Читать книгу The Herodotus Encyclopedia - Группа авторов - Страница 530

MARGARET C. MILLER

University of Sydney

Herodotus is often described as the first anthropologist but, in view of his notably material outlook, he can also be seen as an archaeologist, seriously engaged in study of the physical testimonies to the past. Sometimes Herodotus is perceived as mis‐quoting or mis‐remembering elements of the material world, leading to doubts about his frequent claims to AUTOPSY. At other times archaeological investigation has found surprising and notable corroboration of details that had seemed too fantastic to be true.

Herodotus’ “archaeological” interests emerge in such details as attention to skeletal remains, whether ascribed to flying SNAKES (2.75) or human remains on battlefields in Lower EGYPT (3.12) and at PLATAEA (9.83). He often appeals to objects dedicated in sanctuaries (that clearly provided an important locus for living MEMORY of Greek cultural history): for example, the throne of MIDAS (1.14), the various offerings of CROESUS (1.50–52, 92), and prow ornaments of captured ships (3.59). Some descriptions exceed our knowledge, like the tithe of a successful trading voyage to IBERIA at the HERAION on SAMOS (4.152): the bowl with griffin heads around the rim is well attested in sanctuaries of the eighth/seventh centuries BCE, sometimes of very large scale, but typically they rested on BRONZE stands. Human‐shaped supports like that of the Samians’ tithe are known, but are much smaller, standing figures of stone, and they support only stone perirrhanteria (Sturgeon 1987, 14–21).

The sanctuary of APOLLO at DELPHI features prominently in the Histories. Excavation in the nineteenth century confirmed that the late archaic Doric temple of Apollo, constructed c. 540–506, was indeed built with Parian marble on the east façade (5.62), and to replace a late‐seventh‐century temple that had been destroyed by FIRE (2.180.1). The early importance of the Doric TREASURY of the Corinthians is borne out by its close proximity to the temple terrace and ALTAR of Apollo; its primitive U‐shaped cuttings for hoisting date construction to the start of ashlar stone masonry in Greece. It housed many important offerings in Herodotus’ day, some placed there after the destruction of the early temple (1.50–52; 1.114.2–3). The Ionic Treasury of the Siphnians at the archaic sanctuary entrance, described by Herodotus as an expression of a “lucky strike” by the people of SIPHNOS (3.57), is indeed of Parian marble and the most beautifully ornamented treasury at Delphi. East of the altar, excavators recognized the stepped circular base for the commemorative Plataean gold TRIPOD on its bronze serpent column (9.81.1; see ART); the column itself survives in Istanbul, sent there by the Roman emperor Constantine. Herodotus’ erroneous report that one snake with three heads (rather than three intertwined snakes) supported the cauldron can easily be explained as the misperception of someone standing at ground level.

At Samos, Herodotus’ account of the three great ENGINEERING achievements of the ARCHAIC AGE (3.60) is essentially accurate. The protective HARBOR mole exists beneath later constructions but has not been precisely dated. Herodotus describes the Temple of HERA as the “largest of temples known to us” (see 2.148.2); his mention of RHOECUS as architect seemingly conflates the c. 560 structure with its longer and higher marble successor, normally associated with the tyrant POLYCRATES. The latter temple was indeed the largest in Greece. In the case of the tunnel of EUPALINUS, constructed to secure the water supply, excavation in 1971–1973 proved the accuracy of Herodotus’ description and led to the suggestion that the project started about 550, before Polycrates’ tyranny (Kienast 2005, 37).

Reports of the other major Ionian sites are surprisingly limited. The archaic hypaethral Temple of ARTEMIS at EPHESUS, beneficiary of Croesus’ patronage (1.92), has yielded inscribed column drums that can be restored with the name of Croesus. It, along with the Samian Heraion, is cited as the most memorable of Greek MONUMENTS (2.148.2). Yet the third great Ionic temple, at the oracle of Apollo BRANCHIDAE, only somewhat shorter than the other two, is omitted despite mention of the oracle and precious offerings gifted by foreign kings (1.92, 5.36; 2.159). Presumably the omission arises from its sorry state, as it was burned in the IONIAN REVOLT (6.19) and not rebuilt until the later fourth century.

