Tumgik
Text
I have been reading “Death and Burial in Ancient Egypt” by Dr. Salima Ikram, and so far (I’ve only finished the first 3 chapters at this point) she has three things to say about Herodotus:
He might the oldest known source that gives instructions on how to mummify a person but he is not the oldest source referring to practices surrounding mummification and burial.
The method he describes is only applicable to one very specific section of Egyptian history, and assuming that the method he describes is the standard for mummies of all periods is quite wrong.
She has disagreements with him about some of the materials involved.
7 notes · View notes
Text
“Whilst we cannot accept the stories of Herodotus as always being genuine historical events, they nevertheless afford us an accurate portrayal of the causation and motivation of 5th CBCE Greek social, political and psychological life.” – Robbie Pickering, “Is Herodotus an historian or a storyteller? Is this an appropriate question to ask? How far are these separate categories?”
0 notes
Text
“However, this acknowledgement of tenuous source material is not always present. The motives for Darius extending the boarders of his empire are presented to us from the bedroom of Darius, where his wife persuades him to invade Greece, based on her want for Greek handmaidens. Herodotus in this instance does not provide us with sources, but understandably so, as knowledge of Darius’ pillow talk would be, no doubt, hard to come by. In this instance, Herodotus’ presentation of causation is tantamount to individual motive, and has been seen as conforming to a retributive theory of Anaximander. Herodotus’ inclusion of such unknowable scenes, whilst perhaps telling of his worldview, is ultimately demonstrative of his need to maintain an engaging and plausible narrative throughout the Histories, and as such represents a limit to his ability to engage strictly in historically verifiable events. The acknowledgement of such a limit is fruitful in our understanding of the extent to which Herodotus’ text might be taken at face value.” – Robbie Pickering, “Is Herodotus an historian or a storyteller? Is this an appropriate question to ask? How far are these separate categories?”
0 notes
Text
“The dramatic scene immediately following the Persian capture of Sardis demonstrates a positive view, from Herodotus, on the Persian king Cyrus, wherein Cyrus shows compassion to Croesus, and decides not to have him executed. However, whilst this is demonstrative of Herodotus fulfilling his pledge to record the great deeds of non-Greeks, and exemplifying his role as an historian, our understanding of this event as being purely historic ought to be somewhat tempered, as it also abides by Herodotus’ pledge to afford kleos to those of the past, thus conforming to the Homeric tradition of glorifying the past, a feature inherent in cultural legend. This glorification is further exacerbated by the divine intervention of Apollo in saving Croesus from his imminent death by fire. Ergo, the division between historian and storyteller is further blurred in the case of Herodotus, through his presentation of an historical narrative taking on the form of folklore, and yet, whilst the modern reader does not assume this account to be a literal rendering of past events, the flattering treatment afforded to the Persian king is informative of a gravitation towards impartial history.” – Robbie Pickering, “Is Herodotus an historian or a storyteller? Is this an appropriate question to ask? How far are these separate categories?”
0 notes
Text
“Thus the issue of sacred prostitution comes down to the accuracy of Herodotus, and much doubt has been cast on his statements. Arnaud has attempted to trace the origins of Herodotus’s statements. He blames the Mesopotamian scribes for misunderstanding their own traditions. According to Arnaud, those traditions concerned past important cultic functions attributed to women, while the contemporary first-millennium women were relegated to performing house-hold tasks or were prostitutes hanging around the temple precinct, especially in the Aramaized cult of Ištar/Inanna of Uruk. The scribes could have speculated upon the debased venal cult, and their speculations could have resulted in the cultic prostitution fiction given to Herodotus. Thus, this chapter in the annals of historical research, whereby a generalization derived from an ancient fiction coupled with the projection of a modern ideology of women onto historical data becomes fact in scholarly discourse, can now be deleted. ‘Sacred prostitution’ is an amalgam of misconceptions, presuppositions, and inaccuracies.” – Joan Goodnick Westenholz. “Tamar, Qĕdēšā, Qadištu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia” (1989)
Crit’s note: The author is arguing that Herodotus may not be entirely at fault here, but he’s still factually wrong.
0 notes
Text
“Such allegations first appear in the work of Herodotus (Hist. 1.199) whose view of Mesopotamian culture was considerably biased and whose speculations have been elaborated by Strabo in his Geography (16.1.20), and by other classical authors. Of the scholars cited above in note one, a majority have investigated this source and have realized it was the only source for claiming sacred prostitution, and discarded it on these grounds.” – Joan Goodnick Westenholz. “Tamar, Qĕdēšā, Qadištu, and Sacred Prostitution in Mesopotamia” (1989)
Crit’s note: The sources mentioned are Assyriological papers on the same topic. What would exonerate Herodotus here would be a source prior to him which mentions a function which could be defined as sacred prostitution. This source has not yet been found. Evidence points to Herodotus either having rather faulty information or deliberately exaggerating a different situation.
