alternatehistory.com
Popular Hellenic Religion
There are not a surfeit of trained masters in the art of deciphering Imperial Tuscan, or any of the ancient Rasnatic tongues, neither still those who can also decipher ancient Hellenic languages of various provenances. C. Matta is one such individual, the beneficiary of an efficient and expensive education which appears to have been entirely wasted on him, it is a wonder that his parents do not leave the country for shame of the nonsense their eldest scion now produces. One can only wonder at the shame and fury felt by the universities of Crathi and Nemeso at having wasted so much tutelage on a scholar who now seems to miss the entirety of the fundamental notions governing his studies’ existence. Archaioteria is not a collection of trivias, or a school of architecture in which the minutiae of people’s lives are the building blocks, it is the study of ancient nations, their profound influence on the world around them and subsequent to them, of the individuals that moved and shaped those nations. When our own times are examined by Archaioterists in an era as removed from our own as ours is from the Archait era they will not be interested in the reason why a cobble was designed just so, what a tutannox eats for breakfast before milking his cows, or Gods forbid what passes for religion among the wretched of our society. This is Archaioteria as perhaps is imagined in such places as Pridia or even the sleepy coast of Armur, where entire regions filled with nothing but tutannix seek something to indicate their (false) relevance to goings on, but in Arvernia, Massalia, and all other places of civilization and import we pursue education for the purpose of bettering ourselves, our nations, and mankind. Perhaps, having seemingly forgotten this purpose, C. Matta would kindly return his nota to the relevant institutions, so as not to devalue the credence given to those who would ordinarily have received those qualifications.
C. LARC MATTA’S POPULAR RELIGION AMONG THE ANCIENT HELLENES (1590)
EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER 2: ON MESSENIA
In its renewed state upon the coming of the Persians, the role of the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis becomes crucial in understanding the intersection of popular and state religion in Messenia. For some time this sanctuary had been held by the Spartiate regime despite being a major locale for the rituals of the Messenian people. Once this sanctuary became fully open to them, and no longer lay on the border with Lacedaimonia, it was at the centre of the newly formed Messenian kingdom that existed under Persian dominion. Pilgrimages to this temple became common, and inscriptions at the site have been found attesting to dedications from ordinary Messenians, most of them thanking Artemis for boons given and prayers answered. This is clearly a precursor to the more mobile Olikan faith in Hellas, whereby it became expected that a Hellene might well move outside their own region to properly dedicate themselves before one of the Olympian gods. But Artemis Limnatis was not solely a target of pilgrimage and prayer, she was also at the centre of Messenian state ritual, being the location of two major festivals; the Xerxeia, dedicated to remembering Xerxes’ liberation of the Messenians, and also the Limnaisia, the procession of the waters from Limnais to the sea at Abia. Some Messenians worshipped Xerxes at the former festival, and why not? As their perceived deliverer, at whose hand they received no punishment or censure, he would have seemed a divine figure from a far off, more civilized land. Indeed, a holiday on the behalf of Xerxes is still celebrated across Messenia. This introduction of Persian references in Messenian religion perhaps provides another plausible entry point for Persian custom into ancient Hellenic religion as surplus to Boiotia and Attica. Perhaps the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatus was the very first Hellenic practitioner of Persian sky-burials, knowing as we do that such burials became popular, if not dominant, in the region of Messenia in the centuries after the Conquest. We can permit ourselves to imagine a Persian presence at the Xerxeia, perhaps with Persians playing a role during the reconstruction of Xerxes’ liberation of the Messenians?
The sanctuary at Limnatis is also an example of continuum among a sea of change, as can be identified with other important religious sanctuaries across Hellas. In this way the Persians made the radical adjustment from Hellenic-ruled, polis-based sovereignty to Persian ruled hegemony easier, numbing the sensation by the continuance of popular Hellenic religion by its most visible physical centres. It is no accident that even Western Hellenic authors grudgingly admit that the old, proud sanctuaries of their ancient homelands reached their most splendid and magnificent forms under Persian rule. Limnais was a clear example of this, though in Herodotos we find reference to scurrilous rumours that this was a bribe to the king of the Messenians to ignore corruption and all sorts of other misdeeds by the Persian governors of Hellas. The importance of Limnatis to the renewed Messanian civic and political existence in this period is precisely why the Amavadatid state continued to patronise the sanctuary, for as the era of Achaemenid rule wound on this sanctuary represented a profound link between the general population of Messenia and the Achaemenid monarch himself, a link that the Amavadatids sought to supplant.
