I found the ways Egyptians relate to their animals quite interesting, along with Herodotus’ commentary on the topic.  The fact that our narrator has elaborated on the sanctity of animals in Eqypt shows readers that this aspect of foreign culture is a noticeable point of departure between his homeland and that of his subjects.  In the first segment that we read, Herodotus explains the value of sacred animals that extends well beyond the value of consumption; in Egypt, an animal is honored to the extent that law forbids its death.  For some, the social relations between animals and men are defined by human-dominated hierarchies, by hunter-prey or master-servant dynamics, and at time companionship.  To the Egyptians, "anyone that deliberately kills one of these animals is punished with death;" dynamics between animals and men are defined by mutual guardianship, sacredness, and idolatry to an extent.    

  I am constantly amazed by the vastly varied cultural values different groups of people can place on an object, or in this case, a non-human life form.  How do our interactions with other life forms develop, especially outside of the realm of consumption?   

Reading this passage, I was reminded of a trend I came across in China that I found shocking, if not disturbing.   In China, some dog owners dye and trim the coats of their pets to look like other, more exotic animals, such as pandas, or Bengal tigers.  There is something about this distortion of identity, of pedigree, that clashed with my ideals.  While tons of pet owners in New York City dress their dogs up, the humor of dressing a dog up like a human is somehow less offensive to me than morphing an animal into a different creature.  The difficulty in sensing subtle humor is also a barrier to really appreciating cultural intricacies such as these.

  Here are two videos from China that show these trends.  How does this make you react?  How do differing cultural perceptions of the value of life and identity magnify the difference between places?

History Revisited: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/Peopleshistoryzinn.jpgThe criticism surrounding Herodotus’s Histories pertains mostly to the author’s tendency to diverge from the truth. Everything from Herodotus’ methods of gathering information to the subjects of his narrative is questionably factual. Nevertheless, Herodotus’ work is considered today to be an example of proto-history, or the beginnings of modern historical writing. Histories receives this kind of recognition because, despite its fictional tendencies, the objectives of the work, as laid out by Herodotus, is to create a lasting record of events and search out the causes which triggered those actions. These two guidelines are the fundamentals of all historical inquiry. From the building blocks that Herodotus set, additional rules of historical writing, such source checking and factual integrity, were put in place. Yet, the rules of modern historical writing do not seem to stop the central problem of Herodotus’ work from resurfacing in another form. In the accepted historical works of today, the facts may all be true but the truth of an event is rarely fully disclosed. Due to political reason, popular beliefs, and personal agendas, we are only given a half true history in our schools and textbooks. The history that we read about in grade school is so watered down that it is as misleading as some of Herodotus’ bogus claims. To find the whole truth, one must actively search for it him or herself. There has emerged a whole sub-genera now in the field of history that serves the purpose of revealing the untold truth about the past. For instance A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn is a book that revisits American history to correct some of the populous’ most ill-informed beliefs. If we could turn our criticism of Herodotus’ Histories on our own collective historical knowledge it would be clear that we diverge from the fundamental goals of recording history just like the historians before us. 

Herodotus Stands TallIn the excerpt Snakes with Wings and Gold-digging Ants I really enjoyed the way the author set up the descriptions of the tribes on pages 36-44. Each is split up into different paragraphs and the author seems to be moving around a map, clearly enough that we can understand the apparent differences.

