as the following process in the politics of memory.

1. Foundation and Interaction: Aegean indigenous society—the culture provisionally named the “Pelasgian tradition”—tended to value ritual-centered communal consensus. This indigenous order interacted in complex ways with the patriarchal, hierarchical society of the Indo-Europeans (Yamnaya), giving birth to the first hybrid civilization, the Mycenaean.

2. The Reconstruction of Memory: Classical Athens reconstructed this hybrid origin according to its own political needs.
   • Selection and Exclusion: Athens selected only the “myth of autochthony” from its Pelasgian roots to consolidate the cohesion of the civic community, while systematically excluding the matrilineal element and the role of women latent within it by defining them as “barbaric.”
   • Transformation and Suturing: The indigenous ritual tradition of consensus was transformed, resonating structurally with the logic of secular political institutions such as sortition and ostracism, and the suppressed memory of the past was symbolically sutured into the new polis order upon the tragic stage.
   • Formalization: Finally, philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle systematized this reconstructed memory as rational discourse, completing the official narrative that only a male-centered rational order was the sole origin of civilization.
3. Interaction with the External World: This entire process was constantly reinforced and reorganized within interaction with Sparta’s competitive memory and the transitional memory triggered by the external threat of Persia.

11.2. Scholarly Contributions and Implications

This study carries the following scholarly contributions and implications.

• The Expansion of Political History: This study has expanded the study of Athenian democracy from a simple analysis of institutional history into a cultural history of political identity. This shows that the development of political institutions is not only the result of rational design, but also reveals how collective identity and narratives of the past intervene in the formation of power structures.
• Dialogue with Existing Research: This study does not deny the importance of social and economic factors such as the hoplite reform or the development of maritime trade. Rather, this paper’s cultural-memory approach adds a new dimension to existing research by illuminating the cultural soil upon which such material changes could be ideologically legitimized and accepted. That is, this study provides, alongside the analysis of the socioeconomic “hardware” of democratic development, a framework for analyzing the cultural “software” and the ideological “operating system” that made it work.
• Critical Reflection on the Origins of Western Civilization: This study shows how the dichotomies of “civilization” and “barbarity,” “memory” and “forgetting,” are politically constructed in the process of historiography. This critically re-examines Hellenocentrism and presents the possibility of a historiography that restores the voice of the forgotten “other.”

11.3. Tasks for Future Research

On the basis of the achievements and limitations of this study, we propose the following concrete subsequent research.

1. The Archaeological Restoration of Unofficial Memory: Research that restores the lives of women, slaves, and migrants—excluded from Athens’s official narrative—through microscopic material-culture analysis of domestic ritual implements, writing tablets inscribed with graffiti, and lead curse tablets (κατάδεσμοι).
2. Comparative Historical Sociology: Research that clarifies the universality and particularity of the “secularization of ritual” pattern by comparing Athens’s “ritual → politics” transfer model with the process by which the private household rites (sacra privata) of the Roman Republic were incorporated into the institution of the public priestly college (pontifices).
3. The Deepening of Quantitative and Scientific Methodology:
   • Ancient DNA (aDNA) analysis: Verifying the interaction of the indigenous and migrant populations through analysis of the forthcoming DNA data from the skeletal remains of classical Athens.
   • Isotope analysis: Reconstructing the origins, by social stratum, of the Athenian citizen body by tracing the geographic mobility of individuals through strontium (Sr) and oxygen (O) isotope analysis.
   • Quantitative modeling: Research that synthesizes the above data and uses a Hierarchical Bayesian model to simulate the probabilities of competing scenarios such as “movement of a military elite vs. persistence of the indigenous population.”

11.4. Concluding Remarks

The most profound legacy that Athenian democracy bequeathed to humanity may be not the blueprint of a completed institution, but the fundamental paradox inherent in its very origins. That is the fact that a political system which put forward the public speech of every citizen (parrhesia) as its highest value was in reality established upon a vast public silence regarding the history of women—half of the community—and of the indigenous people who became their roots.

This case of Athens shows that every political community can construct its identity only upon a complex and contradictory relationship with the past—that is, upon an unceasing struggle between memory and forgetting. Therefore, the true meaning of Athenian democracy must be sought not in its flawlessness, but precisely in the possibility of reflection contained within this paradoxical origin. It compels us, even today, to ask continually: Upon whose memory is our community built, and beneath its glorious narrative, whose voices are being forgotten? The effort to answer that question may itself be the most valuable democratic legacy inherited from Athens.

===========

Afterword

This is a piece I wrote over the course of three weeks with the help of ChatGPT and Google AI Studio. I presented the ideas, GPT found the supporting evidence, and AI Studio reviewed and supplemented—a division of labor. This piece is a hypothesis erected upon the phantom-like foundation of the Pelasgians. It is therefore a piece whose very premise is mistaken. But isn’t freely unfolding one’s imagination itself a kind of fun?

===========

EOD

20250617