On Herodotus and Egypt (VII : phoenix, woolen garments, and a very comical proof of the ignorance of the most vociferous among the tumblr egyptologists)
In this post I will continue the examination of specific accusations of the same group of tumblr egyptologists against Herodotus.
@kaiyves has asked @rudjedet some time ago :
“Is Herodotus’s description of the Phoenix dying and being reborn on an altar to the sun god reflective of real Egyptian myths about the bennu bird?”
@rudjedet ‘s reply is too long to be reproduced here, but I give the link for it :
https://www.tumblr.com/blog/view/rudjedet/650459075563470848
I only remark that, very exceptionally, @rudjedet keeps in this case her composure and does not have outbursts of anger, as it is usually the case when she hears the cursed name of Herodotus.
So, the truth is that it is not a typical anti-Herodotus indictment that we have here, but I will discuss the topic of the phoenix because of its interest.
First of all, I will reproduce here the tale of the phoenix as narrated by Herodotus, because of its beauty (2.73) :
“ But there is another sacred bird called the phoenix. I myself have not seen it, except in paintings, for it rarely visits Egypt ; indeed, the people of Heliopolis say that it comes only once 500 years. [2] They claim that a phoenix visits them when its father has died. The paintings, if they are accurate, depict a bird in shape and size very much like an eagle, with both golden and red feathers. [3] They also say, though it seems incredible to me, that when the phoenix sets out from Arabia toward the sanctuary of Helios, it carries the corpse of its own father plastered up in myrrh and buries it there in the sanctuary. [4] Thus it transports its father, but in order to do that, it first shapes some myrrh into an egg as heavy as it can carry. It then attempts to fly with it and keeps adjusting the size of the egg until its weight is just right. Then the phoenix hollows out the egg and places the body of its father inside it. It fills in the gap thus created with additional myrrh, so that when its father is laid within, the egg weighs the same as before. When the egg is completely plastered shut, the phoenix carries it to Egypt to the sanctuary of Helios. At least that is what they claim about this bird.”
Alan Lloyd comments on this chapter (”A Commentary on Herodotus Books I-IV” of D. Asheri-A. Lloyd-A. Corcella, Oxford University Press 2007, p. 287-289) :
“...the classical phoenix legend, which evolved with the addition of evermore fantastic elements in antiquity, must be seen as a Greek reworking of Egyptian mythology. In Egyptian myth the bnw was associated with the primeval hill, the source of all created things, and, as such, was frequently regarded as the manifestation of Re-Atum, the great creator-god of Heliopolis. It was also associated at Heliopolis with the isd-tree, on whose leaves were allegedly recorded great events as royal accessions, an association which led to a connection with the passing of time...The Greeks speak of the phoenix as early as the Hesiodic corpus...and by the 5th cent. had introduced into the legend the concept of a cyclic return, the bird’s brilliant colouring, the connection with Arabia, the ball of incense, and the relationship with its father, much of which may have its seeds in Egyptian sources but does not appear there explicitly. Subsequent additions include, in particular, the idea that it underwent periodic rebirth by being consumed by fire and reborn from it, and the concept that it was eternal...
[on Herodotus’ description of the bird] The Egyptian bnw never looks like this...Traditions on its splendid plumage become even more baroque until the phoenix comes to resemble a peacock. It could also be identified with the eagle.
...the classical phoenix circle is normally given as 500 years, but other totals do occur...In Egyptian mythology the bnw has several connections with time, but no such cycle is ever mentioned. Clearly we are confronted with an example of Greek reworking.
...the phoenix is frequently related to myrrh, a substance associated by Egyptians and Greeks with the East...
...the egg often features as a symbol of birth/rebirth in Egyptian mythology. There is even a representation of a bnw emerging from one...”
So, it seems that @rudjedet is right here that Herodotus’ tale on the phoenix does not correspond to the traditional Egyptian myth on the bnw bird.
Her only mistake is that she attributes to Herodotus a periodic return of the phoenix every 50 years, whereas Herodotus says that his Egyptian sources had told him about a visit of the phoenix to Egypt every 500 years.