Indeed, in both Achaemenid and Amavadatid Hellas we can distinguish their relationship with temples into two kinds of different purpose; the first, representing their patronage of Delphoi and similar sites, is their patronage and protection of those sites with Panhellenic significance; the second, of which Limnais is representative, is their good will towards and protection of sites with specific significance to particular ethne within Hellas, connecting them to popular religion and allowing the monarchs a direct relationship with the ethne in question, subverting the ability of a polis, basileus, or similar societal institution to monopolise the ordinary citizens of Hellas. However, should one of these monarchs find themselves unable to prevent damage or destruction of one of these sanctuaries, their authority could collapse in Hellas overnight, as it would in later times; the beginning of the end of Imerian dominion over Hellas came with the sack of Limnais by the Tinians, not to mention the damage to other sanctuaries by the invasion of the Dardani shortly thereafter. This then is the intersect between popular religion and the affairs of state, where hegemonic monarchs were tolerated or even supported only for as long as they could guarantee the sacred integrity of the peoples that they ruled. This author advances the thesis that these sanctuaries in which popular and civic religion interacted, Limais being representative, are the key to the establishment of imperial states over populaces with no previous experience of interconnected governance.
ALARIC LARSUNS’ RETROSPECTIVE ON LARC MATTA (1684 CE)
Lehtrtoi of the current era are living in extraordinary times. The Alfine peoples traffic in knowledge and understanding in a way that would have once seemed inconceivable, in such a way as to truly surpass the times of the Razna dominance over the Alfine regions, in my view for the first time in Alfine or perhaps Uropan history. We can point to, and graciously thank, many persons for creating this modern state of affairs, but, and here I confess full partiality, as a participant in the discipline of Popular Archaioteria I must assert my belief that Larc Matta, Cingeto of Arvernia, Didasklos of Crathi and Nemeso Universities, was perhaps the most responsible for bringing on this change by not only writing Popular Religion Among the Ancient Hellenes but, after publishing this work, also withstanding the unremitting and partial criticism launched at him for even conceiving of the work, let alone giving it form. Nothing can take this achievement away from C. Matta, not the cavalcade of Senological discoveries that greet us in the present age, nor in the relentless march of time itself. But if we are to commit to the present notion of rigour that rightly informs the modern understanding the lehtrtoi world then we must apply that same rigour to this foundational text. We must set ourselves to comprehend C. Matta’s work in a present age, and come to a direct conclusion as to what the cultured men of the era can actually gain from reading the text.
We must first come to terms with the fact that Senology has advanced our knowledge of archait era societies to a considerable degree. This has applied to the study of popular arkait history to an even greater degree than in other areas, for we need no longer rely on ancient authors alone to describe the history and layout of a given ancient sanctuary, or ancient city. We have uncovered inscriptions of religious significance that would have been too ordinary or beneath the notice of such authors. There remain many who try to ignore this evidence because of their faith in the ancient authors, but the tide of history does not flow in their favour. In this C. Matta was ahead of his peers by deeply incorporating the Senological evidence of his time with his work in archaioteria, and not only in doing so but realising the new opportunities which this would open up. The fundamental basis of popular archaioteria, that the popular realities, culture, and landmarks of a society not only interrelate with its general governance but to a great extent dictate the course of its existence as a nation, all come from this text, and the sound methodology which underlies them remains unimpeachable. We can say, of C. Matta’s interactions with Senological knowledge, that he came to sound conclusions from limited and misleading evidence, the fundamental logics were sound but the evidence with which he was working produced the wrong results. This does mean that much of his chapter on Macedonian popular culture, primarily evidenced as it was by non-Macedonian authors and finds at Amphipolis, is unfortunately quite incorrect in nearly all of its conclusions, as is the section on Pampyhlia.
In addition, we must unfortunately take issue with some of his specific claims and decisions. There is precisely no evidence of any participation of Persians in the Xerxeia festival held at Limnais in Messenia, and had we not found direct material references to the festival we might even be tempted to disqualify the festival from archait reality at all, due to its prominence among sources hostile or, subsquently, snobbish about Eastern Hellenic practices, and in particular Messenia. We must find also that C. Matta’s conclusions about temple courtesans in Corinthos are ill-founded by current understanding, and here we must explain in more detail; at the time of C. Matta’s magnum opus the concensus was that many features of Hellenic culture and society allegedly introduced by Asia in times past had actually been introduced under the Achaemenids, and these claims of antiquity had been an attempt to make these Asian cultural features ‘safe’ to the Hellenic world. We now realise that we have references to Corinthos’ temple courtesans predating the Conquest, predating even Dareios the Great, and that Herodotos was indeed to be trusted on this matter. Accordingly, rather than Matta’s assumptions that these courtesans were Mesopotamian colonists slowly Hellenised, we can assume that these courtesans were always Hellenic women from local families, which changes the nature of understanding pre and post-Conquest popular Corinthian religion.