Figure 2 Fragment of the top of a marble column base from Ephesus, preserving a small portion of an inscription which reads “King Croesus dedicated (this).” BM 18720405.2.

©The Trustees of the British Museum. All rights reserved.

Both iconographic evidence and excavated materials show the accuracy of Herodotus’ account of the WEAPONS AND ARMOR of XERXES’ invading army. The akinakes, glossed as the “Persian sword” (7.54), is recognizable in Persian arts; chapes in wood and bone from its distinctive scabbard have been recovered. The Persian gerron shield (9.61) can be recognized on a few Attic red‐figured cups, as well as the relief SCULPTURE of PERSEPOLIS; actual examples, excavated at Pazyryk and Dura, give insight into the method of construction. Most of the Persian War votive monuments, apart from the “Serpent Column” noted above, disappeared without a trace, but the arrangement of statues of gods holding a ship’s akroterion or aphlasta, like that at Delphi from the booty at SALAMIS (8.121), can be reconstructed with the aid of images on Attic red‐figure pottery (see also Miller 1997).

Archaeological investigation has especially cast light on Herodotus’ account of the SCYTHIANS and Thracians. Careful analysis of the range of evidence from 200 years of investigation in the regions east and north of the Black Sea has confirmed many details about the Scythians that seem improbable to modern readers. For example, analysis of Scythian BURIAL CUSTOMS (4.71–72) corroborates Herodotus’ account, but finds that he ascribes to the Scythic peoples as a whole a custom that was practiced only by some (Ivantchik 2011). One of the three “traditions” about the origin of the Scythians involves a goddess with snaky limbs (4.5–12, esp. 4.9) whose artistic representation across Iron Age EUROPE attests to a widespread folk tradition (Ustinova 2005). As for THRACE, one find seems to support what seemed an incredible detail, that the “Thracians who live above the Crestonians” killed a man’s favorite wife so that she might accompany her husband to the grave (5.5). Excavation at Isperihova has yielded a grave dating to the seventh/sixth centuries containing a male inhumation accompanied by a beheaded female (Boteva 2011).

The situation regarding Egypt is more complex. Omissions and misunderstandings have strained credulity on the part of some readers, and some details still defy explanation. Yet here, too, archaeology provides corroborating detail: evidence confirms Herodotus’ description of Egyptian boat‐building practice (2.96; Haldane 1993, 240–49). The report of 345 generations of PRIESTS as represented by wooden statues at THEBES (2.143) is found to lie within the realm of the possible (Moyer 2013).

Absolute errors do exist. In Greece, archaeological evidence clearly contradicts Herodotus’ discussion of peplos pins (5.87–89; cf. Jacobsthal 1956, 90–91, 100). The ascription to the Egyptian SESOSTRIS of the Hittite relief at Karabel in western Turkey (2.106.2–5) is possibly based on an assumption that all hieroglyphs are Egyptian (see Collins 2007, 66–67). The description of the city of BABYLON includes factual elements alongside fantastic features (1.178–87).

Some omissions attest to Herodotus’ selectivity, reflective of his narrative strategies. At Delphi, no mention is made of the Athenian dedications. In his discussion of the burning of the Athenian ACROPOLIS, Herodotus makes reference to the Propylaea and the “Temple” (presumably the Old Temple of ATHENA Polias), but he is silent about the “pre‐Parthenon,” which we know was under construction at the time. Of OLYMPIA, Herodotus comments only on the prestigious victories won by various worthies there, most notably in the chariot race; ironically it is at Olympia that actual DEDICATIONS from the PERSIAN WARS have been excavated.

SEE ALSO: Architecture (Temples); Epigraphy; “Liar School”; Numbers; Reliability; thōmata; Vessels (drinking)