- This topic has 6 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
I’d like to get into some reading of ancient Greek authors on historical events. I have read (at least parts of) Thucydides’ Pelopponesian War, which I thought was quite good – I may have to pick it up again and read it. I’d like to get into more reading of ancient Greece. Does anyone else have any recommendations of other ancient Greek authors & books?
Phidippides:
You might try Polybius' The Rise of the Roman Empire
Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War
Plutarch's The Lives of the Noble Greeks and The Lives of the Noble RomansI think original sources are fascinating in and of themselves. They give insights which are universal, not just contemporary. They know what's important about the events of their time and they capture it. And it's interesting learning the customs and practices of former ages from mouths that witnessed them.
I prefer original sources, but you still have to read the scholarship on those materials or else you won't appreciate the greater context from which those primary works can be placed. It is not easy to grasp the spirit of the age or the zeit geist of a time period without a little help from those who have studied and done the leg work. I admit though scholars can be very dry. They are not literary writers by trade and actually have to avoid using literary prose in their narratives in order not to over emphasize something that could distort the context of their study. I know from personal experience…..my professors bugged the dog poody out of me sometimes trying to get me to tone down my writing. I eventually learned the hard way not to impose my personality on my writing to the detriment of the facts I was attempting to present.
What do you think when sometimes the archaeology doesn't agree with the ancient writers?
As a historian, I know that ancient writers did not write their works purely for scientific reasons...even if they could, their kings or emperors would certainly scour their writings for things they might find threatening to their regime and so omit them. Myths are generally perpetuated in ancient writings because 1. the writer did not have access to scientific means to disprove them, 2. the writer romanticizes the past in order to draw more readers, 3. fear of the king as already mentioned, and 4. he has an agenda to fulfill and the myths of the past help him to do it. Virgil's Aeneid is a classic example of a writer seeking to enhance the glory of his kingdom (Rome) by linking it to the mythic past of Troy. Thucydides had to magnify the Peloponnesian War in like manner by drawing upon elements of the mythic past. Every writer feels his subject is the most import event of the day or even in history. Embellishment is a device often employed to leave the reader with no doubt that past events were set in motion for the sole purpose of leading up to the events of the present. You have to remember that ancient writers were still bound to cultural beliefs and filters of which the most overpowering one was that of Fortuna....fortune or fate.
What do you think when sometimes the archaeology doesn't agree with the ancient writers?
Actually, it seems archeology is agreeing with the ancient writers moe and more. There's a lot of new findings in the 1980's and 1990's. Recent findings about the Trojan Wars are quite interesting, IMHO. The legend of Theseus, and the killing of the Minotaur on Crete, is an allegorical description of Attica's rejection of Minoan influence which could help explain Athenian prominence.
What do you think when sometimes the archaeology doesn't agree with the ancient writers?
Actually, it seems archeology is agreeing with the ancient writers moe and more. There's a lot of new findings in the 1980's and 1990's. Recent findings about the Trojan Wars are quite interesting, IMHO. The legend of Theseus, and the killing of the Minotaur on Crete, is an allegorical description of Attica's rejection of Minoan influence which could help explain Athenian prominence.
Schliemann is the one who discovered the ruins of Troy, or what he thought was Troy. I think his findings are more solid now than they were back then. The caveat here is whether the ruins of Troy are of Homer's Troy, or just a city that served as a basis for the legend.
I think that Schliemann ripped up a lot. From what I understand the best thing that he did was not to uncover 100% of the site. They practice archaeology a lot differently now than they did during Schliemann's era.
Phid,Have you read the Histories of Herodotus? He is biased but his work is also the foundation for the discipline as we know it today.
I think that Schliemann ripped up a lot. From what I understand the best thing that he did was not to uncover 100% of the site. They practice archaeology a lot differently now than they did during Schliemann's era.
How much can an archeologist do, though, when most of the evidence is layered sometimes dozens of feet below the surface and/or under present structures?
Phid,Have you read the Histories of Herodotus? He is biased but his work is also the foundation for the discipline as we know it today.
I haven't read it, but it is one that I would like to read at some point in the future (along with some of the other Greek histories). I had heard that Herodotus takes a viewpoint in his history, which accentuates the "narrative" aspect of history.
How much can an archeologist do, though, when most of the evidence is layered sometimes dozens of feet below the surface and/or under present structures?
For one, not tear holes in the ground in a mad search for the "a-ha!" artifact that will give the finder glory and prestige back home. That was along the lines of what archaeology used to be like (though I shouldn't really say that they did it simply for the glory). Nowadays archaeologists are more concerned about learning about civilizations and how people lived, so they take their time to sift through layers in search of even smaller artifacts which may help shed light on this.
