Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post Reply
User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by jeidsath » Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:06 am

Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right – after 2,469 years

Archive link
In the fifth century BC, the Greek historian Herodotus visited Egypt and wrote of unusual river boats on the Nile. Twenty-three lines of his Historia, the ancient world’s first great narrative history, are devoted to the intricate description of the construction of a “baris”.

For centuries, scholars have argued over his account because there was no archaeological evidence that such ships ever existed. Now there is. A “fabulously preserved” wreck in the waters around the sunken port city of Thonis-Heracleion has revealed just how accurate the historian was.

“It wasn’t until we discovered this wreck that we realised Herodotus was right,” said Dr Damian Robinson, director of Oxford University’s centre for maritime archaeology, which is publishing the excavation’s findings. “What Herodotus described was what we were looking at.”

In 450 BC Herodotus witnessed the construction of a baris. He noted how the builders “cut planks two cubits long [around 100cm] and arrange them like bricks”. He added: “On the strong and long tenons [pieces of wood] they insert two-cubit planks. When they have built their ship in this way, they stretch beams over them… They obturate the seams from within with papyrus. There is one rudder, passing through a hole in the keel. The mast is of acacia and the sails of papyrus...”

Robinson said that previous scholars had “made some mistakes” in struggling to interpret the text without archaeological evidence. “It’s one of those enigmatic pieces. Scholars have argued exactly what it means for as long as we’ve been thinking of boats in this scholarly way,” he said.

But the excavation of what has been called Ship 17 has revealed a vast crescent-shaped hull and a previously undocumented type of construction involving thick planks assembled with tenons – just as Herodotus observed, in describing a slightly smaller vessel.

Originally measuring up to 28 metres long, it is one of the first large-scale ancient Egyptian trading boats ever to have been discovered.

Robinson added: “Herodotus describes the boats as having long internal ribs. Nobody really knew what that meant… That structure’s never been seen archaeologically before. Then we discovered this form of construction on this particular boat and it absolutely is what Herodotus has been saying.”

About 70% of the hull has survived, well-preserved in the Nile silts. Acacia planks were held together with long tenon-ribs – some almost 2m long – and fastened with pegs, creating lines of ‘internal ribs’ within the hull. It was steered using an axial rudder with two circular openings for the steering oar and a step for a mast towards the centre of the vessel.

Robinson said: “Where planks are joined together to form the hull, they are usually joined by mortice and tenon joints which fasten one plank to the next. Here we have a completely unique form of construction, which is not seen anywhere else.”