For the rest, Herodotus believes, on the basis of what is told from his Egyptian (Heliopolitean) informants, that the phoenix is a real bird, although he clarifies that he has seen it only in pictures and that he finds “incredible” the story that he narrates about the travel of the bird carrying the body of his parent in an egg of myrrh from Arabia to Heliopolis to bury it there.
The essential is that it seems that Herodotus says in this chapter that his Egyptian sources had told him a story about the phoenix which is essentially a version of the Greek reworking of the Egyptian myth of bnw.
It seems also that a similar story had been told to the Greek geographer and ethnographer Hecataeus of Miletus, who had visited Egypt some 60 years before Herodotus (Lloyd, op. cit., p. 288).
How should we interpret all this ?
Should we understand that the Greek version of the myth of the phoenix is much more closely linked to an evolution of the bnw myth in the Egypt of the Late Period than what is generally thought ?
Or that priests and interpreters offered to their Greek visitors an “hellenized” version of the myth, probably in order to underscore the dependence of the Greeks on Egypt concerning mythology ?
Or perhaps that Herodotus has misinterpreted what he has been told by the priests and the interpreters, under the influence of the Greek version of the myth and what he had read in Hecataeus ?
Or the truth would lie in a combination of all these explanations ?
I just ask these questions and I leave to others, more qualified than me on these matters, to formulate the possible answers to them.
But I don’t find in the Phoenix story anything which would back the accusations of “lying” against Herodotus or more generally the anti-Herodotus obsessions of the tumblr egyptologists...
Here we enter again the field of pure polemics and of anti-Herodotus “crusade”.
In her second reply to me (back then as agreekstrangerpolitical), thatlittleegyptologist clarified ( https://thatlittleegyptologist.tumblr.com/post/635303317399027712/whats-ur-take-on-herodotus-being-a-fuckwad ) what is for her one of the main crimes of Herodotus, which disqualify him totally as a serious source on ancient Egypt :
“Herodotus states that the Egyptians didn’t wear wool or products from living animals because it was “unclean”. Again, false. The Egyptians wore woollen wigs, and socks made of wool are also found”.
thatlittleegyptologist had already devoted a whole post on this specific topic ( https://thatlittleegyptologist.tumblr.com/post/173415962764/hi-i-was-googling-ancient-egyptian-clothing-when ), answering an anon ask on clothing in ancient Egypt.
“Hi! I was googling Ancient Egyptian clothing when I came across this tidbit on Wikipedia: "Wool was known, but considered impure. Only the wealthy wore animal fibers that were the object of taboos. They were used on occasion for overcoats, but were forbidden in temples and sanctuaries." Do you know if that's true? I think that's pretty interesting, if so ! “
After a quick search, thatlitleegyptologist discovered the source of these pernicious claims and she exclaimed :
to continue, after a quote from an on line source on this topic that she found misleading :
I mean the Egyptians did wear linen and papyrus (more often palm frond and here’s a British Museum article on shoes) sandals, but the rest of it is pretty much complete horseshit.
Let’s start with ‘no products of living animals must be worn in an Egyptian temple’ and then obliterate it with the following images:”
(follow some pictures apparently from the Egypt of the New Kingdom).
thatlittleegyptologist was not able to withhold anymore her righteous indignation against the distortions of the Greek liar from Halicarnassus, with as result the following explosion :
“Fuck you Herodotus, the leopard skin is literally part of the uniform for an Egyptian priest as evidenced by the Egyptians themselves.”
“Everywhere I’ve looked I can only find people citing Herodotus as the sole source for this. I can find nothing from Pharaonic Egypt that says that wool was impure. I’d be willing to be corrected on this if someone can find something from an Egyptian source that states that wool was impure, but so far as I can see it really isn’t.”
But at least she offered some explanation for the misinformation Herodotus provides :
I mean, you’ll get some wool off these sheep but Egypt is a hot climate and I can’t imagine many Egyptians wanting to wear wool when it’s 43C (109F) outside. As far as I can tell Sheep’s wool is used mainly for spinning into thread to hold linen pieces together and also for fly swats to get rid of flies or some ceremonial equipment like a flail. It doesn’t gain any form of widespread usage until the Ptolemaic era, which would explain why Herodotus would be all ‘hey look at these dumb Egyptians. Won’t even wear wool because it’s ‘unclean’ what idiots’.