Another thing that I found interesting in this section is that we can sometimes forget how things that occur at home are really only associated with beauty among the inhabitants. Things Herodotus sees as barbaric are commonplace to the tribes that he speaks of and account for tradition in their lands and communities. In the beginning of the excerpt we read about these traditions, for example: what certain tribes eat, the way in which they make their own clothing. This got me thinking about my concentration topic and rationale and I decided to look back at what I had written in the fall. My concentration is identity and the idea that our identity is most reflected in the place we call home. It is where we learn to be ourselves and discover what interests us. In preparation for my colloquium I have come across many memoirs that focus on the home and the idea of place as being a central theme to our own lives. Herodotus got me thinking about the idea of foreign customs. He writes about the tribes that because he is in awe, they amass in situations and ideas that he has never seen before. I wonder how much I write about will be foreign to my readers, and how much they will be able to recognize or identify with. I think about boundaries about the idea of sharing other people’s traditions and the different reasons we do this: to expose, to share, to teach, to learn. When we write about traditions and ways of life we must be sure of ourselves, of not only what we are writing but also whom we are writing about. Relaying information about others demands that we completely understand something, even if it is not our own way of life. Herodotus’ histories tell us stories that we expect a student in a home stay to come back with, they are vivid but at some points do not seem real; they are imaginative and almost seem unattainable. In many of the sections Herodotus gives us smell, which is a really important descriptive element because it is something that can unite people because it is familiar. The author writes, regarding the collection of cinnamon, “So much for the perfumes: let me only add that the whole country exhales a more than earthly fragrance.” (42) I thought this to be a beautiful sentence, and a sort of final remark regarding a country as a whole- it is a smell that we can all relate too.

"When a man has killed one of the sacred animals, if he did it with malice prepense, he is punished with death; if unwittingly, he has to pay such a fine as the priests choose to impose. When an ibis, however, or a hawk is killed, whether it was done by accident or on purpose, the man must needs die.""There is another set of Indians whose customs are very different. They refuse to put any live animal to death...If one of them (people) is attacked with sickness, he goes forth into the wilderness, and lies down to die; no one has the least concern either for the sick or for the dead."Persians: "He cuts the victim in pieces, and having boiled the flesh, he lays it out upon the tenderest herbage that he can find, trefoil especially. When all is ready, one of the Magi comes forward and chants a hymn, which they say recounts the origin of the gods. It is not lawful to offer sacrifice unless there is a Magus present. After waiting a short time the sacrificer carries the flesh of the victim away with him, and makes whatever use of it he may please."

Even the animals have a certain strange way of dying: "...when they couple, the female seizes the male b the neck at the very moment of the release of the sperm, and hangs on until she has bitten it through. That finishes the male; and the female, too, has to pay for her behaviour, for the young in her belly avenge their father by gnawing at her insides, until they end by eating their way out." (41) "Another tribe...they live on raw meat...when a man falls sick, his closest companions kill him, because, as they put it, their meat would be spoilt if he was allowed to waste away with disease" ... "The invalid protests their is nothing the matter with him .... his friends refuse to accept his protestations, kill him and hold a banquet." (36)

The theme of very mundane death was a prominent and fascinating one in the readings, as evidenced by the above quotes. It blows my mind, until I remember that, in this last quote, Herotodus is discussing cannibals. At first, to me, this kind of society was unbelievable because I was only considering what I'd personally seen with my eyes. But then, of course there is a society outside of my eyes, and I reexamined. I can't help but wonder what Herotodus felt like. Of course he must of been astonished, because he'd never experienced anything similar before. Some parts of the story are unbelievable. But then I consider what Herotodus' fascination and reaction must have been to all of these wonders of life he had never encountered before, like I mentioned earlier. I too am fascinated, too fascinated to care about the veracity of Herotodus' story. How does it affect me one way or the other? Besides, Herotodus forging a way to come out of one's own world and explore others was more important than was documenting history. My blog post is late -- and not as complete as I'd like it to be. I'm planning to edit later, if only for my sake.

Herodotus World MapWhile reading Snakes with Wings and Gold-digging Ants I was both fascinated with Herodotus’ expeditions and unsatisfied with his transcriptions and explanations. Credit must be given to Herodotus’ as a great traveler and observer. The range of the land which he visited and reported upon was immense as well as diverse in climate, animals, and people. The fact that he took on such a journey is impressive and shows an enormous commitment to the study of foreign cultures. Herodotus should also be commended for his intention to relay facts objectively, although he may not have been completely successful in this respect. He does interject with his opinion at times and makes claims that are very subjective or unsupported. For instance on page 64 Herodotus writes that the nomadic tribes of Libya are “healthier than any other race we know of.” It is these types of interjections that bring to question the integrity of Herodotus’ work. Additionally, the author’s descriptions of structures and animals seem to be hyperbolized for dramatic effect. I wanted to believe the histories and ethnographies that Herodotus put forward, but I could not be certain as to which claims were accurate or mostly unbiased. 