Alexander Belov, whose book on the wreck, Ship 17: a Baris from Thonis-Heracleion, is published this month, suggests that the wreck’s nautical architecture is so close to Herodotus’s description, it could have been made in the very shipyard that he visited. Word-by-word analysis of his text demonstrates that almost every detail corresponds “exactly to the evidence”.
Herodotus 2.96 wrote:Τὰ δὲ δὴ πλοῖά σφι τοῖσι φορτηγέουσι ἐστὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀκάνθης (1)
ποιεύμενα, τῆς ἡ μορφὴ μέν ἐστι ὁμοιοτάτη τῷ Κυρηναίῳ
λωτῷ, τὸ δὲ δάκρυον κόμμι ἐστί· ἐκ ταύτης ὦν τῆς ἀκάνθης
κοψάμενοι ξύλα ὅσον τε διπήχεα πλινθηδὸν συντιθεῖσι,
ναυπηγεύμενοι τρόπον τοιόνδε· (2) περὶ γόμφους πυκνοὺς (5)
καὶ μακροὺς περιείρουσι τὰ διπήχεα ξύλα· ἐπεὰν δὲ τῷ
τρόπῳ τούτῳ ναυπηγήσωνται, ζυγὰ ἐπιπολῆς τείνουσι
αὐτῶν. νομεῦσι δὲ οὐδὲν χρέωνται· ἔσωθεν δὲ τὰς ἁρμονίας ἐν
ὦν ἐπάκτωσαν τῇ βύβλῳ. (3) πηδάλιον δὲ ἓν ποιεῦνται, καὶ @1
τοῦτο διὰ τῆς τρόπιος διαβύνεται. ἱστῷ δὲ ἀκανθίνῳ χρέων- (10)
ται, ἱστίοισι δὲ βυβλίνοισι. ταῦτα τὰ πλοῖα ἀνὰ μὲν τὸν
ποταμὸν οὐ δύναται πλέειν, ἢν μὴ λαμπρὸς ἄνεμος ἐπέχῃ, ἐκ
γῆς δὲ παρέλκεται, κατὰ ῥόον δὲ κομίζεται ὧδε· (4) ἔστι ἐκ
μυρίκης πεποιημένη θύρη, κατεστρωμένη ῥιπὶ καλάμων,
καὶ λίθος τετρημένος διτάλαντος μάλιστά κῃ σταθμόν. (15)
τούτων τὴν μὲν θύρην δεδεμένην κάλῳ ἔμπροσθε τοῦ πλοίου
ἀπίει ἐπιφέρεσθαι, τὸν δὲ λίθον ἄλλῳ κάλῳ ὄπισθε. (5) ἡ μὲν
δὴ θύρη τοῦ ῥόου ἐμπίπτοντος χωρέει ταχέως καὶ ἕλκει τὴν
βᾶριν (τοῦτο γὰρ δὴ οὔνομά ἐστι τοῖσι πλοίοισι τούτοισι), ὁ δὲ
λίθος ὄπισθε ἐπελκόμενος καὶ ἐὼν ἐν βυσσῷ κατιθύνει τὸν (20)
πλόον. ἔστι δέ σφι τὰ πλοῖα ταῦτα πλήθεϊ πολλὰ καὶ ἄγει ἔνια
πολλὰς χιλιάδας ταλάντων.
Loeb Translation wrote:The boats in which they carry cargo are made of the acacia,[1] which is in form most like to the lotus of Cyrene, and its sap is gum. Of this tree they cut logs of two cubits length and lay them like courses of bricks,[2] and build the boat by making these two-cubit logs fast to long and close-set stakes; and having so built they set crossbeams athwart and on the logs. They use no ribs. They caulk the seams within with byblus. There is one rudder, passing through a hole in the boat’s keel. The mast is of acacia-wood and the sails of byblus. These boats cannot move upstream unless a brisk breeze continue; they are towed from the bank; but downstream they are thus managed: they have a raft made of tamarisk wood, fastened together with matting of reeds, and a pierced stone of about two talents’ weight; the raft is let go to float down ahead of the boat, made fast to it by a rope, and the stone is made fast also by a rope to the after part of the boat. So, driven by the current, the raft floats swiftly and tows the “baris” (which is the name of these boats,) and the stone dragging behind on the river bottom keeps the boat’s course straight. There are many of these boats; some are of many thousand talents’ burden.

[1] The “Mimosa Nilotica,” still used for boat-building in Egypt.

[2]Image
Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Paul Derouda » Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:50 pm

This is really quite interesting. I wish I could find a slightly more detailed discussion of this find, preferably with good illustrations, without actually reading the whole monograph! I'm not really sure what exactly is so special about this ship as compared to other ships of this era, but I'd like to understand (I know it's about how the planks and tenon-and-mortise joints are placed in relative to each other, but how exactly? And what do "long internal ribs" exactly mean?). The photograph provided is nice but not very informative to a landlubber like me...

As for Herodotus, the more I read him, the more confident I feel that those scholars who claim that he was a liar are wrong. His memory may play tricks on him, he may have made wrong inferences from his data, his informants may have been misguided etc., but I don't he think he ever deceives intentionally. I can't say how far he actually travelled, but if he says, for example, that something in some distant place was "still there in my lifetime", I think it's too categorical to take it to mean without exception that he wants us to think that he has been in that place in person, and that in consequence, finding a flaw in his account of the place would make him a liar. A large part of Herodotus book is assembled out of accounts he has gathered from different persons and places, and he takes great pains to tell us what his sources are - "the Persians say", "the Egyptians say" etc. - if those were made up, it would make Herodotus' whole work pointless.