And thatlittleegyptologist concludes this particular post with the following very scholarly and deep remark, that I have already quoted in the Part I of my text on Herodotus and Egypt :
“In summary: If Herodotus was alive today I’d make him my bitch for making me constantly have to disprove his bullshit”
Now, let us see what Herodotus writes on this topic, first of all about the garments of the Egyptian priests (2.37,3) :
“Their priests wear only linen garments and sandals made of papyrus ; they are not permitted to acquire any other kinds of garments or sandals.”
And about the clothing of the Egyptians in general (2.81,1) :
“They wear linen tunics they call kalasiris, which are fringed with tassels around their legs. Over these garments they drape white woolen cloaks. When they enter sanctuaries or when they are buried, however, they never wear wool, for to do so would offend their religious sensibility.”
The first thing that I think it must be clarified is that thatliitleegyptologist is totally wrong when she sees in such passages the expression of a snubbing and dismissing attitude of Herodotus toward the Egyptians (” Herodotus would be all ‘hey look at these dumb Egyptians. Won’t even wear wool because it’s ‘unclean’ what idiots’, as she says).
In fact 2.37,3 and 2.81,1 should be read in the light of 2.37,1, which tells about the Egyptians :
‘Of all peoples, they are the most exceedingly pious, with customs like this :”
And what follows in chapter 2.37 is a series of customs proving the piety of Egyptians and stressing the purity and cleanliness that the Egyptian people and especially the Egyptian priests observe in their relations to the gods.
There is nothing dismissive and sarcastic here, the totaly opposite is true, given that Herodotus himself is a pious man, although not uncritically.
But, as we have seen, thatlittleegyptologist and the rest of her friends have no grasp of Book II as a whole and, therefore, they interpret isolated passages in fanciful ways and on the basis of their prejudices against Herodotus.
To return to the passages from 2.37,3 and 2.81,1 that I have quoted, W.G. Waddell reports (in “Herodotus Book II”, Bristol Classical Press 1998 [first edition Methuen & Co Ltd, 1939], p. 158-159) that :
“in a papyrus from the Fayum, dated AD 159-160, “A Complaint against a Priest” (B.G.U. I. 1611 ) a charge is brought against a priest of “letting his hair grow long and wearing woollen garments”...”
and he comments on 2.37.3 (p. 160) that :
“wollen garments were forbidden because wool is more liable to harbour vermin...and is “refuse-growth from a sluggish body...”
comparing also this Egyptian custom with the linen garments of the Jewish priests mentioned in the Exodus.
From his part, Alan Lloyd comments on 2.37,3 (in “A Commentary...” of Asheri-Lloyd-Corcella, p. 264 ) :
“Woollen garments were absolutely forbidden to priests in the Graeco-roman period...Papyrus sandals are known, but there is no pharaonic evidence that priests had to wear them.”
and on 2.81,1 (op. cit., p. 295-296) :
“ Woolen garments were absolutely forbidden to priests in the Hellenistic and Roman periods on grounds of impurity...There is no specific confirmation from earlier times, but Herodotus’ claim is entirely credible in the light of the strict provisions for priestly purity described in ch. 37″
And concerning the prohibition of burying people with woolen garments reported by Herodotus, Lloyd comments (ibid) :
“examples [my- aboutanancientenquiry’s- note : of people wearing woolen garments] occur in graves, but they are exceedingly uncommon...The association of wool with ritual impurity will explain this taboo (see above)”
Now, Herodotus did not have prophetic abilites, so he could not have foreseen what religious taboo the Egyptian priests of the Hellenistic and Roman periods of the Egyptian history would observe centuries after his death and report them.
Therefore, we should consider that he reported what he observed, at least as a tendency.
Moreover, it would be erroneous to consider that the taboo concerning the prohibition for priests to wear woolen garments would have been imported to Egypt by Greeks in the Ptolemaic period and that Herodotus make the Egyptian priests observe a Greek taboo, as it does not seem that the Greeks had such a taboo concerning woolen garments.
