The Scholar And The Amazon
The war and subsequent fall of Troy was viewed as a mythological tale, ancient even for Homer who recounted the story which became, along with the Odyssee, the oldest piece of European literature. For centuries, nay we should write millennia, the story of the siege of this fabled city, with all its daring duels and bloody battles was told as a myth to entertain as well as establish virtue and a create sense of morality in ancient Greek society. Were the heroes of that epic; Achilles, Ajax, Agamemnon, Helen, Priam, Cassandra and Paris real people? The question is redundant, since for centuries they were and remain important characters in the telling of Homer's masterpiece. As in most of the ancient epics, the heroes are somewhat bigger than life, such as Achilles who is rendered immune to sword blows save for this heel, due to his mother dipping him as a babe into the holy river holding him from that body part. Humans fail even the best attempts to do what they think is right. Some of the mythological heroes are demi gods, such as Hercules. Even Alexander the Great's mother believed and reminded her son that Zeus was his father, thus he was destined for greatness. We can vouch for Alexander as a reality, since people in countries far from Macedonia for whom Greek was not their tongue mentioned Alexander; the Persians called him Iskandar and the later Arabs believed that he was Zul Qarnain, the two horned king mentioned in the Quran. He attained a status that is mythological but we know he lived, conquered, and died. The heroes who fought at Troy are mythological figures for whom historians have the job before them to prove that they lived or were a figment of the ancient imagination. Many mythological figures from the world's tales may have lived. They may have been actual persons who performed amazing feats, or were relatively normal people who, for whatever reason, were chosen by some bard or author to be immortalized in story and song. While the reality of Achilles and his body protection is of course questionable and undeniably fantastic invention, the fact remains that he may have actually been a warrior in the ranks. The problem is that we lack solid evidence. He was a dude who kicked lots of butts, was rather conceited in personality and certainly full of himself, and had some personal issues with women and with his superiors, such as Agamemnon. If Achilles was an actual person, his story been honored by Homer with immortality, something he in the epic sees as the greatest achievement in life, and death.
In the 19th century, Heinrich Schliemann discovered what he believed to be the ruins of ancient Troy, in Hisarlik, Turkey. The Turkish name Hisar means just that, a fortress, so this is what the locals knew of the area, that it had something to do with a fortress and was perhaps a clue, though Schliemann at first was dubious of the ruins there being the actual Troy itself. His discovery opened up a renewed interest is archeology. Though hailed on one hand as a great discovery, Schliemann received much criticism and opposition as well, some even dubbing him "brutal" in his manner of excavating. Nonetheless, he discovered something under the rubble and the possibility that he discovered the real Troy remains part of his legacy. Schliemann found something and whether considered a genius or crackpot, he sparked an interest that enticed archeologists as well as greedy treasure seekers. But for historians, it was all good.
Long before Schliemann, a 1st century BC Greek scholar from Sicily named Diodoris wrote his well known work, the monumental Bibliotecha Historica. This is an interesting work in that it covers not only known and accepted historical accounts but also what some have dubbed mythological history. Obviously, the widely known myths such as the war at Troy carried some weight among ancient intellectuals, or Diodoris wouldn't have included such information in the body of a "historical" text. But since the title is Bibliotecha, which means library itself, we should conclude that he chose to write about events and facts from various sources and compiled them for reference.
The work is divided into three parts and spans some forty books, of which only some survive. As it is a historical work it is only natural that it be set in chronological order. The first part of the work deals with the world up to the time of the Trojan war, and explains various supposed mythological events and historical information about a number of world cultures, up to the fall of Troy. The second part moves on from the fall of Troy through the age of classical Greece up to the conquests and death of Alexander the Great. The final part brings the reader to what was for Diodoris his current time, the first century BC of the Hellenic world.
What I find somewhat interesting about Diodoris, and is quite telling about the mentality of his time is that he includes mythologies as history. Plato did this as well, contemplating the continent of Atlantis as a real rather than an imaginary entity. Sometimes we don't know where fantasy ends and history begins or vice versa reading the ancient texts, but I find it hard to believe that such great scholars would be so naive regarding such narratives. What I can fathom is that ancient myths were powerful in their time, and perhaps held some truth in them, as all myths do. We tend to think that scientists and historians must prove their theories before they write them down for posterity, and that has become the norm, leaving conjecture for authors who sometimes don't mind being ridiculed. But if there is some veracity in the mythological narratives of the past, then we should honor the likes of Plato and Diodoris for acknowledging that which the masses of humanity felt was real, so powerful were these ancient stories. The Greeks were calculating and exact, yet these historians and scholars wrote and spoke of lost continents like they were common, everyday occurrences. Maybe they knew something that we chose to forget? Or were they more open minded than those who set the patterns and modes of morality for whom we are the followers of today? No, Diodoris wrote his history as history, and would have been booed and ridiculed if he included something in his monumental work that was considered as false or out of sync with the standards of Greek virtue. We are talking about a genius here, who dared to write what he knew to be truth. Later scholars from the Hellenic world and many other nations and civilizations would consider and debate his work, read his translated work, study the commentary so many others would write about his work in succeeding centuries.