Bart
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Bart » Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:54 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:
Sat Mar 23, 2019 11:50 pm
As for Herodotus, the more I read him, the more confident I feel that those scholars who claim that he was a liar are wrong. His memory may play tricks on him, he may have made wrong inferences from his data, his informants may have been misguided etc., but I don't he think he ever deceives intentionally.
Are you sure? What to make make of his writings on Babylon then. He strongly suggests he has visited the place, saying things like 'people who have not been there, will find it difficult to believe that....' and 'this was still there in my days', but his description is so outlandish (remember that truly titanic city wall, 90 kilometers long and 100 meters high), that it seems likely he never went there. Though he never explicitly says he visited Babylon, it seems to be a case of intentional deception.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Paul Derouda » Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:16 pm

How can one be sure of such a thing? :)

I'll find the precise examples when I have more time, but I don't think he ever positively claims that he went to Babylon. He does give the impression that he did, but even if he never was there (which I think is possible but perhaps not likely), that wouldn't quite make him a liar. We don't know when exactly he set out to write his work. I certainly don't think that we should imagine him like a modern reporter or a tourist, taking notes while visiting the attractions; it's possible that he started writing many years after visiting Babylon. At that time, he would still remember how impressive the walls were, but for the actual measurements he would have given estimates that he thought plausible for some reason or the other. Even if he did take notes while he was in Babylon, it would not have been easy to measure the walls for himself, and as a foreigner who spoke only Greek, he would have found quite a limited number of local informants. 20 meters or 100 meters seems like a big difference, but how many people can tell how high is the block of flats where they themselves live? Or say you had to estimate the length of a corridor in a hospital you visited 5 years ago? As for the length of the walls, he would have needed a whole day or more to go around them, and he would have maybe needed to hire a donkey and find a local guide etc. But would it have been even possible for a foreigner to move freely and safely in the area?

My point is that the obstacles to overcome when he, a private individual, wrote a work of such scale would have been formidable. It's hard to imagine in the Internet era how little reliable information was available to him. I think errors of this sort are only to be expected, and it's a wonder that he actually got so much right.

Bart
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Bart » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:26 pm

So the same Herodotus who is apparently able to give a detailed description of the building plan of an Egyptian river boat, misrepresents the measures of a city wall by a factor of 10? It doesn't seem convincing. I don't necessarily think he's lying about the wall, some boastful Babylionian probably misinformed him. He never saw the damn thing, can't have, even I wouldn't estimate the length of a hospital corridor visited 5 years ago -to take your example- at 1 kilometer (and the crucial difference of course is that I'm not interested in the corridor in the way H. probably would have been in the wall). My point is that the fact that he gives the strong impression of having visited Babylon -without indeed actually positively saying so- is deceitful. Not that I like him any less for it, but still.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by jeidsath » Mon Mar 25, 2019 8:40 pm

There is a 1986 paper from John MacGinnis titled Herodotus’ Description of Babylon. He has a discussion of the wall, along with much else. At the end, he summarizes the evidence with this table.

Image
Image
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

Ronolio
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:44 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Ronolio » Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:47 pm

So the same Herodotus who is apparently able to give a detailed description of the building plan of an Egyptian river boat, misrepresents the measures of a city wall by a factor of 10? It doesn't seem convincing. I don't necessarily think he's lying about the wall, some boastful Babylionian probably misinformed him.
Three things about this. 1) Being from a coastal city, Herodotus may have been very familiar with boats and their designs. 2)Is there any corruption in the text at the point of his Babylonian wall description. 3)If he did get the account second hand, could it not have been a misinterpretation of Babylonian measurements compared to what he might have been familiar with? Being American, I know that 90 km long 100 meter high wall is very long and very tall, but with out working it into miles and feet, I have a hard time conceptualizing the measurements.

Bart
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Bart » Sat Apr 13, 2019 8:49 am

It's not only the wall that Herodotus is wrong about.