Turning to the western Hellenes, in any area with Senulogical or Hellenic resources available we continue to find C. Matta nearly unimpeachable, given his peerless experience with Hesperia as a whole, from the Alfes to Italia. However, at the time in which he was engaging in research, we find that the appreciation for and engagement with ancient Carcedonian archaioteria (the viewpoint that the Carcedonians or, at the very least, the Phoinic people as a whole, were one of the classical archait peoples is beyond dispute in this author’s mind, regardless of how much ink Well Aulal wastes on arguing the contrary) was in its teething stages, and many important resources had not passed into the scholarship of Arvernia, Hesperia, or anywhere that the Alfes touched. The old Orezanian sources in particular have furnished modern archaioterists with a wealth of knowledge about Emporion which was not possessed before, and we may feel secure about calling many of the western Hellenic sources remiss for their scanty discussions of such a vibrant city. Thus C. Matta’s characterisation of the popular culture of the city as Hellenic in every way, shutting out the local influences, is almost certainly flawed, now that we understand instead the city to have slowly become a joint city, held in common between natives and Hellenes with an equal share of citizenship. Indeed, the Senulogical prospects for discovering the exact site of Old Emporion are as tantalising as discovering a real location of Troia. I also feel that, in trying to escape from the western Hellenic literature’s domination of opinions, the importance of the Dionysia festivals to Megathenai/Dikaia was radically understated and little examined by C. Matta. In fact it seems almost perverse that an Alfine scholar would not have dealt with the festivals when it came to the subject of western Hellenic and Tinian cultures intersecting, where we eventually find Tyrsenoi actors being admitted into the Dikaian Dionysia, and though it was at the point of imperial dominance by the Tinian Empire the eventual inclusion of Tyrsenoi playwrights in the Dionysia is likewise invaluable when discussing the intersect of the archait Hesperian peoples. C. Matta had also not developed his popular archait method as fully as possible, and had not thought to examine, for example, the changing Dikaian notions as to their homeland, and its progression from self regard as a community of exiles to primarily seeing Italia as their home, even if Athenai and a host of other cities were also their ancient homelands.
However, given the time that has passed, and the early juncture of populist methodology that C. Matta represents, he remains remarkable in his forward thinking, and his primary methodologies remain the building blocks for our own examinations of the past. He was himself not a proponent of Populism, as it existed at that point, and yet he was of that party simply by being forward thinking, rational, and inquisitive in superior abundance to his peers, concerned as they were with war, and princes, and priests. It brings me no doubt to establish a Cingeto as a principal source of Populism in archaioteria, and an inspiration for political Populism. His work in examining the deep roots of the Achaemenid and Amavadatid states, not to mention the morphing relationship of Hellenes with Tyrsenoi in the Tinian Empire, remains the best of its kind in any of the lehrtoi traditions of our great sea. Those who seek to understand the popular theories of archaioteria must read this book, and to everyone else it remains a detailed, well thought out, and comprehensive work with few competitors in any era of history.