0 notes
Text
“The famous passage in his Letter to Pompey (3) which compares Herodotus to Thucydides and gives Herodotus most of the prizes, has been characterized as ‘Dionysius at his worst and weakest,’ but the admiration for Herodotus’ prose was general among rhetoricians. We should note, however, that nowehere does Dionysius suggest that Herodotus was accurate. Lucian of Samosata praises Herodotus for the beauty and careful arrangement of his diction, the aptness of his Greek and his intellect, but, in his essay How to write history (39-42), he couples him with Ctesias as a story-teller, and his models of just historians are Thucydides and Xenophon. Quid enim aut Herodoto dulcius? Wrote Cicero (Frag. 2.49), and Quintilian (10.1.13) echoes the praise: dulcis et candidus et fusus Herodotus, remissis adfectibus melior, sermonibus, voluptate. As well as Lucian, Dio Chrysostom, Arrian, Aelian and Philostratus fell under his influence. The admiration continued down into the Byzantine period. Procopius of Caesarea made both Herodotus and Thucydides his models. Photius called Herodotus the greatest master of Greek prose. But no one held him up as a model of reliability.” – J.A.S. Evans, “Father of History or Father of Lies: The Reputation of Herodotus” (1968)
Crit's note: While his reputation fluctuates it is important to take note of what exactly he is being praised for. Especially with later authors who are citing older praise. Look for the authors who can cite accuracy of specific information rather than just general praise. Trust the specifics that have corroborating evidence, but doubt the broad generalities.
0 notes
Text
“But what roused Plutarch’s animus against Herodotus was his view of what history was all about. For Plutarch, history had a serious educational purpose. Thucydides’ views on the usefulness of history had been filtered down through Polybius, and had finally emerged as the exemplar theory of historiography. History’s purpose was to teach by providing examples for future generations. Of course an historian was to tell the truth, but he need not tell the whole truth, and Plutarch’s view was that if a writer could not say something nice about a great man, he might better say nothing at all. He accused Herodotus of bias in favour of the barbarians, and deliberate malice; moreover, his malice was masked behind a show of good humour and frankness, which, for Plutarch, was the height of injustice. Not only did Herodotus diminish the glory of Greek victory by telling falsehoods with malicious intent, but he wrote so well that people read him.” – J.A.S. Evans, “Father of History or Father of Lies: The Reputation of Herodotus”(1968)
Crit’s note: ok, this is more about Plutarch but it made me laugh so I had to include it. I rather disagree with Plutarch here, but dear lord if he was alive today he would absolutely make it his mission in life to shut down every qualified historian on this site for daring to use humor, or even worse outright mockery of the people he thinks are “great”, in the course of conveying educational content. I can’t believe I’m actually siding with Herodotus just a little here.
1 note · View note
Text
“It became a topos among ancient historians to attack their predecessors, and Ctesias did not start the custom. Herodotus himself wastes no praise on Hecataeus of Miletus, and Thucydides mentioned Hellanicus, whom he probably used, only to find fault with him. But more damaging to Herodotus was the development of a king of Ctesias-school of history, to which the rhetoricians were to make their contribution with not altogether happy results. The historians of this ilk were the type attacked by Polybius and satirized in Lucian’s Verae Historiae. They were really historical novelists, but unfortunately they were called historians, and Herodotus, like Socrates, suffered from the reputation of his pupils. He ceased to be taken seriously.
  We must, however, recognize that from the early Hellenistic period on, Herodotys did not suffer merely from being coupled with Ctesias as an entertaining liar. He was attacked by a whole series of essays designed to expose his naivété, his plagiarisms and falsehoods, and the flow of this anti-Herodotean literature continued pretty well down to the late Roman Empire. ‘Herodotus,’ wrote Josephus (Contra Apion. 1.3), ‘is attacked by everyone without exception.’ All but one of these pamphlets is lost but we have some of the titles. There was against Herodotus by Manetho, On Herodotus’ thefts, by Valerius Pollio, On Herodotus’ lies, by Aelius Harpocration, Against Herodots by Libanius and of course, Plutarch’s On the malignity of Herodotus, which has survived. Of these, I suspect that Manetho;s attack had considerable influence, although the only fragment of it still extant contains the surprising information that lions never sleep. Since I gather that lions do sleep at every opportunity, this does not say much for Manetho’s powers of observation. But Manetho was Egyptian high priest at Heliopolis under the first two Ptolemies, and he was in a good position to expose Herodotus, for he was accepted as an authority on Egypt. He was also an ‘inside dopester’ of sorts, and although as far as we know, he treated Herodotus without rancour, his contribution to Herodotus’ reputation was considerable. A Number of authors who impugn hi later can be shown to have read Manetho.” – J.A.S. Evans, “Father of History or Father of Lies: The Reputation of Herodotus (1968)
Crit’s note: while a long excerpt I felt it would be disingenuous not to include it as an example that being criticized is certainly nothing new for Herodotus. He has faced it before and yet he survives. If anything I see the critical analysis of his work and the cataloguing of where he is shown to be wrong or recognizably biased allows me to more adequately make use his work as a source and as such it would be a disservice to both the work and to the questioning method of the author to do otherwise. No author should ever be placed on such a pedestal as to refuse critical reading.