Diodoris writes from his perspective as Greek writer from Greek civilization. We have to remember when we read such texts from then time that for the Greeks foreigners were considered as inferiors, varvaroi or barbarians. For example, in mentioning the Gauls, Diodoris writes: 'The Gauls are terrifying in aspect and their voices are deep and altogether harsh; when they meet together they converse with few words and in riddles, hinting darkly at things for the most part and using one word when they mean another; and they like to talk in superlatives, to the end that they may extol themselves and depreciate all other men. They are also boasters and threateners and are fond of pompous language, and yet they have sharp wits and are not without cleverness at learning."
Diodoris saw the Gauls as strange and different from the people of his own civilization, and attempts to explain that to his readers. Clearly, we all get the message he is trying to convey and at the end of his text we seem to know something about the Gauls, at least as seen and experienced by a 1st BC century Greek scholar, writing for Greek readers. This was common for ancients to describe other peoples, since most people didn't travel nor were they in communication with one another as we are today in the age of the internet. Most would never see a Gaul save as a worker, mercenary or as a slave. So Diodoris describes the Gauls as best he can for the benefit of his fellow Greeks. This same style of ethnic descriptions can be read among other scholars as well, such as Herodotus and his description of the Persian peoples. The descriptions come from an ethnocentric view from a people who saw the rest of the world as barbarians. The writers could be honest, no question, and valuable and important information is to be found in the works of these writers, but the theme is that these descriptions are of the 'other', those barbarians who didn't foster and encourage the notion of the human being as being at the center of the Cosmos.
Diodoris is a valuable reference for the study of the Africa or pre recorded history. He wrote about the gold mining of Nubia, one of the earliest mentions of that ancient industry. He includes detailed accounts of the slave labor used to mine the gold and the harsh working conditions that bhad to be endured. Again while Africa, known to the Greeks as Aethiopia was a distant and foreign place, Diodoris could be sympathetic to the poor conditions of the workers there otherwise he would not have mentioned them.
Rather notable and interesting of Diodoris' mentions regarding ancient Africa is the inclusion of what he writes as a history of Myrina, an all conquering Amazon queen of Libya. He writes that she lived in the most remotest of eras, before or about the time of the hero Perseus who saved Andromeda, daughter of the king of Aethiopia from Cetus, a frightening sea monster. In Libya, Diodoris writes: 'We are told, namely, that there was once on the western parts of Libya, on the bounds of the inhabited world, a race which was ruled by women and followed a manner of life unlike that which prevails among us. For it was the custom among them that the women should practise the arts of war and be required to serve in the army for a fixed period, during which time they maintained their virginity; then, when the years of their service in the field had expired, they went in to the men for the procreation of children, but they kept in their hands the administration of the magistracies and of all the affairs of the state'.
Aside from the mention of sea monsters and other fantastic entities, what is most fascinating about Diodoris' account is that it reads like a history, as Myrina's career reads like a history. Her story is like the rise and fall of any great conqueror of the past, and he treats her with the respect due to ancient, great conquerors. Was she real? Did she actually live and conquer, this woman warrior? Diodoris seems to rub elbows with another great ancient scholar, Plato, in acknowledging the existence of the lost continent of Atlantis, an empire that is described as having a fear and dread of the warrior queen. Was this all just ancient speculation about ancient myths and supposedly held beliefs? Or was the story of Myrina actual history for its time of another era and lost history for the rest of us today? Only Diodoris would know, but he did write about Myrina in his Bibliotecha Historica and her inclusion compels us to ponder the idea that she may have been real. Why would the great historian include Myrina along with Alexander in the same work? Maybe the tale of Myrina holds the answers.
Model: Olga El as a Nubian warrioress, from an ~Echoes of Antiquity~ photo session
www.echoesofantiquity.net