Μηδίζω! THE WORLD OF ACHAEMENID HELLAS
CHAPTER 4:BAGAHA or THEOI
CHAPTER 4:BAGAHA or THEOI
A Response to C. Larc Matta Regarding His Latest Archaeoteric Work by C. Banuna Bessa Bottal (1592 CE)
Some would call the current age a golden era of understanding and scholarship, particularly in the realm of Archaeoteria. Senulogia, with its rediscovery of ancient monuments, tombs, and splendid artefacts has allegedly enabled us to, at last, surpass the knowledge of the ancients as to the deep past, the far corners of human civilization’s earliest incarnations. If this is the case, then perhaps somebody ought to inform C. Matta as to this being the case, for his latest volume is not so much a step backwards as an abdication of any useful scholarship of any kind, a wholescale retreat from relevancy that resembles nothing less than the final defeat of the Rasnatic armies by its encircling foes, the sack of Veii and its glories, as transferred to the study of ancient things. The aforementioned C. Matta has, on the whole, displayed many admirable qualities as a scholar in his previous work, some of which this author has had the good pleasure to recommend to peers of all nations. But perhaps we are forced to re-evaluate such a vastly overgenerous esteem when confronted by the contents of C. Matta’s Popular Religion Among the Ancient Hellenes, which represent nothing less than the wasting of valuable ink. There are perhaps latrines in which can be salvaged more numerous and useful contents than this purported work of archaeoteria. In case C. Matta or any others are curious as to why this work is so misliked by this author then, having somehow escaped the obvious, I will inform those curious what any nine year old boy would tell them; the consideration of the religion of the masses is an utterly irrelevant topic with neither application nor interest for any modern scholar, nay gentleman, of quality and upbringing. Even a dusty farmer, who had naught for scholarly peers but pigs and pear trees, would extoll similar receptions of this work for these very same reasons.There are not a surfeit of trained masters in the art of deciphering Imperial Tuscan, or any of the ancient Rasnatic tongues, neither still those who can also decipher ancient Hellenic languages of various provenances. C. Matta is one such individual, the beneficiary of an efficient and expensive education which appears to have been entirely wasted on him, it is a wonder that his parents do not leave the country for shame of the nonsense their eldest scion now produces. One can only wonder at the shame and fury felt by the universities of Crathi and Nemeso at having wasted so much tutelage on a scholar who now seems to miss the entirety of the fundamental notions governing his studies’ existence. Archaioteria is not a collection of trivias, or a school of architecture in which the minutiae of people’s lives are the building blocks, it is the study of ancient nations, their profound influence on the world around them and subsequent to them, of the individuals that moved and shaped those nations. When our own times are examined by Archaioterists in an era as removed from our own as ours is from the Archait era they will not be interested in the reason why a cobble was designed just so, what a tutannox eats for breakfast before milking his cows, or Gods forbid what passes for religion among the wretched of our society. This is Archaioteria as perhaps is imagined in such places as Pridia or even the sleepy coast of Armur, where entire regions filled with nothing but tutannix seek something to indicate their (false) relevance to goings on, but in Arvernia, Massalia, and all other places of civilization and import we pursue education for the purpose of bettering ourselves, our nations, and mankind. Perhaps, having seemingly forgotten this purpose, C. Matta would kindly return his nota to the relevant institutions, so as not to devalue the credence given to those who would ordinarily have received those qualifications.
C. LARC MATTA’S POPULAR RELIGION AMONG THE ANCIENT HELLENES (1590)
EXTRACT FROM CHAPTER 2: ON MESSENIA
In its renewed state upon the coming of the Persians, the role of the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatis becomes crucial in understanding the intersection of popular and state religion in Messenia. For some time this sanctuary had been held by the Spartiate regime despite being a major locale for the rituals of the Messenian people. Once this sanctuary became fully open to them, and no longer lay on the border with Lacedaimonia, it was at the centre of the newly formed Messenian kingdom that existed under Persian dominion. Pilgrimages to this temple became common, and inscriptions at the site have been found attesting to dedications from ordinary Messenians, most of them thanking Artemis for boons given and prayers answered. This is clearly a precursor to the more mobile Olikan faith in Hellas, whereby it became expected that a Hellene might well move outside their own region to properly dedicate themselves before one of the Olympian gods. But Artemis Limnatis was not solely a target of pilgrimage and prayer, she was also at the centre of Messenian state ritual, being the location of two major festivals; the Xerxeia, dedicated to remembering Xerxes’ liberation of the Messenians, and also the Limnaisia, the procession of the waters from Limnais to the sea at Abia. Some Messenians worshipped Xerxes at the former festival, and why not? As their perceived deliverer, at whose hand they received no punishment or censure, he would have seemed a divine figure from a far off, more civilized land. Indeed, a holiday on the behalf of Xerxes is still celebrated across Messenia. This introduction of Persian references in Messenian religion perhaps provides another plausible entry point for Persian custom into ancient Hellenic religion as surplus to Boiotia and Attica. Perhaps the sanctuary of Artemis Limnatus was the very first Hellenic practitioner of Persian sky-burials, knowing as we do that such burials became popular, if not dominant, in the region of Messenia in the centuries after the Conquest. We can permit ourselves to imagine a Persian presence at the Xerxeia, perhaps with Persians playing a role during the reconstruction of Xerxes’ liberation of the Messenians?