Herodotus Herodotus appears to be a sociologist, myth recorder, traveler, observer, and zoologist all in one. The scope of topics that he undertakes makes the readings fun and quick. The breadth and variety of subject matter almost makes up for the lack of science and absence of sociological credibility. The travels are recorded as both a sociological viewing of new cultures and a retelling of the myths and stories heard from the peoples represented in those travels. Herodotus seems to have no system for separating truth from fiction. Flying Snakes and sheep with four foot long tails more certainly do not exist. Ants that dig for Gold and springs that boil at midnight are only a few of his fantastical observations.

The academic in me wonders if his observations were based in fact and written in myth to provide for a more allegorical story. It is possible that the fact of the ibis and the Nile river were not as important as what they stand to represent. Was the book written to be understood and learned from by fellow Greeks, who may have been more interested in the fables of foreign cultures than the facts? Was it therefore written in familiar mythological format instead of a more scientific one?

If his work is a collection of stories and observations some of which are factual and some of which are sheer myth, I then question whom the history is written for. Who is the audience? Is it someone who does not care if the observations are true or false? Someone who will not know if they are true or false? Or simply a tool to remember his travels and sightings. Was Herodotus a storyteller or a scientist?

In today's travel literature there is an understood responsibility to tell the truth. Travel literature that can be found in books, journals and magazines is fact checked and certified truthful. With the openness of the world and the huge tourism industry stories can easily be verified. Not so in 415 BCE. But why? Why not just tell the truth? To tell a better story?

I cannot accept Herodotus as a sociologist because of claims like, "All the Indian tribes I have mentioned copulate in the open like cattle; their skins are all of the same colour, much like the Ethiopians'. Their semen is no white like other peoples', but black like heir own skins" [Herodotus, 37]. So then, I must accept him as a storyteller.

The historical/sociological relevance though is in what we can learn about his culture in the way he describes the other. The fact that they are looked upon as lower, with strange customs and bizarre rituals is telling of how superior the Greeks are in his worldview. The fact that he looks for the incorporation of Greek mythological figures in the cultures of Egypt also illustrates his belief in superiority of religion. The other is a cannibal, a nomad, a crook, and generally a sub-Greek being. It is not the other that we learn of in Herodotus's work but the attitude and the perspective of the Greeks.

once upon a time I cannot help but imagine Herodotus, in all of his bearded fifth-century glory, perched under a blanket tent (flashlight in hand) and spilling the twisted tales of marriage auctions and the mummification of the poor. He would’ve scared the living bejeezus out of me as a child! But as a 415 BC inhabitant of his time…I’m not so sure. How much would I have believed? Would I have dreamed of what it would be like to live entirely off of fish mortar or maybe coveted boats with animal-hide sides? Growing up in this twitter-all-things-myspace-facebook generation has forced me to take science fiction and tall-tales as products of an imaginative culture that knows too much and trusts too little (if anything at all.) But in Herodotus’ time when written accounts of travel and historical documentation will slim to none – c’mon, he’s kind of the man!

Being the journalistic dork that I am, it is quite compelling to dissect The Histories as more of a travel editorial (with a bit of age on the backburner) – one that seeks to inform the globally ill equipped (and Wall Street-recessionistas unable to travel the high skies) of everything they are missing. His language is compelling without being too much though he gets a bit poetic at times. For me, I think he has a decently well-informed grip on how to move the story along. He spends little time on many customs and traditions, weaving in and out of water and land by point-blankly introducing his next topic (i.e. “The following are certain Persian customs which I can describe from personal knowledge” [44].) He understands that excess detail kills the on-the-fence reader but loses touch with that when ramblings about sacred animals lead the way for a bit too long (I’m not exactly riveted by his otter-speak.)

Aside from the argument of fact or fiction, it is obvious that Herodotus most certainly wrote to inform. His attempt at ethical attribution seeks to give credit where credit it due. He writes, “Up to this point I have confined what I have written to the results of my own direct observation and research, and the views I have formed from them; but from now on the basis of my story will be the accounts given to me by the Egyptians themselves.” (17) In a travel story amongst peers and amigos, we place less emphasis on where information comes from and simply spit forth what we know and create. But Herodotus, though horribly off, infuses credibility to his historical voice even if the tales are a bit taller than tall. So without a model of journalistic/historical sorts to measure himself by (he obviously hadn’t learned the rules of objectivity), we owe the poor man credit for having fumbled his way around the desert floor in complete and utter blindness.