-he states Babylon has a hundred gates, in reality there were only eight. The number 100 alone hints at some kind of literary trope. The names of the gates he gives do not conform to the names known from cuneiform sources.
-he seems completely unfamiliar with Babylonian history, not even knowing about Nebukadnezar.
-he misrepresents the location of the Euphrates, saying that it flows through the middle of the city, separating palace and temple, that were according to him connected by a bridge. In reality both buildings were at the same side of the river linked by the so called procession street (see Pergamon museum in Berlin).

Sure, not everything he writes is mistaken, but some errors are just too big to make it plausible he visited the place. When you say for instance Holland is a mountainous country, you've never been there, even though you have some details right

See: http://www.achemenet.com/pdf/in-press/H ... 8.2011.pdf

And for those who can read Dutch: https://www.academia.edu/804238/Herodot ... an_Babylon

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Paul Derouda » Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:33 am

Thanks for the links - I read the first one, not knowing Dutch. ;) The concluding remarks deserve to quoted:
In the light of this, all attempts to save Herodotus’ description of the city as authentic are doomed. The fantastic description of its customs and habits suggests a similar conclusion. This does not, however, mean that Herodotus’ account is revealed as a tissue of lies and hence without value. Rather he created a fascinating picture, owing much to literary and poetic principles, and bearing witness to the far-reaching fame enjoyed by Babylon in the second half of the fifth century. This picture was to have an enormous impact. Further, some minor features appearing in his Babylonian logos which turn out to be correct. But what Herodotus’ work is not, is a scholarly description of the twenty-first century kind, which can be simply read as history. It is, instead, a literary masterpiece, which betrays far more of the Greek image of matters than about such matters themselves. For these, we should rely first and foremost on the cuneiform sources and the archaeological material, while ensuring that we are not looking at them through the Herodotean filter.
There have been, and probably will be, great scholars on both side of the argument, and I don't think we'll ever get a definite answer. I think that showing inadequacies in Herodotus' account can go only so far in proving him to have never been in such or such place, when at the same time he has many observations that are demonstrably correct (see Joel's article). As to whether he really went to Babylon, I remain agnostic. Although he does give an impression to have witnessed many things himself, he is often quite ambiguous, and I don't think he ever explicitly claims to have visited Babylon. On the other hand, human memory demonstrably has a power to severely distort things. If he visited Babylon, he would have witnessed some things himself and later, when he was writing his work, he would have remember some things, whether correctly or not, and would have completed the missing details from other sources that he considered reliable. Again, I think it's important to note how difficult it must have been for a foreigner without knowledge of the local language to get reliable information on local customs, history or religious practices; as far as religion is concerned, he might not have been allowed to enter the cult centers.

For argument's sake, let's suppose that Herodotus did travel to Mesopotamia, but never as far as Babylon. In the average untravelled Greek person's eyes he would still have had a legitimate claim to be an expert in all things Mesopotamia. When such a person decided to write an account of Mesopotamia, he would have only been expected to give an account of not only of the things he saw himself but of other important aspects as well, and the city of Babylon certainly would been one of those. What Herodotus does is that he integrates information he has gathered from a wide variety of sources - some from personal experience, some from the mouth others - into a coherent narrative, and while it's often difficult to assess the origin of each individual bit, I think he's always fundamentally honest in his method. But note that if says "the Egyptians say..." or "the Persians say...", this only means that he honestly believes that Egyptians or Persians say such things - it doesn't necessarily mean that the account comes directly from the mouth of a Persian or an Egyptian.

Here's something I found that looks interesting:
https://www.lingfil.uu.se/research/assyriology/babylon/

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Paul Derouda » Sun Apr 14, 2019 10:04 am

Ronolio wrote:
Tue Apr 09, 2019 6:47 pm
So the same Herodotus who is apparently able to give a detailed description of the building plan of an Egyptian river boat, misrepresents the measures of a city wall by a factor of 10? It doesn't seem convincing. I don't necessarily think he's lying about the wall, some boastful Babylionian probably misinformed him.
Three things about this. 1) Being from a coastal city, Herodotus may have been very familiar with boats and their designs. 2)Is there any corruption in the text at the point of his Babylonian wall description. 3)If he did get the account second hand, could it not have been a misinterpretation of Babylonian measurements compared to what he might have been familiar with? Being American, I know that 90 km long 100 meter high wall is very long and very tall, but with out working it into miles and feet, I have a hard time conceptualizing the measurements.
As far as 2) is concerned, I don't think so - numbers are easily corrupted, but there would have to be corruption in too many places. However, I think it's possible that there were unit conversion problems somewhere along the way, where ever Herodotus got his information.