The sanctuary at Limnatis is also an example of continuum among a sea of change, as can be identified with other important religious sanctuaries across Hellas. In this way the Persians made the radical adjustment from Hellenic-ruled, polis-based sovereignty to Persian ruled hegemony easier, numbing the sensation by the continuance of popular Hellenic religion by its most visible physical centres. It is no accident that even Western Hellenic authors grudgingly admit that the old, proud sanctuaries of their ancient homelands reached their most splendid and magnificent forms under Persian rule. Limnais was a clear example of this, though in Herodotos we find reference to scurrilous rumours that this was a bribe to the king of the Messenians to ignore corruption and all sorts of other misdeeds by the Persian governors of Hellas. The importance of Limnatis to the renewed Messanian civic and political existence in this period is precisely why the Amavadatid state continued to patronise the sanctuary, for as the era of Achaemenid rule wound on this sanctuary represented a profound link between the general population of Messenia and the Achaemenid monarch himself, a link that the Amavadatids sought to supplant.
Indeed, in both Achaemenid and Amavadatid Hellas we can distinguish their relationship with temples into two kinds of different purpose; the first, representing their patronage of Delphoi and similar sites, is their patronage and protection of those sites with Panhellenic significance; the second, of which Limnais is representative, is their good will towards and protection of sites with specific significance to particular ethne within Hellas, connecting them to popular religion and allowing the monarchs a direct relationship with the ethne in question, subverting the ability of a polis, basileus, or similar societal institution to monopolise the ordinary citizens of Hellas. However, should one of these monarchs find themselves unable to prevent damage or destruction of one of these sanctuaries, their authority could collapse in Hellas overnight, as it would in later times; the beginning of the end of Imerian dominion over Hellas came with the sack of Limnais by the Tinians, not to mention the damage to other sanctuaries by the invasion of the Dardani shortly thereafter. This then is the intersect between popular religion and the affairs of state, where hegemonic monarchs were tolerated or even supported only for as long as they could guarantee the sacred integrity of the peoples that they ruled. This author advances the thesis that these sanctuaries in which popular and civic religion interacted, Limais being representative, are the key to the establishment of imperial states over populaces with no previous experience of interconnected governance.
ALARIC LARSUNS’ RETROSPECTIVE ON LARC MATTA (1684 CE)
Lehtrtoi of the current era are living in extraordinary times. The Alfine peoples traffic in knowledge and understanding in a way that would have once seemed inconceivable, in such a way as to truly surpass the times of the Razna dominance over the Alfine regions, in my view for the first time in Alfine or perhaps Uropan history. We can point to, and graciously thank, many persons for creating this modern state of affairs, but, and here I confess full partiality, as a participant in the discipline of Popular Archaioteria I must assert my belief that Larc Matta, Cingeto of Arvernia, Didasklos of Crathi and Nemeso Universities, was perhaps the most responsible for bringing on this change by not only writing Popular Religion Among the Ancient Hellenes but, after publishing this work, also withstanding the unremitting and partial criticism launched at him for even conceiving of the work, let alone giving it form. Nothing can take this achievement away from C. Matta, not the cavalcade of Senological discoveries that greet us in the present age, nor in the relentless march of time itself. But if we are to commit to the present notion of rigour that rightly informs the modern understanding the lehtrtoi world then we must apply that same rigour to this foundational text. We must set ourselves to comprehend C. Matta’s work in a present age, and come to a direct conclusion as to what the cultured men of the era can actually gain from reading the text.
We must first come to terms with the fact that Senology has advanced our knowledge of archait era societies to a considerable degree. This has applied to the study of popular arkait history to an even greater degree than in other areas, for we need no longer rely on ancient authors alone to describe the history and layout of a given ancient sanctuary, or ancient city. We have uncovered inscriptions of religious significance that would have been too ordinary or beneath the notice of such authors. There remain many who try to ignore this evidence because of their faith in the ancient authors, but the tide of history does not flow in their favour. In this C. Matta was ahead of his peers by deeply incorporating the Senological evidence of his time with his work in archaioteria, and not only in doing so but realising the new opportunities which this would open up. The fundamental basis of popular archaioteria, that the popular realities, culture, and landmarks of a society not only interrelate with its general governance but to a great extent dictate the course of its existence as a nation, all come from this text, and the sound methodology which underlies them remains unimpeachable. We can say, of C. Matta’s interactions with Senological knowledge, that he came to sound conclusions from limited and misleading evidence, the fundamental logics were sound but the evidence with which he was working produced the wrong results. This does mean that much of his chapter on Macedonian popular culture, primarily evidenced as it was by non-Macedonian authors and finds at Amphipolis, is unfortunately quite incorrect in nearly all of its conclusions, as is the section on Pampyhlia.