So perhaps the larger picture of this “record of the traditions of the various nations” is not their encyclopedia-value or bedtime-story-quality, but rather why we still find entertainment and pleasure in it. I think the answers reside in the days after the sea voyages and forest treks…it is all about the stories we bring home (okay, and the souvenirs don’t hurt either.)

Herodotus: Holding a mirror up to Ancient Grecian Society

While some may mock his naïveté and gullibility, no one can begrudge Herodotus his wide-open mind. Indeed, given his thirst for exploration, it is not far-fetched to name Herodotus an ideal traveler: he is ceaselessly intrigued by foreign cultures and tribes, and seeks to absorb as much information about their vastly differing practices and social pillars as possible. In this excerpt from his Histories, he has provided us with a meaty combination of folklore, royal history, and societal customs. However, while I admire Herodotus’ inquisitive nature and easy-to-read prose, it is impossible to ignore the fact that some of his stories are far beyond plausible, some fanciful to an almost comical degree.

Despite his assumed factual shortcomings, Herodotus’ account provides an interesting look through the “period eye”, using his own Greek culture as a foil for the practices of those that he examines. There are few practices of these foreigners that he condemns, even offering his assent to what by even ancient standards would be considered barbaric. He shows a healthy amount of respect to most of the tribal and societal standards, even deigning to overlook concepts that do not align with his Grecian sensibility, i.e. “Well, it is an ancient custom, so let them keep it” (in regard to the Magis’ indiscriminate killing of animals, pg. 48). His work is at points opinionated, but not overwhelmingly biased; his language largely allows his reader to form their own reactions to the customs laid bare before him, a relatively rare quality in modern travel writing to say the least.

In Book One, Vessels of Silver and the Headless Corpse, Herodotus turns the mirror back on his own culture by retelling the Egyptian account of the infamous escape of Paris and Helen from Sparta, thus exposing a radical yet surprisingly believable alternative plotline behind the fabled Trojan War. He refutes Homer, instead offering complete support to the theory that the doomed duo landed in Egypt on their way to Troy and the Egyptians, disagreeing with the impropriety and ungratefulness of Paris to Menelaus and the Spartans, refused to let him take Helen home to an adulterous bed in his homeland. The war is justified by the Grecian’s disbelief of Priam’s protestations that Helen was in Egypt, leading them to “suppose[e] this to be a merely frivolous answer, [and] laid siege to the town, and persisted until it fell; but no Helen was found.” (pg. 29)

While Herodotus often compares Greek culture to the ones he is writing about, this is the sole reflection on his own history that he ruminates on at any length. Furthermore, he accepts the foreign opinion as not only viable but likely: “I cannot believe that Priam....was mad enough to be willing to risk his own and his children’s lives and the safety of the city, simply to let Paris continue to live with Helen…” (pg. 29). This revelation may be somewhat groundbreaking. Despite the debated verity of the story, Herodotus is willing to accept – and to publish – an alternative account of one of ancient Greece’s most pivotal historical event. The ability to do so may reinforce his gullibility for some, but it is important to note that it does the same to endorse his open-mindedness, which proves to be most intriguing quality in his writing.

As I was reading Herodotus’ Histories, I was trying to envision what it would be like to read Herodotus’ accounts and stories of the multiple places he visits during his time. I wonder, as someone from Greece who hadn’t had the opportunity to visit Africa or Asia, what it would have been like to encounter Herodotus’ tales of other cultures.  Other peoples' view of the world can be altered by the viewpoint that one man documented.