0 notes
Text
“Moreover, as an artist and a master of style, his reputation if anything increased throughout antiquity, and the Renaissance rediscovered him with delight. But at the same time, he was treated as a story-teller who disregarded the truth and aimed rather to give his reader pleasure, and he was accused sometimes of ignorance, sometimes of deliberate deceit and malice.” – J.A.S. Evans, “Father of History or Father of Lies: The Reputation of Herodotus (1968)
Crit’s note: The popularity of an author is not necessarily an indicator of his veracity.
0 notes
Text
“But Herodotus, whose reputation as a liar was well established within a couple of generations of his death was still recognized as the ‘father of history.’ When Cicero wrote his De Divinatione, he accused Herodotus of one outright invention (2.56.116). Herodotus (1.53) relates how Croesus of Lydia consulted oracles of Amphiaraus and of Apollo at Delphi before making war on Persia, and the oracles replied that if he fought Cyrus, a great empire would fall. The oracles were of course, quite right; the empire of Croesus fell. Cicero suggested that the whole story was a fabrication, and in spite of his view that historians should adhere to the truth, it does not seem to have occurred to him, or to anyone else in the ancient world, that a fabricator of history might not deserve to be called its father.” – J.A.S. Evans, “Father of History or Father of Lies: The Reputation of Herodotus (1968)
Crit’s note: Critical reading does not negate use, which is something many people don’t seem to understand. Standards in antiquity do not necessarily meet standards today, and critiquing authors by our current standards is actually beneficial to exploring the worldview of the authors because we can see how they differ from us. In this case it shows that ancient titles may not meet our current standards and so are irrelevant when pursuing factuality.
0 notes
Text
“Because Herodotus’s depictions of kings and tyrants appear to be so consistently drawn on the basis of a conventional norm, it would be wisest to avoid the use of the term ‘objective’ to describe them.” – John G. Gammie, “Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants: Objective Historiography or Conventional Portraiture?” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3 (1986)
0 notes
Text
“On the basis of the examination of the Median and Persian kings, therefore, the conclusion is unavoidable that here also Herodotus utilizes a highly conventional model of the typical tyrant to be in conformity or nonconformity with the norm. The vices of the kings which he describes are often precisely the typical tyrannical vices listed by Otanes. The virtues of the kings which Herodotus chooses to accentuate are not infrequently the obverse of the stereotypical vices.” – John G. Gammie, “Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants: Objective Historiography or Conventional Portraiture?” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3 (1986)
0 notes
Text
“So highly conventional is the central portrait of Cambyses, it is perhaps unnecessary to point out that archaeological investigation of the sarcophagoi of Apis, some inscriptions, and the best judgement of recent historians all suggest that this part of Herodotus’s account must be revised.” – John G. Gammie, “Herodotus on Kings and Tyrants: Objective Historiography or Conventional Portraiture?” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 45, No. 3 (1986)
0 notes
Text
“What is our final verdict on all this? The ethnography is characterized by a wide range of knowledge which has a sound basis in fact, but its focus is determined by Greek interests, in particular the focus on clear points of similarity and difference to Greek culture. This can lead to omissions and to serious distortion of the truth. Distortions can be aggravated by two additional faults, over-schematization and the too ready application of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. The historical material in the earlier section of Book Two amounts largely to a series of tales which are closer to Egyptian stories and propaganda texts than recognizable history, though Herodotus makes the most of their narrative possibilities to spin a good yarn and, where opportunities present themselves, he exploits their didactic potential for the benefit of his Greek audience. The Saite history is evidently much more firmly based on historical events, but here again it is impossible to allay the suspicion that events were chosen for discussion because they were of interest to Greeks, indeed frequently involved Greeks. We are not confronted with anything like a considered assessment of what really mattered in the Saite period, though historians are too often ready to work on that assumption.” – Alan B. Lloyd, “Egypt” in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (2002)
Crit’s note: In other words, a little good, a little bad, a lot of bias.
0 notes
Text
“What, then, is our verdict on Herodotus’ portrayal of Egyptian religion? Typically, although he knew a great deal of correct or largely correct detail, particularly on cult practice, he lacks any grasp of the concepts underpinning belief or ritual; he shows no awareness of the Egyptian concept of gods potentially subject to mortality who must be maintained by priestly action; in his account of animal cults there is no awareness of the thinking underlying these practices; and in his account of mummification he betrays no knowledge of why it was practiced, though 2.122 shows that he knew something of the Egyptian concept of the underworld, and 2.78 reveals an awareness of the Egyptian preoccupation with mortality.” – Alan B. Lloyd, “Egypt” in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (2002)
0 notes
Text
“This ingenious but entirely erroneous construction means that, when Herodotus refers to the Egyptian Amun as Zeus or Neith as Athene, he is not using the Greek names as a matter of convenience for the sake of his readers. On the contrary, he is reflacting a profound conviction that the Greek and Egyptian deities are one and the same thing. The same issue of transference of doctrines arises at 2.123, where he insists, quite wrongly, that the Egyptians were the source of the Greek doctrine of metempsychosis.” – Alan B. Lloyd, “Egypt” in Brill’s Companion to Herodotus (2002)
0 notes