Bart
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Bart » Sun Apr 14, 2019 1:30 pm

Paul Derouda wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:33 am
Thanks for the links - I read the first one, not knowing Dutch. ;)
Shame on you :)
Paul Derouda wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:33 am
Although he does give an impression to have witnessed many things himself, he is often quite ambiguous, and I don't think he ever explicitly claims to have visited Babylon.
No, he doesn't, but he strongly hints at it, and that at least is a little bit deceitful.
Paul Derouda wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:33 am
When such a person decided to write an account of Mesopotamia, he would have only been expected to give an account of not only of the things he saw himself but of other important aspects as well, and the city of Babylon certainly would been one of those. What Herodotus does is that he integrates information he has gathered from a wide variety of sources - some from personal experience, some from the mouth others - into a coherent narrative, and while it's often difficult to assess the origin of each individual bit, I think he's always fundamentally honest in his method.
You're right of course, he can't get away with saying nothing about Babylon. But see the Finley quote in the Dutch (sorry) article: "ancient writers, like historians ever since, could not tolerate a void, and they filled it in one way or another, ultimately by pure invention. The ability of the ancients to invent and their capacity to believe
are persistently underestimated." Those 100 gates and the truly mythical proportions of the Babylonian wall fit well with that hypothesis.
Paul Derouda wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:33 am
But note that if says "the Egyptians say..." or "the Persians say...", this only means that he honestly believes that Egyptians or Persians say such things - it doesn't necessarily mean that the account comes directly from the mouth of a Persian or an Egyptian.
Or maybe what he believes they ought to say (see the attitude of ancient historians toward speeches).
Paul Derouda wrote:
Sun Apr 14, 2019 9:33 am
Here's something I found that looks interesting:
https://www.lingfil.uu.se/research/assyriology/babylon/
Thanks!

Bart
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Bart » Sun May 26, 2019 7:29 am

This discussion came back into my mind while rereading book III of the Histories and coming upon this passage.

Hist. 3,12,1:

θῶμα δὲ μέγα εἶδον πυθόμενος παρὰ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων: τῶν γὰρ ὀστέων περικεχυμένων χωρὶς ἑκατέρων τῶν ἐν τῇ μάχῃ ταύτῃ πεσόντων (χωρὶς μὲν γὰρ τῶν Περσέων ἔκειτο τὰ ὀστέα, ὡς ἐχωρίσθη κατ᾽ ἀρχάς, ἑτέρωθι δὲ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων), αἱ μὲν τῶν Περσέων κεφαλαί εἰσι ἀσθενέες οὕτω ὥστε, εἰ θέλεις ψήφῳ μούνῃ βαλεῖν, διατετρανέεις, αἱ δὲ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων οὕτω δή τι ἰσχυραί, μόγις ἂν λίθῳ παίσας διαρρήξειας.
etcetera.

What is going on here? Herodotus stresses the fact that he saw the phenomenon with his own eyes (the skulls of the Egyptian soldiers being harder than those of the Persians). Though some commentators suggest there might be a medical explanation (rickets e.g., see Asheri)this seems hardly more plausible than the one offered by Herodotus himself. Was he tricked by his guides perhaps?He wouldn't be the first. Is he lying? One Dutch commentator thinks it's a joke meant to divert attention from the fact that Herodotus has nothing whatsoever to tell about the preceding battle. But would this be amusing to a Greek audience?
The question what is behind this passage is probably unsolvable but not less interesting for that reason.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Paul Derouda » Sun May 26, 2019 4:57 pm