Comparing Herodotus’ Histories to Homer’s Odyssey reveals parallels and differences in early travel writings. Throughout the passages we read Herodotus focuses specifically on the people, their customs, and their relationship to animals and nature. Homer details the people he encounters and their customs but I found he gave specific descriptions about the environments he visited as well. He describes surrounding cliffs, caves and the rugged terrain of the islands he lands on independent of the people he encounters. It makes me question what the purpose of a travel narrative is. How does one begin to describe travel especially in these early times? Herodotus informs the reader of his travels as a reporter would. He reports the customs of men in Egypt, how they practice medicine and mourn their dead. To him the most important details involve the people of Egypt, their common plights and daily rituals. Is a travel narrative really about the place itself or should the focus be on its people and the culture of the land? From Herodotus’ story, whether accurate or not, a peoples’ interaction with places is most worthy of documentation. I found it interesting that in the excerpts we read, Herodotus mentions Homer’s Odyssey and the Iliad as well. How much do travel narratives refer to one another, contradict each other, and build upon one another? Previous travel logs are references to future travel writers. I also noticed how Herodotus references Greek traditions and attributes to clarify the sights and stories he observes in these other places. “Those ants make their dwellings under ground, and like the Greek ants, which they very much resemble in shape, throw up sand-heaps as they burrow”. He also states “It seems as if the extreme regions of the earth were blessed by nature with the most excellent productions, just in the same way that Greece enjoys a climate more excellently tempered than any other country.” In order to relay the customs and stories of foreign lands, it seems obvious to make references to what is familiar to the Greek people regarding animals, environment characteristics, and people’s behavior. Herodotus also makes comparisons between the cultures. He contrasts the Egyptian priests to the Persian Magi with regard to their treatment of animals. I found these comparisons along the way to be important additions to his travel narrative.

the sun

The over-used, seemingly trite phrase, “there is nothing new under the sun,” comes from Ecclesiastes, part of the Old Testament. Originally, according to the Talmud, as well as Wikipedia, the future idiom was meant to convey that nothing important exists below the sun. Thus, one’s focus should go above the sun and toward god. These days, “there is nothing new under the sun” has come to indicate the cyclic nature of humanity and a lack of truly innovative thought. Knighted by Cicero as the father of History, Herodutus defies today’s commonplace understanding of the phrase “there is nothing new under the sun.”

Centuries before John McCain and Sarah Palin, his yes-woman from Alaska, began touting themselves as it, Herodutus had already embodied the ‘maverick’ moniker. Remarkably, at a time when most of his fellow Grecians failed to travel beyond the confinements of city-state of origin, Herodotus traveled throughout an roughly 1700 square-mile terrain. These travels were non-sequential and spaced out over an estimated seventeen-year timeslot, beginning when Herodotus was just twenty-years-old—the approximate age of any member of this class. Although probably still fresh in people’s minds from the recent election, a ‘maverick’ is, according to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, “an unorthodox or independent-minded person.” His travels alone make Herodotus an original thinker within Ancient Greece, whereas the record of his expeditions makes him a maverick of human history.

Disturbingly, the texts that designate Herodotus as exceptional also contribute to mass criticism surrounding the father of History. Daniel Mendlsohn’s trivalizing New Yorker piece “Arms and the Man,” only skims the surface of arguments that demerit Herodotus. A quick (totally unscientific) skim of Google search results for “Herodotus review” yielded generally unfavorable reviews of the father of History, while most of the class’ blogs posted up until this point feature some unfavorable critique.

Although his work may not rank high for its historical accuracy, given his limited resources, Herodotus deserves utmost regard and praise. Herodotus’ historical accounts were made without the tools that modern day historical anthropologists have come to rely. Herodotus lacked easy access to the gargantuan of previously obtained information via libraries and the Internet that any modern day field worker would use to gain a point of reference for framing their work. Furthermore, the historians of the age directly after Herodotus would have had no work to base their own findings off of. Indeed, the more highly regarded historian Thucydides, supposedly found his own affinity for history while attending one of Herodotus’ lectures as a child. Without Herodotus as inspiration, Thucydides may have never found his aptitude as a historical documentarian and humanity would have had to possibly wait centuries more before recording historical events. Thus, any history today can somehow be attributed to Herodotus—a maverick who defies the modern day idiom that stems from Ecclesiastes.

These days, there may be nothing new under the sun. However, in the mid-fourth century B.C.E., there was a man named Herodotus, and he definitely defied that overused maxim.