Monday , November 09, 2009
Herodotus wrote of a 50,000-man strong army that set out on foot into the Egyptian desert in 525 B.C. and was never heard from again ... until today.
A pair of Italian archaeologists have uncovered bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert. Twin brothers Angelo and Alfredo Castiglioni are hopeful that they've finally found the lost army of Persian King Cambyses II.
According to the Greek historian Herodotus, Cambyses II and his armied were buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C. He wrote, "a wind arose from the south, strong and deadly, bringing with it vast columns of whirling sand, which entirely covered up the troops and caused them wholly to disappear."
Now the discovery of these artifacts points towards an answer to this millennias-old mystery: The Castiglioni brothers studied ancient maps and came to the conclusion that Cambyses' army did not take the caravan route most archaeologists believe they used.
"Since the 19th century, many archaeologists and explorers have searched for the lost army along that route. They found nothing. We hypothesized a different itinerary, coming from south," Castiglioni said.
"In the desolate wilderness of the desert, we have found the most precise location where the tragedy occurred," said Dario Del Bufalo, a member of the expedition from the University of Lecce.
If true it will be a minor miracle, because normally Herodotus just makes up anything he likes, that sounds dramatic...
Heh. What they are basing this on is a rough dating of the objects to "Achaemenid" times. Which might be anywhere between 550-330 BC
A bit loose on the relative chronology of the objects as well ;)
JasonC Wrote:If true it will be a minor miracle, because normally Herodotus just makes up anything he likes, that sounds dramatic...
Herodotus never made anything up. Like in this case, his history, based on oral sources, always holds up. He got a bad rap from the modern school of Prussian historians, whose traditions are upheld today, which present political history, from politicized sources, and therefore much more suspect (the Warren Commission for example). Herodotus presents the most accurate picture of the Ancient World we have and we are blessed for it, because outside of him, we have very little of worth. J
jonnymacbrown Wrote:Herodotus never made anything up. Like in this case, his history, based on oral sources, always holds up. He got a bad rap from the modern school of Prussian historians, whose traditions are upheld today, which present political history, from politicized sources, and therefore much more suspect (the Warren Commission for example). Herodotus presents the most accurate picture of the Ancient World we have and we are blessed for it, because outside of him, we have very little of worth. J
That is probably rating Herodotus somewhat higher than he actually deserves. Most of the things he describes are both unverifiable (because Herodotus is the only person mentioning them) and/or related to the times before Herodotus and thus not something he or his sources experienced themselves. He is also the starting part for a goodly number of
Topoi, which makes you wonder just how much of his own work that is a
Topos, derived verbatim or lifted from earlier (now lost) sources and applied where applicable to his own creation.
And just which parts of 19th century prussian/german Herodotus scholarship is derived from "politicized sources"? Something in particular you are thinking of here?
"And just which parts of 19th century prussian/german Herodotus scholarship is derived from "politicized sources"? Something in particular you are thinking of here?"
[/quote]
The revolution in Historiography, started in Prussia by von Ranke; the notion that it's not history unless there are verifiable sources, and much more often than not, those sources are political documents. This school of thought discounts Herodotus primarily for the same reasons that you do. :)
J
jonnymacbrown Wrote:The revolution in Historiography, started in Prussia by von Ranke; the notion that it's not history unless there are verifiable sources, and much more often than not, those sources are political documents. This school of thought discounts Herodotus primarily for the same reasons that you do. :)
J
I fail to see your point. Just because sources are political documents does not mean that history cannot be written on the basis of them. And even if a source is unverifiable, its very unverifiability still allows you to reason about the conditions and purtpose behind their creation (Like the Historia Augusta for instance)
PS.
I have never written that I discount Herodotus wholesale. And neither did most of those german scholars that you seem to dislike so much
Um, no one who claims that Herodotus is real history can possibly have read any of him. Io and Europa and Medea and Helen in a rape roundabout, 505 years of 22 generations descended from Heracles, until Gyges takes power because he sees the queen naked and she insists, sickness striking a king because a temple burns down, dolphin rides in minstrel robes, prophetic dreams of sons killed hunting - these are the ordinary stuff of the first pages.
300 Spartans and 300 neighbors fight all day until 3 are left alive; the phoenix is a real bird in Egypt which is reborn from ashes, yada yada yada.
It is all one ripping yarn after another. He is making it up. He wants to explain every plate and gimcrack at Dephi with a long mythic story...
Fine, as literature one can say, he wasn't trying to be an historian, he was just telling tales with pithy morals to them, preferably as marvelous as possible. But this is a new age tour guide telling the mob at the museum all about the magic crytals that cured his arthritis, and not --- history.
JasonC Wrote:Fine, as literature one can say, he wasn't trying to be an historian, he was just telling tales with pithy morals to them, preferably as marvelous as possible. But this is a new age tour guide telling the mob at the museum all about the magic crytals that cured his arthritis, and not --- history.
The problem is, that apart from much later biographes written about the main participants, he is one of our only preserved sources to the wars against Persia during the 490/480s BC.
Sure. And if 2500 years from now the only preserved source about the second world war is reruns of Hogan's Heros on DVD, people may learn elementary things about the war from it. But that won't make it "history". And when someone claims that it does, the laugh track will give it away...