From: cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,sci.archaeology,alt.mythology
Subject: Re: Marathon Runner's Name
Date: 10 Nov 92 21:20:24 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <92312.151155PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu>, by PXP111@psuvm.psu.edu:
> (even number of ">" indicate my text and the rest A.T.Fear's)
Now vice versa !

>> I think the point I was trying to make here was slightly diffe-
>> rent,  namely  that there is  a problem  in accepting,  without
>> thinking  about  the  context  involved, that what the ancients
>> *said* is what as Ranke put really happened.
> 
> I have to agree on the principle you describe but I think this is
> a basic assumption among people who discuss this stuff anyway!

Alas frequently not, all too often anachronism creeps into the picture -
the use of C4 sources to prove points about C5 Athenian democracy
springs to mind as an example.

> Coming back to Herodotous  (who became the obvious target of many
> in antiquity): scholars would argue that despite what he said ab-
> out distant lands...  he might had some difficulty in pulling the
> leg of the Athenians for such resent events.
> I know that your may reply:
>    - The Athenians wanted to create these myths.
> And otheres will argue:
>    - Well,  Herodotus in many instances did not appear pleasant
>      to them anyway!
>    - Well he probably checked the distances and places... etc

I think I would defend many of the things Herodotus says about far off
lands. As for deceiving the Athenians I doubt if this was his intention
- after all his prime sources must have been the Athenians themselves.
My argument is that he's mirroring an Athenian mythology (a la Barthes).
Herodotus is after all a pretty preo Athenian writer - the only negative
comment I can find is his account of the false epiphany of Athena
devised by Peisistratus. Another thought, H is very keen on telling us
about autopsy - he doesn't bother here, might that suggest he didn't do
the checking outlined above. 


> Anyway,  even though your general comment is something always va-
> lid,  I do not think that the story of Pheidippides (Philippides)
> has been refuted.

I never wished to refute this account, my worries are about accepting
details about it - i.e. the physical possibility of the chronology which
in fact seems ok. I've learnt something here and therefore end up a net
gainer - good news I reckon.

 
> 
>> The rest of our sources are later accounts than Herodotus', so-
>> me are 100s of years later.
> 
> True but not actually an argument: "Later author"  does not imply
> that he/she copied a particular older source.  These people could
> have used different (lost today) sources.

Agreed, but what are these lost sources, are any as old as Herodotus' -
he was after all the father of history? C4 Atthidography springs to
mind, but is generally thought to be unreliable - a statement which is
fairly uncheckable as we've next to nothing left as far as I'm aware. At
the end of the day we simply have to tread very carefully.

>> My only plea here is that we treat this material with caution.
> 
> Point accepted. It applies from the texts of Homer to the speech
> of Bush and the broadcasts of CNN and BBC.

You're telling me! I get *very* worried about throw away remarks on BBC
news broadcasts from time to time.

> deal with the whole thing...  I think I was very much even-handed
> and judgmental.

Totally off the point, but can anyone explain the use of the American
neologism 'judgemental'? This is the third meaning I've come across. No
insult intended - I'm just interested.

> 
> Am I accurate by mentioning Skourtis and another Canadian runner
> running twice during the last five years?
>             (Where are you Gregory Dandulakis? Lambros Skartsis?)

Can I echo this cry for info... 


>> Not sure where Mount Partenion is.
> 
> It is exactly on the way from  Athens to Sparta  if one takes the
> shortest way.
> 
>> But who tells us about the route.  Once again you can see how a
>> late source might  place  the route past a shrine of Pan simply
>> to give plausibility  to the story  that Pan did in fact appear
>> to Philippides.
> 
> True! The legend connected Pheidippides with the Athenian cult of
> Pan...
> With the same argument of plausibility we have no Troy (the great
> debate of Finley), or say that the Myceneans are actually Egypti-
> ans (the great debate of Bernal) etc. etc.


Thanks for the info on Mt Partenion. I think your two examples are very
different though. I believe Finley has a cast iron case for his views on
the Trojan War and it's one shared by the majority of Bronze Age
scholars I know. Bernal is an entirely different kettle of fish, frankly
I find his approach utterly bizzare and I suspect the motive here is
not, like it is with Finley, one of dispassionate scholarship, but
compliance with the terrifying Politcal Correct movement.


> 
>>>>  This isn't the only suspicious running feat connected to Ma-
>>>>  rathon either.The charge of the Athenian hoplites over eight
>> Well this is true in one sense.  But How and Wells are only ma-
>> king sense of a text they find puzzling, Herodotus' account of
>> Marathon  has  always been a  battleground of theories as prima
>> facie it doesn't seem to make sense.
> 
> Yes and No.
> --> They do not find the term puzzling at all.  Actually the have
>     no doubt at all. Others though were wrong on the way they had
>     read the term.