The way I see this passage is that Herodotus really visited the place and saw some heaps of bones. I believe him when he says that some of the bones were more frail than others, for reasons that we'll never know (age? exposure to the elements?), but as far as his explanations go, they are complete nonsense. In my opinion, his theory looks like local Egyptian folklore with a distinct anti-Persian element ("Persians are sissies, even their skulls are weak"). The same anti-Persian sentiment is prevalent in much of the Egyptian logos, probably because many of Herodotus' informants on Egypt were Egyptians who despised the Persian invaders. Especially the way Cambyses is pictured as a raging madman is probably largely due to Egyptian propaganda.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Paul Derouda » Sun May 26, 2019 5:02 pm

Or, since the idea that "Persians are sissies who live in luxury" is especially Greek, perhaps it's a mixture of local Egyptian folklore and Greek reinterpretation, either by Herodotus or by his Greek-speaking local guides. There were Greeks living in Egypt, who, I suppose, spoke Egyptian to varying degrees, and these would have been the sort of people that would have acted as Herodotus' local guides.

User avatar
jeidsath
Administrator
Posts: 3259
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by jeidsath » Sun May 26, 2019 6:51 pm

There's a passage in Xenophon, I forget where just now, where the claim is made that the Greek mercenaries are self-evidently hardier than the Persians. Perhaps it was just chauvinism, which there is some amount of in the Anabasis. However, the area of Iran in modern times, like California, seems to be one of those locales that is susceptible to prolonged droughts and famine every so often, interspaced with periods of abundance which are long enough for the population to recover.

Persian famine of 1870–1872

Persian famine of 1917–1919

Starvation is very good at causing osteoporosis.
Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Paul Derouda » Sun May 26, 2019 9:09 pm

It's a recurrent idea in Herodotus that Persians are sissies who are used to luxury (Herodotus even tells us in book 1 how it wasn't always so and how it all changed), and that was the general Greek stereotype of them. Herodotus tells us that the reason why he thinks Persians have frail skulls is that they always wear felt hats – so really I think this passage belongs to the common Greek "Persians are delicate" topos. He saw a bunch of skull bones lying around somewhere; I really wonder how much we can trust the identification of some of them as Persian and some as Egyptian. And how would they not have been properly buried after the battle (especially the winning side)?

Famines and rickets would have been common in those days, and not only for Persians. But an entire army consisting of men so severely affected by osteoporosis that their bones could be this easily distinguished from their opponents by their brittleness? How was such an army supposed to be able to fight? All kinds of speculations are possible but in my opinion this passage doesn't really lend itself to a close medical scrutiny.

Bart
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Bart » Mon May 27, 2019 11:44 am

Paul, your reading of the passage seems plausible to me, more so in fact than that of Asheri and others.
Paul Derouda wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 9:09 pm
Famines and rickets would have been common in those days, and not only for Persians. But an entire army consisting of men so severely affected by osteoporosis that their bones could be this easily distinguished from their opponents by their brittleness? How was such an army supposed to be able to fight? All kinds of speculations are possible but in my opinion this passage doesn't really lend itself to a close medical scrutiny.
Agree. By the way, there is a suprising amount of far-fatched medical explanations to be found in commentaries on classical authors.

Striking in this passage is also this little clause; εἰ θέλεις ψήφῳ μούνῃ βαλεῖν, διατετρανέεις, αἱ δὲ τῶν Αἰγυπτίων οὕτω δή τι ἰσχυραί, μόγις ἂν λίθῳ παίσας διαρρήξειας. One can almost visualise Herodotus walking between the skeletons throwing pebbles at them and trying to crush the skulls with big stones.
Last edited by Bart on Mon May 27, 2019 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paul Derouda
Global Moderator
Posts: 2136
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Paul Derouda » Mon May 27, 2019 2:12 pm

I have an alternative theory! :D

One heap of bones belonged to young people, the other to old people, and their respective attribution to Egyptians and Persians by Herodotus is either far-fetched speculation, national propaganda or someone pulling his leg.

I’m not saying that this isn’t far-fetched speculation, but it’s no more so than any other theory on the matter!

Bart
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 3:57 pm
Location: Antwerpen

Re: Nile shipwreck discovery proves Herodotus right

Post by Bart » Mon May 27, 2019 2:44 pm

Well, why not? Everything is possible in a post-truth world.

Post Reply