In addition, we must unfortunately take issue with some of his specific claims and decisions. There is precisely no evidence of any participation of Persians in the Xerxeia festival held at Limnais in Messenia, and had we not found direct material references to the festival we might even be tempted to disqualify the festival from archait reality at all, due to its prominence among sources hostile or, subsquently, snobbish about Eastern Hellenic practices, and in particular Messenia. We must find also that C. Matta’s conclusions about temple courtesans in Corinthos are ill-founded by current understanding, and here we must explain in more detail; at the time of C. Matta’s magnum opus the concensus was that many features of Hellenic culture and society allegedly introduced by Asia in times past had actually been introduced under the Achaemenids, and these claims of antiquity had been an attempt to make these Asian cultural features ‘safe’ to the Hellenic world. We now realise that we have references to Corinthos’ temple courtesans predating the Conquest, predating even Dareios the Great, and that Herodotos was indeed to be trusted on this matter. Accordingly, rather than Matta’s assumptions that these courtesans were Mesopotamian colonists slowly Hellenised, we can assume that these courtesans were always Hellenic women from local families, which changes the nature of understanding pre and post-Conquest popular Corinthian religion.
Turning to the western Hellenes, in any area with Senulogical or Hellenic resources available we continue to find C. Matta nearly unimpeachable, given his peerless experience with Hesperia as a whole, from the Alfes to Italia. However, at the time in which he was engaging in research, we find that the appreciation for and engagement with ancient Carcedonian archaioteria (the viewpoint that the Carcedonians or, at the very least, the Phoinic people as a whole, were one of the classical archait peoples is beyond dispute in this author’s mind, regardless of how much ink Well Aulal wastes on arguing the contrary) was in its teething stages, and many important resources had not passed into the scholarship of Arvernia, Hesperia, or anywhere that the Alfes touched. The old Orezanian sources in particular have furnished modern archaioterists with a wealth of knowledge about Emporion which was not possessed before, and we may feel secure about calling many of the western Hellenic sources remiss for their scanty discussions of such a vibrant city. Thus C. Matta’s characterisation of the popular culture of the city as Hellenic in every way, shutting out the local influences, is almost certainly flawed, now that we understand instead the city to have slowly become a joint city, held in common between natives and Hellenes with an equal share of citizenship. Indeed, the Senulogical prospects for discovering the exact site of Old Emporion are as tantalising as discovering a real location of Troia. I also feel that, in trying to escape from the western Hellenic literature’s domination of opinions, the importance of the Dionysia festivals to Megathenai/Dikaia was radically understated and little examined by C. Matta. In fact it seems almost perverse that an Alfine scholar would not have dealt with the festivals when it came to the subject of western Hellenic and Tinian cultures intersecting, where we eventually find Tyrsenoi actors being admitted into the Dikaian Dionysia, and though it was at the point of imperial dominance by the Tinian Empire the eventual inclusion of Tyrsenoi playwrights in the Dionysia is likewise invaluable when discussing the intersect of the archait Hesperian peoples. C. Matta had also not developed his popular archait method as fully as possible, and had not thought to examine, for example, the changing Dikaian notions as to their homeland, and its progression from self regard as a community of exiles to primarily seeing Italia as their home, even if Athenai and a host of other cities were also their ancient homelands.
However, given the time that has passed, and the early juncture of populist methodology that C. Matta represents, he remains remarkable in his forward thinking, and his primary methodologies remain the building blocks for our own examinations of the past. He was himself not a proponent of Populism, as it existed at that point, and yet he was of that party simply by being forward thinking, rational, and inquisitive in superior abundance to his peers, concerned as they were with war, and princes, and priests. It brings me no doubt to establish a Cingeto as a principal source of Populism in archaioteria, and an inspiration for political Populism. His work in examining the deep roots of the Achaemenid and Amavadatid states, not to mention the morphing relationship of Hellenes with Tyrsenoi in the Tinian Empire, remains the best of its kind in any of the lehrtoi traditions of our great sea. Those who seek to understand the popular theories of archaioteria must read this book, and to everyone else it remains a detailed, well thought out, and comprehensive work with few competitors in any era of history.
- Daeres
- Word Count: 2.9k