Читать книгу The Herodotus Encyclopedia - Группа авторов - Страница 1050

JOSEPH SKINNER

Newcastle University

Herodotus’ Histories provide a wealth of information regarding the burial customs of a wide variety of non‐Greek peoples. Some of it is archaeologically verifiable: for example Herodotus’ description of the royal burials of the SCYTHIANS (4.71–72) is largely supported by kurgan burials dating from the seventh/sixth century BCE from the Kuban’ region and tombs of nomadic groups inhabiting the Altai region. Some of it is more fanciful: for example, the fact that the ETHIOPIANS place mummified corpses in transparent coffins made of rock crystal (3.24). The prominence afforded to RITUALS and customs surrounding the dead in Herodotus’ ethnographies suggests that these were an abiding source of interest for his AUDIENCE(s). Whether the dead were cremated, eaten (e.g., the CALLATIAE, 3.38), or interred—whether in a supine position or seated upright as with the NASAMONES (4.190)—shed considerable light upon a group’s ēthea, that is, the degree to which they might be considered civilized, in addition to providing a frequent source of wonder (e.g., the elaborate description of various different forms of MUMMIFICATION practices in EGYPT, 2.86–89). To this extent they frequently form the bases for comparisons between different cultures, both Greek and non‐Greek. The latter can be explicit, as in the case of Herodotus’ observation that the way in which Spartans mourn the death of a monarch finds parallels amongst the inhabitants of ASIA/non‐Greeks in general (6.58). Alternatively, they can be left unstated, as with a description of Thracian burial customs whose distinctly Homeric character would (presumably) have been self‐evident to contemporaries: a period of public mourning, the laying out of the deceased for a period of three days accompanied by SACRIFICES, cremation and/or burial of the deceased in a tomb over which a tumulus is raised, funerary games (5.8; cf. Hom. Il. 23.252–57 on the funeral games of Patroclus).

Insofar as they might relate to important groups or individuals, burial customs also have a bearing upon Herodotus’ core aim of preserving the MEMORY of the ERGA of men by preventing them from becoming exitēla and aklea. Consider, for example, his statement that the Greeks who fought at THERMOPYLAE were afforded the distinction of being buried where they fell—rather than being brought back home for burial—together with the three funerary epigrams inscribed on the memorial honoring non‐Spartiates, the Lacedaemonians, and MEGISTIAS the seer (7.228). A similar intent lies behind his remark that CIMON THE ELDER’s tomb was located overlooking the road through the DEME of Koile (HOLLOWS OF ATHENS) opposite that of the mares which won him three victories at OLYMPIA (6.103.3), or his description of the tomb of King ALYATTES in LYDIA (1.93). An explicit awareness of the significance of tombs as erga is displayed in Herodotus’ description of the tombs commemorating those who fell at PLATAEA, some of which are alleged to belong to communities who played no role in the battle whatsoever (9.85).

We find several key areas of interest. i) Practices of mourning: Herodotus often singles out ways in which the dead are mourned that diverge from the Greek norm; thus, the DEATH of a king is marked in SPARTA by processions of women banging cauldrons (6.58). He also cites parallels where these occur, such as similarities between the way in which lamentations are sung in BABYLON and Egypt (1.198). Ritual disfigurement is attributed to most non‐Greeks following the death of a king (6.58). This includes the Scythians, who reportedly shave their heads and mutilate themselves with arrows (4.71), but also the Spartans (two freeborn members of each household are required by LAW to disfigure themselves or risk a fine, 6.58). In Egypt, the death of any man of standing results in the female members of the household smearing their heads and faces with mud before going out to wander the streets beating their breasts and with their clothes in disarray, while their menfolk do much the same thing (2.85). ii) Treatment of the body: the practices of embalming and mummification are attributed to a number of ethnic groups including the PERSIANS, who are reported to encase the body in wax before burial (1.140), and the Scythians following the death of their kings (although here wax is applied only after the stomach cavity of the deceased has been first emptied and then packed with herbs and spices: 4.71). The use of honey to embalm corpses is practiced in the case of Babylon (1.198, a practice also attributed by other authors to Sparta: Xen. Hell. 5.3.19; Plut. Ages. 40.3). Maltreatment of the body post mortem was frowned upon, as demonstrated by PAUSANIAS’ harsh rebuke of LAMPON SON OF PYTHEAS who suggested that MARDONIUS’ corpse should be impaled in revenge for the treatment of LEONIDAS’ body following Thermopylae (9.79) but also by Herodotus’ earlier note that XERXES’ order to decapitate the dead king was itself a violation of Persian custom (7.238). The need to protect the body from maltreatment of a sexual nature was something of which Herodotus’ contemporaries were aware, regardless of whether reported instances of necrophilia deserve to be taken seriously (alleged in the case of both PERIANDER (5.92.η) and an unnamed Egyptian embalmer (2.89)). iii) Disposal of the deceased: how a particular group or people dispose of their deceased forms one of the principal criteria by which their ethical/moral outlook, and thus their overall similarity (or otherwise) to the norms and attitudes of Herodotus and his contemporaries, might be assessed. Herodotus assumes a monoculture of burial practices where the Greeks are concerned (i.e., inhumation in the supine position) with the result that many peoples are noted to bury their dead “in the same way that the Greeks do” (4.190, the Nasamones aside). The exposure of corpses as practiced by the MAGI and perhaps the Persians—rumored to only inter a body after it has been mauled by a bird or a dog (1.140)—was clearly considered exotic. ANTHROPOPHAGY is attributed to populations living in the outermost reaches of the inhabited world in INDIA (Callatiae and PADAEANS: 3.38, 99) and the far north (MASSAGETAE and ISSEDONES: 1.216; 4.26). iv) Cultures of commemoration: it is assumed that Herodotus’ audiences will subscribe to the same set of conventions and norms for honoring the departed both at point of death and in years to come (e.g., Greek sons making annual sacrifices to mark the anniversary of their fathers’ death, 4.26). It is implied that the Issedonian practice of offering cult to the deceased, in particular the cleaned and gilded skull of a FAMILY member, is to be censured (4.26). The practice of storing a coffin upright, whether in the home of the deceased (for the first year) or in a tomb—in the cases of Ethiopia (3.24) and Egypt (2.86) respectively—would have been viewed as highly peculiar in Greek eyes as well as violating the convention that prohibited burial within a city's WALLS in all but exceptional cases, for fear of POLLUTION, even if attitudes appear to have been far more relaxed in some Attic demes.

SEE ALSO: Analogy; Ethnography; Heroes and Hero Cult; Mutilation; nomos; Religion, Greek; thōmata; Women in Ancient Greece