And let’s not forget that between the era of Tutankhamun, from which come the pictures with priests wearing leopard skins presented by thatlittleegyptologist, and the time of Herodotus’ visit to Egypt, almost 900 years had passed, a period of time in which many things had changed in Egypt.
More generally, it would be wrong to see Egypt as a society and culture “eternal” and impermeable to change, although this is a view that Egyptians of the Late Period, Greeks, and Romans often held.
To conclude, once more there is no “gotcha moment”, no moment in which Herodotus would have been caught lying.
Herodotus gives one more time an information which is “entirely credible”, in the light of the Egyptian exigencies of priestly purity and of the attested historical evolution of the Egyptian religious practices.
And the tumblr egyptologists are again wrong in their attacks against him.
3/ The very comical blunder and proof of ignorance of @somecunttookmyurl
A blogger with the username lapetasse (who has now deactivated) asked some months ago @somecunttookmyurl , the very distinguished tumblr scholar with the “Fuck Herodotus’ title of blog and merchandise, the following incredible question :
“Who is herodotus and why should I hate him”
After some antics, @somecunttookmyurl gave a reply on why one should ‘hate’ (!) Herodotus (https://www.tumblr.com/blog/view/somecunttookmyurl/640682640343695360 ),
in which there is the following paragraph (I have made bold the letters of the words of the phrase which is important for my point) :
“The main problem with Herodotus, apart from apparently smoking crack, is that a lot of people still consider him a legitimate source for anything he didn’t directly witness which is how a lot of insane myths about egypt (they coated servants in honey as fly traps! they chaved off their eyes when cats died!) still come to be perpetuated. I guarantee, if there’s something batshit about Egypt and you try to trace it back you will eventually end up at Herodotus’ crack habit.”
So, according to @somecunttookmyurl, one among the “insane myths about Egypt” still “come to be perpetuated” because “a lot of people consider him [Herodotus] a legitimate source” would be that “they [the Egyptians] coated servants in honey as fly traps”...
The only problem with this is that...Herodotus does not report anywhere anything like this!
There is nothing about Egyptian servants being coated with honey and used as fly traps in Book II or elsewhere in Herodotus’ “Histories”.
On the contrary, what I found on the net is that this story about the servants, the honey, and the flies is of Egyptian origin and is connected with the name of Pharaoh Pepi II of the Old Kingdom (reigned 2284-2216 or ca 2184 BCE).
Therefore, it has nothing to do with Herodotus, who more generaly does not seem to know anything about this specific Pharaoh.
I think that the contrast between on the one hand @somecunttookmyurl ‘s fanaticism, aggressiveness, and sweeping and peremptory assertions against Herodotus, and on the other hand her ignorance about him, as shown in the story with the flies and the servants, is really comical, especially if one thinks that in the same post @somecunttookmyurl talks about “Herodotus’ crack habit” and characterizes Herodotus’ ‘Histories” “a work of comedy” that unfortunately cannot be treated as such because “some people still think it is legitimate”!
Moreover, what it becomes clear from this story with the alleged use of servants as fly-traps that she attributes to Herodotus, is that she has never read “Histories” and more particularly Book II on Egypt, against which she campaigns with such vehemence and vulgarity.
It seems that she has included in her anti-Herodotus arsenal this story with honey-coated servants being allegedly used as fly-traps just on the basis of a reasoning of the type that not only what Herodotus has written on Egypt would be (in her own terms) “batshit”, but also that whatever misinformation or information of suspect reliability (like the story with the servants being used as fly-traps) is circulating about ancient Egypt must absolutely have its origin in Herodotus!
But what credibility could have the “crusade” of a person against a work that she has not read and toward which she has such prejudices?
And what “scholarly” credibility such mentalities and attitudes could claim?
I add that, if the esteemed tumblr colleagues of @somecunttookmyurl had read Herodotus, they would have observed discreetly to her that she is wrong about this particular story, that Herodotus has no relation with it, and that she should stop to make a fool our of herself by attributing to Herodotus things that he has never written.
But it seems that utter ignorance of Herodotus’ work is common more generally among the anti-Herodotus tumblr egyptologists.
Not of course that one should be surprised to see once more ignorance and fanaticism going hand in hand...