Surely the need to interpret the Greek - i.e. it seems to make no sense
as it stands shows that a certain amount of difficulty is perceived.
They then offer what they think is a plausible interpretation. They have
no doubt that the Athenians hit the Persians at speed - neither have I,
but then need to reinterpret the Greek to make this fit in with the rest
of the account which it won't as it stands.


> Anyway,  contemporaries of Herodotus  knew what he meant by "dro-
> mw" in the military..

Here's the rub, how do we know that 'dromw' is a technical military term
or that Herodotus is using it as such?

 
>> The text as it stands implies rapid speed from the beginning -
>> the Athenians set off like runners from the starting gate (the
>> verb involved is also used of throwing weapons I think,  which
>> might be significant, though I wouldn't want to press this) and
>> proceed at a run.   How and Wells are forced to rationalise the
>> passage severely, I think it might be more easily taken just as
>> a patriotic myth.
>     ;;;;;;;;;
> Well you may want to give this version to your students.
> I've already explained my position. I do not think that Herodotus
> would have any reason to exaggerate on this out of patriotism (On
> the number of casualties, on Xerxes' army,  on the cruelty of the
> enemy I may accept the argument as a logical one..) Here, I don't
> know! It makes no sense to me that he intended to present the At-
> henians as...racers! Advancing rapidly, yes! But running from the
> very beginning???
> What is your plausible version of what happened Andy?
> Did the two armies ever clash? How did the Athenians and Plateans
> avoid the enemy archers and use their spears without speed?

I think I stick by my version. As to plausibility I suspect that How and
Wells are right, I just don't think this is what Herodotus said or meant.
It is easy to see how a claim for overachievement could be made in these
circumstances, particularly given the semi-epic nature of the conflict
as portrayed by Herodotus. Homer doesn't seem too far away here and I
don't think he's meant to be.

> 
>> I think the rationalistic methodology may be the problem here.
>> Recent approaches to interpreting Herodotus have been much more
>> sensitive  to the  nature of oral/semi-oral history and ponder
>                                ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
>> more deeply what Herodotus' general intentions were.
> 
> Well, this cuts both ways as you know. [a slight cut]
>  In an oral culture, non-tra-ditional thought is not highly valued,  for  knowledge is the sum
> total of what everyone in the group can remember;  and non-formu-
> laic ways of thinking make its retrieval difficult, if not impos-
> sible."

Indeed it does - if a patriotic myth had established itself in Athens
and the Athenians were Herodotus' prime source, he'd have great
difficulty in hearing any other version of the tale. I think the crux of
our disagreement is that you think that I think that Herodotus has
concocted the running story by himself - I don't I think it was told to
him by the Athenians.


>> here?
> 
> I do not think so.
> I would say that the Greeks  go  with their own work and detailed
> effort/literature making their comments in Greek, not English...
>>>  (I believe we have knowledge on these military tactics from
>>>  other authors.
>>>
>> Can't think of any off hand and the tactical handbooks we have
>> are all much later,  so it would be anachronistic to read back
>> from them.
> 
> Let me ask you then something:
> What were the changes introduced in armor from this "much later"
> period?

Well greaves already seem to be vanishing as the Peloponnesian war rolls
on (though see below), Iphicrates appears to have introduced a much
lighter shield and at the same time the corselet seems to be either
replaced by a simple breastplate, halving its weight at a stroke, or a
canvass spolas.  All this happens in the early C4 BC.  Soon after of
course the Macedonian phalangite appears and things change even more. 

>> I suppose Xenophom might be a good place to look.
> 
> No question about it. Please make the armor-comparison.

Have done, albeit I confess via Snodgrass' *Arms and Armour of the Greeks'

X describes the armour of the 10,000 in Anabasis 1.2.16, but there's no
mention in his list of a corselet, though he does mention greaves,
helmets and shields. In other places we hear of the canvass spolas being
worn by his men (3.3.20, 4.1.18) Please check the references as I
haven't a text to hand. All this tends to suggest that the
hoplite's equipment got much lighter as time went on, a pretty standard
view I think. I have a feeling that this tendency may have been started by the Athenian general
Demosthenes during the Archidamian War (or perhaps Brasidas on the other
side, or both) Economy might have had something to do with it too.

I thought most of our military manuals were much later than even than C4
BC from well into the Roman period or beyond in fact, moreover we have
another problem.  Tactics can change radically without the weaponry
doing so (Napoleon might be a good example I think), as can the
technical terms in which things are expressed, not to mention the fact
that most phrases which are technical in some contexts don't necessarily
have a technical meaning in all contexts.  Both these problems bear on
reading back a technical meaning to Herodotus' use of 'dromw' (I suspect
it isn't technical at all) - one example from England 'Assume a lazy
posture' was once a formal command, but it wasn't always so used, and it
dropped away from being so used even while the pike (it formed part of
pike drill) was still an important military weapon. 


Still it's a good thing that history is full of problems - some of us
would be out of a job otherwise.

Andy
 
Xref: sparky soc.culture.greek:10301 soc.culture.jewish:19243