What!!?? Are they really just a myth?? That was my first, very disappointed reaction to the fact that there is no archeological evidence that can prove there was a society of warrior women who lived without men, using them only in mating season. At least, not yet.

The first mention of the Amazons is in 8th century BC, in Homer’s, The Illiad, calling them “the equal of men”. During the Trojan wars, according to Homer, these valiant women showed up to defend the Trojans against the Greeks. They fought fiercely with their terrible war cry and even seemed to be winning, until the superior manly Greek soldiers began to kill them off. Homer describes how Achilles falls in love with (upon lifting her helmet) the brave and lovely Amazon Queen, Penthesilea, only after impaling her on his own spear and killing her. And the myth begins...

But, are they a myth? Aren’t myths always based on some sort of truth? The dictionary describes myth as “a fictitious legend or tradition, accepted as historical, usually embodying the beliefs of a people on the creation, the gods, the universe, etc.”. It can also be a “parable” or “an allegorical story”. The Greek historian, Herodotus (born in 484 B.C.), insisted that the name, “Amazon” is derived from two greek words: a = without; mazos = breast. Ancient Greek historians claimed they would sear off or cut off the right breast of their female children so they could better use the bow and arrow and javelin. Modern linguists, however, agree more that the name derives from a Proto-Indo- European term that means “ no-husband one”. The ancient Scythian tribe called them, Oiropata, or “killers of men”. They fought both on foot and on horseback, carrying crescent shields and wielding spears, bows, battle axes and swords. 

The origin of their homeland is difficult to place because there is discrepency between the different Greek and Roman historians. The different accounts range from the shores of North Africa, to the Black Sea coast of Turkey, the shores of the Aegean Sea, the Caucasus and the Steppes of southern Russia. But, this could be explained by the fact that they were typically nomads.

Who were these non-husbanded, no-country women? So much has been written about them so there must be some basis for it. What did these obviously wild women do to warrant so much attention? It cannot only be because they were said to have either killed their male babies or given them back to their fathers or that they tamed wild animals or tattooed themselves all over. Maybe because women ruled their society, with two queens, one for defense and one for domestic affairs, who shared the country, making numerous conquest expeditions into neighboring territories. 
The stories go on and on.